Columbus Report Budget

Name:

Tutor:

Course:

Date:

Columbus Report Budget

Question 1

The 2010 City of Columbus, Ohio budgetary presentation on Community Development was to enable abject progress in order to increase the responsibilities while focusing on the governmental functions. It was evidenced by $ 6.8 billion of the total federal allocation as compared to actual and variance amounts. The grants based ion community development was to provide ranges of development projects through uplifting the lives of each city for example through parking lots, repairs of the streets and enhanced affordable housing. Assistance was necessary for the homeless in the city, target of the low-income earners as well as those living with HIV/Aids in the society. In addition, increasing of integrated approaches that are facilitated towards suitable environments for living, expand the existing and targeted economic opportunities, partnerships for necessary thrust of responsibilities into private sector and the non-profit organizations.     

Question 2

There was different expenditure in the federal entity on community development. In the current expenditure, personal services, material services, and contractual entities covered the first basis of the allocations. They were represented by a total of $ 607673 of the total allocation in terms of the city’s projections and national cut (Dorrian 1). The second expenditure entity was for development in terms of the director, personalized and contractual services. It was represented by $1.179 billion of the total allocation. Code enforcement and housing presented the last two expenditure entities under the community development type. The statistical representation was realized through $1.02 B and $ 2.08 Billion of the same allocation (Dorrian 1). The balances and deficits from the four types of expenditure entities cover the agendas for differential development needs according to their priority. Thus the actual cuts and variance, either positive or negative, are determined.   

Question 3

Housing entity in the budgetary expenditure allocation was the most important as evidence by 43% of the total projections. According to the community development act, housing instituted the low-income earners and the homeless. It was vital especially for grants through emergency shelters, supportive programs, and care requirements for the city. The funding would be realized through equitable provision of shelter for all. Economic development had 19% of the total allocation in the budget to cover fro start-up opportunities for the people. It was also meant for cushion on market effects granted through risk-taking ventures and the state endeavors. Closely, code of enforcement catered for 17% of the total expenditure. It was meant for the personalized, contractual material and supplies needs of the city. Development and finance provided for a combined 11% of the total budgetary allocation. It was for administrative purposes.

Question 4

The democratic purposes that expenditure allocations promote are through the representation in a federal government jurisdiction. First, they help promote equity amongst the national budgets in general equity is realized through non-marginalizing of any area and affected people fro the respective regions. With equity, there is ensured minimization of division towards the national agenda as opposed to non-promotion of the same. Secondly, expenditure allocations promote the need for equitable development and opportunities on a national scale as opposed to segmented deliveries. Once the expenditure allocations are enabled, devolution of resources, finances, and services are realized in all the regions under jurisdiction of the federal government. In this regard, discrimination and minimal development agendas are reversed for the benefits of all people. In turn, a symbol of national unity is established under the federal government with little or no objection.    

Work Cited:

Dorrian, Hugh. Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. City of Columbus. Web. June 17, 2015. < https://columbus.gov/auditor/cafr/>