Laserfiche WebLink
Appendix A <br />Comparison ofActuai Spending * <br />* Note — actual spending is used in an effori �o depict the true cast af praviding programs and services for that <br />particular year. Actual spending may vary when cort�pared tn the acIopted bud�et due �o a variety of factars. <br />Genera� Purpose Pragrams <br />The following table depicts �he actual spending avear t�e pas� 6 years for the City's Gen.eraI <br />Purpose (i.e. tax-supported) programs. <br />General Government <br />Apl iee <br />Fire <br />Fi€e IZeiief <br />Pub[ic Warks <br />Parics & Recreation Pro�rams <br />l�ark Ivlaintenance <br />Park Improvements <br />Vehicie & Equipment iZeplacement <br />T�ebt <br />Total <br />��$. <br />2001 2002 2003 2f3p4 2005 2006 Annual <br />Actua] Actuat AcCual Actuat Actual Actual Increase <br />$ [,598,1Q8 � 1,573,994 $ 1,424,197 $ 1,355,51b � f,�t13,434 $ [,5A5,278 -fl.7°/a <br />4,055,9I9 4,153,946 4,I96,46$ 4,539,318 4,f322,527 5,034,5�5 4.8% <br />1,430,435 1,274,040 I,322, t 71 1,214,719 1,391, 802 1,52G,G 12 l.3% <br />234,220 331,953 48G,481 449,87D 350,870 348,670 9.8"/0 <br />i,78S,[37 1,7&6,42p 1,748,333 1,977,337 2,113,b66 2,189,797 4_5% <br />2,207>3S9 2,2&1,774 2,236,331 2,218,628 2>17b,731 2>�58,767 2.3°/a <br />35,fl0A 808,529 81A,395 8�3,393 783,909 789,381 �31.0°/a <br />$47,308 35a,983 [95,565 158,638 111,$38 220,286 -I4.8% <br />79G,020 787,171 1>285>253 712,256 517,754 932,492 3.4% <br />5,474,i94 4,175,931 2,[20,237 2,103,194 1,153,�66' ],688,871 -[3.8% <br />$ 18,464,3{i3 $ 17,505,747 $ I5,$29,A3i $ 15,fi32,869 $ 14,635,597 $ I5,739,749 -l.9% <br />Amauntexcludingdebt $ 12,989,509 $ 13,32$,$16 $ 13,'709,19� $ f3,529,675 $ 13,452,530 $[5,045,878 3.2% <br />�ver the past 6 yea.rs, avera�e actua� spending in the Cit�'s properiy tax�s�pported programs <br />increased approxirr�ately 3.2% per year, whzch is ro�ghly equivalent to the local inflation rate �or <br />the same period. Hawevear, duri�g t�is sarne periad persaz�z�el-ar�lated costs inerease� <br />approxima�ely 5% per year. In additian., fii�l and energy-related oosts �ave also outpaced <br />inflatia�. Ta l�eep averall s�ending n�ar the infiation rate, the City needed io reduce staffing <br />pasitions ta offset hzghe� service input cost� elsewhere. <br />General gor�ernrrier�t serviees incl�de; city caunci�, adaa:�inistratio�, �nance & accouz�ting, legal, <br />and elec�ions. These ce�tralized f�r�ctions are operati�g ai apparoxiz�a.alely �he sarne fiu�ding level <br />ioday as it did in 2001. <br />Since 2001, expendii�res in the City's Police fiuzctzon have increased on average, 4.8°/a �aer year, <br />mos�Iy due tn l�igher �ersonnel-related costs vt�iaich have ou�paced inflaizon i�a ali Czty <br />department�. A portion of the Palice Depar�men�'s costs axe o�'fse� by Police �tate aid and <br />do�ations. <br />The increased contribuiion for the Fire Relief Association was d�e to fl�ctuaiixg �raarl�et <br />canditions �hat res�zlted in poor investment portfoiio performance in 2002 ar�d 2003. Tl�is in �ur�a <br />created an unfunded liabiliiy in the Associa�inn's pension f�nd whic� �he City was obligated to <br />arectify. �t shou�d be noted tha� the �ame economic dnwn�urn affected most other public pension <br />plans az� a siznziar ma�v�ier. <br />S <br />