Bud Addison Wednesday morning, February 11, 2009, at City Hall, Columbia City Council member Kirkman Finlay III said it straight: "Let's make sure we understand this. From the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002, until the end of the fiscal year 2006- 2007, we have it on audited books, finally, that the City of Columbia spent about $39 million more than it took in. As it appears for the unaudited fiscal year 2007- 2008 we are burning another $11 million more than we are collecting. That's $50 million. In seven years we spent $50 million more than we took in."

The certain $39 million in overspending, the audited profligacy, was determined once the 2006- 2007 books were audited. During the auditing process, with the help of the Municipal Association of South Carolina, the city's 2006- 2007 books experienced another 150 new journal entries necessary to follow basic and legal accounting procedures.

Bud Addison, senior audit manager for Webster Rogers LLP, the city's accounting firm auditing its recent books, openly agreed with Finlay, but Addison warned it could be until May, at the earliest, before the audit on fiscal year 2007- 2008 was final.

Kirkman Finlay III Then it got worse. Finlay declared about 75 percent of the city's near- $100 million budget goes to basic services, city responsibilities that really shouldn't be cut. But the current year, 2008- 2009, appears to be heading for a $6 million overrun. That's $6 million more being spent than the city is taking in.

The $6 million in overruns, so far, needs to come out of the city budget's non- basic- services domain, allowing basic services to at least continue as they are. But, Finlay wondered, how can the city take $6 million out of the 25 percent of the budget left to be cut, particularly in a year of unpredictable but likely less revenues?

"This needs to stop!" declared council member Daniel Rickenmann.

Just to make it really hurt, the city's settlement with Richland County over a tax- increment- financing disagreement could run as high as another $6 million. City council plans to take the settlement out of the city's water and sewer funds.

Near the end of the meeting, just before adjournment to relocate in the conference room for a behind- closed- doors executive session, Finlay distributed some accounting of his own. Over a 10- year period, 1997- 2007, the city's budget increased by 116 percent, but public safety spending increased by only 51 percent; public services, only 49 percent. In the same decade, nondepartmental spending went up 814 percent, and debt service, 280 percent.

Finlay asked, is there any wonder why the city has a crime problem plus a litany of complaints about underfunded public services, and still a money problem?

Council member Tameika Isaac Devine responded with the proportional approach: public safety and public services combined amounted to more than half the budget 10 years ago, so they should suffer slower spending growth than the rest.

But what used to be more than half the city's budget spending in 1997 became less than 40 percent of the budget by 2007. In other words, public safety and public services diminished in importance at City Hall over the 10- year period while spending spiraled out of hand.