Eugene debate over proposed fire service fee intensifies as residents press council for alternatives

Dozens of speakers at the April 14 Eugene City Council meeting addressed a proposed "fire service fee" (an ordinance the council had placed before the public) and the broader question of how to close a projected general‑fund gap. Business groups, nonprofit leaders and residents urged different approaches — some urged adoption of the fee to avoid cuts, others urged repeal and a longer‑term budget strategy with community input.

Many residents pointed to an active petition campaign. Brittany (Bridal) Quick Warner, CEO of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, told the council: "Many Eugene residents, over 8,400 of them, signed a petition to bring this issue to a public vote." Speakers from multiple sectors framed the fee as a choice between immediate service preservation and a democratic review by voters.

Why it matters: Councilors said the city faces a structural mismatch between revenues and obligations. Councilor Groves argued that without the proposed fire fee the city would need to make deep cuts; during council remarks Groves said that without the fee the city was "planning to cut animal welfare program gone. Close the library for one to two days. Reduce park maintenance. Reduce homelessness services, human services funding... close a fire station." Councilor Groves and others characterized the fee as needed to avoid roughly $11.5 million in cuts.

Speakers who opposed the fee called for a different approach. Tiffany Monroe of the Eugene Area Chamber urged repeal of the fee and recommended a renewed effort to align services with existing revenues and to pursue economic growth. Carrie Lieberman, executive director of Greenhill Humane Society, told the council that cuts to public services would be "devastating, sometimes irreversible" for vulnerable residents and urged the council to place the fee on the ballot if necessary with a clear plan and time bound use of funds.

Other testimony bridged both perspectives. Several speakers said they supported both local investments in services (including CAHOOTS) and a transparent long‑term budgeting process that would include outside experts and community stakeholders.

Council discussion included procedural and factual clarifications: Councilor Groves asked the public to appreciate that the city has trimmed general‑fund spending substantially in recent years — Groves said the council had cut about $67 million out of the general fund over several years — and that few easy savings remain. Councilor Clark pushed back on framing that the council had already decided which programs to cut, saying, "We haven't even begun to talk about what we're going to cut or not going to cut." Clark stressed that the cause of CAHOOTS' loss was White Bird's operational decision, not an explicit city vote to defund the program.

What happens next: The petition process will route the fee to a public vote unless council repeals the ordinance; councilors and community leaders said they would continue budget conversations and outreach before the July budget process. Several speakers urged the city to work with business and nonprofit partners to find alternative revenue strategies and to prioritize investments in housing and economic development as structural solutions.

The debate is likely to follow into the city’s budget hearings and into any public referendum process, with advocates on both sides urging residents to attend upcoming council and budget committee meetings.