Eugene council directs stormwater fee increase to raise about $4.7 million, sets six‑year sunset

The Eugene City Council voted 6–2 on May 21 to direct the city manager to initiate a stormwater fee amendment that would generate approximately $4,700,000 in annual revenue and to schedule a fall work session to consider creation of an ad hoc citizen fiscal stability advisory committee.

The measure, as amended during the meeting, sets a six‑year sunset date of July 1, 2031 for the temporary revenue change. Councilors adopted the amendment to extend the sunset from the initially proposed July 1, 2029 to July 1, 2031 by a 5–3 vote before approving the full motion 6–2.

Council leaders and staff framed the action as a compromise to stabilize funding for a set of community‑facing services while the city pursues longer‑term revenue and expenditure reforms. City staff presented two principal revenue paths the council had previously asked them to analyze: (1) a new temporary city operations fee (options modeled at $6 million or $8 million in net revenue) and (2) an increase to the existing stormwater fee that staff estimated would raise about $4.7 million.

Assistant City Manager Rodriguez told council that the city had evaluated both approaches and identified a key constraint with the new fee option: Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) has, based on its legal counsel's advice, concluded it could not disconnect electric or water service to enforce a non‑utility municipal fee. Rodriguez said that means a new city fee would require a standalone billing environment and likely a vendor for collection, making the new fee both costlier and slower to implement. "They have an opinion from their legal counsel that they would not be able to shut off electrical or water service for what would be considered a non utility fee," Rodriguez said.

Staff estimated the outside vendor cost to collect a new, standalone fee would range from about $1.2 million to $1.5 million per year, with an additional $300,000 to $500,000 in expected uncollected revenue. Rodriguez said setting up a new collection system would likely take 6 to 10 months and would require bridge funding during that period. By contrast, staff said increasing the existing stormwater fee could be implemented administratively in roughly 9 to 10 weeks and begin collecting in August 2025.

Under staff modeling, the stormwater option would require about an 18% increase in the current stormwater rate to achieve roughly $4.7 million in net new revenue. Staff showed sample monthly impacts: medium residential customers would see about $3.50 a month, a medium‑sized supermarket (general service 2) roughly $47 a month and a large big‑box store (general service 5) about $672 a month. By comparison, the new $8 million fee structure models would have produced higher monthly charges for comparable categories but with substantial collection costs and a longer setup time.

City Manager Sarah walked council through how the different revenue levels would affect items in the proposed and amended biennial budget, noting some investments that would be restored under higher revenue options and others that would remain reduced under the $4.7 million scenario. She said certain programs that are "front facing to the community" are prioritized in the smaller stormwater scenario and that the draft ordinance includes creation of a temporary ad hoc citizen fiscal stability advisory committee to review city expenditures and potential revenues.

Several councilors said the stormwater option represented the most practical compromise. Councilor Leach said, "I am in support today," citing concerns about administrative costs and implementation time for a new fee. Councilor Yeh said she was "kind of leaning in that direction" after learning EWEB would not be able to bill the new fee in its existing customer billing system. Councilor Keating and others urged caution about cuts to services that support long‑term economic development and housing goals and suggested a longer sunset if the council chose a new‑fee option. Councilor Kaczynski moved to change the sunset to July 1, 2031; that amendment passed 5–3.

Councilors also acted on a separate procedural motion concerning the fire service fee ordinance (Ordinance No. 20717). A motion to repeal that ordinance was introduced later in the meeting; councilors voted 7–1 to postpone consideration of repeal to a date certain, before the council's July 16 meeting, to allow more public discussion and to give staff and the budget committee clarity. The original repeal motion thus remains on the table and will return for a future vote.

Next steps: the council's motion directs the city manager to initiate the administrative process under Chapter 6 of the Eugene Code to amend the stormwater rate, with implementation anticipated in late summer 2025. Staff also will schedule a fall work session to consider establishing the ad hoc citizens' fiscal stability advisory committee under Eugene Code 2.013.

Votes at a glance: the amendment extending the sunset to July 1, 2031 passed 5–3; the main motion to initiate a stormwater fee amendment generating approximately $4.7 million with the committee request passed 6–2; the motion to repeal the fire service fee ordinance was postponed to a date certain before July 16 by a 7–1 vote.