Public hearing: City should drop fire fee proposal, start over with a transparent process

Presenter: The public is wondering how much of the new fire services fee will actually be used to support fire services. It turns out, the firefighters themselves are asking the same question. To launch a public hearing on the new fee Nov. 18:

[00:00:16] Sarah Medary (Eugene, city manager): A fire service fee would be assessed on developed property and be based on the square footage of buildings associated with a stormwater account. The median residential home would pay $10 per month and the median commercial customer would pay $38 per month.

The fee as proposed would generate $10 million for fire and emergency medical services, providing dedicated funding for $8 million in existing services and the capacity to add an additional $2 million in expanded services. A special revenue fund would be established to account for fire service fee revenues and fire and EMS expenditures paid for from this revenue source.

[00:00:50] Kris Siewert (Lane Professional Firefighters Local 851): My name is Kris Siewert and I am the president of Lane Professional Firefighters Local 851 here and I represent your Eugene Springfield firefighters.

[00:00:58] First I want to express our appreciation for the time and effort that each of you have dedicated to exploring alternative revenue options. We recognize the complexity of this undertaking and appreciate the work you’ve invested in finding alternative solutions.

The Fire Department is in a fragile state and we have a responsibility to ensure that any funding measures provide real long-term solutions, not just a Band-Aid. We’re open to new revenue sources, we just want to make sure the fire fee is for long-term help and investment, which is why I end before you today, with some important questions to consider and clarify how this fire fee will be used.

[00:01:34] Our mission is to protect the safety of our community and our firefighters who put their lives on the line every day. Is there anything in this fee that will help improve our response times? Our response times have gone from four minutes up to seven. Will this fee ensure that we keep our engine staffed or is the community going to lose an engine in the neighborhood fire station if it doesn’t pass?

[00:01:55] To us, these are measurable safety concerns. How does this fee provide for the community and fire department’s future? We’re being told the fee will help solve challenges facing our city’s budget and also help the Fire Department. I think we all need to pause and consider what really means for our community and our firefighters, paramedics and EMTs.

[00:02:14] It’s been mentioned that this funding might initially enhance service capacity by providing one squad 24 hours a day and maybe a couple of other squads for a handful of peak days. But we have three engines that rank among the busiest in the country. A two-person squad does little to relieve the demands or reduce those response times.

[00:02:31] So I ask you to consider if the fee genuinely addresses the underlying issues. Is this truly the fix we’re looking for or is it just another temporary measure? Really consider how this fee would reduce the overwhelming call volume on these engines and bring relief to the current crews.

[00:02:45] This fire fee could be the beginning of a stronger, better fire department, but I would be remiss if I didn’t take this opportunity to express our deep concerns about the future.

[00:02:55] Right now we’re struggling to retain employees and have advanced staffing levels since the ’80s. We’re tired, we’re burned out, and we need help. So I leave these questions with you to consider as you determine the next steps. Let’s make sure we find solutions that give our firefighters and our community the support and safety they deserve and count on us to provide.

[00:03:12] Marchello Folino: Marchello Folino. Thank you, Council. Thank you all that have showed up for the support and thank you to the community members that have also been voicing their opinion. Their support for us has been part of why we do what we do and why we sacrifice as much as we do.

[00:03:28] What I’m hearing from everyone else that’s been testifying in this case is that these are misleading fees, right? It’s a tax that’s hidden as a fee. Your plan is to raise $10 million to allocate towards the Fire Department while withholding $8 million dollars. A $2 million increase for a Quick Response Unit is merely a Band-Aid on a department that is drowning.

[00:03:57] To us, to me personally it feels like we’re drowning and you’re holding a banner asking for more money. Yet none of that money is coming to help us. And you were all aware of the amount of help that we need currently. We don’t need a Quick Response Unit. We need three stations. We need more units on the street.

[00:04:15] We have personnel that are amazing and we really appreciate that. However, we can do better work. We can do more efficient work if we have the resources we need on the street. Those resources need to be strategically placed. We know where they need to be placed and we’re asking for that help.

[00:04:33] And this fire fee, if it goes into effect, please don’t reallocate that $8 million away from the general fund. Please keep that fire fee in attendance with the fire service $8 million budget.

[00:04:48] Tiffany Edwards (Eugene Chamber of Commerce): I’m Tiffany Edwards, and I’m here today to speak on behalf of the Eugene Chamber of Commerce.

[00:04:53] On behalf of the Chamber, I want to begin by reaffirming our unwavering support for the dedicated men and women who serve our community in police, fire and emergency services. These critical services are the backbone of public safety in Eugene and it is in the spirit of support that I speak to you today.

[00:05:11] After presentations from staff, research, and extensive discussions among our members, we understand the need as it has been communicated and the challenge facing the city that prompted the proposed fire protection fee. However, the Chamber cannot support the fee as proposed.

[00:05:27] I’d like to focus on three key concerns that emerge from our deliberations. First and foremost, fire protection is a core city service. Funding for such an essential function belongs in the city’s general budget. Addressing general fund shortfalls by introducing a new separate fee for what should already be a budgetary priority sets a concerning precedent. It creates the illusion of solving the problem without addressing the structural issues within our current funding system.

[00:05:55] We urge the city to engage the community in a collaborative process to identify priorities and adopt a long-term priority-based budgeting approach. The Chamber is ready to actively participate in this discussion.

[00:06:08] Second, the process matters. When the City of Eugene proposed a payroll tax to increase public safety surfaces, there were many, many months of robust and community engagement that was transparent and collaborative in its approach. That approach built trust with business and the residents and ultimately resulted in the chamber strongly backing that tax with the understanding that would go back to the voters for renewal in 2027. We question why the same approach is not being applied here.

[00:06:35] Our concern is that a result of passing this fee without a broad understanding and level of support from the community is that it will jeopardize the chances of the community safety payroll tax passing when it goes to the voters putting us in another difficult budgeting situation.

[00:06:51] Finally, this proposal risks harming our business community. Many local businesses are already burdened by the increased increasing taxes fees and regulatory changes. This growing financial strain makes it harder to attract and retain businesses, driving opportunities to neighboring communities that benefit from the property and payroll taxes that Eugene forfeits.

[00:07:11] Lloyd Madden: Hello. Lloyd Madden, I moved here in 1989, and I’m also a business person, I founded an organization here. Many people, family, friends, live in other states and some of them say, ‘Wow, your property taxes are very high.’ And I look at them and I smile and I say, ‘You know what? They are, but you know why? Because of this, this, this, and this.’ And so I just want to let you know that quality, to me, is much more important than quantity and otherwise.

[00:07:46] I’m a huge fan of transparency, right? Let’s make this transparent in terms of how we fund this. But funding firefighters, funding schoolteachers, policemen, Eugene Library—you know, maybe it’s going to be affected—these are really important services, so I just want to express to you that as a resident here and someone who invests their time to try to make this community better, how important it is to me that this is a great community that we can use as a role model for the whole rest of the world.

And so, I’m an advocate. We’ll figure out more effective ways to fund this in the future.

[00:08:24] Kim Arscott: My name is Kim Arscott, a proud resident of Eugene for 26 years as a business owner working in the real estate industry and I know how vital strong services to our community are. When people decide to move to Eugene or continue to live here, livability and access to services are significant considerations. Equally important, however, are the relationships built with decision-makers and the transparency they see and how decisions are made.

[00:08:55] These factors provide assurance and confidence in choosing Eugene as home. While I fully support our firefighters and critical lifesaving work that they do, I want to express my concern related to establishing this fee.

[00:09:09] In my role, I along with others in the community have felt that at times the city has not been consistent with engaging in the public on important decisions like this. There have been many times that the city has effectively sought input; in other instances decisions moved forward without sufficient opportunity for meaningful participation.

[00:09:30] This inconsistency can jeopardized trust within the community. In this instance, with other decisions related to fees, a collaborative process to identify and prioritize the services that matter most would be greatly appreciated by the residents and property owners. This approach would ensure funding aligns with the needs and values of Eugene’s community.

[00:09:55] Additionally, transparency about city fees for businesses and property owners is essential. Property owners are subject to a variety of fees, which often contribute to a significant financial burden on the community. This is especially not the time to increase that burden.

[00:10:11] For many, it’s not just the amount of fees, but the lack of clarity and how they align with the city’s priorities that cause frustration. Addressing this would go a long way towards building trust and ensuring the city’s financial structure supports its residents and economic growth.

[00:10:26] In addition, there’s a large concern about the funds being collected going into the general fund, which is not what the fee represents.

[00:10:34] David Van Der Haegen: My name is David Van Der Haegen. I understand how critically important programs and services are for our community, including fire and emergency services. And I want to make it absolutely clear that my concern today about the proposed fire protection fee in no way diminishes my strong support for our firefighters. They are vital to our city and I fully recognize the essential work they do every day to protect and to serve Eugene.

[00:11:02] That said, I have concerns about the proposed fee. Labeling it as a fire fee seems misleading to community members as it is intended to fill a general fund gap rather than directly addressing fire-specific needs. It’s also worth noting that 85% of the fire department’s responses are medical, not fire-related, which raises questions about the appropriateness of this funding approach.

[00:11:26] Furthermore, the methodology behind the proposal fails to address the root causes of the budget deficit or provide clarity on where these levels exist. Additionally, assessing the fee based on square footage is problematic. This method doesn’t correlate with the services being rendered, particularly when 85% of responses are for emergency medical services.

Larger businesses often already invest heavily in fire risk compliance and prevention measures, and they typically don’t generate a proportional number of fire-related responses. This approach feels inequitable and doesn’t reflect the actual use of fire and emergency services.

[00:12:06] I encourage the council to reconsider this fee and explore a solution that leads to the desired outcome, one that is clear, transparent, and beneficial for all parties. If costing the community more, it should lead to increased benefits, and it is critical that this is communicated clearly and equitably at all levels.

Let’s work together to support essential services in a way that avoids placing undue burdens on businesses or not addressing the underlying issues.

[00:12:34] Kathryn Dunn: Kathryn Dunn. I am also here to express concern about adding a fire service fee to the EWEB bills.

It seems this approach blurs the distinction, the important distinction, between a fee and a tax. A fee should reflect payment for something that’s measurable, something quantifiable, like water usage or trash collection. Taxes on the other hand should fund broader public services that are not quantifiable, like public safety, emergency response, etc.

[00:13:04] Currently, fire services are appropriately funded through the city’s general fund, which recognizes the collective benefit of these services. If additional funding is needed, and I’m sure it is, I urge the city to be transparent and propose a tax increase rather than disguising it as a fee. This would uphold the integrity of public decision making and allow residents a fair opportunity to voice their opinions.

Trying to sidestep a tax increase by tacking on a fee could undermine public trust and set a dangerous precedent. It’s vital that our government remain transparent, equitable and aligned with the principles of good governance.

[00:13:45] Katie Wilgus: My name is Katie Wilgus and I’ve been proud to call Eugene home since 2020. I’m a native Oregonian with decades of experience working to address community livability, downtown vibrancy and stakeholders together to solve civic challenges. I’m here tonight as a community member and advocate to share my concerns about the proposed fire protection fee.

[00:14:10] First, I want to express my deep appreciation for our fire department and the critical lifesaving services they provide. These services are vital to our community’s safety and well-being, and I fully support ensuring they have the funding necessary to perform their essential work.

That said, I believe the proposed fire protection fee is not the right path forward. Fire protection is a core service that should be funded as a priority through the city’s general fund. Relying on a separate fee to fund this service shifts the burden disproportionately and risks further eroding trust with the business community.

Generally there have been discussions about approaching the city’s budget differently with a focus on prioritizing essential services. I strongly encourage the city to adopt this kind of approach ensuring sustainable long-term funding for fire protection without relying on piecemeal solutions.

[00:15:18] In closing, I ask you to reconsider this fee and instead commit to a broader, more strategic approach to funding core services. Let’s work together to create a budget that prioritizes what truly matters to our community in a way that’s fair and equitable to all stakeholders.

[00:15:40] John Barofsky (Revenue Committee member): My name is John Barofsky and as you may know I was one of the members of the committee that the city manager had look at revenue options to fill current and upcoming needs along with Councilor Zelenka and Councilor Leech.

I believe this committee did an excellent job of looking at all available sources of revenue, and I believe the one that the city manager chose to move forward felt like the best choice for the parameters we were given. There are many reasons that I felt that way. However, there were others on the committee that felt differently.

[00:16:12] I do believe that there are issues with the fee that you as council must carefully consider. The thing that I want to stress the most in my testimony is the fact that this fee is not going to fix the structural problem facing our general fund, going forward. At best, it will give you some time to do a deep dive into the needs and priorities that this community wants and can afford.

[00:16:37] This is the third time that I’ve been involved in a revenue conversation, and each time it’s been a hard conversation. This time was no different. The next process is going to be even more complicated, however.

However, I know that there are people and in the business community, as well as many other communities that are ready to help with the challenges that we face in making sure that we keep Eugene as the place we choose to live, work, and play, while balancing the limited amount of resources that the public can sustain.

[00:17:12] Keeping those in mind, I would encourage you to support the city manager’s recommendation to move forward with a proposed fire and emergency services fee.

[00:17:22] Dan Patch: Hello, I’m Dan Patch and first of all I want to say that nothing about what I’m saying is a referendum against firefighters. Everybody loves the Fire Department, that’s for sure. But I believe that you are using the Fire Department as a fear-mongering tool to force us into compliance.

[00:17:43] Normally when you have an operating levy, we vote on it. The people vote on it. And when you make a major purchase, like this building, people vote on it. But you’ve denied that. You tore our last City Hall down without our vote, and now you bought this one without our vote, and you don’t have the money to make it operate. And you’re trying to funnel funds away from normal things that are already designated, like firefighting protection, and you’re trying to pay for your problem.

[00:18:15] You don’t think we can see through that? And you’re denying us our public right to vote.

[00:18:22] This is an escalating problem. I looked into it. You already did this to the Parks and Recreation, Open Spaces. That should be reversed immediately. When these things are done normally in the past, we get to vote on them. But you’re using the Fire Department as a fear-mongering tool to scare us into compliance, because you didn’t allow us to vote on purchasing this building.

[00:18:49] That’s really what this is about. It’s not about the Fire Department. It’s about your willingness, your want, to try to operate without public input.

[00:18:59] We recently voted on a county courthouse and we voted it down. You didn’t want that to happen. So now your way of doing it is to eliminate us. So we don’t get to vote.

[00:19:12] It’s disgusting. You’re deplorable. You have nothing to be proud about. You have everything to be shameful for. We have a right to vote on things and you’re denying that. That’s what this is really about, funneling funds on the side and then scaring us into compliance.

[00:19:31] Presenter: A public hearing on the new fire services fee: Speakers suggest the city is asking permission for keeping two sets of books—where the money seems to be going, and where it’s actually going.