Annual Year End ReportDATE: February 9, 1982
'T"0: Mayor Council
FROM: William P. Craig, City Manager
SUBJECT Annual Year -End Report
Pursuant to Section 7.13 of the City Charter, I am again furnishing a (computer
generated) annual financial report detailing the financial operations conducted
in 1981. Once again it is pertinent to note that the Charter instructions to
prepare the report "before February first" is unrealistic, since state laws have
mandated a rather complicated fund and reporting structure. State law now requires
such a report by the end of June, and our audited report is always done by then.
A few words are in order about our income (revenue) items. Assuming that the
state ultimately pays up 1981 homestead payments as promised, we should achieve
97% collection of property taxes versus 96% last year). The high interest
rates resulted in General Fund interest of $69,783.75. Total General Fund
revenue, including the tardy 1981 State Aids, can to 96% of the estimate exclidi ng
the $250,000 applied by Council from the General Fund balance. On the other hand,
certain expenditures were held over if possible (notably telephone system $38,000;
cable television franchise joint pacers expenses $10,000 or so) because the money
from the State physically did not arrive (over $316,000), and hasn't arrived yet.
Regarding the General Fund expenditures in detail, you will notice the following
highlights (or lowlights) of the year. A total of $281,469.28 was authorized
by Council but not spent (please note foregoing comment on projects "held over
Several categories of the budget expended more than 10% in excess of their authorized
sum. These are Court Services (new high priced prisoner booking policy), Elections
(poor estimate of wages), Legal Services (unexpectedly large prosecutor expense,
balanced by very large fine income), Community Center (large start -up expenses),
Engineering, (part -time help to net self sustaining workload), Municipal Garage
(force accounting of new garage doors), and the Historical Society (keeping the house
up because of late move into Community Center).
The principal utilities deserve some explanation. The revenue side for both was
excellent the Water Fund received 109% of its projected income, and the Sewer
Fund received 101 A look at the expense side is deceiving, however. For the
first time, our computer report includes figure for depreciation (which does not,
of course, get spent as a check). including depreciation, the Water Fund spent
103.7% of its budget figure (which does not include an amount for depreciation),
and the Sewer Fund spent 105.8 A more conventional view would show both funds
keeping spending well within limits.
The Refuse Fund had a rocky time early in its contract life due to one time unemploy-
ment compensation payments. The budget figures shown were not relevant because of
original projections based on city operations.
In summary, 1981 was a good year for city finances, provided deferred state aids
ever do arrive: The 1982 budget year, as of this writing, needs substantial cuts
(as previously reported) to be in balance.
Respectfully submitted,
William P. Craig,