Crestwood officials last fall projected the city would end 2006 with slightly more than $1 million in revenues over expenditures. But based on preliminary reports, that balance in the city’s three major funds totaled more than $1.8 million.

The city collected roughly $13,435,909 in 2006 in all three of its major funds — general, capital improvements and park and stormwater, according to a preliminary 2006 financial report. In those same three funds, the city spent an estimated $11,624,017. The difference between those revenues and expenditures leaves a total balance of $1,811,892.

As for the city’s total assets and liabilities out of all three major funds, balances in each of the city’s three major funds show a total fund balance of $718,844.

Assistant City Administrator Justina Tate said those total assets and liabilities include such assets as cash, cash receivables and prepaid accounts and liabilities including, but not limited to, accounts payable and accrued salaries.

A final 2006 financial report will be presented to aldermen once an audit of last year’s financial activity is complete.

Tate said it is the city’s goal to have less than five audit adjustments made to the 2006 budget. According to Mayor Roy Robinson, the city’s 2005 budget had more than 80 audit adjustments.

In December, aldermen approved a 2007 budget with an overall surplus of $167,353. Of that surplus, $165,364 of those savings are projected to come from the general fund. The city’s capital-improvements fund is budgeted for a surplus of $1,872, and the city’s park and stormwater fund is budgeted for a surplus of $118.

Of the three funds, the administration has budgeted $13,721,685 in revenue for 2007 — $285,776 more than the estimated revenue collected from all three funds in 2006.

Total expenditures from all three funds this year are budgeted at $13,554,332, which is more than $1.9 million over what was estimated as spent in 2006.

As for 2006, City Administrator Frank Myers said the preliminary financial report for last year is indicative of the financial im-provement the city made compared to 2005.

“The city has made a significant shift from the way it has been operating in the past,” Myers said. “If you look at the 2005 audit and the 2004 audit, number one, those audits, because of challenges we were facing in our accounting office, we couldn’t have given the board this type of report a year ago with any type of certainty that the numbers were correct. We’ve made major strides in just the way we’re accounting for our numbers …

“Secondly, the city engaged in a practice where revenues were not meeting budget and spending was exceeding budget and then borrowing was having to take place in the form of a short-term note and ultimately a line of credit to balance the books … What we have effectively done in 2006 is we’ve completely reversed that trend. Our revenues have exceeded budget, allowing us to have more cash on hand. And our spending has been below budget. It’s had a multiple effect of improving our cash position. And we’ve achieved that in all three of our funds.”

In the preliminary 2006 financial report, total general-fund current assets at the end of the year were $4,036,482 as opposed to $2,327,151 for 2005. Total liabilities in the general fund were $4,253,620 as opposed to $3,794,103 at the end of 2005. The total fund balance in the general fund was a loss of $217,138 as compared to a loss of $1,466,952 by the close of 2005.

The capital-improvements fund had $1,328,368 in assets at the end of 2006 as opposed to $696,054 at the end of 2005.

Liabilities as of Dec. 31 were at $39,429, which is less than the $204,429 in liabilities in the capital-improvements fund for 2005. That difference in liabilities created a larger fund balance in the capital-improvements fund in 2006 than 2005. The city reported a $1,288,939 fund balance in the capital-improvements fund at the end of 2006 as opposed to a $491,625 balance in that fund at the close of 2005.

The city’s park and stormwater fund had $847,440 in assets at the end of 2006 compared to $659,464 in assets at the end of 2005. The city also had more liabilities in the park and stormwater fund at the end of 2006 than it did in 2005. At the close of 2006, the city reported $1,200,397 in liabilities compared to $1,128,278 in liabilities at the end of 2005. The park and stormwater fund’s total balance for the end of 2006 was a loss of $352,957 compared to a loss of $468,814 at the close of 2005.

The city collected $9,479,839 in 2006 in its general fund — more than $1 million higher in revenue than the $8,423,246 that was budgeted for 2006. Based on those numbers, the city collected 113 percent of its budgeted revenue in the general fund.

Tate said that funds from Proposition S, a property-tax increase of 20 cents per $100 of assessed valuation approved in April by 61 percent of Crestwood voters, generated an estimated $509,000 in revenue — roughly 5 percent of the general fund — in 2006. Monies from that fund, which is being used to pay off a $2.86 million annual-appropriation note with Royal Banks of Missouri, originally were expected to generate $520,000 per year.

Expenditures in the city’s general fund in 2006 were an estimated $8,554,851 out of its budgeted amount of $8,888,637.

In the capital-improvements fund, the city collected $1,476,920 in revenue in 2006. That fell short of the budgeted amount last year in that fund of $1,599,562.

However, the city spent less than the $862,532 budgeted in its capital-improvements fund. According to reports, the city spent $767,677 in that fund in 2006.

In the park and stormwater fund, the city collected $2,479,150. It had budgeted $2,553,603. Expenses in that fund show that the city spent $2,331,489 last year out of the $2,490,571 in expenses that was budgeted in the park/stormwater fund.

Reflecting on the city’s finances, Robinson said while the city’s financial condition allows for future purchases like new police vehicles and a new communication system, city officials still have more work to do.

“I know there’s people who will say: ‘Why are you buying cars? Why are you buying this?'” he said. “I’ll just tell you, hey, we’re a city back on track. We’ve done without for many years, and things have gotten bad be-cause of that. And we have to rebuild our infrastructure and we’ve got to rebuild our fleets. I wasn’t happy with doing it all in one swoop or one fast method. However, I think if it saves dollars in doing so, then we have to look at what the savings are … I’m really proud of what the city’s done so far, but we’re not finished. We’ve got a long road to go. I’ll be happy when the Prop S is paid off and the aquatic center’s paid off. Then we’ll know for a fact that we’re on solid ground.

“But those are like anything else. You’ve got to wait until you get them paid off. And I think as our business community starts rebuilding back, too, we’ll have the cash flow to do what we’re doing. And we’re happy.”