04/11/1984 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M I NUT E S - Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall April 11, 1984 5:55 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Cynthia Wooten, John Ball (from 6:18), Richard Hansen, Freeman Holmer, Joyce Nichols (until 7:14), Emily Schue, Betty Smith (until 8:00), Mayor Gus Keller. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Brian Obie Revenue Worksession of the Eugene City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. I. INTRODUCTION e City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the topic and reviewed the meeting agenda. He stated that the goal of staff was to review the forecasts and the assumptions, adding that the final budget would result from the best guess of the council and staff. He explained that the forecasts were based on the budget previously presented to the City Council. Any suggestions on specific figures from the council will be recalculated into the forecast and presented to the council at a later date. Mr. Gleason said he hoped that the council will accept the six-year forecasting methodology for the future. He stated that he would address service restorations after the council agreed on the assumptions. II. FINANCIAL FORECAST AND ASSUMPTIONS Finance Director Warren Wong, referring to a financial revenue chart, stated that staff had incorporated the revised restoration schedule after reviewing the original schedule developed by the Financial Planning Committee in January 1983. Having reviewed the restoration schedule, he stated that the restora- tion amount was reduced to $2.7 million from the $2.9 million of the previous year and $.5 million from the current year. Factoring the new restoration amount into the forecast, he said an equal restoration of $900,000 was assumed for each year beginning in FY86. The forecast will project a deficit ranging from $2.1 to $3.2 million between FY86 and FY90. Mr. Wong stated that he will review the 19 key revenue and expenditure assumptions which drive approximately 95 percent of the forecast. He stated that he will explain the staff methodology and assumptions and the council can then incorporate its own drivers into the forecast. In response to a question, Mr. Wong stated that the difference in not restoring services would be approximately $1 million in FY86, $800,000 in FY87, and approximately $0 in FY88, assuming the 5 percent cost of living increase and the six percent property tax increase. Mr. Gleason added that this also assumed no increased capital or employment and 40 percent - MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 11, 1984 Page 1