Council moves toward compromise, asks for May 21 session on stormwater fee

Presenter: The Eugene City Council considers a compromise. They may repeal the so-called ‘fire fee’ in favor of using an existing fee already on your EWEB bill.

And new details emerge about that $10 million fire fee. Residents will actually pay at least $12 million the first year for what the city manager calls ‘the cost of money.’ At the May 14 work session, Sarah Medary:

Sarah Medary (Eugene, city manager): When we start thinking about collecting a fee, we know that there’s going to be a cost to implement that. There’s some one-time costs, and then there’s going to be an annual cost. So regardless of whether we use a current billing partner or we bring in a new billing partner, we’re going to have to pay for that, one time to set it up, and annually.

[00:00:42] And I predict it’s going to be close to $1 million to set it up and it’s probably going to be $1 million or more to collect it annually. That would be in line with some of the numbers we’ve already seen.

[00:00:53] So that number is not going to change. It’s not going to change whether you’re generating $8 million or more, or whether you’re generating $6 million or you’re generating $5 million or $4 million or $3 million. But as that number goes down, the cost of money just is really high, especially if you’re only doing it in a short amount of time.

[00:01:14] Presenter: Councilor Greg Evans:

[00:01:15] Councilor Greg Evans: City Manager, are we talking about incorporating the cost for administration of the fee into the fee?

[00:01:26] Sarah Medary (Eugene, city manager): Yeah, and we talked about this before when we were talking about other fees. But the, you know, the cost of collection will be built in. You have to build that in. And you, we build in the cost of administration plus the cost of what we would want to put in the customer care account for low-income assistance, that was also built in. So the cost of the fee goes up because you’re having to cover that administrative and billing cost.

[00:01:58] Presenter: Members of the City Council expressed an interest in compromise. Councilor Mike Clark:

[00:02:03] Councilor Mike Clark: I’ve been the most dogmatic about, ‘We don’t have the money, let’s make the cuts.’ And, ‘If we are considering any sort of new fee, let’s send it right to the voters.’ I recognize the spot we’re in and the outpouring of emails from so many people for weeks now makes it very clear to me that the wise person moves to compromise in a moment like this.

[00:02:28] And that’s what I’m going to try to do. We’re in a heck of a fix and we’re in a place where compromise is needed. And I hope all of us are willing to do some and find a place where we can agreeably meet to sustain the important services that our community relies on, that so many do.

[00:02:50] Presenter: Councilor Randy Groves:

[00:02:51] Councilor Randy Groves: I am interested in a compromise. I was one of the three councilors that voted to put this to a vote of the public. And I do want to thank the public for commenting. But I also want to say to my colleagues, we’re hearing from the side of the argument of the people who are losing services that are important to them.

[00:03:13] We’re not hearing from the people who just don’t want to pay more, which is, I think, a considerable part of our constituent base. And they aren’t, because they think this is going to a vote where they have a chance to vote up or down on the issue. So, all I’m trying to say with that is, let’s keep that piece in mind.

[00:03:35] Presenter: Councilor Jennifer Yeh:

[00:03:37] Councilor Jennifer Yeh: I think what Randy said about potentially not hearing from all sides right now is probably true. I think some folks are waiting to share their information.

And I would be in favor, if we have enough folks interested in putting out a compromise, I think sooner rather than later is where we’re at right now. Because I’d really, personally, like to put something out there that we think we can live with and makes sense to us as a council and see how people feel about it, sooner rather than later. I think waiting doesn’t help anyone, in my opinion. So, that’s my preference.

[00:04:17] Presenter: Councilor Lyndsie Leech:

[00:04:18] Councilor Lyndsie Leech: What we had on the table was a good option and now we have to make adjustments. There isn’t a pathway forward, I think, without some adjustments.

[00:04:28] Presenter: Councilor Matt Keating:

[00:04:29] Councilor Matt Keating: I concur where Councilor Yeh is and points articulated by Councilors Leech and Groves, in particular, about seeking a collaborative (I’m sorry, Councilor Kashinsky, I hate to say ‘solution’), but a collaborative compromise that gets this in front of the public sooner rather than later, that results in support of a repeal of our fire fee, that seeks the alternative solution that has a scaled-down rebrand; that supports, as proposed, a nominal new fee structure, whether that’s the stormwater fee that’s already built in, or a similar funding mechanism that’s built-in; that is reasonable; and that fundamentally saves our services or restores proposed cuts to animal services, to our contract with Greenhill (Humane Society), our library, our pools, our CSOs, etc.

[00:05:26] Presenter: Councilor Mike Clark:

[00:05:27] Councilor Mike Clark: I want to say thank you to my colleagues Matt and Lyndsie and Jennifer for being willing to join in that discussion and look at what another alternative may look like. But I want to say that there is no long-term fix with the fee. It’s unaffordable and the community probably rejects it, in my opinion.

[00:05:51] That’s not a long-term fix. The only long-term fix we have, because we spend more than the revenue coming in, is to look at: How do we grow our local economy? How do we grow our local homes being built, sufficient to have the tax base to afford the things we want and need as services?

[00:06:17] Presenter: Councilor Randy Groves:

[00:06:19] Councilor Randy Groves: I still long for a prioritization process. I mean, that’s part of the key of this thing working longer term. We haven’t done the hard work yet. And I think that that’s necessary as we move forward, because this current way Oregon taxation works is not going to fix itself. And even adding a fee is not going to totally solve the problem.

[00:06:40] We need to decide what level of services do we have to provide, do we need to provide, to promote a safe and reasonably healthy community.

[00:06:51] I don’t want to see any of these services cut either. As I’ve said before, if this went to a vote, I would probably vote for the fee. But I think the public should have a right to vote for it.

[00:07:02 Presenter: After a discussion of stormwater options, Councilor Greg Evans:

[00:07:06] Councilor Greg Evans: I think we’re getting close to some type of compromise. And I think that if we can get to a point where we can agree to a four-year sunset, be efficient in our conversations about long-term budget stability solutions, looking at a $4.7 million stormwater fee and the $1.1 million one-time monies that could help us bridge it over, could be the compromise Band-Aid solution to where we want to go.

And then being able to have these more broader, in-depth conversations over the period beginning and after we come back from break in September.

[00:08:01] Presenter: City Manager Sarah Medary:

[00:08:03] Sarah Medary (Eugene, city manager): The reason why we’re putting this $4.7 (million) number up here is, your existing stormwater code allows Parks as a use and you move the rest of the Parks general fund into that, which helps stabilize the rest of the services while you have this conversation.

[00:08:18] You could do that in a temporary way by directing me to do that for this biennium or this biennium and the next biennium.

[00:08:25] If you end up going with the stormwater smaller solution, you don’t have the same timeline constraints. You wouldn’t be required to have a public hearing on that.

[00:08:35] But if you’re going to move forward with a new ordinance for a temporary fee, City Attorney (Kathryn Brotherton) is going to want to put a draft of that in front of you, even if you hate the numbers and you need to change them at the end. Or not even move it forward at the end.

[00:08:49] Presenter: Councilor Lyndsie Leech:

[00:08:51] Councilor Lyndsie Leech: I would like to see us have a draft ordinance in front of us on the 21st and then also have that other conversation around the stormwater fee, with a little bit more information, if we could.

[00:09:03] Presenter: The action got fast and furious towards the end of the meeting. Councilor Alan Zelenka:

[00:09:08] Councilor Alan Zelenka: What is it that’s on the table?

[00:09:09] Presenter: Eugene’s Mayor Kaarin Knudson:

[00:09:11] Kaarin Knudson (Eugene, mayor): The motion on the table is to bring back (specifically, what’s the motion?) on the 21st information about the stormwater fee that would be related to the $4.7 million and the $1.1 (million) in one-time funding, which is to bring back information about a new idea that was introduced in this discussion today.

[00:09:30] So it’s not an ordinance, but information about a different path that would come back in one week’s time.

[00:09:36] Councilor Alan Zelenka: And I—

[00:09:38] Councilor Greg Evans: Call the question.

[00:09:38] Councilor Alan Zelenka: —see that as part of that information—

[00:09:39] Councilor Mike Clark: Call the question.

[00:09:39] Councilor Alan Zelenka: —as part of that information, that it would be what gets cut as well.

[00:09:47] Kaarin Knudson (Eugene, mayor): Yes, Councilor Zelenka, there’ll be more information in that, but it’s an information update as opposed to the draft ordinance, which is the next motion for discussion.

[00:09:56] Councilor Greg Evans: Mayor, I called the question.

[00:10:00] Kaarin Knudson (Eugene, mayor): Thank you, Councilor. Councilors, all in favor of this motion, please raise your hands. And the motion passes with a vote of 7-1. Thank you Councillors, and now to the second motion.

[00:10:11] Cedric: City Attorney Kathryn Brotherton:

[00:10:14] Kathryn Brotherton (Eugene, city attorney): What I heard you say all today was to return to Council on May 21 for further discussion—either an $8 million or a $6 million revenue generation and have a sunset date of four years.

[00:10:27] Councilor Greg Evans: Yes. (Okay.). That is correct. So that’s my motion.

[00:10:32] Kaarin Knudson (Eugene, mayor): And Councilor Zelenka, would you like to discuss this second motion?

[00:10:38] Councilor Alan Zelenka: Just clarifying, it’s going to be brought back a six and an eight scenario. And also the cut lists of what could (be) cut in each of those scenarios, including the $3.5 million. Okay, thank you.

[00:10:50] Kaarin Knudson (Eugene, mayor): And the motion passes with a vote of 7-1.

[00:10:53] Presenter: New details emerge about the city’s so-called ‘fire fee.’ With the fee still facing a November election that could cost the city $250,000, councilors learn that setting up and billing for the fee will cost at least $2 million in the first year.

Councilors will consider a variety of stormwater-related fees May 21.

This story produced by John Q for Whole Community News, welcoming your contributions to the KEPW News team. Meet by Zoom Thursdays at 4 or visit our studios at 454 Willamette. For more, email news@KEPW.org.