Here's a look at what's contributing to the problem:
Revenue
o It's no coincidence that Initiative 747, which limits property tax increases to the lower number between 1 percent or the inflation rate, passed the same year that the city's structural deficit began. That's been a ding of about $3.1 million a year, the city's budget office says.
o In Vancouver, sales tax, the other mainstay of the government budgets, isn't strong compared with other cities in Washington that aren't within a 10-minute drive of a state with no sales tax. When the recession hit, the city lost about $5.1 million between 2007 and 2009, while the city estimates about $10 million is lost due to purchases in Oregon.
o Vancouver also phased out its business and occupation tax starting in the early 1990s, ending with its complete disappearance in 2002. In 2011, that tax could bring as much as $9.9 million if it were brought back at its rate prior to being eliminated.
o The state's rollback of car licensing fees (prompted by Initiative 695) also gave a hit to the city, cutting what would have been about $4.8 million of income in 2011.
o Also upcoming is the potential passage of an initiative to bring liquor sales out from under state control. Vancouver would lose $1 million of its share. Also, the city's forecasts are based on a 2 percent inflation rate until 2016; if inflation climbs more quickly in an economic recovery, shortfalls could be much higher than city estimates.
Expenses
o The biggest cost in a city are salaries and benefits. Vancouver employee salaries have crept up for the most part, but benefit costs have skyrocketed -- while health insurance costs have been rising by double digits over the past decade and are projected to continue to do so through 2016.
Benefits alone now represent $15.7 million in spending; in 2011, with no changes, the bill will be $17.9 million. The growth rate of salaries and benefits is expected to go up between 4.5 percent to 6.9 percent over the next five years, without adding any employees.
o The city's required contribution to the public employee retirement system, which is required by the state, is also expected to nearly double between 2010 and 2012. That cost will go from $1.6 million in 2009 to $2.4 million in 2012.
-- Andrea Damewood