More than 8,400 signatures have been collected to bring Eugene’s fire service fee up for a public vote, the Eugene Chamber of Commerce announced March 14.
City officials estimate the fire service fee would generate $10 million in revenue annually. Under the ordinance, the city would move $8 million in general fund dollars out of the Eugene-Springfield Fire Department and replace it with $10 million in the new fire service fee revenue.
The general fund currently accounts for roughly 67% of the more than $59 million Eugene allocates to the fire department each year. With the move of $8 million in general fund dollars away from the fire department, the city’s total annual general fund contribution to the department would be reduced by roughly 20%.
On Feb. 10, the Eugene City Council voted five to three to implement the fire service fee without a public vote. City Councilors Jennifer Yeh, Eliza Kashinsky, Matt Keating, Alan Zelenka and Lyndsie Leech voted to implement the fee without a prior public vote. City Councilors Mike Clark, Greg Evans and Randy Groves voted against implementing the fee without a prior public vote.
The support for bringing the fee up for a public vote was reportedly bipartisan. According to the Chamber, early sampling of 6,000 signatures collected indicates that 46% were registered Democrats, 32% were registered unaffiliated, 20% were registered Republicans and 2% were other.
Chamber of Commerce Leads Opposition
The Eugene Chamber of Commerce began publicly speaking against the fire fee at a City Council meeting in November 2024.
Chamber officials expressed a strong belief that critical city services, like public safety, parks and libraries, should be “prioritized and protected.” They said they are committed to working with city leaders “to identify long-term, fiscally responsible solutions to Eugene’s budget challenges.”
Chamber officials said they believe another approach is possible. Instead of raising taxes outright, they said the city should first identify budget priorities, make necessary cuts and then make the case for new funding to voters.
“Our goal is not just to challenge a fee but to ensure a more sustainable, transparent and community-supported path forward,” Chamber President Brittany Quick-Warner said.
Rationale for the Fire Service Fee
Some city officials disagree with the Chamber. Eugene City Councilor Eliza Kashinsky, who voted for the fire service fee, spoke with The Daily Emerald in early March. At the time, she said she was “frustrated” with the Chamber’s effort to bring the fire service fee up for a public vote.
Kashinsky said the Chamber’s efforts to bring the fee up for a public vote are delaying efforts to have more conversations about long-term city budget stability.
At the same meeting that the City Council voted to implement the fire service fee, councilors also voted unanimously to direct the City Manager to prepare a council retreat on long-term budget stabilization strategies.
Kashinsky also defended voting to implement the fire service fee. She said there “aren’t any other good” alternatives to the fire service fee that do not have “severe impacts” to city services.
Another City Councilor who voted for the fire service fee compared the fee to utility billing.
“Our Fire EMS is very similar to a utility. It’s something we count on to be there every day,” City Councilor Jennifer Yeh said at a City Council meeting in February. “It cannot stop working.”
EWEB Commissioner John Brown expressed a different perspective in February when he raised concerns about the potential shift of a City of Eugene general fund cost to residents’ EWEB bill.
Speaking at an EWEB Board meeting in February, Brown cautioned that adding the fire service fee to residents’ EWEB bills could result in water and power utility shutdowns for customers unable to pay the additional charge. Brown also expressed a desire to keep EWEB bills dedicated exclusively to utility charges.
“I just want to keep utilities utilities and not start putting other charges on EWEB bills,” Brown said at the meeting.
At a meeting on April 1, EWEB Commissioners discussed billing and collection of the fire service fee. Commissioners asked EWEB staff questions. EWEB staff are currently working on getting answers to many of their questions.
One commissioner asked about the timeline for EWEB to approve the fee.
“Do we have to make a decision before it goes to a vote so that if it does pass, then they’re ready for a collection mechanism or is it something that if it passes that we have some time to make that decision?” EWEB Commissioner Mindy Schlossberg asked at the meeting.
The EWEB Board of Commissioners has not yet decided if they will bill the fire service fee on behalf of the city. The board is scheduled to discuss billing and collection again on May 6.
Fire Fee Budget Impact
If the fire service fee is enacted, the city would shift $8 million in general fund dollars from the fire department to fill budget deficits in other city departments. City officials said that without the new fire service fee revenue, the city would need to “implement $11.5 million in budget reductions beginning in July 2025.”
City officials proposed two potential scenarios for those budget reductions. Both of those potential reductions include cuts to these city departments: police, fire, public works, planning and development, central services, and library, recreation, and cultural services.
City officials justify the move of $8 million in general fund dollars out of the fire department’s budget by saying it will be replaced with $8 million in “dedicated” fire service fee revenue. They said the fee is “anticipated to be used to stabilize $8 (million) in existing fire and emergency medical services and provide $2 million in additional funding for expanded fire services.” They added the fee will “enable the city to increase and grow these services over time to meet community service needs.”
City Councilor Randy Groves was one of three councilors who voted against implementing the fire service fee without a public vote. While Groves said he doesn’t want to see the cuts that would result from not implementing the fee, he believes the choice should be up to the voters.
“I don’t want to see these cuts either. Personally, if this was on a ballot, I would vote for it,” Groves said at a City Council meeting in February. “But, this is other people’s money. They should get a chance to weigh in themselves.”
Under an amendment passed by the City Council, the fire service fee also gives the City Manager the authority to increase the fire fee by up to 5% annually without a vote of the city council or Eugene voters.
In a Feb. 10 letter to city leaders, Chamber officials, business leaders and others raised concerns about the fire service fee. They said one of their primary concerns was that the public will incorrectly “assume that $10 million in new investment is being made into Eugene’s Fire Department.”
In highlighting that only $2 million of the $10 million fire fee will be used to expand fire services, Chamber officials said, “This risks eroding trust between the city and the community, as residents and businesses will not see the full impact of what they believe they are paying for.”
What’s next for the Fire Service Fee?
On March 24, the petition to bring the fire service fee up for a public vote was certified by Eugene City Recorder Katie LaSala. The certification follows Lane County Elections validating the signatures that were collected.
Now, Eugene residents will potentially get to decide if they want to pay the fire service fee. Per the City of Eugene’s Referendum Process, the fire service fee referendum vote must take place in the next available election, which must take place at least 90 days after the certification of the petition. According to the City of Eugene’s Elections webpage, the next available election is Nov. 6, 2025.
But it is possible that Eugene voters might not vote on the fee after all. If the Eugene City Council decides to repeal the fire service fee ordinance at least 61 days before the next available election date, voters will no longer vote on the fee.
Another possibility is that the election could occur sooner or later. Eugene City Council could choose to place the referendum in an earlier or later special election, which must be held at least 66 days after the certification of the petition. Under Oregon law, the city would be required to pay for the cost of holding the special election.
Lane County spokesperson Devon Ashbridge said the costs for special elections can vary.
“The cost would depend upon whether there are other items on a ballot, how many and for which jurisdictions … We should be able to provide a very general estimate if an election date is announced by the City of Eugene,” Ashbridge said.
It is not clear yet what the City Council will do to address the successful petition. The City Council is on break until April 8.
According to Eugene City Code, City Manager Sarah Medary must present a certified referendum or initiative petition to the City Council no later than 20 days after certification for consideration.
At that time or after which, the City Council may adopt the ordinance proposed by the petition or repeal the ordinance referred by the petition. The City Council could also cast a vote to recommend approval or rejection of the initiated or referred measure or order alternative measure(s) to appear on the same ballot. The council is restricted from adopting or repealing such ordinances during the 61-day period preceding an election on the measure.
