Hoping to avoid $250K election, councilors consider fixes to fire fee
9 min read
Presenter: Eugene’s City Council discusses ways to fix its flawed ‘fire fee’ proposal, currently scheduled for a vote of the people in November. On April 21, Mayor Kaarin Knudson:
Kaarin Knudson (Eugene, mayor): There is an enormous amount of interest in the city’s budget and in the solutions that we are working on for our city’s budget gap.
Council requested that we dedicate this additional time in this work session to what an alternative path might look like. I’ve heard some very specific characteristics and traits raised in conversation and in public comment at the public forum the other week.
[00:00:33] A time-limited or a sunset solution came up in a couple of different conversations and I would be interested to hear what Council thinks about that. We base our city’s financial projections on a six-year window. So I’m imagining that the discussion that’s coming forward is based on something like a six-years-or-less window of time. But I think that’s an important point of discussion.
[00:00:56] I’ve also heard interest in a solution that is not necessarily dedicated to a fire reserve fund and the creation of that fund, but is speaking more broadly to our general fund’s needs and emergency city services needs, operations that are funded by the general fund. And so that would be a point of discussion.
[00:01:18] And to have three in this first list: Simplicity of implementation and how we can minimize impacts on low-income families and our business community .
[00:01:27] Those are the three kind of big-picture pieces. Councilor Yeh.
[00:01:32] Councilor Jennifer Yeh: Thank you, Mayor. You brought up some of the highlights of what I think are also things that we should be discussing. I think a sunset is something really important. And while six years, I think, would be what I would want, I think two budget cycles would be nice. So I think that’s probably four years or three depending on when this goes into effect, but something around that time period seems to make sense to us.
[00:01:54] It gives us enough time to really talk about our budget and our long-term plans, while not being so quick that we can’t have these discussions in the community that it seems very obvious we need to be having.
[00:02:07] Presenter: Alternative response programs like CAHOOTS could help the public safety teams. Councilor Lyndsie Leech:
[00:02:14] Councilor Lyndsie Leech: We have an opportunity to help our fire department in other ways, which might be increasing or adjusting for the gap that we now see in our alternative response programs, which does lighten pressure for our enforcement teams and our fire teams.
[00:02:32] With that program, kind of, you know, not there necessarily and not understanding completely how the county can fill in, I would be interested in seeing what ways we could support the gap in alternative response with at least a portion of that $2 million that was planning on going to the fire.
[00:02:52] Presenter: Councilor Alan Zelenka:
[00:02:54] Councilor Alan Zelenka: I’d like to hear some more information about what would potential modifications look like, that would (1) add a sunset two or three biennial cycles out, or the council would have to continue the fire fee and (2), what’s the accountability or transparency mechanisms similar to the ones that we put in place for the road and the park bonds that Councilor (Bonny) Bettman (McCornack) and I put together in the very first road bond. Those could audit the specific list, the citizen review committee, all that stuff.
[00:03:24] Presenter: He expressed concern about prioritizing the budget. Councilor Zelenka:
[00:03:29] Councilor Alan Zelenka: When we talk about prioritizing the budget or a priority process, to me and to many others, that’s just code for cutting libraries and parks and rec programs, community centers, pools, because it’s zero-sum.
[00:03:43] The amount of things that you can cut within the general fund are those or police and fire. Police and fire is 60% of the budget of the general fund. And so if you don’t cut there, you have to cut in the other places.
[00:03:57] So those people that want to prioritize all this, I would say all those things are just as important to me. It’s just as important to me that we have a quality of life, that we have libraries, we have parks and park and rec programs, we have community centers, we have pools.
[00:04:11] And when I go talk to people and ask them what they think the city needs, the things they say is: More things for our children to do that they can do after school and keep out of trouble and keep them busy and more quality-of-life services. Those are the things that people want to see.
[00:04:27] Presenter: The city typically shares the cost of the election, but in an odd-numbered year with nothing else on the ballot, the city would be responsible for all election costs. Councilor Zelenka:
[00:04:39] Councilor Alan Zelenka: The cost of the election is a bit over, over a quarter of a million dollars. Thank you, Chamber of Commerce.
[00:04:46] Presenter: Councilor Randy Groves:
[00:04:48] Councilor Randy Groves: I think to blame this and blame the Chamber of Commerce is absolutely wrong and irresponsible. They did what we could have done, what we should have done: Put this to a public vote. And I want to be clear on the record that that’s how I feel about this, and they did our job for us.
[00:05:08] Secondly, I would love to find an offramp. I’m not sure what it is.
[00:05:14] What I have heard loud and clear from the community is, it’s not that people oppose a fire fee. They are just sensing that, you know, it feels like a bait and switch to them. And I don’t think that was the intention when staff put this proposal together, but that’s certainly the way it’s being interpreted, and I can see why.
[00:05:35] If it’s going to be called a fire fee, it should go, they feel, to the fire department. So I do think the name is important, that it captures where the money is going to go, and what we are going to do with it.
[00:05:47] But regardless of what happens, however many work sessions we have, however far we want to kick the can down the road, at some point we need to have the hard discussion, and it’s not going to be easy, but we need to come up with a system of priorities.
[00:06:00] What are our priorities as a council for our community? And then how does the community feel about that? And I’m sure people are going to be all over the map on this thing.
[00:06:11] But I think one of the problems that we have that kind of led us to this is the fact we don’t have a prioritization process. And that’s really not up to staff. That’s up to us as a council and a body. We’re the ones that have to make these decisions. We’re the ones that need to stand behind whatever we do and whatever we decide. It’s time to separate the chaff from the wheat and get to work on this.
[00:06:37] Presenter: He suggested looking at how similar-sized cities set funding priorities. He also noted that Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services (LRCS) is right up there with police. Councilor Groves:
[00:06:49] Councilor Randy Groves: I’d just like to point out that police and LRCS is almost the same percentage. Just, these are expensive items that we have. When we do start looking at prioritization, I’d like to see some benchmarking against similar-sized communities and how they’re structured and how they are apportioning their budget.
[00:07:11] Presenter: Councilor Greg Evans:
[00:07:13] Councilor Greg Evans: You know, we have delivered these services—when we’re talking about library, parks and rec, animal services—for years. So there’s a certain expectation that our community has in terms of delivery of those types of services and how the city plays a role in that versus other models that are out there. And even as close as next door, Springfield, you have Willamalane. It is a different model. The city of Springfield is not involved in their parks and rec situation, like we are as we have it here in Eugene.
[00:08:00] So, that requires us to have a longer and broader discussion, which, I understand, we don’t have the time to do that right now. However, if we can get to a place where (1), we don’t have to go to the ballot with this, that we can work out a short-term compromise solution that has an end date to it, then we might have the time to have that broader conversation about how we deliver services, what services that this community expects to deliver.
[00:08:39] And maybe we do go back to being what I would call, totally transparent with this and say, ‘Let’s call it a city service fee.’ And I think that if we can cobble out and craft a short-term bridge for this, I would be in favor of looking at that.
[00:09:02] Presenter: Mayor Kaarin Knudson:
[00:09:04] Kaarin Knudson (Eugene, mayor): There is interest in discussion of a sunset scenario, of a time-limited scenario. A whole range of years from two to 10 have been referenced with four, five, six years being the middle ground. So I think more information from staff could be helpful in understanding the implications of that type of path.
[00:09:26] Clarity around the naming of this fee and how it is supporting our Eugene Springfield Fire emergency services, EPD and ESF, as well as other core city services, but feedback around the name and clarity on that front.
[00:09:42] And then more follow-up on structure and billing so that we can understand impacts, especially to lower-income households and business community, see what that billing is like as some of these other things are shifting, and then an update on thoughts of implementation and that timeline.
[00:10:02] Presenter: Councilor Mike Clark:
[00:10:03] Councilor Mike Clark: I have different feelings on each of those three items, as I’ve heard the community weigh in. I’m not in favor of any of them because they presuppose the idea of we’re going to need or we think it’s best to try and ask people for more revenue.
[00:10:21] I think that’s an article of bad faith with the 8,000 and more people who said, ‘Hey, no, we want to have a voice in this process.’
[00:10:31] I’m having a real problem with the idea that we would deny them that, after they used the democratic process to say, ‘We will have our say.’ We’re talking about short-circuiting their ability to have their say and that makes me extremely uncomfortable, especially when it seems like a for-granted that we’re just going to put some other kind of new fee in place.
[00:10:56] That seems very disingenuous and very much at bad faith with the electorate who’ve used the democratic process the way it’s supposed to be, when we had the choice as a council whether or not we send this to the people in May. And this council decided it knew best and it wanted to go ahead with the fire fee.
[00:11:15] And my vote was that I thought that was an unwise way to go. But we did. And so now the community has responded to us and said, ‘No, we want our say on this.’
[00:11:29] So I’m very concerned with the speed and the process this conversation is taking.
[00:11:36] Presenter: The City Council looks for ways to avoid a quarter-million-dollar referendum on its so-called ‘fire fee.’ Councilors consider an expiration date and a more accurate name. The discussion will continue April 28.
This story produced by John Q and sponsored through the Whole Community Time Bank by generous listeners at KEPW 97.3, Eugene’s PeaceWorks community radio.
