Trying to add a payment method? You can do this on the 
Ben Botkin’s April 30 piece in Lookout presents an excellent summary of the current financial challenges facing Eugene’s city government. Any way we look at it, Eugene is in trouble financially. Expenditures outpace income and there is no sign this will change. Telling the city to “live within its means” is naïve in view of the myriad of mandated expenses. And the limitation on property taxes does not help. New sources of income must be found.
However, turning from the “what” to the “how” yields to a murkier picture. The city’s proposed fire fee is a sincere but flawed approach. Why? First, calling it a fire fee is misleading and only serves to anger citizens. Second, the amount – and duration – of the fee is open-ended at the discretion of the city, again a point of conflict. There are no fiscal controls by the citizenry as there are with property taxes or road construction and school bonds.
Third, there is distrust – justified or not – that the city is shifting too many resources to support our seemingly endless supply of homeless people seeking services, depriving other city services. Finally, there is concern that the City Council will move to exempt numerous people or groups from paying the new fee, meaning that the rest of us will need to pay more.
What I fear most is that, while the city is presenting an honest picture of our current budgetary situation, the image that is being created is of a City Council unwilling to compromise to achieve its goals. Hence, the fire fee proposal that has stirred up so much controversy.
So, how do we move forward from what to how? Here is one suggestion:
1. Talk to stakeholders. In particular, the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce seems to have issues with the city’s budget proposal – and has the ability to force an election. What are their concerns and can they be addressed? If the Chamber gets behind a new fee, a major impediment to success is removed.
2. Withdraw the current fire fee proposal from the November ballot and replace it with a lean City Services Fee proposal on the August ballot. This fee should help cover fire, the library, Greenhill, CAHOOTS and other valued services. Maybe it’s only a name, but names are important in signaling what a fee covers.
3. Stipulate that this new fee cannot increase by more than the rate of inflation.
4. Provide in the legislation for a fee renewal vote every five years. Yes, this risks voters turning against renewal, but this has not been the case with the road fee, largely because voters see that it is an honest and efficient program. Trust the voters.
5. Include every house, apartment and vacant lot. Making real estate exceptions to who pays only serves to lose public support.
Is this a compromise from what city leaders seem to want? Yes, but compromises typically lead to broader support for realistic solutions.
I can only speak for myself, but I would support such a fee because to me it is fair, inclusive and democratic – and ultimately reviewed and renewed by taxpayers going forward.
Richard Steers is professor emeritus and former vice provost for International Affairs at the University of Oregon, and is active in several local civic affairs groups, including the Lane County Historical Museum, St. Vincent de Paul’s, Habitat for Humanity and the UO Osher Lifelong Learning Institute.
