Alternative Solutions

to the Troy Budget Crisis

May 9, 2010

Clinton Meyer Barry Hyland

3600 Old Creek 1753 Brentwood
Troy 48084 Troy 48098

(with several minor revisions made on February 15, 2011)

Description of the Problem

Per the summary appearing on the city's website (http://www.troymi.gov/Managers/Finance.asp) as of

May 9, 2010, Troy's General Fund budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010 was $62,049,170. As a
result of contractually-obligated pay raises for many of the city's police officers, and the need for
increased pension contributions for another group of municipal employees (also largely comprised of
police officers), the cost of duplicating levels of service and personnel currently in place would increase
significantly during each of the next five years. As presented in the financial summary section of the
Option 1 Budget Reduction Proposal (Fall 2009), and as summarized again in the most recent proposed
2010-11 operating budget, and as confirmed in an e-mail by John Lamerato, Assistant City Manager, on
April 15, 2010, continued services at fiscal 2009-10 levels would result in the following five year cost to
taxpayers:

2010-11 $64,300,000
2011-12 $66,500,000
2012-13 $68,500,000
2013-14 $70,500,000
2014-15 $72,500,000

Five Year "Current Services" Expenditures $342,300,000

In the meantime, it is now anticipated that revenues will decline in the same five year period to the
following levels:

2010-11 $57,800,000
2011-12 $52,200,000
2012-13 $50,100,000
2013-14 $50,100,000
2014-15 $50,100,000

Five Year Anticipated Revenues $260,300,000

Five Year "Current Services" Funding Shortfall $82,000,000

Without other changes, then, the combination of a declining revenue stream and increasing costs will
leave the city with an $82,000,000 funding shortfall in the General Fund over the coming five year
period. [The accuracy of a similar, preliminary version of this analysis was confirmed in a meeting with
John Lamerato on April 12, 2010.]

An attempt was made to cure this sizeable deficit condition by increasing city tax rates via a special
millage election in February, 2010. Voters turned down this rate increase.

It is obvious that something very significant needs to be adjusted with respect to city expenditures.
Expenditure Reduction Approaches

Regarding the size and timing of required spending cuts, the following three general approaches would
each alleviate the $82,000,000 General Fund shortfall.

Possible Approaches to Size and Timing of Reductions

A: Cut Year One departmental budgets by $16.4 million; make no further cuts in Years 2-5
B: Cut Years One through Five departmental budgets by a total of $22.4 million, spread out over the
five years, with such cuts made on an as-needed basis, as follows: $6.5 million in Year One; an
additional $7.8 million in Year Two; an additional $4.1 million in Year Three; an additional $2 million
in Year Four; and an additional $2 million in Year Five. Cuts made in Year One would of course have
an impact on the net revenue stream for each of the five years, while the cuts delayed into
subsequent years would impact the net revenue stream in a declining manner.
C: Cut Year Five departmental budgets by $82.0 million; make no other cuts in Years 1-4

Comments: For legal, financial, and arithmetical reasons Approach C is unworkable. It has therefore
been removed from consideration. Approaches A and B are both viable, however, and would each
balance the five year budget via a reduction in five year expenditures of $82 million. Of these two
choices, Approach A would require considerably less pain for employees and residents over the full five
year period, and would theoretically allow all departments and jobs to survive. Approach B, on the other
hand, does not confront the budget problem in a direct and efficient manner, and ultimately requires
more reductions in all areas of city operation than is necessary. Approach A would therefore appear to
be the most prudent approach for the city to take.

Possible Targets

Decisions must also be made with regard to the targets of spending cuts. The following two general
approaches are both financially feasible.

A1: In this approach, the city would treat all departments with proportionality and respect. Specifically,
the city could reduce the current budgets of the Police Department, Library, Museum, and most
other areas of city operations by a fixed percent, one that is applied in a more-or-less identical
fashion to each of the affected areas. Although such an approach would not undo the scheduled
increases to pay and pensions of the Police Department, and would therefore still leave that
department with an increasing share of the new city budget (49% in five years rather than the
current 41%), the Library and Museum, although less robust than in previous years (with under 6%
of the smaller budget), would still be able to survive on a full-time basis.
B1: Or, in this approach, the Police Department (the city's largest area of operation, with 41% of the
current budget) would ostensibly face expenditure reductions of $5.3 million over the next five
years. But since the department is also scheduled for contractual compounding pay raises and
increasing pension fund contributions of approximately $2 million in the coming year (and a like
amount in each subsequent year), its estimated budget five years out will not only not decrease in
this time of crisis, but will grow to the rather stunning figure of approximately $28.8 million. This
would amount to 57% of the estimated 2014-15 General Fund budget ($50.1 million). This approach
of course takes a very tough stance with most other departments, especially including the Library
 and Museum (together with less than 7% of the current budget), both of which will be completely
closed within one year as a result of the removal of all funding.

Comments: Approach A1 would appear to be the more far-sighted and well-rounded one for a city
that wishes to place as much value on its most gentle and civilizing qualities as it does on its ability to
exert the force of law. Best of all, Approach A1 would still leave Troy with a large and eminently
capable police force funded by approximately 49% of city revenues.

Recent Actions of City Leadership

1. In 2008 the Police Department was awarded a contract guaranteeing pay raises for most officers
during Fiscal 2010-11 and Fiscal 2011-12. In fact, city leaders budgeted a combination of compounding
pay raises and pension funding increases of approximately $2 million annually (largely within the police
department) for each year through Fiscal 2014-15. These compounding increases, built in to the city's
ostensible five year expenditure reduction plan, constitute approximately $32 million of the coming $82
million budget shortfall.

2. Even more surprisingly, these increases were hidden within the summary portion of a page titled
"Option 1 Savings" appearing in the October, 2009 report titled the "City of Troy Six-Year Organizational
Restructuring Plan" (http://www.troymLgov/PresentationOn6YearOrgRestructPlan.pdf). The Option 1
Savings page leaves the reader with the entirely incorrect impression that the Police Department is in
line for net reductions in departmental expenditures of $5.3 million over the next five years. The
accurate information is that the police will be experiencing a net increase in expenditures during this
time of crisis and layoffs.

3. In the months leading up to the failed millage election in February, city leaders inexplicably chose to
describe the future five year budget shortfall as only $22 million rather than the more accurate and
stunning figure of $82 million. When struggling voters saw a stated deficit in the rather modest size of
$22 million - in a five year operating budget totaling approximately $300 million - they were at first
confused by the City's inability to solve the problem with relatively minor budget cuts, and then
outraged by a proposed tax increase worth an unexplained $44 million over the five years.

4. At the same time that most voters were unknowingly confused regarding the size of future deficits,
city leaders decided that the best way to induce citizen cooperation at the ballot box was to threaten
severe and seemingly punitive spending cuts should voters turn down the millage. Previously described
budget Approaches Band B1 (the least efficient options in their respective categories) were combined
into Budget Option 1 (URL listed above), and the library was put on the chopping block pending
outcome of the millage. A similar but somewhat more well-rounded budget plan, known as Option 2,
was rejected by the Council in favor of Option 1.

5. Other budget-balancing options, not presented to the Council for consideration by the City Manager
(identified as Hyland-Meyer Options 3 and 3A, and fully described later in this report), combine what
would appear to be the best approaches from the previously listed decision categories: proportionality
and fairness. Both of these options would have saved a full-time library and museum and, additionally,
Option 3A, which moves all cuts forward to Year One, would have caused only slightly more "five year
pain" to the Police Department than the Council's own Option 1. And this "pain" would seemingly be
more than offset by the contractually-obligated future pay raises and pension expenses for the
department! To have not even considered an option similar to 3 or 3A would appear to have been a
serious misstep by city leadership.

6. Even those few voters who understood the true size of the city's fiscal problem undoubtedly felt that
the so-called "quality of life" cuts in Option 1 were an unnecessarily aggressive and manipulative
approach to budget-balancing, and found themselves with an additional reason to reject the millage
increase.

7. After the millage went down to defeat, the Mayor inexplicably described the election outcome as a
statement by voters that they wanted to maintain their strong commitment to public safety. Many
citizens scratched their head at this unusual attempt to spin the result in a manner that seemed to
paper over and/or ignore so much of what had come before.

8. As of this date the Council is within a few hours of finalizing its plans to institute most of the Option 1
cuts beginning July 1.

A Last Hour Plea for Calm and Open-Minded Deliberation by the City Council

Although time is running short, it is not too late for the Council to reconsider decisions that appear to
have been made in haste. The City of Troy has historically existed - happily and successfully - with
budgets of the size anticipated over the next five years ($58 to $50 million), while managing to have a
full-time library, an effective police force, and reasonable roads - all at the same time.

Citizens of a like mind with the authors of this report respectfully request that the City Council start over
with an open mind and a clean piece of paper when making decisions that can so negatively impact
most of our citizens - and all of the youngest, most thoughtful, and most gentle members of the
community - for many years to come. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Full numerical underpinnings for the five year projected budget deficit and the various choices facing the
city have been presented in the following pages.
 Specifics of the
Five Year Revenue Shortfall
 Option 1Savings
Incl ud ing Cuts to Pol ice and Fire
Department 2010/11 Savings 2011/12 Savings 2012/13 Savings 2013/14 Savings 2014/15 Savings
City Manager
City Attorney 1 $130,000
City Clerk 4 $147,000
Community Affairs 6 $240,000
Human Resources 3 $95,000
Building Inspection 17 $959,400
Enginee ring 15 $375,200
Accting/ Risk Man 2.5 $176,000
Assessing 5 $365,000
Purchasing 2 $168,000
Treasury 0.5 $30,000
Library 39 $1,000,000 69 $2,663,000
Museum 10 $315,000 1 $110,000
RE&D 2 $184,000
P&R 17 $1,654,719 12 $1,550,000
Nature Center 7 $270,000 1 $92,000
Police $160,000 4 $290,000 29 $3,173,000 14 $1,687,000
DPW 2.5 $155,000 10 $320,000 31 $939,000
City Donations $200,000
Longevity $540,000
Fire $34,000 1 $72,000 3 $274,000
4 Day Work Week 0 $2,700,000
TOTALS 124.5 $6.214.319 1Q§ $6.009.000 30 $3.245.000 48 $2.900.000 Q $2.700.000
Full Time 60.5 39 29 31 Total Layoffs: 159.5
Part Time 64 67 1 17 149
Revenue $ 58.1 $ 54.3 $ 53.1 $ 52.2 $ 51.5
Expen d it u res $ 64.3 $ 60.3 $ 56.3 $ 55.1 54.2
1$
Proposed Cuts $ (6.2) $ (6.0) $ (3.2) $ (2.9) (2.7)
Total $ 58.1 $ 54.3 $ 53.1 $ 52.2 I~ 51.5
Fund Balance $ 10.5 $ 10.5 $ 10.5 $ 10.5 $ 10.5
FIB % of Budget 18.1% 19.3% 19.8% 20.1% 20.4%

26
"No Change in Services" 5-Year Budget Summary
This is a reformulation of the summary section appearing at the bottom of the previous page, demonstrating an actual $82 m five-year budget shortfall
Anticipated revenue figures have been adjusted to match revised city estimates of April, 2010

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Five Year Totals

Anticipated Revenues 57,800,000 52,200,000 50,100,000 50,100,000 50,100,000 260,300,000

Expenditures ("frozen" at 2009-10 levels) 62,100,000 62,100,000 62,100,000 62,100,000 62,100,000 310,500,000

Built-in (and accumulating) increases 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000

2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000
2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
2,000,000 2,000,000
2,000,000 31,800,000

"No change in services" Expenditures 64,300,000 66,500,000 68,500,000 70,500,000 72,500,000 342,300,000

"No change in services" Annual Deficits (6,500,OOO) (14,300,000) (18,400,000) (20,400,000) (22,400,000) (82,000,000 )

Annual (and accumulating) cuts needed 6,500,000 6,500,000 6,500,000 6,500,000 6,500,000
7,800,000 7,800,000 7,800,000 7,800,000
4,100,000 4,100,000 4,100,000
2,000,000 2,000,000
2,000,000 82,000,000

accumulated
savings
resulting from
$22,400,000
in timed cuts
 Two New Potential Solutions
Described and Analyzed Numerically
 Description of New Solutions Available to the City
numerical analysis on following pages

Proposed Option 3

Total of five year departmental reductions = $22.4 million

Cumulative Five Year Deficit Offset = $82.0 million
Scenario: Staggered timing of cuts, but with impact uniformly applied to most
departments in each year in a manner proportional to current size of department;
Library and Museum remain open on a reduced-scale but full-time basis

Proposed Option 3A

Total of five year departmental reductions = $16.4 million

(73% of each department's five year Option 3 cuts)
Cumulative Five Year Deficit Offset = $82.0 million
Scenario: All Option 3 cuts for the five years moved forward (at 73%) and enacted in Year One;
Library and Museum remain open on a reduced-scale but full-time basis
Proposed Option 3 using revised revenue estimates
Total of five year departmental reductions = $22.4 m, Cumulative Five Year Deficit Offset = $82.0 m
Scenario: Departments impacted on a staggered basis,annually, and generally in proportion to their current size.
Library and museum remain open on a reduced scale, full-time basis

a b c d e a+b+c+d+e Sa+4b+3c+2d+e
Cumulative
Share of Applicable Total of Five Year
City Budget ** initial cuts further cuts further cuts further cuts further cuts All Cuts Deficit
2009-10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 5 Year Period Offset

Police 0.4460 2,072,341 3,478,488 1,828,436 891,920 891,920 9,163,105 32,436,725

Fire 0.0787 365,620 613,704 322,588 157,360 157,360 1,616,632 5,722,760
Building Inspection na 1,056,777 0 0 0 0 1,056,777 5,283,885

Library 0.0647 300,842 504,972 265,434 129,480 129,480 1,330,208 4,708,840

Museum 0.0093 43,263 72,618 38,171 18,620 18,620 191,292 677,160
Parks and Recreation 0.1563 726,453 1,219,374 640,953 312,660 312,660 3,212,100 11,370,600

Roads and Streets 0.1012 470,315 789,438 414,961 202,420 202,420 2,079,554 7,361,470
Engineering na 462,423 0 0 0 0 462,423 2,312,115

Council/Exec. Adm. 0.0660 306,464 514,410 270,395 131,900 131,900 1,355,069 4,796,845
Finance 0.0557 258,741 434,304 228,288 111,360 111,360 1,144,053 4,049,865
RE&D na 485,900 0 0 0 0 485,900 2,429,500
Planning na (152,021) 0 0 0 0 (152,021) (760,105)
Other 0.0222 102,929 172,770 90,815 44,300 44,300 455,114 1,611,070

1.0000 6,500,047 7,800,078 4,100,041 2,000,020 2,000,020 22,400,206 82,000,730

**Note: Building Inspection, Engineering, RE& 0, and Planning have been impacted entirely in Year One and in a non-proportional manner.
Proportional cuts to all other departments based on their fraction of the remaining budget.
Proposed Option 3A using revised revenue estimates (requires only 73% of Option 3 Cuts)
Total of five year departmental reductions = $16.4 m, Cumulative Five Year Deficit Offset = $82.0 m
Scenario: All departments impacted entirely in Year One; most departments impacted in proportion to their current budget size.
Library and museum remain open on a reduced scale, full-time basis.

a b c d e a+b+c+d+e Sa+4b+3c+2d+e
Cumulative
Share of Applicable Total of Five Year
City Budget ** initiaI cuts further cuts further cuts further cuts further cuts All Cuts Deficit
2009-10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 5 Year Period Offset

Police 0.4460 6,487,345 0 0 0 0 6,487,345 32,436,725

Fire 0.0787 1,144,552 0 0 0 0 1,144,552 5,722,760
Building Inspection na 1,056,777 0 0 0 0 1,056,777 5,283,885

Library 0.0647 941,768 0 0 0 0 941,768 4,708,840

Museum 0.0093 135,432 0 0 0 0 135,432 677,160
Parksand Recreation 0.1563 2,274,120 0 0 0 0 2,274,120 11,370,600

Roadsand Streets 0.1012 1,472,294 0 0 0 0 1,472,294 7,361,470

Engineering na 462,423 0 0 0 0 462,423 2,312,115

Council/Exec. Adm. 0.0660 959,369 0 0 0 0 959,369 4,796,845

Finance 0.0557 809,973 0 0 0 0 809,973 4,049,865
RE&D na 485,900 0 0 0 0 485,900 2,429,500
Planning na (152,021) 0 0 0 0 (152,021) (760,105)
Other 0.0222 322,214 0 0 0 0 322,214 1,611,070

1.0000 16,400,146 0 0 0 0 16,400,146 82,000,730

**Note: Building Inspection, Engineering, RE& 0, and Planning have been impacted non-proportionately.
Proportional cuts to all other departments based on their fraction of the remaining budget.
 Supplemental Data
Highlights

General Fund Components

1984-2013

Inflation-Adjusted General Fund Expenditures

1984-2013

Inflation-Adjusted General Fund Expenditures, per Capita

1984-2013
 Highlights from the Supplemental Pages

Supplemental Table 1- General Fund Components, 1984-2013

For Fiscal Years 1984-2010, the sources of data are the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports of the city. For Fiscal
Years 2011-13, the source of data is the city's three-year rolling budget as revised in the fall of 2010.

Supplemental Table 2

Inflation-Adjusted General Fund Expenditures

(full supporting data presented in an associated document)

Fiscal 1984-2010 (average) Fiscal 2013 (budgeted)

in 2010 dollars in 2010 dollars

$26.40 million Public Safety $30.29 million Public Safety

7.54 General Government 7.71 General Government
6.40 Parks and Recreation 6.91 Parks and Recreation
4.35 Streets 4.73 Streets
3.81 Engineering 1.95 Engineering
3.56 Library and Museum 0.17 Library and Museum (closed)

$52,07 million Total GF Expenditures $51.76 million Total GF Expenditures

(1) the inflation-adjusted average budget of the past 27 years is almost precisely the size of the "crisis-level" 2013 budget;
(2) the city always managed to function effectively within its budget limitations during this long period, including during a
number of years when expenditure levels were considerably lower in inflation-adjusted dollars than they will be in the
next few years; (3) specifically, throughout the entire period 1984-2010, the city had enough money to fund well-rounded
services in all areas of municipal activity, including a fully-functioning police department and a fully-functioning library;
(4) despite our current time of crisis, the 2013 budget categories of General Government, Parks and Recreation, and
Street Maintenance will still be funded between 2 and 9% above 1984-2010 levels; (5) even more surprising, the Police
Department has to this point been allowed to retain nearly all of its employees and all of its (impressive) compensation
packages (including full overtime privileges!), (6) even assuming that all scheduled police job cuts actually occur in 2012
and 2013, the department will by 2013 be sitting on a net spending boost of $3.89 million (nearly 15%) over adjusted
1984-2010 levels; (7) this special handling (and dollar increase) for the police has come almost completely out of the
pocket of the city's soon-to-be-shuttered cultural/educational center (that is, the library);

Supplemental Table 3

Inflation-Adjusted General Fund Expenditures, per capita

(full supporting data presented in an associated document)

Fiscal 1984-2010 (average) Fiscal 2013 (budgeted)

in 2010 dollars in 2010 dollars

$341 Public Safety $374 Public Safety

97 General Government 95 General Government
82 Parks and Recreation 85 Parks and Recreation
56 Streets 58 Streets
50 Engineering 24 Engineering
45 Library and Museum 2 Library and Museum (closed)

$671 Total GF Expenditures $639 Total GF Expenditures

2013 equalized per capita revenue shortfall = ($671 - $639) x 81,000 residents = $2,6 million

In other words ... when adjusted for both changes in inflation and population, the city's 2013 budget will have fallen
demonstrably below historical levels - by a figure of approximately $2,6 million. This constitutes a reasonable and
precise justification for a small increase in General Fund millage rates.
City of Troy General Fund Components
1984-2013, with 2011-13 based on city budget figures (http:/ /www.troymi.gov/finance/3YearBudgetFaIl2010Update.pdf)
component figures in $ millions

Gen Fund public % of general %of parks %of %of library %of %of
fiscal total exp safety GF exp govt GF exp rec GF exp streets GF exp museum GF exp engin GF exp

2013 52.28 30.59 58.5% 7.79 14.9% 6.98 13.4% 4.78 9.1% 0.17 0.3% 1.97 3.8%
2012 54.34 32.44 59.7% 7.72 14.2% 6.96 12.8% 5.10 9.4% 0.17 0.3% 1.96 3.6%
2011 57.80 32.21 55.7% 8.26 14.3% 7.52 13.0% 5.38 9.3% 2.48 4.3% 1.95 3.4%
2010 58.58 30.90 52.7% 8.56 14.6% 8.33 14.2% 4.84 8.3% 3.91 6.7% 2.04 3.5%
2009 62.25 31.04 49.9% 9.17 14.7% 9.65 15.5% 5.69 9.1% 4.17 6.7% 2.53 4.1%
2008 62.66 30.76 49.1% 9.18 14.7% 9.61 15.3% 5.60 8.9% 4.83 7.7% 2.68 4.3%
2007 59.54 29.58 49.7% 9.12 15.3% 8.60 14.4% 4.75 8.0% 4.81 8.1% 2.68 4.5%
2006 57.94 27.97 48.3% 9.00 15.5% 8.60 14.8% 4.75 8.2% 4.78 8.2% 2.84 4.9%
2005 57.30 27.20 47.5% 8.98 15.7% 8.51 14.9% 5.07 8.8% 4.76 8.3% 2.78 4.9%
2004 54.90 26.31 47.9% 8.62 15.7% 7.97 14.5% 4.68 8.5% 4.55 8.3% 2.77 5.0%
2003 52.83 25.23 47.8% 8.18 15.5% 7.42 14.0% 4.93 9.3% 4.47 8.5% 2.60 4.9%
2002 49.71 24.72 49.7% 7.57 15.2% 6.25 12.6% 3.32 6.7% 4.04 8.1% 3.81 7.7%
2001 45.70 22.79 49.9% 7.10 15.5% 5.79 12.7% 3.46 7.6% 3.20 7.0% 3.36 7.4%
2000 42.47 21.61 50.9% 6.49 15.3% 5.61 13.2% 2.96 7.0% 2.78 6.5% 3.02 7.1%
1999 41.86 21.59 51.6% 6.34 15.1% 5.48 13.1% 3.12 7.5% 2.59 6.2% 2.74 6.5%
1998 39.42 20.82 52.8% 5.69 14.4% 4.59 11.6% 2.79 7.1% 2.70 6.8% 2.83 7.2%
1997 38.21 19.95 52.2% 5.18 13.6% 4.28 11.2% 2.93 7.7% 2.44 6.4% 3.43 9.0%
1996 36.14 19.32 53.5% 4.78 13.2% 3.79 10.5% 2.82 7.8% 2.36 6.5% 3.07 8.5%
1995 34.22 18.15 53.0% 4.74 13.9% 3.58 10.5% 2.52 7.4% 2.18 6.4% 3.05 8.9%
1994 33.37 17.48 52.4% 4.77 14.3% 3.43 10.3% 2.48 7.4% 2.13 6.4% 3.08 9.2%
1993 32.37 16.72 51.7% 4.81 14.9% 3.28 10.1% 2.49 7.7% 2.05 6.3% 3.02 9.3%
1992 31.46 16.64 52.9% 4.24 13.5% 3.18 10.1% 2.57 8.2% 1.98 6.3% 2.85 9.1%
1991 29.31 15.19 51.8% 3.99 13.6% 3.12 10.6% 2.49 8.5% 1.81 6.2% 2.71 9.2%
1990 26.31 13.56 51.5% 3.40 12.9% 2.76 10.5% 2.36 9.0% 1.63 6.2% 2.60 9.9%
1989 24.09 12.62 52.4% 3.13 13.0% 2.48 10.3% 1.94 8.1% 1.52 6.3% 2.40 10.0%
1988 23.38 11.88 50.8% 3.20 13.7% 2.26 9.7% 2.18 9.3% 1.39 5.9% 2.47 10.6%
1987 21.52 11.20 52.0% 2.79 13.0% 2.13 9.9% 2.05 9.5% 1.17 5.4% 2.18 10.1%
1986 20.21 10.42 51.6% 2.60 12.9% 1.90 9.4% 2.14 10.6% 1.04 5.1% 2.11 10.4%
1985 18.07 9.11 50.4% 2.51 13.9% 1.67 9.2% 2.07 11.5% 0.82 4.5% 1.89 10.5%
1984 16.73 8.22 49.1% 2.42 14.5% 1.67 10.0% 1.74 10.4% 0.79 4.7% 1.89 11.3%
Inflation-Adjusted Components
Source: (PI multipliers - http:/ /www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm (February 13, 2011)

General Fund public general parks library

2010 CPI total exp safety govt rec streets museum engin
fiscal multiplier in 2010 $ in 2010 $ in 2010 $ in 2010 $ in 2010 $ in 2010 $ in 2010 $

2013 0.99007 51.76 30.29 7.71 6.91 4.73 0.17 1.95

2012 0.99337 53.98 32.22 7.67 6.91 5.07 0.17 1.95
2011 0.99668 57.61 32.10 8.23 7.50 5.36 2.47 1.94
2010 1.00000 58.58 30.90 8.56 8.33 4.84 3.91 2.04
2009 1.01640 63.27 31.55 9.32 9.81 5.78 4.24 2.57
2008 1.01279 63.46 31.15 9.30 9.73 5.67 4.89 2.71
2007 1.05167 62.62 31.11 9.59 9.04 5.00 5.06 2.82
2006 1.08163 62.67 30.25 9.73 9.30 5.14 5.17 3.07
2005 1.11652 63.98 30.37 10.03 9.50 5.66 5.31 3.10
2004 1.15435 63.37 30.37 9.95 9.20 5.40 5.25 3.20
2003 1.18509 62.61 29.90 9.69 8.79 5.84 5.30 3.08
2002 1.21210 60.25 29.96 9.18 7.58 4.02 4.90 4.62
2001 1.23126 56.27 28.06 8.74 7.13 4.26 3.94 4.14
2000 1.26630 53.78 27.36 8.22 7.10 3.75 3.52 3.82
1999 1.30886 54.79 28.26 8.30 7.17 4.08 3.39 3.59
1998 1.33777 52.73 27.85 7.61 6.14 3.73 3.61 3.79
1997 1.35860 51.91 27.10 7.04 5.81 3.98 3.31 4.66
1996 1.38978 50.23 26.85 6.64 5.27 3.92 3.28 4.27
1995 1.43081 48.96 25.97 6.78 5.12 3.61 3.12 4.36
1994 1.47136 49.10 25.72 7.02 5.05 3.65 3.13 4.53
1993 1.50904 48.85 25.23 7.26 4.95 3.76 3.09 4.56
1992 1.55421 48.90 25.86 6.59 4.94 3.99 3.08 4.43
1991 1.60100 46.93 24.32 6.39 5.00 3.99 2.90 4.34
1990 1.66837 43.89 22.62 5.67 4.60 3.94 2.72 4.34
1989 1.75852 42.36 22.19 5.50 4.36 3.41 2.67 4.22
1988 1.84325 43.10 21.90 5.90 4.17 4.02 2.56 4.55
1987 1.91951 41.31 21.50 5.36 4.09 3.93 2.25 4.18
1986 1.98956 40.21 20.73 5.17 3.78 4.26 2.07 4.20
1985 2.02654 36.62 18.46 5.09 3.38 4.19 1.66 3.83
1984 2.09871 35.11 17.25 5.08 3.50 3.65 1.66 3.97

1984-2010 averages (2010 $) 52.07 26.40 7.54 6.40 4.35 3.56 3.81
Inflation-Adjusted Components, per capita
Annual populationfiguresinterpolatedfrom US Census Bureau figures:
1980 (67,102);1990 (72,884),2000 (80,959)

General Fund public general parks library

fiscal population totalexp safety govt rec streets museum engin

2013 81000 639 374 95 85 58 2 24

2012 81000 666 398 95 85 63 2 24
2011 81000 711 396 102 93 66 30 24
2010 81000 723 381 106 103 60 48 25
2009 81000 781 390 115 121 71 52 32
2008 81000 783 385 115 120 70 60 33
2007 81000 773 384 118 112 62 62 35
2006 81000 774 373 120 115 63 64 38
2005 81000 790 375 124 117 70 66 38
2004 81000 782 375 123 114 67 65 40
2003 81000 773 369 120 109 72 65 38
2002 81000 744 370 113 94 50 60 57
2001 81000 695 346 108 88 53 49 51
2000 80959 664 338 102 88 46 43 47
1999 80152 684 353 104 89 51 42 45
1998 79345 665 351 96 77 47 45 48
1997 78538 661 345 90 74 51 42 59
1996 77731 646 345 85 68 50 42 55
1995 76924 636 338 88 67 47 41 57
1994 76117 645 338 92 66 48 41 60
1993 75310 649 335 96 66 50 41 61
1992 74503 656 347 88 66 54 41 59
1991 73696 637 330 87 68 54 39 59
1990 72884 602 310 78 63 54 37 60
1989 72306 586 307 76 60 47 37 58
1988 71728 601 305 82 58 56 36 63
1987 71150 581 302 75 57 55 32 59
1986 70572 570 294 73 54 60 29 60
1985 69994 523 264 73 48 60 24 55
1984 69416 506 249 73 50 53 24 57

1984-2010 averages (2010 $) 671 341 97 82 56 45 50