Champaign ends second straight fiscal year in black

Champaign ends second straight fiscal year in black

CHAMPAIGN — The city of Champaign finished the year in the black again as it continues to pull itself out from several years of heavy spending cuts and some revenue increases.

According to the financial report that city council members will review this week, the city ended its previous fiscal year on June 30, 2012, with revenues of $103.5 million and expenses of $103.4 million.

That puts the city up $100,000, and it marks the second straight year that it finished in the black.

The Champaign City Council will review the numbers when it meets at 7 p.m. Tuesday in the Champaign City Building, 102 N. Neil St.

The report is part of a comprehensive review of city finances that auditors conduct each year. This year, the auditor gave the city a "clean opinion," and found only "non-material" weaknesses in its accounting and control systems.

The numbers do not mean the city is out of the woods. In the past two years, the council has incrementally raised property-tax rates just to maintain the same revenues as previous years as property values fell.

The increases in the previous fiscal year, according to a memo to the city council, are attributable primarily to increases in sales-tax and income-tax revenues.

Sections (2):News, Local

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ajbuckle wrote on January 07, 2013 at 8:01 am

My highest gratitude to our city council for keeping us on a sane and sustainable fiscal track!  This is a rare acheivement anywhere, but especially here in Illinois where budgets are often run with insane profligacy.  This is to be highly commended!


Great work Champaign City Council!  You should be running the whole state!



parkmymeterelsewhere wrote on January 07, 2013 at 1:01 pm

Our highest gratitude to the City; they spent 300,000 on a sidewalk heater in front of their own door so that building employees don't fall on their *** while all other adjacent sidewalks are littered with butts, vomit, parking meters, and have driven 50% of taxpayers (who pay for these self-seving perks) from usage of the downtown area.  Our empty hats off to all of you.

SaintClarence27 wrote on January 07, 2013 at 2:01 pm

You do understand that the liability issues involved would be significantly more expensive, right? One slip and fall worker's comp case can be more than 300,000.

helpful-info wrote on January 07, 2013 at 4:01 pm

I checked on this when the story first came out as I thought this was a high cost as well--I think it was local TV news.  Turns out the facts of the news story were wrong.  The streetscape project and additional repairs in downtown were $317,000.  The equipment, installation and labor for the snow melt system were included in that cost at a cost of about $120,000.  Staff did a calculation to show that the labor and chemical cost was roughly equivalent and also more environmentally friendly.  They also pointed out that they view the most important function of this entry way is for public functions and meeting in the Council Chambers--i.e. the peoples meeting hall. They wanted the plaza to be convenient and safe for the public visitors--some of whom are disabled.  The convenience to City workers was not a primary driver behind the design choice.


SaintClarence27 wrote on January 07, 2013 at 4:01 pm

Relevant avatar.

parkmymeterelsewhere wrote on January 07, 2013 at 7:01 pm

While the rest of the tax paying "Avatars" are treated without heated sidewalks where countless slip- uppers tread as second class peon citizens outside the gilded palace in between the parking deck and endless meters.

relevant post-avatar

SaintClarence27 wrote on January 08, 2013 at 8:01 am

You do understand that the measure is cost-effective, and therefore doesn't waste taxpayer money, right?

parkmymeterelsewhere wrote on January 08, 2013 at 8:01 pm

yes-- cost and effect; effect and cost ; when will the taxpayer be able to hold the level of accountability of SPENDING to benefit all?  AFFECTATION is more accurate.

SaintClarence27 wrote on January 09, 2013 at 8:01 am

Seriously, it would help if you could write more clearly - your opinions might hold more sway.

parkmymeterelsewhere wrote on January 09, 2013 at 3:01 pm

ABC; 123; +-; dollar and cents

self-serving government 101