12/08/1992 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e tion assumed an inflation rate of 3.5 percent for the first three years, and 4.5 percent for the out years. Mr. Mounts compared the projected FY94 General Fund budget predicated upon the FY92 and FY93 forecasts, noting that the deficit based upon the FY92 forecast was $7.6 million, and the deficit based upon the FY93 forecast is $6.3 mill ion. He pointed out that the forecast did not include the results of implementing Eugene Decisions. Responding to a question from Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Mounts said that the forecasts used to predict the deficits were both "best case" scenarios, and did not include loss of State revenue, compression, or increased inflation. Mr. MacDonald considered such assumptions very optimistic. Mr. Nicholson asked if the City would be in compression if the Tax Court decided that those fees now collected outside the cap legally belonged inside the $10 per $1,000 cap dedicated to general purpose government. Mr. Gleason said yes. Mr. Gleason noted that the forecasts assumed that Trojan Nuclear Power Plant would continue to operate. Mr. Mounts said revenue estimates from Trojan were dropped by $600,000 as a result of conversations with Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWES) staff. Mr. Mounts reviewed a General Fund forecast from FY94 to FY99 based upon a best case scenario and implementing Eugene Decisions. e Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Mounts said that the capital budget reduction was included in the category entitled "Requirement Changes. II Responding to a concern raised by Mr. Miller about the use of the term IIEnhancements," Mr. Nicholson said that the category was better termed "Additions to the Core." The council agreed. In response to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Mounts confirmed that "Resource Changes" referred to fee increases while "Requirements Changes" referred to service reductions. Mr. Nicholson asked if his proposal to accrue $500,000 each year to fund community policing was incorporated into the forecast. Mr. Mounts said no. Mr. Nicholson said that the council needed to decide if the proposal was a part of the implementation of Eugene Decisions. Mr. Robinette pointed out that the proposal constituted an increase in service level, and the forecast was based upon a constant service level. He termed the issue one of a difference between budgeting and forecasting. It was necessary to maintain consistency for the purposes of forecast comparison. Mr. Mounts said that were one to assume that the savings come within the existing budget and accrue from year-to-year and added to the core, there was no net difference. Ms. Ehrman arrived at the meeting at 5 p.m. Mr. Mounts concluded his presentation by showing the council the results of the implementation of Eugene Decisions on the FY93 forecast for FY94, which e MINUTES--City Council Work Session December 8, 1992 Page 3 4 p.m.