U00 VbN -7 ST) NTE OF NEW YORK 1K5 L.IU~4J1. 71iV 11 iT i~v:i ~~ b~d REPORT 0F Commission of Housing Regional Planning TO GOVERNOR ALFRED E. SMITH AND TO and The Legislature of the State of New York ON cost of Government, Land Value and Population With an Analysis of the Cost of Municipal and State Government and the Relation of Population to Cost of Government, Income and Land Values in New York State BY Donald HL. Davenpo..t January 11, 1926 ALBANY S. B. LYON COMPANY, PRINTERS 1926 p l*** 3 N GI 1 fT o "&I STATE OF NEW YORK 1f -~ ^^4 REPORT OF Commission of Housing and Regional Planning TO GOVERNOR ALFRED E. SMITH AND TO The Legislature of the State of New York ON Cost of Government, Land Value and Population With an Analysis of the Cost of Municipal and State Government and the Relation of Population to Cost of Government, Income and Land Values in New York State BY Donald H. Davenport January 11, 1926 ALBANY J. B. LYON COMPANY, PRINTERS 1 9 2 CoMMIssioN OF HOUSING AND REGIONAL PLANNING NEW YORK CITY, January 11, 1926. To the Honorable ALFRED E. SMITH, Governor, and the Legislature of the State of New York: Herewith'is transmitted to you a report of the Commission of Housing and Regional Planning on Cost of Government, Land Value and Population, together with an Analysis of the Cost of Municipal and State Government and the Relation of Population to Cost of Governiment, Income and Land Values in New York State by Donald H. Davenport. Yours truly, CLARENCE S. STEIN, Chairman. [3] IN/i?,/V7, A' 7 A4 s REPORT OF COMMISSION OF HOUSING AND REGIONAL PLANNING TO GOVERNOR ALFRED E. SMITH AND TO THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ON COST OF GOVERNMENT, LAND VALUES AND POPULATION. January 11, 1926 [5] DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE The Commission of Housing and Regional Planning CLARENCE S. STEIN, Chairman SULLIVAN W. JONES, OLIVER CABANA, JR. State Architect. MRS SARA CONBOY. ARTHUR W. BRANDT, PETER D. KIERNAN. Commissioner of Highways. CHAUNCEY J. HAMLIN. JAMES A. HAMILTON, Industrial Commissioner. Bureau of Housing and Regional Planning Staff GEORGE GOVE, Director, A. F. HINRICHS, F. 0. BILLINGS, ROBERT C. WASHBURN. [6] REPORT AND SUMMARY The Commission of Housing and Regional Planning has found in its regional planning studies that many problems require more definite knowledge than has been available of the relative costs of maintaining economic life in cities of various sizes. These costs relate to all phases of economic life: costs of government, costs of doing business, costs of living. Conversely the productivity of the city must be measured to determine in what degree the differential in costs is offset by a differential productivity. Each phase of this problem is in itself a separate study, requiring more elaborate and intensive research than the Commission has been able to undertake as yet. Regional planning, is intimately associated with the problems which result from the growth of cities. The expansion of the city plant with population increase has long been familiar to city planners: wider streets, more transportation, larger parks, more distant water supply. In its broadest phases the problem of growth is only just beginning to be recognized. All of this expansion of plant involves added cost. Street congestion and transportation delay involve cost. The studies which the Commission has outlined above are an essential basis on which, in conjunction with other facts, to rest planning that looks to the most economical utilization of economic and social regions. The Commission has first approached that phase of the problem which has to do with costs of government, with land values and with income. In selecting this initial subject of inquiry the Commission has been guided by two considerations: (i) the material is most accessible as the basic data were largely collected by the Joint Committee on Taxation and Retrenchment in 1922; (ii) the resulting information with reference to land values is basic to many other phases of the problem.' The following Analysis of the Cost of Municipal and State Government and the Relation of Population to Cost of Government, Income and Land Values in New York State by Donald H. Davenport is therefore an analysis of one phase of the problem of differential costs in the large city. In time, it is hoped, other special studies will follow that shall deal with other phases of the problem. The series should give a definite answer to the question: what is the most economical size of city? The following study has revealed several essential facts that bear on the main problem: (1) In general the cost of government per family is high in the smallest units, falls sharply as the unit grows to a most economical size and then rises steadily. It is found, for example, that the total cost of all forms of government within a county increases 2.25 [71 times with each doubling of the population. (Chart 10.) An almost identical relationship between population and costs of government holds for municipal governments of towns, villages and cities (Chart 11) in which units a doubling of population increases the per capita burden 13 per cent. (2) Land values increase in almost the same ratio as government costs: i. e., the land values grow more rapidly than the population. (Chart 13.) (3) Net taxable income also increases more rapidly than population but at a rate somewhat less than either costs or land values. (Chart 14.) These facts are highly significant. The obvious conclusion is that the burden of disproportionately increasing cost of government would already have tended to paralyze the growth of large cities had it not been for the fact that taxable values-land and incomes-have grown almost in proportion to rising costs. It should be noted that net taxable income has not quite kept pace with the larger per capita costs of government in the large city. These facts alone do not indicate that the rising costs of government incidental to larger cities necessarily place a prohibitive burden on city growth. In this connection they have two essential bearings: (i) ti;e rising costs are only made possible by a higher productivity ot the large city; (ii) the necessity of maintaining a relatively higher productivity in the large city places it under an initial handicap. Consider the factor of land alone. The statement that land values increase more rapidly than population means that without increasing the relative burden on land value a city may incur the added per capita costs incident to population growth. It has a further significance. To maintain the high land values more and more intensive use must be made of the city land. An industry in a large city can only compete with plants in smaller cities if the city yields some compensating advantages: a larger immediate market, a cheaper point for assembling raw materials, a more highly skilled labor market. But ini the case of a product with a national market, one which is sold by sample and in which the raw material is conveniently assembled in some smaller center, the lower land values of the smaller center give a great competitive advantage. As the city grows it must inevitably lose such industries which thrived when the city itself was smaller. There is a force then which tends to retard the growth of the large center and even to break it down. It can maintain its position only through an initially larger productivity that goes to pay for the excess costs of operating a large city. Any change in technique that breaks down this differential productivity operates against the large city: the increase of sale from sample, the improvement of transportation to and from the smaller center, the replacement of labor by machinery that may be operated by men trained in the smaller center. As has been said before, the following study is an analysis of only one phase of the problem of the growing city. Other differential costs and productivity must be studied. The study does show, however, that initially there is a real obstacle to city growth beyond certain limits which inheres in disproportionately advancing costs of government and land values. The foregsoing discussion has briefly summarized the essential facts in the following study which relate directly to regional planning. There are other facts which arose as a prerequisite to any analysis of government costs that are of greater interest in the field of taxation. The information has such value, however, that it is presented in this report. These facts are as follows: (1) The cost of all state and local government in New York State increased 382 per cent from 1900 to 1923. The increase in population alone would have induced an increased cost of 44 per cent. The decreased value of the dollar alone would account for a 90 per cent increase. The additional services rendered by government would alone account for a 75 per cent increase. (2) From 1918-21 the average total costs of government exclusive of education were $320,500,000 in New York State. New York City spent $170,300,000 of this total. The remaining $150,100,000 were divided as follows: New York State, including expenditures incurred by the State for New York City, $63,600,000; co-unties, exclusive of five counties embraced in New York City, $19,200,000; towns, $14,800,000; villages, $6,900,000; cities, exclusive of New York City, $45,600,000. (3) Cities incur more than four times the outlay of any other group of administrative units for general government, protection of persons and property, conservation of health, and interest. The general governmental and health costs of state and counties are about the same. The State is the only unit beside the cities which incurs important costs for protection of persons and property. The State and cities spend about the same amount on highways and charities and corrections. Towns make a slightly smaller outlay for highways. Villages spend nothing for charities or corrections and counties about one-third the amount spent by cities and State. (4) Of the total expenditures in New York State of $320,500,000; $66,900,000 were for protection; $66,300,000 for interest; $53,000,000 for general government; $47,500,000 for charities and corrections; $39,000,000 for highways. (5) In 1920 the per family costs incurred for all local government within counties averaged $167.50. The highest costs, $201.45, were in Hamilton County; the lowest costs, $53.48, were in St. Lawrence County. (6) From 1917-1921 the per family cost of government in New York City was $151.56; in Buffalo, $136.06; in Rochester, $107.74; 10 the average in second and third class cities was $56.44; the average in towns was $32.80; in villages, $27.91; and in counties, $17.77.' (7) The per family cost of government in towns weighs most heavily on smaller towns. Those towns which are losing population are facing an increasing burden. The burden is growing so heavy that it geems, probable that certain functions now performed by such towns will be taken over by the county or that they will be consolidated with some adjoining town. (8) The lowest costs of government are enjoyed by families living outside village limits in towns with growing villages. These amount to only $24.65 per family as compared with $57.50 for town and village costs paid by the villages or $48.55 for town costs alone paid by families in towns without villages. The lower cost for families living outside of villages is partly due to the fact that on the whole village-towns are larger than non-village towns and are therefore more economical units. It is also probable that the village performs some functions which benefit also non-village families. A further possibility is that the villagers bear relatively a larger share of the costs of town government. 1'See chart 7, p. 37. AN ANALYSIS OF THE COST OF MUNICIPAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT AND THE RELATION OF POPULATION TO COST OF GOVERNMENT, INCOME AND LAND VALUES IN NEW YORK STATE. By DONALD H. DAVENPORT. [11] TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. Introduction and Statement of the Purposes of this Study...........17 II. A Statistical Analysis of the Costs of Government in New York State.... 25 III. The Population of New York State: Its Distribution and Movements.... 43 IV. The Influence of Population upon the Costs of Government in New York State........................................................ 49 V. The Influence of Population upon the Cost of Education in New York State 64 VI. The Influence of Population upon the Value of Real Property in New York State....................................................... 66 VII The Influence of Population upon Net Taxable Income in New York State 69 VIII. Summary and Conclusions with Suggestions for Future Study.......... 71 Appendix-Tables...................................................... 75 [13] LIST OF TABLES TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE I. Comparison of the Growth in Aggregate State and Local Taxes Levied, Assessed Valuation of Real Property and the Population of New York State from 1840 to 1923.............................. 18 II. Comparison of Variation in Per Family Costs of Government in Counties, Towns, Villages and Cities.......................... 38 III. Comparison of Per Family Costs of Government in Towns and Villages in 1920.......................... '.... 41 IV. Increases and Decreases in the Population of the Counties of New York State from 1910 to 1920............................. 44 V. The Counties of New York State that Increased or Decreased in Population from 1910 to 1920, Classified according to their Population in 1920......................................... 47 VI. The Villages of New York State that Increased or Decreased in Population from 1910 to 1920, Classified according to their Population in 1920.......................................... 48 VII. Fifty-seven Counties of New York State, Cross-classified according to Population and Per Family Cost of County Government...... 51 VIII. Coefficients of Correlation between County Population and Per Family Cost of County Functions.................................. 52 IX. Coefficients of Correlation between Town Population and Per Family Costs of Town Functions...........................,.......... 53 X. Fifty-six Non-village Towns, Cross-classified according to Population and Per Family Cost of Town Government.................... 54 XI. Fifty-six Village-towns, Cross-classified according to Population and Per Family Cost of Town Government...................... 55 XII. One Hundred Villages, Cross-classified according to Population and Per Family Cost of Village Government...................... 55 XIII. Coefficients of Correlation between Population and Per Family Cost of Government in Villages................................ 56 XIV. Coefficients of Correlation between Population and Per Family Cost of. Government in Second and Third Class Cities............... 56 XV. Fifty-six Second and Third Class Cities, Cross-classified according to Population and Per Family Cost of City Government............ 57 XVI. Fifty-nine Cities, Fifty-six Villages and Fifty-six Non-village Towns, Cross-classified according to Population and Total Cost of Local Government in 1920........................................ 61 XVII. A Summary of the Correlations between Population and Cost of Local Government, Value of Real Property, Income and Cost of Education in New York State....................................... 72 TABLES IN APPENDIX XVIII. Summary of the Average Annual Expenditure of the State, Counties, Cities, Towns and Villages for the Different Governmental Functions, 1918-1921 inclusive................................. 77 XVIII (a). Summary of the Average Annual Expenditures of all Political Units in New York State Showing the Percentages of the Total Cost of Each Function that Were Incurred by Each Unit. (Based on Table XVIII and plotted on Charts 3, 4 and 5)..................... 78 XVIII (b). Summary of the Average Annual Expenditures of all Political Units in New York State Showing the Percentages of the Total Cost of Each Unit that Were Spent for each Governmental Function. (Based on Table XVIII and plotted on Chart 6)............... 79 XIX Summary of the Population and Government Cost Payments (exclusive of education) in all Political Units of New York State in 1920, Classified by Counties................................ 80 XX. The Average Per Family Cost of the Various Governmental Functions for the Different Political Units in New York State............. 82 [15] 16 LIST OF TABLES--Continued TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE XXI. Summary of the Average Per Family Cost of the Different Governmental Functions in the Counties of New York State, 1917-1921.. 84 XXII. Summary of the Average Per Family Cost of the Different Governmental Functions in the Villages of New York State, 1917-1921.... 88 XXIII. Summary of the Average Per Family Cost of the Different Governmental Functions in the Villages of New York State, 1917-1921.... 96 XXIV. Summary of the Average Per Family Cost of the Different Governmental Functions in the Cities of New York State, 1917-1921.... 104 LIST OF CHARTS CHART NO. TITLE 1. Comparison of Governmental Costs, Property Value and Population in New York State from 1840-1923........................:......... 17 2. The Amount of Increase in the Cost of Government from 1900 to 1923 Directly Attributable to Independent Increases in Prices, Population and Services Rendered the Average Inhabitant by the Government........ 21 3. Relative Importance of the Different Political Units in New York State Measured by Percentages of Average Annual Cost of State and Local Government Spent by Each.................................... 27 4. Relative Importance of Different Political Units in the Administration of General Government, Protection of Persons and Property, and Conservation of Health............................................... 30 5. Relative Importance of Different Political Units in the Administration of Highways, Charities and Corrections, and Interest.................. 32 6. Purposes for Which Governmental Cost Payments Are Made in Different Political Units................................................... 34 7. Average Annual Per Family Government Cost Payments, 1917-1921 in Various Political Units. (Exclusive of Education.)....... "'...... 37 8. Changes in the Population of the Counties of New York State, 1920-1921.. 46 9. Population Changes in Villages Classified according to Size.............. 48 10. Scatter Diagram Showing Relation between Population and Total Cost of Local Government in 56 Counties of New York State in 1920.......... 59 11. Scatter Diagram Showing Relation between Population and Total Per Capita Cost of Local Government in Non-village Towns, Villages and Cities in 1920................................................. 63 12. Scatter Diagram Showing Relation between Population and Total Education Expenditure 1920.............................................. 65 13. Scatter Diagram Showing Relation between Population and Full Value of Real Property in 59 Cities and 100 Villages in New York State in 1920.. 68 14. Scatter Diagram Showing Relation between Population and Taxable Income in the Counties of New York State 1920................... 70 15. Comparison of the Rates of Increase Due to Population in Net Taxable Income, Cost of Local Government, Cost of Education and Value of Real Property on a Per Family Basis..................................... 73 I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMIENT OF THE PURPOSES OF THIS STUDY The rapid increase in prices that followed the recent war and the resulting rise in living costs has given a greater interest to economy in affairs, both private and public. The cost of government has become so great that governmental economy is now an important plank in the platform of every political party. The rate at which governmental costs have risen in the past eighty years naturally raises the question as to the causes for this increase. In 1840 the total state and local taxes levied in New York State amounted to three million dollars. In 1923 this figure had grown to four hundred eighty-three million dollars. In 83 years, governmental costs had increased fifteen thousand per cent. The population, at the same time, had increased approximately 337 per cent. To express this a little differently, the per capita cost of $1.27 in 1840, had risen to $45.97 by 1923. CHART 1 [17] 18 If attention is confined to the twentieth century, the rate of growth is scarcely less striking. Between 1900 and 1923 the population of New York State grew from 7,268,000 to 10,502,000, an increase of approximately 44.5 per cent. In the same period, the total levy of state and local taxes grew from $100,099,372 to $482,727,335, an increase of 382.2 per cent. In these twenty-three years, governmental costs (on a per capita basis) increased from $13.77 to $45.97. These facts challenge attention. Let us examine the causes that have contributed to this tremendous increase in the cost of government. TABLE I. COMPARISON OF THE GROWTH IN THE AGGREGATE STATE AND LOCAL TAXES LEVIED, ASSESSED VALUATION OF REAL PROPERTY AND THE POPULATION OF NEW YORK STATE FROM 1840 TO 1923. Actual figures and relatives with 1840 equal to 100. (Presented Graphically in Chart I.) INDEX NUMBERS-1840=100 Total State Assessed YEAR and local value of Population AR taxes levied real property (millions) Total Assessed (millions) (millions) State and value of Populocal taxes real lation levied property (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1840.................. $3,088 $517.7 2,429 100 100 100 1845................. 4,171 486.5........ 135 94.... 1850.................. 6313 571.7 3,097 204 110 128 1855................ 11,678 1,107.3........ 378 214... 1860............... 18,956 1,119.9 3,881 614 216 160 1865................. 45,961 1,196.4........ 1,520 231.... 1870.................. 50,329 1,599.9 4,383 1,630 309 180 1875................. 56,926 2,108.3........ 1,843 407.... 1880................ 49,118 2,340.3 5,083 1,590 452 209 1885................. 57,266 2,899.9..... 1,854 560.... 1890................. 60,624 3,397.2 6,003 1,962 656 247 1895................. 72,401 3,908.9...... 2,344 755.... 1900................. 100,099 5,093.0 7,269 3,241 984 299 1905.................. 106,442 7,312.6...... 3,447 1,412.... 1910................. 153,310 9,639.0 9,114 4,964 1,861 375 1915................. 249,345 11,335.6...... 8,074 2,189.. 1920.............. 368,412 14,595.7 10,385 11,927 2,819 428 1921................. 439,029 15,225.2........ 14,215 2,941....... 1922................. 452,190 15,957 0........ 14,641 3,082... 1923................ 482,727 17,0378.... 15,630 3,291... (1) and (2) Report of the New York State Tax Commission. 1923. (3) Fourteenth Census of the United States. (4), (5) and (6) Index numbers based upon (1), (2) and (3) respectively. The cost of providing food for an army at a particular time might be thought of as the product of the number of soldiers, the quantity of food in a ration, and the cost of a single ration of food. The total cost would change as any or all of these three factors changed. For example, if the size of the army were doubled, but the ration remained the same, and the price of a ration remained the same, the total cost of feeding the army would be twice what it was in the first place. If, on the other hand, the size of the army were doubled, and the size of the average ration were also doubled, 19 the total cost of feeding the army would be four times what it was in the first place. And if, in addition to doubling the size of the army and the size of the ration, the price of the average ration were also doubled, the total cost would amount to eight times the cost in the first place. In the same way we might look at the total cost of providing governmental services to the population of New York State. The total cost will be the product of the nnvmber of people for whom services are provided, the nmeasure of governmental service rendered the average individual, and the price at which this "ration" of governmental service is provided. Between 1900 and 1923 all three of these factors changed considerably. Population increased 44.5 per cent. The general level of prices (as measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics index number of wholesale prices which we will take as a rough measure of the way in which the cost of the commodities and services consumed by the government fluctuate) increased 90.1 per cent. The increase in the measure of governmental services rendered the average citizen can be calculated by deflating 1 the total cost of government in 1923 and reducing this to a per capita basis. The relation between the deflated per capita cost in 1923 and the per capita cost in 1900 then will indicate the increase in the measure of governmental services provided for the average citizen." This procedure shows us that the governmental services in 1923 were 1.756 times those of 1900. Then we can summarize the changes thus: Ratio of 1900 1923 1923 to 1900 Total cost of State and local government.. $100,099,372 $482,727,335 4.822 Deflated total cost of State and local government (1900 - 100)................ $100,099,372 $253,933,369 2.536 Deflated per capita cost of State and local government........................... $13.77 $24.18 1.756 Population........................... 7,268,894 10,502,000 1.445 Prices.(Bureau of Labor Statistics Index of wholesale prices)................... 100 190.1 1.901 The product, then, of 1.445, 1.901 and 1.756 should represent the relationship between the total cost of government in 1923 and in 1900. This product amounts to 4.823, and agrees with the relationship of the total cost in 1923 to that of 1900. 1By dividing the total cost in 1923 by the index of prices (1900=10 0). For an explanation of method see pp. 307-314 in Statistical Mlethods, F. C. NMills, Holt & Co. 2 This measure of services rendered the average citizen records the combined effect of both quantitative and qualitative changes, just as the quantitative and qualitative changes in a ration of food might be recorded in the number of calories in the ration. 20 It is impossible to determine the separate influence of any one of these factors without postulating that the others were held constant. The following table indicates the relative importance of the different factors when taken separately and jointly. RELATIVE.IMPORTANCE OF THE DIFFERENT FACTORS IN THE INCREASE OF THE COST OF GOVERNMENT IN NEW YORK STATE FROM 1900 To 1923 If these factors were held constant And if these factors were allowed to increase as they actually did from 1900 to 1923 Then the total cost of State and local government would have been increased by the following amount: ----I I Population............. Services................. Prices................... Services................ Prices................. Population... Services................ Prices................ Population... Prices................. Population............... Services................. Prices............. Population........ Services........... Population.. Prices............ I Population. Services....... Prices............ Services.......... PricesP........... I Population...... Services.......... J $90,189,534 44,544,220 75,675,124 174,868,092 153,894,771 234,047,941 382,628,021 Nothing If there had been no increase in population and no enlargement of the scope nor improvement of the character of governmental services, then, because of the increase of prices alone, the cost of government in 1923 would have been $90,189,534 greater than it was in 1900. If there had been no increase of prices and no increase of the services and functions performed by the government other than those necessary to provide for the increase of population betwreen 1900 and 1923, then the cost in 1923 would have been greater than that in the former year by $44,544,220. On the other hand, if there had been no increase of prices and no increase of population, but merely an enlargement of the scope and an improvement of the character of government such as actually took place, then the cost in 1923 would have been $75,675,124 greater than it was in 1900. There is still another way of looking at this situation. If there had been no enlargement of the scope and no improvement of the character of governmental services, then, due to the combined influence of the increased population and the higher price level, 21 the cost of government in 1923 would have been $174,868,092 greater than it was in 1900. If there had been no increase of prices, in order to provide the increased population with the 1923 standard of governmental service, the governmental costs would have been $153,894,771 greater than in 1900. On the other hand, if there had been no increase of population, in order to provide the 1923 standard of governmental service at the 1923 price level, the total cost would have been $234,047,941 greater than it was in 1900. Had the state remained in a static condition from 1900 to 1923, that is, if there had been no increase of population, no increase of prices and no change in the nature or scope of governmental services the total cost in 1923 would have been the same as it was in 1900. But with all three factors changing as they actually did, in 1923 it cost $382,628,021 more than it cost in 1900. CHART 2 so, 80 70 60 do /0 -Prices Services Popu/ation Increases in the Total Cost of State and Local Government from 1900 to 1923 Caused by the Independent Increases of Prices, Governmental Services and Population. From this analysis it appears that the increase in the measure of governmental services is about twice as important as the growth of population and only slightly less important than the rise in prices, in accounting for the increase in the cost of government from 1900 to 1923. Many causes have contributed to the enlargement of the scope of governmental activities and to the improvement of the character of governmental services. The automobile has necessitated more and better highways. It has also multiplied 22 the difficulty of the traffic control,problem and created the necessity of coping with the motorized criminal by more adequate but more expensive methods. An awakened interest in education has improved our schools and colleges causing greater educational expenditures. Prohibition enforcement, the soldiers' bonus and the more adequate care now given inmates of state institutions are in part responsible for the greater cost of government. And as is pointed out in a later section, the increase in the density of population multiplies the demand for services. All of these facts point to a very significant change that has been taking place in the attitude toward government. The laissez faire philosophy taught by the Physiocrats and Adam Smith, led people to believe that government should let things alone. The government was restricted in its control of trade and industry. The less government the better. The best tax was the smallest tax. In the nineteenth century a change took place. It became evident that the absence of governmental regulation in business was not an unmixed blessing. The industrial revolution resulted in serious social evils which were capable of correction only through the medium of governmental action. The government was forced to assume many new functions. As population increased, as cities grew, and as trade and commerce developed, the role of government as an agent for collective action became more and more important. This change is marked in national, state and local governments. In each old functions were expanded and new functions added. One of the most important developments was the growth in the importance of. education as a governmental function. The spread of democracy made desirable the compulsory education of future citizens at public expense. Moreover, the increasing complexity of industrial life made it most urgent that greater attention be given to training for industrial efficiency. School costs have grown so that this item is the largest single expense of local government. Our ideas of the proper treatment of the criminal and the insane have changed, Government, today, gives a great deal more thought to the prevention of crime than it formerly did. As the cities have grown up, public parks and play-grounds have become a necessity. The rapid depletion of the forests has made it important that large areas be purchased and preserved for public use at public expense. Today, the government holds an entirely different place in our minds from what it held even fifty years ago. There is scarcely a phase of modern life that is not affected to some extent by one of the many activities of governmental bodies. Births and deaths are registered by officers of the city or village in which we live. A state law compels us to attend school and a free public school is provided for the purpose. We study from books approved by state authorities, under teachers licensed, hired and paid by taxes levied in the state. We secure a license to get married. The state keeps a record of our marriage. The state records the deed to the home we 23 own and registers a mortgage against it. Government furnishes us with streets, sidewalks, electric lights and sewers. It protects our homes from thieves and punishes anyone who attempts to injure either our persons or property. When we die, the government continues to protect our property and insures that our wishes as to its disposal will be carried out. Certainly, in a state that continues to grow as rapidly as New York has, and in which the increases in governmental costs show no signs of stopping, there is ample justification for a study of the facts bearing on the cost of government. This investigation was started with two purposes in view: first, the determination of certain important facts concerning the cost of government in New York State, and second, a study of the bearing of population upon governmental costs. We are seeking to answer such questions as the following: 1. How much is spent each year for governmental purposes by counties, towns, villages, cities and the State? 2. For -what purposes are these costs incurred? 3. What is the relative importance of the different municipal units in providing governmental services? 4. What influence has urbanization upon governmental costs? 5. What effect has emigration from the rural areas upon governmental costs? 6. In what size unit is government most economically administered? 7. What is the relation of population to the cost of government, the valuation of property, net taxable income? 8. How is it possible to judge whether the expenditure of a given municipality is higher or lower than it normally should be? It is proposed to seek an answer to these and other questions by means of a statistical analysis of the cost of government figures collected by the State Comptroller and by the State Tax Department. One of the difficulties with an objective study of government arises from the fact that government is not a standardized product like granulated sugar. Government is a service, the quantity and quality of which varies widely from place to place. The government of a country village is quite different from that of a large city. To attempt a comparison of urban and rural government may not seem significant. However, the nature and the extent of the government of any community depends upon the collective demands of the inhabitants. What we seek to measure and compare is the extent to which the collective needs of a community are satisfied through the organized political structure, regardless of whether the demands are great or small. It is the writer's contention, borne out by this study, that the size of a community i. e., its population, determines largely the nature and the extent of the demands made upon its government. A community grows because it offers advantageous living condi 24 tions and opportunities for making a living. As the population increases the collective wants of the community increase. Moreover, as will be shown, population is closely related to property value and to income. Therefore as a growing population feels an increase in its collective wants, the increasing wealth of the community makes it possible to satisfy those wants. Here and there we find an exceptional case. A very small village which contains a few exceptionally wealthy inhabitants, will demand and obtain governmental services on a parity with those of the most modern city and at a relative cost far greater than in other units of the same size. By and large, however, the larger the community the greater will be the cost of government and the greater will be the burden of the individual taxpayer. Governmental costs provide us with an objective.measure of the extent to which the collective needs of a community are satisfied by its government. Cost is the common denominator that permits us to compare urban and rural governments in the extent of their development. In any particular case, at any particular time, the cost of government may not be an entirely satisfactory measure of the quantity and quality of governmental service. However, when a large number of cases are analyzed statistically, over a period of time, we are confident that governmental costs may be taken as a fairly good measure of the governmental service rendered. It should be noted that this study deals primarily with the more strictly governmental costs. Educational costs have been treated independently and much less intensively than governmental costs proper. There were two main reasons for this. First, it was desired to make the government cost payment of different municipalities comparable. The administration of education is handled differently in different sections throughout the state. In many cases, the boundaries of school districts crosq county, city, town and village lines. School districts are not necessarily co-terminus nor co-extensive with the districts set up for. the administration of the other governmental functions. In the case of cities, we find that in some the school cost is included as a part of the city cost, in others the city costs are separate from the costs incurred by school boards. The second reason for drawing,a distinction between education costs and the other costs of government and for treating the former less intensively was that at the time this study was undertaken a very elaborate investigation of the cost of education in New York State was then under way. The Educational Finance Inquiry Communission, working under the auspices of the American Council on Education was then at work preparing its report, "The Financing of Education in the State of New York." It would have been wasteful to duplicate their efforts. The reduction of the costs of different municipalities to a comparable basis was 25 made possible by the uniform classification of municipal accounts. Attention was concentrated upon those items which are classified by the State Comptroller as the Cost of Government.1 II. A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COST OF GOVERNMENT IN NEW YORK STATE Before attempting to determine costs of government in New York State it may be well to describe very briefly the political structure that has grown up to meet the collective governmental needs and for the operation of which these costs are made. In 1920 New York had a population of more than 10,000,000 people, over half of whom were concentrated in the 200,000 acres of New York City. The rest were distributed over the other 29,000,000 acres of the state. The tremendous task of administering the government of these people is accomplished through separate government bodies in each of 62 counties, 59 cities, 932 towns, and 471 villages. All of these political units are subsidiary to the State government. The state is divided into a number of divisions known as counties. The county receives all its powers from the state and exists merely for the purpose of governmental administration. The county is divided into towns and cities. In the largest towns are found more or less thickly populated sections called villages.2 Here the density of population has given rise to special governmental needs that do not exist in other parts of the town. These sections have become incorporated as villages. As such they may act independently of the town in satisfying their needs for sewers, waterworks, police and fire protection, etc. The village, however, remains part of the town from which it was created. It is still subject to town jurisdiction and the town government continues to perform certain governmental services for village residents. Village residents pay taxes to the town and participate in town elections. In the administration of its own peculiar needs the 1 This includes the following: General government, protection of persons and property, conservation of health, sanitation and the promotion of cleanliness, highways, charities and corrections, education (not schools), recreation, public utilities-non commercial, all others, interest. It should be observed that the term, cost of government, excludes the following items: Public utilities -commercial, permanent improvements, municipal indebtedness, advances and deposits, transfers, refunds, trust and investments transactions. 2 The question of whether or not a locality shall be incorporated as a village is decided in this fashion. Upon the application of 25 adult freeholders "residing in a territory not exceeding one square mile, or an entire town, con.taining in either case a population of not less than 200, and not including a part of a city or village," the supervisor may direct an election of the resident taxpayers of the territory to determine the question. If at such an election the majority of the votes are in favor of the proposition, then upon filing a certificate of that fact in the office of the county clerk the village is incorporated. 26 village elects its own officers, raises its own funds and manages its own government. When,a village has attained a population of 10,000 it may petition the state legislature for a city charter. Cities are independent of the town or towns from which they are created or which were included within their limits. However, they are still part of the county in which they lie and are subject to their share of the expense of county government.1 In some towns we find certain districts that have peculiar needs or make demands for special services that are not common to the inhabitants of the rest of the town. These demands have been met by creating what are known as special districts; for example, sewer districts, fire districts, sidewalk districts etc. The town government retains complete control over these areas and administers their special needs. They are provided with the specific services required and the inhabitants residing therein, on that account, are taxed proportionately higher than other residents of the town. In addition to the political units described above it should be pointed out that there is another unit organized for the sole purpose of providing and administering the educational facilities. This is the school district. School districts are created by the County Board of Supervisors and may be neither co-extensive nor co-terminus with towns, village or city. They exist solely for their. special purpose as separate units and may levy their own taxes and incur their own expenses quite independently of the organizations which otherwise take care of the collective needs of the inhabitants. As has been pointed out in this study we are primarily interested in the costs of government proper and only secondarily in the costs of education. For that reason the expenses incurred by school districts are not included in the analysis that follows. THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTAL UNITS WITH RESPECT TO FUNCTIONS AND COSTS.2 Politically, the State3 has no equal among the units administering local government. In influence and authority it is more powerful than the county, town, village, or city. However, in the matter of costs Greater New York City stands in the first place. The chart below presents an analysis of the total average annual cost of all State and municipal units for the four years 1918-1921. 1 New York City contains five boroughs which are co-extensive with the five counties included within its boundaries. Here the city government performs many of the functions which, in other sections, would be undertaken by the county. 2 The figures upon which this analysis is made appear in the Appendix as Table XVIII. To facilitate comparison a summary table and chart 3 are presented on the following page. 3 In distinguishing the State government from the local government the word State will lx in italics and capitalized. When reference is made to the state as a whole it will be printed thus: state. 27 Percenit CHART 3 e/ativeu Ano4o/-s 18eR b7 Di6'r e Plh w t/4,;6,/ sin Wow k o,-4 -/16 - /9I2/ 60 JO 30 20 /o /0 A// Cifies NC;ir 7The S*te Coau',rs 7wns V /Ajes 6Z38 % F3.1% /91.85 6.o0 o~ 4.863 % 2./% SUMMAIRY TABLE SHOWING RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF DIFFERENT POLITICAL UNITS IN NEW YORK STATE. POLITICAL UNIT Number of people affected by each, 1920 Total average annual cost of such units - 1918-21 (exclusive of Education) Percentage of N.Y. State population affected Percentage of total cost of government spent by such units -- - - - -I I -I I - S tate.................... Counties (excluding New York City)............. Towns.................... V illages.................. Cities (including New York City)................... New York City......... T otal................. 10,386,773 4,766,725 2,298,028 854,386 8,082,755 5,620,048 $63,625,381 19,224,628 14,826,364 6,873,644 215,966,466 170,358,240 100.00 45.89 22.12 8.23 77.82 54.17 19.85 6.00 4.63 2.14 67.38 53.15 III 10,386,773 320,506,477 100 100 ~ __ Educational costs have been excluded from these figures to avoid duplication and to insure comparability of results.1 1 The State, for example, distributes school money to counties. Each county distributes its share to its various school districts. The difficulty is further complicated by the fact that except in some cities, school districts are separate and independent administrative units. It is estimated that the total average annual cost of education from 1918 to 1921 amounted to $102,656,052. S Table XXIII in Appendix. 28 During this period the State spent an average of $63,625,381 per year or 19.85 per cent. of the total cost of all governmental units of the state. Every inhabitant of New York State falls within the jurisdiction of some county. In New York City, county costs are not strictly comparable with costs in other counties nor are they kept distinct from the city costs. Exclusive of New York City, there were almost five million people, in 1920, living in the 57 counties. The average annual expenditures of these counties amounted to a little more than 19 million dollars. That is, they spent 6.0 per cent.1 of the total cost of government in the state. The town is still an important muit in the administration of local government. In 1920 more than one-fifth of the total population lived in the 932 towns of New York State. 854,000 of these people lived in villages within towns, where the governmental functions performed by the towns are supplemented by functions performed by the village government. The average annual expenditure of towns amounted to almost 15 million dollars or 4.63 per cent.' of all governmental costs within the state. The cities of the state contain 77.82 per cent. of the population. Their annual average expenses were 216 million dollars or 67.38 per cent.1 of the total cost of government. While from a political point of view the State is the most important governmental unit, when one comes to consider the amount of money spent for governmental purposes, cities take first place. New York City, alone, spends two and one-half times as much on its government as does the state of New York. ' It is also interesting to analyze the costs of the various governmental functions in the same way. Such a picture shows the relative amounts spent for similar purposes by the different political units. In so far as costs may be taken as a measure of the extent to which these functions are performed, this analysis measures the division of governmental functions among the political units. The charts 4 and 5 will help to bring this out. They show the relationship that the amounts spent by each unit bear to the total amount spent by all units for particular functions. Thus the total cost of general government amounted to almost fiftythree million dollars a year in this period. Of this, 63.26 per cent was incurred by cities, 16.28 per cent by the State, 13.27 per cent by counties, 5.71 per cent by towns, and 1.48 per cent by villages. Of the sixty million dollars representing the average annual cost of protection of persons and property to the people of New York State, 80.76 per cent was paid by cities, 12.76 per cent by the State,2 13.33 per cent by counties, 2.80 per cent by towns and 1.57 per cent by villages. 1 All cost of government figures in terms of percentages refer to the four y\ears period 1918-1921 inclusive. A'' Aot one-third of this was for the "Development and Conservation of Natural Resources." 29 Conservation of Health is a function that annually costs the citizens of the state eleven million dollars. The State's share during this period was 12.76 per cent, the counties' 13.33 per cent, the cities' 69.54 per cent, the towns' 2.80 per cent, and the villages' 1.57 per cent. Sanitation and the Promotion of Cleanliness occasioned an annual expenditure of 22 million dollars. It is not important in State or county. The State has no separate classification for this item. In counties it amounted to less than one-tent*h of one per cent. The bulk of this expense, 96.61 per cent, was incurred by cities. It amounted to 1.00 per cent of town and 2.32 per cent of village expenditures. Highways, on the other hand, is a function which is mainly divided between the State, cities, and towns. The total average annual cost of highways was 39 million dollars. 31.22 per cent of this expense was met by the State, 34.76 per cent by cities, and 23.31- per cent by towns, leaving 7.38 per cent that was paid by village and 3.38 per cent by counties. Of 47 million dollars, the average annual amount spent for charities and corrections, 40.24 per cent was the State's portion. 14.43 per cent was paid by counties, 1.75 per cent by towns, and the balance, 43.58 per cent by the cities. Villages reported no expense under this heading. Recreation is a class of expenditure which comprises; the maintenance of public parks, playgrounds, etc.; the average annual cost of this service was less than 7 million dollars. As would be expected, cities contributed most of this. Their share was 93.06 per cent, 5.55 per cent was the State's share and 1.39 per cent the villages'. Counties and towns have no expenses under this head. Public utilities-non-commercial consists of the maintenance of public docks and the regulation of public markets. These items cost the inhabitants of New York State slightly less than 4 million dollars a year during the period studied. Neither the State nor counties incurred such expenses. 98.38 per cent of all expenses of this kind occurred in cities, 0.72 per cent in towns and 1.20 per cent in villages. Interest includes that paid on both temporary and funded debts. This cost amounted to 66 million dollars, the second largest item of government expense. The State's share in this was 14.66 per cent while the counties' portion was only 2.12 per cent. In towns and villages, this item of cost was relatively unimportant, being only 0.72 per cent in towns and 1.20 per cent in villages. Cities, however, paid 81.30 per cent of the total public interest charges in the state. Items not classified elsewhere are put under the classification of all others. The annual average amount of such costs was slightly less than 4 million dollars during this period. 63.22 per cent of this was paid by the State. Cities paid 25.04 per cent, counties 36 per cent, towns 5.06 per cent, and villages 3.08 per cent. S30 CHART 4 Percer7n / 70 60 so - 5o 40 - 3o Ao /0 0.50 3~o /0 0c Genera/ Gorernment 0 45,9a, oo000 mamI State Coadntvs 72"w" s /6.28% /3. 2 7% 1 5717 C32ies o3.'a; / f6 % Profection olf Aerions cm' Proper4 %C&,9o0,ooo 70 h 60 h R30 i0 L 0L Conservaf o of 4q/f4 $to, sy, ooo Cities S6#xws Counties 7Ywn b//wges c5 11% /2z 76 /3 33% / 8o7 /7 31 An examination of the detailed items making up the most important of these classes of expenses reveals that urbanization multiplies governmental functions. For example, under the heading of sanitation and the promotion of cleanliness, neither the State nor the county have expenditures of any moment. In towns, this consists of the maintenance of town sewers and accounts for only 1 per cent of their total costs. In the larger villages the disposal of garbage has become a municipal problem and we find that this service amounts to 2.32 per cent of the total village costs. In cities the garbage and sewage problems becomes more complex with the increase of population. Garbage disposal plants must be constructed and garbage collections must be made more regularly and more. frequently. The maintenance of public comfort stations is an item of city cost under this function which is not found in towns or villages. Protection of persons and property is a function that also becomes more extensive in the city than in other municipal units. In addition to the usual items of police and fire protection, included under this head, we find such items as boiler, plumbing and building inspection. And, moreover, if we could look into the various items that make up this amount, we most certainly would find that the nature of the expenses in cities becomes more complex and diverse as the city becomes larger. Such a service, from its character, would naturally fall upon cities most heavily. Large cities offer more opportunities for the criminal and large cities must spend correspondingly more in police protection. The risk of fire is also much greater in cities than elsewhere. Of the sixty million dollars-spent per year for protection of persons and property, four-fifths was spent by cities. On the other hand, the larger share in the cost of some functions, such as the maintenance of highways, falls more logically to the municipal units with jurisdiction over large areas, i. e., towns, counties, and the State. Since the advent of the lowpriced automobile, rapid transportation has knit the state into a much closer unit. The responsibility for good roads in the Adirondacks and the Catskills has become a State problem. The burden of providing good roads is more willingly shared by the automobile owners from Yonkers and Albany than was formerly the case. Of course the maintenance of local streets will always remain a function of towns, villages, and cities. The multiplication of functions due to urbanization is evident in this class of expense, too. The expense of sidewalks, street cleaning and the removal of snow and ice assumes important aspects in the cities, but it is of minor importance in the other units. Charities and correction form a class of expenditures that is rather important for the State. Adequate care for the poor, the orphaned, the diseased and the criminal is economical only when these unfortunates are cared for in fairly large numbers. Although they are to be found in all parts of the state, they form a relatively small portion of the population in any place. Except in the 32 Percen n 10 30 V / 40 Jo /0 0 CHART 5 w,8 O-8, 0oo Cities Sta fe Coat, ftYies 7 ovvfs 34776% 31,22% 3.38 % 13.IZ/. kiXes -38EL Chorilies an4 Correec /bon $e47; 469, ooo Cies /a7afe Coorzfiest 7/s V///es 138se %0.247. /. 43 o 1 75. ooo X ne/Crest a66,32R,ooo so 70 6o 3o 2.1 /Ci lcs S/ J"T", - -L i/af&e Counaties 7 wt Y'//awes SG o % a/-A 0 2 - 33 larger cities, efficiency and economy dictate that they be cared for largely by the State and the county. As a matter of fact, the town is the smallest unit by which this function is undertaken. The village poor are under the jurisdiction of the town overseer of the poor. The functions performed by the different classes of governmental units are very similar in character. Differences are of degree and extent rather than of kind. For example, in each unit there exists a legislative body: the Senate and Assembly in the State, the Board of Supervisors in the county, the Town Meeting and the Board of Trustees in the village, and the Common Council or Board of Aldermen in the city. Each body is limited in jurisdiction to the boundaries of its respective unit. Each unit has: legislative, executive and judicial functions. The general operating expenses of the three departments of government are classified in each administrative unit as the cost of general government. This function absorbs 13.56 per cent' of the total annual expenditure of the State government.2 (See Chart 6) In counties, it Samounts to 36.57 per cent. This is a much larger percentage than in any other unit. There is.some slight variation in the relative importance of this function among cities of different classes. It varies between 12:94 per cent and 16.34 per cent. In towns, it amounts to 20.40 per cent and in villages to -11.41 perc.ent. For the state as a whole 16.53 per cent of the total cost of government is classified as for general government. Protection of persons and property is a class of expense common to all units. In towns, villages, and cities, the cost of fire protection is an item which is not present in the budget of the State or county. However, in both of these, other prospective functions, such as those connected with the consrvation of fish and game, forests, etc., are present. This function amounts to 15.24 per cent of the State's total governmental costs. The cost is comparatively low in counties, amounting to only 5.40 per cent. In towns, it amounts to 4.58 per cent but in villages, it is almost five times as much, 21.20 per cent. In cities, it varies from 24.16 per cent to 30.62 per cent, New York being the lowest with 24.16 per cent, and Buffalo highest with 30.62 per cent. In Rochester protection costs almost 26 per cent, in second class cities, 29.8 per cent, and in third class cities only 25.46 per cent. Considering the state as a whole, 20.88 per cent of all government costs goes for this service. Conservation of health includes the expenses of boards of health the maintenance of tuberculosis hospitals, food and health inspection, etc. It falls lightly upon the State. Only 2.14 per cent. of State expenditures are of this nature. In counties it is rather more important as many counties maintain hospitals. Forty per cent of ' Table XVIII based on the period '1918-1921. 2 Exclusive of education. The following figures relate strictly to the cost of governmental administration. Educational costs are treated separately. 2 CHART 6 Relative Importance of Amounts Spent for Different Purposes by Different Political Units in New York State, 1918-1921 The average annual amounts spent by each unit or class of units are given at the bottom of the chart in millions of dollars (Educational Costs Excluded) (rft n Perienf O 28 00 to 31 99...... 1 2 1 2 1............... 7.4 24 00 to 27 99............ 2 3 1.......... 8..... 2 8 S 20 00 to 23 99........... 2 2 1 4....... 6 15 4 -i16 00 to 19 99............... 1.... 1 1 2 3 8 12 00 to 15 99............................ 1.. 3 4 P 8 00 to 11 99..................................... 1 1 4 00 to 7 99............................... 1.... 1 Total in each class.. 6 6 9 7 7 2 3 16 56 TABLE XII 100 VILLAGES, CROSS-CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO POPULATION AND COST OF VILLAGE GOVERNMENT ON A PER FAMILY BASIS (Average Costs 1917-1921, Population 1920) POPULATION __ CLASSES Under 500 500 to 1000 to 999 1499 1500 to 20)0 to 2500 to 1999 2499 2999 Total ineach olass 3000 and over 864 00 and over.......................... 1 2..... 3 * 60 00 to $63 99........ 2..... 1..... 1... 4 56 00 to 59 99........ 1 1 0 52 00 to 55 99..... 2..... 2 2 S 48 00 to 51 99.......... 1..... 1............. 2 44 00 to 47 99........ 1..............1 1 S 40 00 to 43 99.......... 1.... 1 1 3 o 36 00 to 39 99............... 1 1 1 3 4 10 0s 32 00 to 35 99..... 1 3 1 1..... 4 10 > 28 00 to 31 99.. 1 3 2 2 2 1 3 14 24 00 to 27 99..... 4 4 2 2 2... 1 15 S20 00 to 23 99..... 1 5 1 3 10;Z 16 00 to 19 99..... 7 4 1 1 1......... 14 12 00 to 16 99..... 2 3 2.......... 7 0 8 00 to 11 993..... 3 1.....4............ 4 4 00 to 7 99.... Total in each class. 18 27 12 13 8 8 14 100 56 The results of the correlation for village populations and the relative costs of various government functions are tabulated below: TABLE XIII COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION FOR POPULATION AND PER FAMILY COSTS OF VILLAGE GOVERNMENT CLASSIFICATION OF VILLAGES BY Number Totl General Protec- Halth HighPOPgovATION Health ment govern- tion ways POPULATION villages costs ment tionways All................................... 100.296.233.500.320.003 Below 3000......................... 86.570.353.504.328.249 The notable thing about these figures is that in every case the correlation is positive. In other words, all of the evidence presented here tends to show that the larger the number of people living in a village, the larger will be the per family costs for administering these functions of village government. In the same manner the per family costs of the 56 second and third class cities were analyzed.1 Educational costs have been excluded from the total government cost payments as they are not comparable for all cities, certain cities maintaining their schools while in others, the schools are operated under the separate financial and administrative authority of a school board. This makes the governmental cost of cities comparable with those of counties, villages and towns. TABLE XIV COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION FOR POPULATION AND PER FAMILY COSTS OF SECOND AND THIRD CLASS CITY GOVERNMENTS CLASIFIcATo O Number General Protec- Sanita- Health Chari- Bond CITIES of ment govern- tion tion ties interest POPULATION cities ot ment All............ 55.554.181.668.496.714.177.443 Third class cities... 48.520 (a).504.419.684 (a).385 (a) Not calculated. The correlations are much higher for cities than for any other unit. Moreover, they are all positive, indicating that, in general, the larger the city the higher the per family cost will be. This seems to be especially so in the case of costs for conservation of health, protection of persons and property, and sanitation and the promotion of cleanliness. 1 Throughout, the city of Sherrill has been omitted. Sherrill, while legally a city, has only about 1700 inhabitants and is still subject to town jurisdiction. Its expenditures correspond more closely to those of the villages of the same size than they do to other cities of the third class. 57 The total government cost payments, too, exhibit a relationship that is unmistakably upward (see Table XV). The larger the city the more it costs the average family for the administration of government. TABLE XV 56 SECOND AND THIRD CLASS CITIES, CROSS-CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO POPULATION AND COST OF CITY GOVERNMENT ON A PER FAMILY BASIS (Average Costs 1917-1921, Population 1920) POPULATION Total CLASSES in each 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 class Under to to to to to to and 10,000 14,999 19,999 24,999 29,999 34,999 39,999 over 3 $180 to $189.................................. 1 1 2 170 to 179.................................. S 160 to 169...................... 1................ 1 Q0 150 to 159...................................... 1 1 140 to 149............................. a 130 to 139............... 1.................... 2 3 W 120 to 129............1....................... 2 4 > 110 to 119................. 1 1... 1.... 1 4 >0 100 to 109.............. 1....... 1... 1 3 6 90 to 99........... 2 1 1..... 1.... 5 80 to 89.......... 2 5 2 1 1 2 1.14 S 70 to 79.......... 2 5 1 2................ 10 60 to 69.......... 1 2 2.....................5. 50 to 59................ 1.................. 1 Total in each class.. 6 16 9 6 2 3 4 10 56 NOTE: School costs have been excluded to make city costs comparable. THE RELATION BETWEEN POPULATION AND THE TOTAL COST OF ALL LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITHIN COUNTIES. This study of government costs in the various municipal units has shown that both in relative and absolute amounts, there are very great variations. In some counties, town costs may be low and county costs high, while in others the situation may be reversed. It is undoubtedly true that the division of functions among the different municipal units is not the same in all counties. This suggested a study of the total cost of all municipal units within the various counties in relation to their respective populations. Accordingly, a tabulation was made of the total cost of county government and the total government costs of all towns, villages, and cities within each separate county for the year 1920. That is, a figure was determined for each county for the sum total of all the costs of local government (exclusive of education) incurred within the county area. A preliminary study, by means of a scatter diagram on which population is plotted as the independent variable and total government as the dependent variable, shows that costs may be treated as 58 a function of population. High costs are found where the population is large and low costs where the population is small. However, the cost of government is not directly proportional to the population. If two counties are compared, one twice as large as the other, the costs in the larger will be more than twice as large as the costs in the smaller. This suggested that the law of relationship was of the type y = a Xb In which y represents the cost of local government within the county area and x represents the population of the county. a and b are constants, b indicating the degree to which an increase in population is accompanied by a more than proportional increase in the cost of government. Should the value of b be exactly one, costs would be directly proportional to population and it would cost no more per capita to administer local government in urban areas than it does in rural districts. In logarithmic form the above equation becomes, Log y log a + b log x On double logarithpmic paper, such an equation, when plotted forms a straight line. Therefore, an empirical test of the appropriateness of this equation may be made by constructing a scatter diagram on double log paper. A diagram so constructed bears out this conclusion as the dots have a very definite linear drift. (See Chart 10.) The equation to the average line of relationship describing cost of government as a function of population, determined by the method of least squares, is as follows: y = 0.76980 x 1.1615 Where x is the total cost of local government in thousands of dollars and y is the population in thousands, The coefficient of correlation, determined by the least squares method, has a value of +.970 and S,, the standard error of estimate is 0.10771 in logarithmic form.1 The significance of these results may be explained as follows: Within the limits studied (Greater New York and Hamilton Counties were not included in the calculations), there is indisputable evidence that the total cost of all local government within the county is a function of the number of people living within the county." This indicates that if governmental needs be measured by resulting costs, the needs of government are fairly definitely fixed by the size of the population regardless of the particular units that are charged with the administration of those needs. For ex1 For an explanation of the standard error of estimate see Statistical Methods,, F. C. Mfills. Henry Holt and Co. 1924. 2 It is of course true that other factors than population affect the cost of government. The character of the population is undoubtedly important as also are the area of the administrative unit, the value of the taxable property, the total income earned within the area and the way that income is distributed among the population. 59 CHART 10 PO 7 ' 00 ovP /gy *4,(o n ample, the needs for highways depends to a large extent upon the number of'people who desire to use them. The need is there and if sufficiently great will be met either by towns, villages, or cities acting independently or by the county or State government. In any event the expense is borne by the inhabitants of the county in question. The correlation between population and governmental costs is very high. The relationship is such that costs vary directly as the 1.16415th power of the population multiplied by the constant.76980. As the population of a given area grows, the tendency will be for the cost of government to increase both in absolute and relative amounts. As between counties of different sizes the tendency will be for it to cost more, on a per family basis, in the large counties than in the small counties. 60 The equation determined above should have some value as a criterion by which to judge whether the cost of government in a particular county is high, low or average in respect to its population. The fact that the cost in a particular county lies above the line, as is the case with Nassau, does not necessarily call for condemnation. It does, however, call for explanation.Another way of approaching this problem was attempted. The total cost of local government in the different municipal units was determined. For instance, the total cost of local government in a village is made up of the village cost, a share of the town cost and a share of the county cost. In a city the costs consist of the city costs plus a share of the county costs, while in a non-village town and in that part of a village-town that lies outside of the village, the costs are made up of a portion of the town costs and a portion of the county costs.2 In the light of the wide variation found in per family costs in the different municipal units, it may be that in counties where city and town expenses are high, county costs are low and vice versa. - The same thing may be true in respect to town and village costs. To see just what the situation is a compilation was made of the total per family cost of local government in the 59 cities, 5.6 villages, and 56 non-village towns for the year 1920. These were cross-classified according to per family costs and population with the results shown in the table below. (Table XVI.) There are two interesting facts brought out by this table. First there are wide variations in costs in all groups. Some of the extremely small localities have costs as large as those of any but the very largest cities, while some of the medium sized cities have costs much lower thani those of the smaller towns. Evidently some factors' other than population must be sought for a complete explanation of the variation in relative costs of the different municipal units. The second interesting fact brought out by this table is seen when attention is focused upon the central tendencies in each group. It appears that communities under 500 in population have a tendency to operate at costs which are higher than the costs of any localities except those containing more than 15,000 inhabitants. The lowest costs are enjoyed by localities between 1,500 and 2,000 in population. Localities between 2,000 and 15,000 have practically the same per family costs, but from 15,000 on, the tendency is for costs to be constantly greater. In this later group, it is evident that as population increases the per family burden also inmcreases. 1 In a later study the combined influence of area, property valuation, income. an(ld population will be measured. 2 The cost of the schools, partly covered by taxes levied by the school districts, and the expenses of the [State lgovernment are not included in the costs analyzed here. ' Later studies will develop this idea. TABLE XVI 59 CITIES, 56 VILLAGES AND 56 NON-VILLAGE TOWNS CROSS-CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO POPULATION AND THE TOTAL COST OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN 1920 POPULATION - CAETotal CLASSES in each Under 500 1000 1500 2000 3000 4000 5000 10,000 15,000 20,000 40,000 class to to to to to to to to to to and 500 999 1499 1999 2999 3999 4999.9999 14,999 19,999 39,999 over $180 and over.............. 1...... 4 1................... 3 170 to 179........................................ 1 2 160 to 169........................................... 1 150 to 159................................................................... 22 3 140 to 149.................................. 130 to 139................. 1....................... 1 3 120 to 129........................ 3 1 1 2 7 110 to 119.............. 1 2............ 2...... 2 3 9 100 to 109.................... 1........................... 2 1 3 1 9 90 to 99............. 1 1............ 1...... 1 1...... 2 2 11 10 to 9.............. 4 S 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2...... 27 70 to 79.............. 2 7 4 2 2 5 3..... 3 3 5 1 37 60 to 69............... 2 6i 3 2...... 1 3 4 1 1...... 33 50 to 59.............. 1 4 6 3 2 2 1 2.... 2.................... 21 40 to 49............... 1 1 1 1 12.................. 1.................. s Total in each clas.... 14 33 24 13 12 9 71 6 18 8 14 13 171 1 Buffalo. 2 New York. Rochester. *Briar Cliff Manor (village). 'Sea Cliff (village). Bolton (town). 7 Indian Lake (town) 'Sherrill (city). P Deying Harbor (village, population 3). 62 It is not strange to find the costs in New York, Buffalo, and Rochester higher than in any of the other cities. However, it is extremely interesting to see that on this basis, the costs in Buffalo are $17.00 higher than in the city of New York. On the other hand, it is astbnishing to see the extremely high costs that are found in some of the smallest places. Dering Harbor, a village in the town of Shelter Island, Suffolk county, has the highest per capita or per family cost found anywhere. However as its population numbered only three in 1920, the per family figure is scarcely valid. The next highest cost was found in Briar Cliff Manor, a village of 1,027 in the town of Ossining, Westchester county. In 1920 its -costs amounted to $269 per family. Next in order comes Sea Cliff, a village of 2,108 in the town of Oyster Bay, Nassau county. Per family costs here amounted to $192. In Sherrill, a city of 1761 in Vernon town, Oneida county, the costs were $176. Bolton, a town in Warren county containing 1,184 inhabitants had costs of $171, and Indian Lake, a town of 1,031 in Hamilton county had a cost of $166 per family. This table reveals much the same thing that was shown on page 42. For localities under 2,000 in population, the smaller the population the higher the per family cost. The lowest costs are found in those localities, mostly non-village towns, that have between 1,500 and 2,000 inhabitants. Beyond this point, most of the cases are villages or cities and the increased demands due to urbanization are reflected in the costs. However, although the demands increase as the size of the unit increases, the increased population is able to meet the expenses without increasing the per family burden very greatly. The economy of serving larger numbers would have a tendency to reduce the per family burden while the effect of urbanization would be to cause the local- government to assume more and more functions thus increasing the burden. Apparently these two forces are about equal for units that range in population from 2,000 to 15,000 for the tendency is for per family costs to be constant at about $75 for units of this size. As we consider units that are larger than 15,000 the per family costs rise with the size of the unit. This would indicate that the most economical size of unit for the administration of local government is between 1,500 and 15,000. These results are substantiated by the correlation of population and the per capita cost of all local government in 80 municipalities (including non-village towns, villages and cities,' all of which contained more than 2,500 inhabitants in 1-920). The following results were obtained:correlating the logarithms of the two variables: When x represents the population and y represents the pei ca-pita cost of government The line of average relationship is y - 3.2345 x 0.17538 1 New York City was excluded. 63 CHART 11. / Popva u/a to n t.- - - _ __ ----- -- - --__ _ _---- - 4--- --- - - ____ __ ____ __ I - S.. * TeX Caoi6 Cos; 7 O oca/ Govrmn, -/ /- - - A1,10- *;Il PIS 9oere 7o7W,,,-Ip /.Aou/a~W a/7. The coefficient of correlation is +.644 and the standard error of estimate, in logarithmic form, is 0.10075. Although the variation is fairly high the value of the coefficient of correlation is large enough to indicate a significant relationship. The line of regression is inclined upward, indicating that for this group as a whole, an increase in population is accompanied by an increase in per capita cost of government. The "scatter" diagram with the line of regression, drawn in is shown in Chart 11. No correlation was calculated for the municipalities containing fewer than 2,500 inhabitants. The "(scatter " in these cases is much greater but there is a distinct downward drift indicating that the tendency is for the smaller places to have higher per capita costs. This part of the study brings out two things. First, that the smaller towns and the smaller counties, providing governmental services in rather sparsely populated districts, do so at a very high per family cost. A reorganization of units in these cases might assist in reducing the expense of government. Second,,and more important, this analysis shows the extent to which urbanization increases the cost, of government. This is noticeable in counties, cities and villages, There is a constant tendency for the per family costs of government to increase with an increase in population. The prospects for the future are that the cost of government will become more and more important as long as the population increases and the process of urbanization continues. In an isolated existence the needs that'are. felt in the city either do not exist or are satisfied directly by the individual himself. On a farm, for example, a shot-gun and a watch-dog provide ample protection. In a city, a large force of skilled policemen is necessary. On a farm and even in a village the disposal of garbage 64 and sewage is an individual problem. In a city, this problem is not so simply administered. Collective action through the city government is necessary to construct and maintain sewers and plants for the disposal of garbage. The rural inhabitant has "all out-doors" in which to walk and enjoy the sunshine. In the city, fresh air and sunshine are at a premium. If valuable land be reserved where people may walk and sit it must be done at public expense in such a way that the greatest possible use can be made of it. Public parks become more and more necessary as population grows. Congested population multiplied the needs for governmental services and at the same time probably makes the population more disposed toward collective action. Certainly if cost can be taken as a measure of the quantity of the governmental services performed, this is the case. Also, as the different items included under a given classification of expense are examined, it is evident that city dwellers demand more governmental services than do rural inhabitants. V. THE INFLUENCE OF POPULATION UPON THE COST OF EDUCATION IN NEW YORK STATE Because of the different ways in which the cost of education is treated in cities, the preceding analysis has been, concerned with the strictly governmental expenses (excluding education). It was desired to see if the same relation exists betwen population and educational costs as exists between population and governmental costs.1 Accordingly, the correlation between the logarithms of these two variables was determined. The county was taken as the unit. All the counties were included except the very largest (Greater New York) and the very smallest (Hamilton). When x is taken to represent population in thousands and y the total cost of education in thousands of dollars, the relationship may be expressed by the following equation: y = 9.430 x 1.00934 The coefficient of correlation is +.948 and the standard error of estimate in logarithmic form is 0.11747. Although Greater New York and Hamilton were not included in the calculations they are shown on the "scatter" diagram in Chart 12 as the two extreme items. It is remarkable that the line should pass directly through the point representing New York City. Hamilton county has costs which are much in excess of the amount it theoretically should have, if this law held beyond the limits for which it was determined. 1 For a discussion of educational costs see The Financing of Education. in the Statc of Arcw York, George D. Strayer and Robert Murray Haig. Macmillan 65 /7cn/V7-Z dX'O J NoLL r)7 7k/JoJ The exponent of x in this case 1.00934, is only slightly greater than unity. This indicates that in general, the per capita cost of education is not materially greater in large counties than it is in small counties. One explanation of this is undoubtedly the more intensive utilization of educational facilities in populous districts, i. e., the possibility of having schools and classes of economical size, the double shift of classes in the morning and afternoon, night school, suminer school, ete. -6 VI. THE INFLUENCE OF POPULATION UPON THE VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY IN NEW YORK STATE The following is a study of the influence of population upon the valuation of real property. If population affects the cost of government to such an extent that it costs. more than twice as much per capita in counties containing a million inhabitants than it does in counties containing 10,000 inhabitants, what must be the effect of population upon the value of real property, which, as the tax base, must bear a large share of the cost of government? Again there are two ways in which this problem might be studied. The relationship between the growth of real property valuation and the growth of population might be determined, but there are the same objections to the application of this, method here as were noted before. The rise in the general level of prices has carried the valuation of property with it. The relative value of land varies with changes in the social and industrial development. Improved methods of transportation have made remote territories more accessible and have brought areas beyond the boundaries of the state into competition with New York State land. Changes have taken place in administration procedure, changes that have influenced the assessment of land and raise a still more important objection to this mode of attack. A higher standard of assessment has been gradually brought about largely through, dividing the proceeds of the state income tax among municipalities on the basis of the assessed valuation of their real property. In addition, numerous changes have been made in boundaries, making it almost impossible to get comparable property valuation figures over a period of time. Therefore it will be more appropriate to employ the method of correlation in studying the influence of population upon the valuation of real property. The relationship between the population in 1920 and the figures of the State Tax Commission for the full valuation of real property in the same year will be studied. There is logical ground to expect property valuation to behave as a function of population, that is, to expect a high degree of positive correlation between these two factors. Before a new country is settled the land is next to worthless. The value of.land, like the value of anything else,,depends upon the available supply of it in relation to the demand for it. Land is somewhat different from most other commodities, however, in that the supply of it is rather definitely limited. In the days of the early settlers the supply seemed limitless, but as time elapsed and population grew the limit became more and more pronounced and the values increased as the demand increased.' 1 The effective supply of land may be temporarily increased by improvements in transportation and to a very slight extent land area may be increased. Swamp land may be reclaimed and arid land irrigated, but the area so added is relatively insignificant. 67:: It is primarily the demand for land that changes. This demand comes from the needs of the population for housing, food, recreation and sites for carrying on business activities. The population has gone on increasing at a fairly steady rate since the beginning of the state. In general, then, we should expect to see increasing population accompanied by increasing property values. As a matter of fact, the assessed valuation of real estate since 1840 has increased at a rate which is much more rapid than that of the increase of population. (See Chart 1, p. 17.) The number of people living in a given locality measures the demand for the use of the real property in that locality. The functional relationship between population and the value of real property is, then, one aspect of the law of demand for real property. It is well to remember that no two municipalities are exactly alike and no two pieces of property have the same characteristics. Land differs with respect to climate, topography, soil content, distance from the market, environment, etc. The evaluation of land is a very difficult task and it is especially so in the rural districts where property changes hands infrequently and assessments are made by inexperienced men. Therefore, it would be logical to expect considerable variation in the figures of property valuation. Errors in them will be due primarily to the fact that they represent the personal opinions of assessors on a very difficult problem. It was decided to confine this part of the study to cities and villages. As the distinction between a city and a village is chiefly a legal one there was no reason why the two clases of municipalities should not be considered together. The value of real property results from the fact that there is a demand for it and the demand for it arises from the presence of people living in a given locality, whether it be a city or a village. Cities and villages, therefore, are population centers, and for the immediate purpose of this study they form a homogeneous group. The inclusion of both cities and villages gives units ranging in population from 80' inhabitants to 500,000 inhabitants and in aggregations of property from $100,000 to $1,000,000,000. A study of this group will not only permit the determination of the nature of the relationship between population and property value but also the determination of whether that relationship is the same for large and small places alike throughout New York State. Accordingly, it was decided to include in this study the 100 sample villages and all of the cities with the single exception of Greater New York. Greater New York is so much larger than any of the other cities that its inclusion would unduly effect the value of the coefficient of correlation. Population figures were obtained from the 1920 census and the full value of real estate from the State Tax Department for the same year. The first step in this analysis was the construction of the "scatter" diagram, Chart 13. This, it will be noticed, is on double logarithmic coordinate paper extending over four cycles each way. Population is plotted as the independent variable and property value as the dependent variable. 68 Iiii?III I- I -- " HF J--_7_.__7VY p,70 - 77Y71 The linearity of the drift is at once evident. Throughout these cities and villages, from the little hamlet of Galway with its ninetyfour inhabitants to the city of Buffalo whose inhabitants number half a million, there is a deffnite tendency for the total property value to vary with the population. The Pearsonian method of correlation was used here to measure the degree of relationship between these two variables and to determine the mathematical equation describing this relationship. As it is only on double logarithmic paper that this relationship appears linear, the logarithms of the two variables were correlated. The linearity of the drift is at once evident. Throughout these cities and villages, from the little hamlet of Galway with its ninetyfour inhabitants to the city of Buffalo whose inhabitants number half a million, there is a definite tendency for the total property value to vary with the population. The Pearsoanian method of correlation was used here to measure the degree of relationship between these two variables and to determine the mathematical equation describing-this relationship. As it is only on double logarithmic paper that this relationship appears linear, the logarithms of the two variables were correlated. 69 This ainalysis gives as the line of regression, the following equation: log y 1.164535 log x- 0.727147 which in natural form is as follows: X 1.164535 y=--- 5.335154 Where x represents the population and y represents the fill value of real estate in thousands of dollars. In logarithmic form, the standard error of estimate is 0.234270. The coefficient of correlation, r, has a value of -.966. To the writer's knowledge, this is the first attempt that has been made to measure the influence of population upon the value of real property. It. is recognized that a number of factors may have an influence upon the total property value in a given locality and it will be the purpose of later studies to measure them. The racial characteristics of the population, their industrial habits and their incomes, the proximity of a given locality to a market, the presence or absence of good roads or other means of transportation, climate, topography, and soil conditions are elements that enter the problem. However, the thesis is here advanced that throughout the state, population alone is by far the most important factor. Undoubtedly a great many of the minor elements are reflected in the population figure itself. Population centers grow most rapidly where the best opportunities for living and making a living exist. The more favorable these conditions, the larger will be the population. Particular interest attaches to the form of the equation describing property value as a function of population. Such an equation should prove useful in studying the problem of equalizing taxes between different districts. It should help in standardizing assessment procedure throughout the cities and villages in the state. VII. THE INFLUENCE OF POPULATION UPON NET TAXABLE INCOME IN NEW YORK STATE The foregoing studies establish the fact that the cost of government to the average citizen depends to a large extent upon the size of the municipality in which he lives. The municipalities with the lowest costs have populations between 1,500 and 15,000. As population increases beyond this point, the cost to the average citizen increases with the population. However, this does not seem to hinder the growth of the larger cities. Despite the fact that taxes and the cost of living are higher in cities, people continue to move in from the smaller communities. Although city costs are higher it would seem that the opportunities for making a living there are greater. 70 It has been established that population and the value of real estate are very closely related. Taking the county as the unit and including all counties except the largest and the smallest (New York City and Hamilton) the following results were obtained \when population and income taxable by the state were correlated in logarithmic form. When x represents population in thousands, and y represents total taxable income in millions of dollars, the line of average relationship is y - 0.12816 x 1.10385 T1h1me coefficient of correlation is +.9909 and the standard error of estimate, in logarithmic form is 0.05400. The "scatter" diagram is shown in Chart 14. CHART 14 -T- -4__ 14- L-i /0!Lic ___--i /A VJ SAlthough not iincluded in the calculation these two cases are shown plotted onil the scatter diagram in Chart 14, Both fall very close to the line of regression. 71 VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION WITH SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY At this point it will be of interest to summarize the results of the studies that have been made of the relationship between population and (1) cost of government, (2) cost of education, (3) value of real property and (4) amount of taxable income. Table XVII presents a summary of these results in concise form and Table XVII-a will aid in the interpretation of these results. Column (1) of Table XVII gives a list of the variables which have been correlated with population. Column (2) tells the number of observations upon which the results rest in each case. The coefficients of correlation are listed in column (3) and the equations of the lines of regression in column (4). Column (5) presents the standard errors of estimates in logarithmic form. Attention is called to the fact that in correlating population with the cost of local goveinment in municipalities over 2,500 in population, the per capita figure was employed for the sake of convenience. If the total cost of local government had been used the exponent of x in the equation of the line of regression would have been 1.175 instead of 0.175. This would then be comparable with the exponents obtained in the other cases. In these results we are more interested in the lines of regression than in either the coefficients of correlation or the standard errors of estimate. These lines of regression are the algebraic expressions of the laws describing the influence of population upon the variables in question. These laws are interpreted in Table XVII-a. This shows the values of the different variables on a per family basis that are found in connection with populations of given size. For example the total per family cost of local government in a county with a population of 10,000 theoretically, would have been $56 in 1920, while in a county containing 1,000,000 inhabitants the per family cost would have been $1.20 or 2.14 times as great. The difference in the size of these two counties accounts for that difference in the relative cost of local government. The per family cost of education in counties does not obey the same law. In a county of 10,000 inhabitants the per family cost was only four per cent less than in a county containing a million inhabitants. When the cost of local government to the average family of five persons is studied in cities and villages over 2,500 in population, the results obtained in the first case are corroborated. The total per family cost was $80 in places of 10,000 while in a municipality of 1,000,000 theoretically it would have been $180 or 2.25 times as great. The relative value of real property conforms to a law which is very similar. In municipalities of 10,000 the average per family value of real property was $4,265 in 1920 while in a place one 72 hundred.times as large the average per family value would have been $9,100 or 2.13 times as great as in the smaller place. The average per family state net taxable income in 1920 behaves in a very similar fashion although the evidence shows that the influence of urbanization in increasing the size of the average per family income is not quite as strong as was the case in the other variables. It is possible that in the cities there is more evasion and a less accurate measure of income than in the rural areas. In a county containing 10,000 inhabitants the average per family income was $910 while in a county one hundred times as large the average per family income was $1,850 or 2.03 times as much as in the smaller county. This information is presented in a different form in Chart 15. This chart is constructed to show the comparison of the rates of increase of the variables studied (on a per family basis) as the population of the municipalities considered varies between 10,000 and 1,000,000. The chart is ruled logarithmically both ways. The slopes of the curves are determined by the exponents of x in the equations to the lines of regression (see Table XVII). The tendency toward parallelism is evident except in the case of cost of education and, to a less extent, in the net income. TABLE XVII SUMMARY OF CORRELATION STUDIES (1) (2) (3) (4) Standard VARIABLES: Number Coefficient Li of r ord POPULATION CORRELATED Of of regression estimate WITH cases correlation (log. form) Total cost of local govern- 1.164 ment in counties......... 56 +.970 y =0.76980 x 0.10771 Total cost of education in 1.009 counties................ 56 +.948 y==9.43 x 0.11747 Per capita cost of local government in municipalities 0.175 over 2500 in population.. 80 +.644 y=3.235 x 0.10075 1.165 Total value of real property x in villages and cities..... 159 +.966 y = 0.23427 5.335 Total taxable income in 1.154 counties................ 56 +.991 y=0.128 x 0.054CO 73 CHART 15 1/2 /0,Qoo /00, o00 00,000 Popo u/acion Comparison of the Rates at Which Cost of Government, Income and Property Value Increase with Corresponding Increases in the Population. TABLE XVII-A INTERPRETATION OF CORRELATION STUDIES Showing the Per Family Values of the Different Variables Normally Associated with Populations of Given Size -1920 (Shown graphically above) (2) (1) Where the municipality in question has a VARIABLE ON population of: PER FAMILY BASIS 1,000 3,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 Cost of local government in counties................................ $56 $82 $120 Cost of education in counties............... 52 53 54 Cost of local government in municipalities over 2,500............ $65 80 120 180 Value of real property in cities and villages............... $2,920 3,500 4,265 6,230 9,100 Taxable income in counties................. 910 1,300 1,850 74 Summary: Statistical methods have been employed in this study for two purposes. First, to describe the cost of government in the state as a whole and in each class of administrative unit. This was done in sections I and II where a cross-section picture of government 3osts was presented from several different angles. This description revealed a wide variation in relative costs and suggested a t;tudy of population as a possible cause of variation. Section III contains a description of the distribution of population in New York State and reveals the importance of the difference in the growth of population in different sections. The remaining portion of this paper exemplifies the second use of statistical method, namely, in measuring the influence of population upon the cost of government and upon.certain other factors intimately related to governmental costs. By the use of the tool of correlation certain laws of relationships were determined that apply (within limts) to the municipalities of New York State. Suggestions for future study It remains for later studies to verify these findings and to test their application to other states and countries. Similar studies should be made for more recent periods and for more detailed costs. Variables other than the crude figure of population should be considered. Moreover, the practical utility of laws determined in this way should be tested to justify this quantitative approach to the problems of government. The standardization of methods of assessment for tax purposes is a problem that we feel can be approached by the use of an elaboration of the methods here employed. The distribution of state aid which is now effected in a great many different ways might be standardized by the use of a study of this nature. ~I~ APPENDIX BASIC TABLES OF COST OF GOVERNMENT 1751 TABLE XVIII SUMMARY OF THE AVERAGE ANNUAL EXPENDITURES OF THE STATE, COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES FOR THE DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS (AVeragte of the Four Years, 1918-1921, Inclusive) General government I State...................... Counties.................... New York... First class cities Buffalo...... I Rochester... Second class cities............. Third cl cities............ Towns................. ViIIges...................... Total.............. Education (all units).......... Total, including education. S8,627'414 7,030,666 26,907,274 2,029,710 1 041 254 1,652,721 1,894,958 3,025,019 784,143,"2,993,159 Protection 7$9,698,219 1,037,170 41,154,030 4,223,147 1,648,625 3,812,682 3,218,720 679,781 1,457,212 $66,929,586 Bealth 8$1,362,003 1,421,750 5,009,651 1,183,160 174,453 650,020 401,264 299,294 167,848 810,671,443 Sanitation $16,925 16,325,538 1,520,605 925,064 1,585,734 1,307,837 223,962 520,479 822,426,144 Highways $12,221,374 1,320,804 7,801,058 9.978,055 809,821 1,369,628 2,628,922 9,071,143 2,883,478 839,084,283 Charities and Corrections 819,101,560 6,849,383 18,419,351 375,778 245,958 807,613 838,296 831-,181.......... Public Recreation utilitiesNoncommercial $368,970 4,255,028 82,706,261 705,978 1,050,882 371,223 25,395 510,089 28,291 347,178 88,680 17,625 92,212, 46,932 Interest $9,719,767 1,404,093 47,510,790 1,695,877 1,000,824 2,075,238 1,641,363 476,145 798,040 All others 82,526,074 143,837 269,259 27,513 130,529 298,637 274,498 202,214 123,300 83,995,861 Total '1 863,625,381 19,224,628 170,358,240 13,790:705 6,373,146 12,792,653 12,641,716 14,826,364 6,873,6.44 $320,506,477 11 102,656,052 I 8547,469,120 86,650,678 $3,964,066 866,322,137 I I I I I - I-- ~ 1--- -- 1.1-I - -- - ~~~ I ~~~ 1 ~~.~~I~ $423,162,529 7 $2,938,069, classified as " Development and Conservation of Natural Resources,' is included in this figure. 8 The state's expenditures for sanitation are included in this figure. 9 This also includes harbor expenditures. 10 Educational expenses are not included in this figure. 11 From figures furnished by Educational Finance Commission. Repor of the Special Joint Committee on Taatiaon and Retrenelnnent. N. Y. State Legislative Document No. 55. 1922. TABLE XVIII(a) SUMMARY OF AVERAGE ANNUAL EXPENDITURES OF THE STATE, COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES FOR THE DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS SHOWING THE PERCENTAGE SHARE OF EACH POLITICAL UNIT IN THE TOTAL AVERAGE ANNUAL AMOUNT SPENT FOR EACH FUNCTION (Based on Table XVIII and Presented Graphically in Charts 3, 4 and 5) General government Protection Health Sanitation I Highways Charities and corrections Recreation Public utilities non-commercial Interest All others Total Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cen Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent State........................ 16.28 14.49 12.76 0.0 31.27 40.24 5.55........ 14.66 63.22 19.85 Counties...................... 13.27 1.55 13.33.07 3.38 14.43.......... 2.12 3.60 6.00 New York... 50.77 61.49 46.94 72.80 19.96 38.80 63.98 68.27 71.64 6.74 53.16 First class cities.. Buffalo...... 3.83 6.30 11.09 6.78 2.50.79 10.62 26.52 2.56.69 4.30 Rochester... 1.96 2.46 1.63 4.13 2.07.52 5.58.64 1.50 3.27 1.99 Second class cities..3.12 5.70 6.12 7.07 3.50 1.70 7.67.71 3.13 7.47 3.99 Third class cities................ 3.58 4.81 3.76 5.83 6.73 1.77 5.21 2.24 2.47 6.87 3.94 Towns........................ 5.71 1.02 2.80 1.00 23.21 1.75.44.72 5.06 4.63 Villages...................... 1.48 2.18 1.57 2.32 7.38 1.39 1.18 1.20 3.08 2.14 Total........................ 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 TABLE XVIII(b) SUMMARY OF AVERAGE ANNUAL EXPENDITURES OF THE STATE, COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES FOR THE DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS SHOWING FOR EACH POLITICAL UNIT THE RELATIVE AMOUNTS SPENT FOR EACH FUNCTION ' (Based on Table XVIII and Presented Graphically in Chart 6) General Charities Public govern- Protection Health Sanitation Highways and Recreation utilities Interest ll Total Sment * * corrections non-com-.others mercial M Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent State.......................... 13.56 15.24 2.14....... 19.21 30.02 0.58....15.28 3.97 100 Cointies...................... 36.57 5.40 7.40 0.09 6.87 35.63............. 7.30 0.74 100 (New York... 15.79 24.16 2.94 9.58 4.58 10.81 2.50 1.59 27.89 0.16 100 First class cities.. Buffalo...... 14.72 30.62 8.58 11.04 7.09 2.70 5.13 7.62 12.30 0.20 100 S Rochester... 16.34- 25.87 2.74 14.52 12.7.0 3.86 5.82 0.40 15.70 2.05 100 Second class cities.............. 12.92 29.80 5.10 12.40 10.71 6.31 3.99 0.22 16.22 2.33 100 Third class cities............... 14.99 25.46 3.17 10.35 20.80 6.63 2.75- 0.70 12.98 2.17 100 Towns....................... 20.40 4.58 2.02 1.51 61.18 5.62.. 0.12 3.21 1.36 100 Villages...................... 11.41 21.20 2.44 7.57 41.95........ 1.34 0.68 11.62 1.79 100 Total.................... 16.53 20.88 3.33 7.00 12.19 14.81 2.08 1.24 20.69 1.25 100 TABLE XIX SUMMARY OF THE POPULATION AND GOVERNMENT COST PAYMENTS (EXCLUSIVE OF EDUCATION) IN ALL POLITICAL UNITS OF NEW YORK STATE IN 1920, CLASSIFIED BY COUNTIES Grand total Per family Total cost Population Total cost Total cost Population Total cost of cost cost of Population payments liing in payments Population payments of the payments payments all local COUNTY livingin made by villages, made by living in made county, 1 made by made by all governtowns, 1920 towns, 1920 villages, cities, 1920 by cities, 1920 counties, governmental ment, 1920 1920 1920 1920 units in 1920 county, 1920 Albany................. Allegany............... Broome............... Cattaraugus............ Cayuga.............. Chautauqua............ Chemung............... Chenango............ Clinton.............. Columbia............ Cortland.......... Delaware.............. Dutchess............ Erie.............. Essex............... Franklin.............. Genesee............ Greene............ Hamilton............ Herkimer.............. Jefferson............... Lewis............... Livingston........... M adison.............. Monroe................. Montgomery......... Nassau................. New York (greater)...... 33,702 36,842 46,810 40,515 29,029 57,056 20,479 26,701 32,989 27,185 16,331 42,774 45,751 98,805 31,871 42,525 11, 944 24,090 25,796 3,970 51,933 50,965 23,704 36,830 28,994 56,284 24, 404 117,456 None $206,191 312, 849 218,680 328,047 242,479 389,996 144,625 245,660 182,762 232,650 108,731 330,394 309,207 684,650 289,741 226 958 118,534 195,215 178,652 119,332 235, 351 336,996 166,325 223, 939 185,548 538,292 177,833 1,159,589 None 7,915 13,504 25,032 13,135 6,333 22,560 7,081 7,606 6,788 6,652 3, 953 13,583 10,155 35,829 9,891 16,608 2,000 7,239 9,973 None 34,362 20,762 7,487 16,872 10,633 18,839 12,350 46,565 None $39,270 92,952 131,726 85,518 36,487 152,103 32,678 44,201 14,294 27,703 18,732 90,747 69,723 317,463 112,363 138,686 6,828 58,037 65,560 None 212,285 139,602 53,751 112,706 73,408 119,805 99,235 554,625 None 152,404 $2,577,068 186,106 None None 36,842 66,800 1,028,514 113,610 29,782 328,169 70,297 36,192 413,476 65,221 58,253 697,004 115,309 45,393 564,709 65,872 8,268 64,002 34,969 10,909 87,604 43,898 11,745 123,025 38,930 13,294 115,187 29,625 None None 42,774 45,996 671,665 91,747 534,761 15,779,144 633,566 None None 31,871 None None 42,525 32,983 356,187 44,927 13,541 188,681 37,631 None None 25,796 None None 3,970 13,029 105,719 64,962 31,285 557,742 82,250 None None 23,704 None None 36,830 10,541 92,646 39,535 295,750 6,508,244 352,034 33,524 359,983 57,928 8,664 127,729 126,120 5.620,048 175.216,161 5,620,048 $971,597 111,904 397,031 259,513 250,912 306,913 184,972 197,293 156,512 204,421 120,719 157,754 265,471 2,685,831 126,580 258,774 151,970 123,586 110,292 40,622 254,587 290,972 91,421 151,549 189,904 1,485,699 202,191 1,168,693 2 $3,794,126 $101 93 517,705 70 26 1,775,951 78 16 1,001,247 71 21 943,354 72 32 1,546,016 67 04 926,984 70 36 551,156 78 80 441,172 50 25 587,799 75 49 363,369 61 33 578,895 67 67 1,017,282 55 44 19,467,088 153 60 528,684 82 94 624,418 73 42, 633,519 70 50 565,519 75 14 354,504 68 71 159,954 201 45 843,942 61 11 1,325,312 80 56 311,497 65 70 488,194 66 27 541,504 68 48 8,652,040 122 88 839,222 72 43 3,010,636 119 35 234,208,285 155 88 Niagara............... Oneida.............. Onondaga............. Ontario................ St. Lawrence........... Schenectady........... Saratoga............. Orange............... Orleans.............. Oswego............... Otsego................. Putnam................. Rensselaer............. Rockland............ Schoharie.............. Schuyler.............. Seneca.................. Steuben................ Suffolk................. Sullivan................ Tioga.................. Tompkins............ Ulster................. Warren................. Washington............. Wayne.............. Westchester.......... Wyoming............. Yates.......... Tn.1 f r f....a.Qfqn. 30,836 189,293 7,553 60,575 439,601 18,632 69,273 372,831 28,458 30,648 241,660 8,613 60,887 411,088 20,294 28,619 116,984 13,057 34,376 239,746 8,185 34,618 267,646 8,636 10,802 108,684 2,794 30,293 201,615 8,347 45,548 211,000 23,884 73,512 516,497 22,602 38,682 351,583 14,900 20,640 145,430 4,358 21,303 145,402 5,447 13,098 88,621 5,091 24,735 141,658 11,629 49,782 352,088 17,548 110,134 1,210,544 21,692 33,163 267,484 6,095 24,212 144,859 12,152 18,281 138,312 4,737 48,291 303,174 9,795 15,035 184,675 630 44,888 306,020 23,476 48,827 311,347 20,281 144,290 1,255,437 110,266 30,314 211,131 15,162 16,641 91,411 6,366 298,028 $17,055,047 854,388 55,340 102,148 225,862 42,132 126,834 119,122 41,239 60,568 17,696 49,710 203,260 161,139 105,277 28,429 35,504 30,876 126,960 84,595 253,270 39,794 85,014 24,498 53,221 5,350 142,687 185,566 1,781,768 99,714 42,416 87,550 122,258 171,717 22,004 58,957 None 36,669 11,582 None 82,836 None 14,609 21,347 88,723 None None None 30,845 None None None 17,004 26,688 16,638 None None 200,146 None None 1,634,693 1,835,031 3,504,095 224,786 637,091 None 422,232 91,624 None 1,293,801 None 104,777 350,308 1,756,168 None None None 277,377 None None None 246,404 455,764 211,271 None None 4,858,724 None None 223,866,805 118,386 419,548 2,298,874 97 09 182,833 737,626 3.114,406 85 17 240,990 1,342,442 5,445,230 112 97 52,652 207,301 715,879 67 98 119,844 365,452 1,740,465 72 61 28,619 103,040 339,146, 59 25 71,045 300,445 864,119 60 81 46,200 173,036 592,874 64 16 10,802 69,259 195,639 90 55 113,129 651,326 2,196,452 97 07 45,548 284,753 699,013 76 73 88,121 173,806 942,620 53 48 60,029 268,238 1,075,406 89 57 109,363 391,014 2,321,041 106 11 21,303 59,252 240,158 56 36 13,098 49,870 169,367 64 65 24,735 101,485 370,103 74 81 80,627 245,064 959,124 59 48 110,134 502,898 1,966,712 89 28 33,163 123,659 430,937 64 97 24,212 89,989 319,862 66 05 35,285 116,134 525,348 74 44 74,979 348,519 897,162 59 83 31,673 165,591 566,887 89 49 00 44,888 144,489 593,196 66 07 I 48,827 154,754 651,667 66 73 344,436 1,761,071 9,657,000 140 18 30,314 95,725 406,570 67 06 16,641 54,412 188,239 56 56,380,783 20,417,881 $327,082,870 167 50 - I A VLSI LVI Lle la utje d;, $7,230,477 8,082,755 10 1 Indians on State reservations excluded. 2 Included in the payments of New York City. TABLE XX THE AVERAGE PER FAMILY COST OF THE VARIOUS GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS IN THE DIFFERENT POLITICAL UNITS IN NEW YORK STATE. (BASED ON THE PERIOD 1917 TO 1921, INCLUSIVE, EXCEPT FOR THE State WHICH IS BASED ON THE PERIOD 1918 TO 1921, INCLUSIVE) SThe information presented in Tables XXI, XXII, XXIII and XXIV is summariued here in condensed form Total General Charities Public Interest Interest governGovern- Protec- Health Sani- High- and Recrea- utilities All on ter- on. ment ent- tion tation ways correc- tion non-com- others porary funded cost tions mercial loans debt payments The State...................... 4 16 $4 67 $ 66 00 $5 89 $9 20 $ 18 00 $1 22 (b) (b)$4 68 $30 64 O Counties: Lowest................... 3 86 32 00 00 19 1 95 00 00 00 00 00 9 73 'Lower Quartile............. 6 15 78 16 00 47 4 33 00 00 05 02 31 15 40 Median.................. 7 12 99 84 00 76 5 54 00 00 09 07 65 17 77 Upper Quartile............. 8 89 1 21 2 12 00 1 48 7 17 00 00 22 17 1 37 20 50 Highest................... 29 45 2 39 3 47 00 8 52 14 29 00 00 3 46 6 55 8 64 56 58 Towns: Lowest................... 2 60 (a) 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 5 16 Lower Quartile.............. 4 19 09 51 00 16 12 38 00 00 06 02 00 22 86 Median................... 5 16 24 72 00 22 63 90 00 00 14 06 00 32 80 Upper Quartile............. 7 20 59 93 00 34 61 2 09 00 (a) 37 14 43 46 39 Highest................... 20 53 9 04 8 95 7 79 89 66 10 54 00 3 02 8 27 99 11 64 109 70 Villages: Lowest.................... 50 00 00 00 5 43 00 00 00 00 00 00 8 36 Lower Quartile............. 1 73 1 43 48 00 12 03 00 00 00 04 00 00 19 92 Median................... 2 82 3 56 70 33 14 94 00 08 00 30 06 75 27 91 Upper Quartile............. 4 47 6 91 90 2 29 19 56 00 61 00 66 17 3 12 36 76 Highest.................... 12 81 21 94 4 74 30 13 59 17 00 3 95 1 74 3 25 2 90 15 48 105 79 Cities of the 2d and 3d class: Lowest................... Lower Quartile............ Median.................. Upper Quartile............ Highest................... Cities of the 1st class: New York City............ Buffalo................... Rochester................. 2 35 7 23 8 75 10 34 20 00 2 48 11 11 14 16 20 33 31 91 38 1 19 1 63 2 32 6 94 35 3 03 5 00 8 84 16 95 14 52 15 00 15 64 5 96 9 02 11 11 14 36 29 39 00 1 97 3 17 5 41 11 81 00 55 91 2 05 9 33 3 79 6 97 6 28 00 03 00 56 03 1 02 19 200 3 63 4 52 2 41 24 10 37 27 43 2 21 00 09 22 67 6 59 1 67 4 30 6 00 8 62 23 60 14 33 44 17 56 44 72 94 121 99 151 56 136 06 107 74 23 94 36 61 4 46 20 03 41 67 11 67 17 60 27 87 2 94 6 94 16 39 9 65 3 71 1369 4 16 (b) (b) 42 27 (b) (b) 16 73 (b) (b) 16 92 (a) Less than 5 mills. (b) Total interest given under " Interest on funded debt." TABLE XXI THE AVERAGE PER FAMILY COST OF THE VARIOUS FUNCTIONS OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT IN FIFTY-SEVEN COUNTIES OF NEW YORK STATE (Based on the period 1917 to 1921, inclusive) General Government Protection of Persons and Property Conservation of Health Highways Charities and Corrections Education 1I _ _ _ - _ -____ I -- County Amount County Amount County -1 ---- )------ I-- I----- Chautauqua..... St. Lawrence..... Broome........ Allegany........ Franklin....... Jefferson........ Genesee....... Erie........... Oneida......... Wayne......... Tompkins....... Montgomery..... Niagara......... Dutchess....... $3 86 4 08 4 91 5 22 5 36 5 37 5 55 5 55 5 94 6 00 6 03 6 10 6 11 6 13 Chemung....... Rocklan d....... Westchester.... Ulster......... Clinton........ Cattaraugus.... Tioga........ Tompkins...... Chenango...... Orange......... Broome........ Franklin....... Montgomery.... Albany......... $0 32 38 42 43 48 49 54 60 64 66 67 68 72 76 Schoharie....... Hamilton....... Sullivan........ Clinton........ St. Lawrence.... Tioga......... Schuyler...... Lewis.......... Erie........... Essex....... Yates.......... Wasnington..... Seneca....... Westchester.... Amount (a) 01 02 04 06 09 11 11 15 16 County Schenectady.... Westchester... Clinton........ Broome........ Dutchess....... St. Lawrence.... Greene......... Suffolk......... Delaware....... Montgomery.... Ontario... Sullivan... Otsego... Herkimer..... Amount,o 19 21 25 26 27 29 32 33 33 34 37 46 46 46 County Schuyler....... Hamilton....... Ulster.......... Schoharie.... St. Lawrence.... Cattaraugus.... Tompkins..... Steuben........ Fulton......... Delaware....... Orange....... Chemung....... Jefferson...... Chautauqua.... Amount $1 95 2 26 2 76 2 96 3 05 3 23 3 24 3 32 3 43 3 46 3 74 3 89 3 93 4 11 County Putnam....... Broome....... Albany........ Chautauqua... Rensselaer...... Dutchess....... Chemung.... Ulster..... Schenectady.... Niagara........ Fulton......... Orange......... Rockland....... Ontario........ Amount $0 14 19 21 22 22 23 00 23 24 26 29 29 31 32 32 I -L I-, I I -L I I I I -1. -- I I 1 - 1. 1 - 1 i Lower Quartiles:............. 6 15.......... 78 ]............... 16................I - I -I - F F-------------- I P Schenectady..... Washington...... Yates.......... Wyoming....... Chemung...... Otsego.......... Ontario......... Steuben........ Monroe......... Orange........ Herkimer.... 6 15 6 28 6 28.6 30 6.33 6 42 6 44 6 46 6 46 6 64 6 66 Columbia....... Seneca......... Yates.......... Saratoga....... Warren........ Jefferson...... Fulton......... Herkimer....... Sullivan........ Cayuga....... Schenectady.... 78 81 83 86 87 87 88 89 89 92 94 "Wyoming...... Greene. Madison....... Orleans........ Putnam........ Allegany....... Cayuga........ Genesee........ Livingston...... Cortland.. Wayne........ 16 18 21 26 28 33 37 38 53 61 68 Oneida........ Orange... Chemung.... Essex....... Columbia....... Schoharie....... Albany...... Allegany...... Steuben........ Wayne......... Genesee........ 47 47 47 48 52 52 52 55 57 57 58 59 -F............... Saratoga...... Cortland...... Schenectady.... Wayne..... Greene...... Herkimer.:. Sullivan........ Niagara..... Montgomery.... Oswego....... Wyoming...... I 4 33 4 33 4 35 4 38 4 45 4 70 4 74 4 77 4 80 4 82 4 97 4 98 Oneida......... Onondaga...... St. Lawrence.... 'Steuben........ Monroe........ Montgomery.... Washington..... Westchester.... Genesee........ Erie........... Suffolk......... 33 33 35 36 36 37 38 39 39 41 42 44 Delaware. Cayuga......... Tioga.......... 7 00 7 07 7 12 Essex.......... Wayne......... Genesee. I 94 Dutchess. 98 Orange......... 99 Uleter........ 75 1 Monroe....... 79 Lewis...... 81 Rensselaer.... 70 71 74 Nassau......... Dutchess. Seneca..... 5 02.Columbia 5 20 Cayuga........ 5 48 Herkirer...... 44 45 45.Medians.........Oswego......... 7 12 Dutchess....... 99 Franklin....... 84 Fulton.........76 Lewis.......... 5 54 Clinton........ 45 Cattaraugus 7 20 Rensselaer...... 101 Chenango...... 111 Cortland....... 85 Clinton......... 5 57 Lewis...........45 Cbenango....... 724 Chautauqua.... 101 Albany......... 115 Erie............ 86 Rockland....... 5 62 Oswego....... 45 Clinton......... 7 29 Washington..... 102 Chautauqua.... 119 Yates........... 92 Suffolk......... 5 67 Saratoga....... 46 Schuyler......... 746 Steuben........ 106 Steuben........ 126 Washington..... 93 Otsego......... 596 Sullivan........ 48 Fulton..........7 56 Lewis.......... 106 Otsego......... 127 Tompkins...... 102 Madison..... 6.17 Wyoming...... 49 Onondaga....... 757 Onondaga...... 107 Chemung....... 134 Tioga......... 112 Cayuga........ 6 26 Wayne........... 49 Livingston....... 764 St. Lawrence.- 107 Jefferson. 1..... 152 Chautauqua.... 113 Ontario.........6 30 Nassau.......... 49 Ulster.......... 7 70 Oswego......... 108 Brooms......... 153 Putnam........ 115 Allegany....... 6 56 Greene.......... 49 Lewis........... 773 Schoharie....... 110 Suffolk......... 165 Livingston...... 128 Tioga.......... 6 65 Jefferson....... 49 Orleans......... 822 Allegany....... 112 Herkimer....... 167 Wyoming....... 136 Washington.... 6 69 Chenango...... 53 Schoharie........ 844 Erie........... 113 Warren...... 1 69 Cattaraugus. 1 38 Geneses........ 6 97 Yates........... 55 Rockland........ 863 Otsego......... 114 Delaware....... 174 Warren......... 142 Orleans......... 7 06 Cattaraugus.... 56 Madison......... 865 Niagara........ 121 Columbia....... 193 Niagara........ 144 Yates..........7 08 Schobarie5...... 6 Cortland......... 8 89 Schuyler....... 121 Cattaraugus.... 212 Saratoga....... 148 Franklin....... 7 17 Tompkins...... 59 Upper Quartiles................. 8 89................ 1 21................ 2 12................ 148................ 717................ 59 warren. Saratoga........ Suffolk...... Westchester. Rensselaer. Seneca.......... Warren......... Albany.......... Essex......... Sullivan........ Greene......... Columbia........ Putnam......... Na~sau....... - Hamilton....... 8 92 8 97 8 97 9 02 9 23 9 25 9 33 9 74 9 93 10 40 10 65 12 89 15 62 29 45 - Oneida......... Madison....... Delaware....... Ontario........ Cortland...... Putnam........ Livingston. Wyoming...... Greene....... Orleans....... Monroe........ Suffolk........ Nassau.... Hamilton...... 1 21 1 26 1 31 1 32 1 33 1 39 1 39 1 52 1 56 1 57 1 85 197 2 07 2 39 Ontario........ Schenectady... Niagara........ Nassau....... Onondaga...... Oneida......... Fulton......... Monroe........ Tompkins.. Rensselaer.. Montgomery.... Oswego.... Saratoga...... Rockland....... 2 26 2 30 2 34 2 36 2 41 2 44 2 56 2 67 2 68 2 97 3 04 3 07 3 22 3 47 Orleans......... Schuyler..... Jefferson....... Seneca......... Ulster......... Oswego........ Cayuga........ Chenango.. Madison....... Hamilton..... Franklin. -..Onondaga..... Rockland....... Nassau......... 1 655 1 74 1 88 1 89 2 35 2 36 2 63 2 65 3 34 3 81 4 68 4 75 6 05 8 52 Monroe........ Broome........ Essex....... Oneida....... Livingston...... Rensselaer...... Columbia...... Warren...... Westchester... Onondaga...... Albany....... Erie........... Chenango...... Putnam......... 7 35 7 54 7 74 8 08 8 57 8 66 8 67 8 83 8 84 9 73 10 90 11 31 14 29 Warren..-.. - - Delaware..... Schuyler...... Livingston. Cortland....... Seneca........ Tiop a.......~.. Madison.,...... Allegany. Essex......... Otsego........ Hamilton...... Franklin....... Orleans........ ol 61 62 64 64 66 68 68 68 87 87 92 96 96 (c) Lesathan, 6 mills. TABLE XXI - (Concluded) Tiogar.............. Cortland.............. Wyo minng g......... Steuben........... Dutchess........... Schoharie......... Monroe............. St. Lawrence.......... Suff.olk............... Westchester........... Greene.............. Montgomery........... Albany................ Oswego............... Lower Quartiles.................. Cayuga.............. Otsgo................ Washington............ Nassau................ Yates ý.............. Schuyler........... Columbia.......... Chautauqua.......... Allegany.............. Ulster................ Herkimer.............. Franklin.............. len.9elaer............ Genesee............. (a) (a) $,0 01 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5.5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 Niagara........... Genesee.......... Wayne............. Allegany............. Steuben............. Yates............... Delaware............. Washington.... Chautauqua.......... Cattaraugus......... Monroe............. Cayuga............. Brooms.............. Essex................ Chenango............ Oswego.............. Dutchess............. Erie................. Chemung............. Schoharie......... Wyoming.........-- Tioga............... Livingston............ Tompkins............ Fulton............. Orleans............ Otsego............... Oneida.............. (a) (a) $0 01 2 4 6 7 15 16 16 18 32 43 45 45 46 49 49 53 56 58 60 61 66 68 69 87 87 Niagara............. Geneses............ Wayne............... Allegany........... Washington. Steuben.............. Yates........... Cattaraugus.......... Cayuga.............. Delaware............ Chautauqua.......... Monroe............. Chenango............ Brooms............. Essex................ Dutchess............. Wyoming............. Oswego.......... Livingston........... Tioga.............. Eric................ Chemung............. Schoharie............ Otasgo...... Cortfland..... Schuyler............ Montgomery... Tompkins............ $0 01 3 3 4 5 Monroe........... St. Lawrence. Erie...........-' Niagara........ Greene......... Geneses........... Putnam............ Wayne............ Steuben........... Delaware........... (a) (a) (a) $0 01 1 10 Yates.......... 56 Onondaga.......... -17 Tompkins.......... 21 Suffolk............ 31 31 Franklin........... 31 Ulster............. 38 Allegany........... 41 Orleans......... 44 Schoharie.......... 44 Chemung........... 48 Fulton............. 50 Schenectady........ 54 Columbia.......... 54 Chautauqua. 58 Oswego............ 63 Herkimer.......... 63 Washington. 65 Clinton......... 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 5 S 6 7 7 Amount Am nuot St. Lawrence........ $9 73 Chautauqua.........11 69 S uben........... 13 05 Chemung........... 13 23 Wayne............ 13 59 Schuyler........... 13 98 Dutchess........... 14 05 Schoharie........... 14 16 Orange............ 14 36 Allegany........... 14 56 Delaware........... 14 85 Tompkins.......... 14 94 Geneses........... 14 97 Wyoming........... 15 40 15 40 Cattaraugus.........15 40 Ulster.............. 15 42 Brooms............ 15 45 Clinton............ 15 50 Washington.........- 15 53 Yates.............1 15 85 Jefferson........... 15 99 Niagara............ 16 27 Fulton............. 16 30 Schenectady.........16 30 Montgomery.-.......16 58 Tioga............. 16 72 Otsego............. 17 03 Sullivan............17 77 hedians........ Niagara... Orlans........... Onondaga............ Chemung............. Tompkins............. Fulton.............. Oneida.............. Clinton............. Chenango........... Madison............. Essex....'...........1 Orange................ Broome............... Upper Quartiles....................... Ontario............... Seneca............ Cattaraugus.......... Putnam.............. Erie................. Sullivran............... Schenectady....... Jefferson.............. Delaware............. Wayne............. Saratoga............. Wa" rren.............. Hamilton........... Lewis.............. f I I 09 10 11 11 12 13 16 16 16 20 20 22 22 22 22 22 26 27 27 26 30 32 32 35 38 39 82 115 2 57 3 46 St. Lawrence.......... Lewis............. Sullivan........... Schuyler........... Warren............'Ontario.............. Ulster.............. Madison........... Cortland............. Montgomery.......... Saratoga............. Clinton.............. Suffolk............ Orondaga......... Oraiged............. Jefferson............. Rockland........... Schenectady......... Seneca............ Columbia.......... Greene............ Franklin........... Putnam............. Albany.............. Rensselaer............ Herkimer............ Westchester.......... Nassa u............... Hamilton............ 90 93 94 95 1 06 1 07 1 08 110 1 12 1 15 1 26 1 26 1 27 1 53 1 53 1 58 1 71 1 76 1 93 1.1 95 2 20 2 55 2 57 2 61 2 67 3 59 6 17 7 06 15 19 Orleans............ Warren.............. Lewisn............. Sullivan............. Oneida............. Saratoga............. St. Lawrence. Ontarip............ Madison............. Ulster................ Clinton............ Suffolk............ Onondaga......... Orange............... Jefferson........... Rockland............. Schenectady......... Senecar.............. Columbia........... Greene............ Rensselaer........... Albany............... Franklin........... Putnam... Herkimer............. 3Xrestchester.......... Nassanu............... Hamilton............. 67 68 74 75 75 82 89 91 97 1 06 119 1 25 1 26 1 37 1 37 1 42 1 55 1 73 1 86 1 92 2 19 2 39 2 46 2 54 2 57 3 53 5 89 6 28 8 64 Broome.......... Madison Oneida........... Essex............. Cattaraugus....... Cayuga............ Ontario............ Jefferson.......... Albany............. Tioga............ Rockland........... Orange............. Lewis............. Livingston. Dutchess........... Sullivan.......... Wyoming.......... Chenango.......... Warren..........* Westchester........ Rensselaer.......... Scbuyler.......... Otsego............. Saratoga.......... Montgomery....... Cortland........... Nasoau............ Hamilton...... 'I 89 Fulton............... 65 Seneca............ 07 10 11 12 12 13 14 14 15 15 115 16 16 17 17 17 17 18 20 26 27 27 28 31 33 34 49 52 78 6 55 Cortland.. Cayuga............ Ontario............ Herkimer........... Oneida............. Monroe........... Oswego............ Erie.............. Greene............. Lewis............. Suffolk.............. Livingston.......... Essex............. Seneca............. Orleans.......... Saratoga. Madison. Franlin. Chenango. - Albany.......... Warren.......... Columbia.......... Rensselaer.......... *Westchester. Rockland........... Onondaga.......... Putnam............ Nassau............. Hamilton........... 17 77 17 92 18 33 18 53 19 16 19 54 19 56 19 71 19 88 19 90 20 30 20 34 20 35 20 41 20 50 20 50 21 25 21 60 22 31 24 13 24 39 24 61 24 99 25 27 25 33 26 34 26 37 33 00 41 98 56 58 (a) Less than 5 mills. TABLE XXII THE AVERAGE PER FAMILY COST OF THE VARIOUS FUNCTIONS OF TOWN GOVERNMENT IN ONE HUNDRED TWELVE REPRESENTATIVE TOWNS IN NEW YORK STATE (Based on the period 1917 to 1921, 'inclwsive) GYNZIUL GovERNMENT Town Amount 1. Collins....,.... 2. Ripley.... 3. Miloo..... 4. Westville..... 5. Cobleskill...... 6. Mooers...... 7. Bolivar......... S. Lenox. - - -... 9. Plainfield,... - 10. Bninswick..... 11. Homer......... 12. Persia. 13. Green sland.... 14. Liberty........ 15. Ticonderoga.-. 16. Rodman. 17. Walworth....... 18. Walton........ 19. Dix........... 20. German Flats... 21. New Baltimore.. 22. Florida........ 23. Greene......... 24. Ft. Covington.,.. 25. Amsterdam..... $2 60 2 66 2 86 3 00 3 16 3 21 3 27 3 29 3 30 3 33 3 35 3 36 3 40 3 42 3 50 3 55 3 61 3 62 3 68 3 71 3 78 3 84 3 85 3 87 3 90 Protecation Health Town Amount Town Amount hn...... (a).... G een Island. $0 00 edom. $0.. 10 01 Dix........... 09 ivar..... 1 Mil........ 18 sry,....... 1 Lyons... 19 eemont..... 2 German Flats. 20 idy Creek., 3 Ossining... 20 lIton...... 3 Manchester- 22 Uleskill.... 3 Homer....... 25 Aman.... 4 Waterloo..... 26 eldon...... 4 Goshen....... 27 srenceW.... walton....... 27 w Baltimore 5 Cobleskill... 27 rway..... 5 Moravia...... 31 hlton..... 5 Amsterdam. 32 npey. 5 Glenville. 34 oravia. 6 Milton....... 34 sen Island- 6 De Witt,..... 36 nby....... 68 Ghent........ 37 rt Ann... 6 Adams....... 37 Covington 6 Catskill...... 39 olson...... 6 Ticonderoga.. 30 ratford..... 6 Bolivar 43 opronius.. 6 Elmira4....... 4 ilworth... 8 Sandy Creek 48 ee, Ramapo...... 48 Sanitation Highways '-------~--' Town (b)........ (b)....... (b)......... (b)......... (b) ~. ~....... (b)....... (b),.......... (b)....... (b). (b). (b). (b)..,........ (b)....... (b)..... (b).......... (b)....... (b)...... (b)....... (b)......... (b)...... (b)......... (b).,,,. (b).,,,, Amount Town Green Island.. Ossining..-.German Flats. Waterloo.'.. De Writt.... Lyons.... Milo......... g oshen.... Ramapo...... Cobleskill.... Manchester... Milton....... Dix......... Persia....... Homer..... Collins...... Glenville... Paris....... Adams....... Lloyd.... Brunswick... Ft. Covington Wayland... Walton.;- - I Amount Town Amount I Town IAmount $0 00 4 13 5 83 6 38 6 58 7 65 8 08 8 61 9 29 9 61 9 64 9 73 10.16 10 95 11 32 11 32 11 48 13 25 13 33 13 78 14 17 14 58 14 76 14 92 14 95 Lima......... Sparta....... Gorham.. NewBaltimore Princetown... Ava....... Manehester... Sheldon...... Westville.... Foresthurgh.. Independence. Freemont... - Baldwin...... Bolivar....... Holland. Nelson.. Freedom. Newfane.. Carlton...... Paris......... Alexander.... Putnam..... Collins.... Beekman.... Virgil........ $o 00 0 0 2 4 4 5 5 6 9 12 13 15 15 17 17 19 20 21 22 24 26 27 28 32 Manchester... Homer.... Lawrence.. German Flats. Sempronius... Freedom..-- Ripley...... Sanford....Casti!e...... Cobleskidl..... De Witt..... Dix.......... M ile......... Austerlitz.... Gorham...... Reading., Pompey.. Alexander..... Walworth... Goshen..... Paris......... Bolivar..... Westville.... Brunswick.... Glenville... (a).... 0o 01 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 S 5 S Charities and Soldiers' Relief Education 26. Lawrence....... 27. Castile...... 28. Reading........ 4 02 Plymouth.... 4 15 Washington... 4 18 Wayland.... 9 Collins....... 49 (b)......... M ooers....... 9 Phillipstown.. 49 (b)................ Catskill...... 9 New Paltz.... 50 ().............. New Paitz... Lower Quartile....... 4 19............ 9.................. 00................. L ow er________________________ __________ ___________________ _________ ________________e. __________.1 ___......_________ - ___________________ I-1-I 29. Moravia........ 30. Holland.....,. 31. Sheldon......... 32. Sanford........ 33. Adams....... 34. Wilson..... 35. New Paltz....., 36. Altona.......... 37. Waterloo........ 38. Sempronius..... 39. Dryden....... 40. Davenport.... 41. De Witt..... 42. Lyons..... 43. Sandy Creek..: 44. Paris........... 45. Plymouth....... 46. Milton......... 47. Manchester..... 48. Candor........ 49. Richford........ 50. Virgil.......... 51. Beekman....... 52. Riga........... 53. Fort Ann..... 54. Turin.......... 55. Freedom........ 4 20 4 20 4 22 4 23 4 26 4 30 4 33 4 35 4 35 4 42 4 42 4 42 4 43 4 51 4 52 4 55 4 56 4 61 4 64 4 76 4 79 4 87 4 88 4 96 4 97 4 97 5 11 Glenville..... M ilo........ Altona........ Mooers..... Brunswick.... Mayfield... Baldwin...... Pittstown..... Kent......... Collins...... Austerlitz.... Dryden...... Otego........ Dix...... New Paltz.... Florida...... Riga........ Reading...... Liberty....... Rodman...... Summit...... Hadley...... Wilson...... Alexander.... Virgil........ Ava......... Homer... 9 9 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 15 -15 16 16 17 17 19 19 20 20 20 21 22 Lenox....... Lima......... Turin........ Mayfield..... Sparta...... Greene....... Reading....... Yates........ Riga......... Persia........ Washington... Paris........ Gorham...... Danby....... Candor...... Princetown... Westville..... Alexander.... Brunswick.... Oswegatchie.. Mooers...... Italy......... Beekman..... Sheldon...... Ava......... Sanford...... Nelson....... -I 51 52 52 54 56 56 56 56 58 58 60 62 63 63 64 64 64 65 65 65 66 67 67, 69 69 71 71.I (b).......... (b).......... (b).......... (b). (b).......... (6)......... (b). (b).. (b).. (b).......... (b).......... (b)......... (b).......... (b).. (b)......... (b). (b).......... (b).......... (b).. (b).......... (b).......... (6).......... (b).......... (b)......... (b)......... (b)......... (6).......... I....................................................................................................... I...... Amsterdam... Liberty....... Mayfield..... Sandy Creek.. Moravia...... Ticonderoga.. Bolivar....... Walworth.... Oswegatchie.. Caldwell.... Riga......... Yates........ Stony Point... Wilson....... Holland...... Greene....... Lawrence..... Phillipstown.. Lima...... Westville..... Oyster Bay... Bethlehem.... Fort Ann..... Elmira....... Reading...... Castile....... Ghent........ 15 07 15 19 16 0-) 16 12 16 14 16 38 16 79 16 82 16 96 17 15 17 17 17 46 17 90 18 18 18 33 18 58 18 68 18 89 19 19 19 45 19 53 20 20 20 20 20 30 20 62 20 69 21 08 21 18 21 44 21 59 22 61 Walworth.... Austerlitz.... Washington... Fort Ann..... Rodman...... Plymouth.... Shelter Island. Ellerv....... Ripley...... Elmira...... Ghent....... Bethlehem.... Wilson....... Richford..... Liberty..... New Paltz.... Danby....... Norway...... Greene....... Brunswick.... Yates........ Nanticoke.... Persia.. Summit. Kent......... Plainfield..... Phillipst wn.. Ft. Covington Somers....... Dryden...... 34 36 36 33 39 40 42 42 43 48 49 50 54 54 55 56 57 58 58 59 59 59 61 61 65 66 66 77 77 83 85 Green Island.. Independence. Wayland.... Riga.... Collins.... Carlton...... Sheldon...... Milton...... Ft. Covington Newfane.... Sandy Creek.. Plainfield..... Candor.... Adams....... Greene...... Danby... New Baltimore Amsterdam... Oswegatchie.. Bolton..... Liberty... Lyons.... Holland.... Mooers....., Beekman.... Lima....... New Paltz.... Florida....... Pottst wn.... Baldwin...... 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 11 56. -Summit........ 5 12 Amsterdam... 23 Wilson....... 71 (b)............... Newfane..... 22 61 Castile....... 88 Lenox....... 11 M edians........ 5 16............. 24............. 72 (b).......... 0............. 22 63............. 90............. 11 57. Nelson......... 5 19 Richford.. 24 Plainfield..... 72 (b).................Turin...... 22 64 Davenport.... 91 Yates........ 11 58. Newfane........ 59. Carlton....... 60. Washington..... (a) Less than 5 mills. 5 26 5 30 5 46 Westville..... 27 Virgil....... 73 (b)................ Sanford..... 28 Osceola...... 73 (b)............. Persia........ 28 Wayland..... 74 (b)............. (b) 103 of the 112 towns taken as a sample had no expenditure for sanitation. Altona....... 23 88 Lloyd........ Somers....... 24 11 Sanford...... Pittstown.... 24 46 Green Island.. 95 Ossining..... 97 Moravia..... 98 Bethlehem.... TABLE XXII - (Continued) GENeRAL GOVERNMENT Town Amount 61. Catskill..........5 48 62. Mayfield........ 5 51 63, Wayland........ 5 55 64. Pittetown....... 5 56 65. Glenville........ 5 65 66. Freemont....... 5 68 67. Boott'n......... 5 71 68. Italy......... 5 77 60. Lloyd...... 5 93 70. independence. 6 00 71. Bethlehem...... 6 08 72, Alexander....... 6 04 73. Datby......... 6 11 74. Elmira.......... 6 11 75.'Otego.......... 6 24 76. Nanticoke...... 6 34 77. Norway.........6 39 78. Hamptonburgh.- 6 51 79. Lima........... 6 53 SO. Pompey........6 71 81. Ellery.......... 6 76 82. Putnam......... 6 90 83. Avw- - e....... 7 05 84. Goshen......... 7 15 Upper Quartile...... 7 20 85. Yates. 7 24 86, Wilmington 7 37 87. Ghent.......... 7 40 Protection Town Amount Candor.. $0 29 Nanticoke.... 28 Waterloo. 29 Sparta....... 30 Princetown... 31 Ticonderoga. 32 Ghent........32 Goshen....... 32 Adams....... 33 Osceola 37 Qastle...... 39 Catskill...... 41 Batavia..... 43 Putnam...... 44 Lenox........ 46 German Flats. 51 Italy.........52 Lima...,.... 55 Foresthurg... 55 Phillipstown.. 56 Hamptonh'gh. 56 Somers....... 56 Ramapo...... 58 Oswegatchie.. 58. 59 Davenport.... 60 Manchester... 65 Paris..........66 Health Sanitation Highways Charities and Soldiers' Relief Town Baldwin..... Freedom.... Pittstown.... Liherty.... Plymouth.... Putnam...... Batavia...... Bethlehem.... Dryden...,. Independence. Altona...... Minetto..... Castile....... Richford... Walwortls... Florida.'* '** Rodm'n...... Pompey...... Freemont... Ft. Covington Otego6..... N'rway. Haniotonh'gh. Carlton. Fort Ann.... Ripley. Lawrence..... Amount $0 74 74 75 75 75 75 76 76 76 78 80 80 80 82 83 83 84 85 85 87 87 88 89 92 93 93 94 96 Town (b)..........,(6).......... (.)...... (b.. (b)...... (b)....... (b)........ (b)...... (b)....... (b)...... (b).......... (0).----- (6)....... (b)..... (0)........... (b)....... (b). (b).,,,., (b)....... (b)......... (b).......... (b).,,,,, (a),,,., Amount Education Town Pompey...... Ellery.., "... Sanford..... Washington... Ripley...... Davenport.... Sheldon...... Otego....... Nelson....... Batavia..... Rodman...... Beckman...., New Baltimore Nanticoke.... Candor....... Plainfield..... Summit...... Independence. Carlton...... Dryden...... Plymouth... Norway...... Greece....... Danby. Amount S24 5.5 24 56 25 54 25 59 25 63 26 01 26 13 26 48 26 55 27 58 27 87 27 88 28 70 28 90 29 18 29 38 29 45 30 70 30 90 3111 31 48 32 44 32 81 34 50 34 61 34 71 34 79 35 49 Town Amount I Town Catskill.... Walton... Goshen....... Pittstown... Amsterdanm... Hamptonb'gh. Wayland.-.-. Osceola...... Wilmington... Turin..... Bolton...... Germain Flats. Candor....... Moravia... Cohleskill.... Italy......... Sandy Creek.. Mayfield... Indian Lake.. Mooers... 1.. Riverhead.. -. Florida....... Batavia...... Caldwell.. Ramapo...... Sempronius... Ossining...... I- I $1 01 1 05 1 07 1 08 1 12 1 16 1ý 18 1 22 1 27 1 41 i 45 147 1 57 1 58 1 67 1 69 1 70 1 75 1 84 1 92 1 93 2 00 2 04 2 05 2 09 2.12 2 14 2 22 Elmira....... Italy......... Washington... Otego....-. Nanticoke.... V.irgil....... Richford'.... Turin........ Rodman...... Somers...... Catskill...... Persia....... Prineet)wn... Plymouth,.... Freemont..... Altona....... Fort Ann.... Ava......... Ellery........ Mayfield..... Ghsent....... Riverhead.... Summit...... Phillipstowrs.. Greece...... Hadley...... Nelson....... Amount 1.2 12 12 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 18 19 20 21 21 21 23 24 0 -I- I I (6).......... Wb)...... (b).......... Gorham.. Wilmington... Richford..... 88. Caldwell........ 7 51 C aldwell..... 75 Newfanc..... 96 (b)................ Virgil........ 35 53 Lenox........ 2 28 Batavia...... 29 89. Austerlitz....... 7 64 De Witt...... 75 Wilmington... 96 (b)................ Austerlitz... 36 57 Riga....... 2 33 Ramapo...... 31 90. Stony Point..... 7 73 Milton....... 85 Holland...... 97 (b)................ Hamptonb'gh. 36 83 Ticonderoga.. 2 46 Sparta....... 33 91. Lodi........... 7 75 Elmira....... 86 Kent......... 98 (b)............... Freemont..... 37 86 Glenvil!e.... 2 50 Minetto...... 34 92. Minetto........ 8 04 Gorham...... 86 Stony Point... 99 (b)............... Italy......... 39 90 Altona...... 2 58 Putnam...... 38 93. Ramapo........ 8 41 Indian Lake.. 93 Nantieoke.... 99. (b)................ Shelter Island 39 98 Otego........ 2 73 Kent......... 39 94. Baldwin........ 8 44 Bethlehem.... 94 Austerlitz.... 1 03 (b)............... Minetto..... 40 04 Milo......... 2 79 Hamptonb'gh. 39 95, Phillipstown.... 8 61 Plainfield..... 98 Sempronius... 1 04 (b).............. Riverhead... 41 01 Adams...... 2 92 Waterloo..... 39 96. Sparta.......... 8 89 Independence. 1 05 Shelter Island. 1 04 (b)............... Princetown. 41 83 Lodi......... 2 93 Stony Point... 41 97. Gorham........ 9 38 Lyons....... 1 06 Lloyd........ 1 10 (b)................ Sempronius.. 42 02 De Witt...... 3 04 Dryden...... 41 98. Riverhead...... 9 42 Bolton...... 1 22 Summit...... 1 11 (b)...............Lodi......... 42 17 Homer....... 3 29 Davenport.... 43 99. Batavia........ 10 24 Minetto...... 1 36 New Baltimore 1 13 (b)............... Florida....... 42 49 Pompey...... 3 41 Norway...... 45 100. Princetown..... 10 25 Yates........ 1 54 Ellery........ 1 18 (b)................ Alexander... 43 16 Hadley....... 3 70 Forestburgh.. 47 101. Hadley........ 11 08 LLodi......... 1 72 Hadley....... 1 22 (b)................ Freedom.... 44 34 Lawrence..... 3 87 Lodi......... 49 102. Ossining........ 11 57 Holland...... 1 87 Davenport.... 1 29 (b)................ Osceola...... 46 11 Green........ 4 36 Ticonderoga.. 51 103. Osceola......... 12 49 Riplevy....... 2 15 Riverhead... 1 46 (b)................ Sparta....... 46 56 Minetto...... 4 53 Wilson....... 51 104. Indian Lake. 12 85 Newfane.... 2 29 Lodi......... 1 49 Holland...... (a).... Baldwin..... 47 10 Waterloo..... 4 68 Osceola...... 51 105. Stratford..... 14 51 Shelter Island. 2 63 Forestburg.. 1 69 Lyons........ $0 01 Putnam..... 49 62 Stony Point... 4 72 Stratford..... 54 106. Shelter Island. 14 86 Lloyd........ 2 76 Somers...... 1 85 Lenox........ 5 Ava......... 54 53 Lyons........ 4 87 Wilmington... 58 107. Oyster Bay.... 15 91 Ossining...... 3 08 Stratford.... 2 01 Independence. 13 Kent......... 57 96 Oyster Bay... 5 62 Indian Lake,. 62 108. Greece......... 16 00 Greece....... 3 46 Greece....... 2 49 Walworth.... 45 Hadley....... 58 35 Stratford..... 5 94 Lloyd.... 75.-. 109, Fotestburgh..... 16 71 Wilmington... 3 54 Oyster Bay... 2 66 Ticonderoga.. 59 Stratford..... 61 64 Milton....... 6 30 Oyster Bay... 77 110. Kent........... 18 48 Stony Point... 4 37 Indian Lake. 3 47 Bethlehem.... 73 Forestburgh... 65 03 Reading..'.... 7 08 Walton....... 82 1I Oswegatchic..... 19 48 Riverhead... 4 55 Caldwell..... 6 40 Oyster Bay... 3 36 Bolton....... 67.72 Dix.......... 8 47 Shelter Island. 89 112. Somers........ 20 53 Oyster Bay... 9 04 Bolton....... 8 95 Greece-...... 7 79 Indian Lake.. 89 66 Oswegatchie.. 10 54 Caldwell..... 6 26 'a) Less than 5 mills. (b) 103 of the 112 towns taken as a s-imple had no expmnditure for sanitation. TABLE XXII - (Continued). Cemeteries( o Public Utilities All others Temporary Interest Bond Interest Total Town Amt. Towns Towns Towns Towns Amt. Town(Non-commercial) Towns Amt. Towns Amt. Towns Amt. Towns Amt. Towns Amt. Towns Amt. 1. (c). 2. (c)...... 3. (c)........ 4. (c)............... 5. Cc).............. 6. c)........ 7. (c)......... 8. (c).............. 9. (c)............. 10. (c).............. 11. (c).............. 12. (c).............. 13. (c)............... 14. (c)............... 15. (a)............. 16. (cg............... 17. (c).............. 18. (c)............. 19. (c).............. 20. (c).............. 21. (a).............. 22. (c).............. 23. (c).............. 24. (a)............... 25. (c)............... 26. (c).............. 27. (c).............. 28. (c).............. (d)......... (d)......... (d)......... (d)......... (d)......... (d)......... (d)......... (d)......... (d)......... (d).......... (d).......... (d).......... (d).......... (d)......... (d).......... (d).......... (d).......... (d).......... (d).......... (d)........... (d).......... (d).......... (d).......... (d)....... (d).......... Stratford............ Beekman............ Summit............. Castile.............. Plymouth........... Rodman............. Kent............... Ramapo....... (a) Pittstown...... (a) Virgil......... $0 1 New Baltimore.. 1 German Flats.. 1 Pompey........ 1 Sparta......... 1 Catskill....... 2 Mayfield....... 2 Ellery........... 2 Adams.......... 2 Brunswick...... 2 DeWitt........ 3 Westville...... 3 Carlton........ 3 Ticonderoga.... 3 Ft. Covington.. 4 Lenox.......... 4 Ossining........ 4 Amsterdam..... 4 Homer.......... 5 (e)............. (e)............. (e)............ (e)............ (e)............. (e)............. (e)............. (e)............. (e)............. (e)............. (e)............. (e)............. (e)............. (e)......... (e)........... (e)............. (e)............. Ce)............ (e)........... (e)............. Phillipstown.... Lenox.......... DeWitt........ New Paltz...... Yates.......... Turin.......... Beekman....... Adams......... (a) (a) $0 1 2 (f........... (f)............ (f)............ (f)............ (f)............ (f).......... S............. (f).......... (f)........... (f............ (f.......... (f)............ ()............. (f)............ (f)............ (............ (f).........~~ (C............ (f............ (f)............ M)............ (f)............ (f)........... (f).......... Cf!).......... (f)............ (f)........... Cf)............................................................................................................................................................................... Green Island.... German Flats... Milo........... DeWitt........ Cobleskill..... Manchester..... Lenox.......... Collins......... Persia.......... Waterloo....... Goshen......... Lyons.... Brunswick...... Homer......... Paris........... Ft. Covington. Ramapo........ Adams......... Bolivar......... Walton......... Glenville....... Amsterdam.... Ossining........ New Paltz...... Mooers........ Catskill........ Milton......... Wayland....... 85 16 12 51 14 12 15 26 15 38 15 45 16 06 16 44 16 57 16 66 18 01 18 79 19 48 19 57 19 62 20 47 21 74 21 77 21 86 21 88 22 11 22 17 22 17 22 22 22 27 22 77 22 78 22 83 Lower ~ 1----uartile.------- 0............. 0--- 1----1---........j 6...........2........ 28 Lower Quartile......... O. S.......................... 22 86 29. (c)....... 30. (c)..... 31. (c......... 32. (c)...... 33. )....... 34. c)......... 35. c)....... 36. c). 37. (c)... 38. (c)......... 39. (c)........ 40. kc)... 41. (c)....... 42. (c. 43. (). 44. (c)......... 45. ()......... 46. (a). 47. (a). 48.........( 49. (c). 50. (a). 51. (c). 52. (a). 53. (c).... 54. (c)..... 55. (c).......................................................................................................... (d)......... (d)........... (.......... (d)......... (d)......... (d)......... (d)......... (d)......... (d)......... (d)......... (d)......... (d)......... (d)......... d)......... (d)......... (d)......... (d)......... (d)......... (d)......... (d)........ (d)......... (d)......... (d)......... (d)......... (d).. (d). ~~ ~~ C ~~ ~~ ~~r Dryden........ Cobleakill..... Riverhead..... Minetto........ Wilmington..... Bethlehem...... Walworth..... Milton......... Lloyd......... Milo........... Sheldon...... Lyons......... Dix.......... Manchester..... Florida......... Lawrence...... Ghent.......... Mooers......... Caldwell....... Bolton......... Altona......... Fort Ann....... Riga........... Reading........ Putnam........ Stony Point.... New Paltz...... 06 07 07 07 07 08 08 08 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 Sandy Creek.... Liberty........ Danby......... Amsterdam.... Fort Ann....... Castile........ Mooers........ Putnam........ Waterloo....... Lawrence....... Plymouth..... Milton......... Ft. Covington.. Ticonderoga.... Stony Point..-. Sanford........ Newfane....... Forestburgh.... Independence... Gorham....... Lodi......... Sempronius... Dix............ Oyster Bay..... Summit........ Manchester.... Pittstown...... 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 05 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 (f)......... (.)......... f............ (f............. (f)............ (f)...... M).............n......... (f............. (f)........... (f)......... (f)......... (f)........... (f)..........f)......... (f)........ (f)......... S.(f)........... (f)........... (f............. (f)............ (f)............ (............. (f............. (f)............ (f).......... (f)........... (f).................................................................................................................. Walworth..... Dix............ Moravia........ Westville...... Greene......... Liberty........ Mayfield....... Ticonderoga.... Sandy Creek.... Riga........... Lloyd.......... Fort Ann....... Castile........ Lawrence....... Lima......... Wilson......... Yates.......... Turin.......... Elmira......... Phillipstown.... Holland........ Sheldon........ Ghent.......... Bethlehem...... Pittstown.....Sanford........ Ripley......... 22 89 23 68 23 84 24 52 24 77 24 99 25 01 25 07 25 29 26 63 27 58 27 72 27 86 28 60 29 13 29 59 29 80 29 94 30 95 31 01 e 31 42 31 56 31 71 31 85 32 15 32 22 32 25 56. (c)........... (d)................ Davenport.... 14 Walton......... 06 (.)................. Altona......... 32 65 1Medians..... 0............. 0............... 14............... 06................. 0............... 32 80 57......(..........(d)................. Sempronius..... 14 Brunswick...... 06 (f).............. ahinton..... W h t32 94 58. ()...............(d)............... 59. (c.. (d)............... 60. (c)...........(d)......... Liberty........ 16 New Baltimore.. 07 ()............... Ellery......... 33 36 Glenville16 Candor....... 07 (f)................... Reading........ 33 69 Greene.......... 16 Cobleskill...... 07 (................. New Baltimore 33 84 (a) Denotes an expenditure of less than 5 mills. (c) 85 cases of sample had no expenditure for cemeteries. (d) 79 cases of sample had no expenditure for non-commercial public utilities. (e) 20 eases of sample had no expenditure for interest on temporary loans. (f) 65 cases of sample had no expenditure for interest on bonds. TABLE XXII - (Concluded) Cemeteries Public Utilities (Non-commercial) All others Temporary Interest Bond Interest Total Towns Amt. Towns Amt. Towns Amt. Towns Amt. Towns Amt. Towns Amt. 61. (c).......... (d)................. Walton......... $0 16 Glenville....... O 07 ().....eekman.;.... $33 87 62. c........ (d).................Otego.......... 17 Washington..... 07 (f)............... Rodman........ 34 00 63. C). d).................Italy.......... 17 German Flats... 07 (f)................. Davenport...... 34 26 64. (c. (d)................. Phillipstown.... 17 Catskill....... 08 (f)................... Plainfield.... 35 78 65. ()........ (d).............. Hamptonburgh. 18 Westville....... 08 (f)................... Pompey........ 36 56 66. (c... (d)................Paris.......... 18 Freedom....... 08 DeWitt...............Summit........ 36 78 67. (c...d..................... Indian Lake.... 18 Sparta......... 08 Ramapo....... $0 3 Candor......... 36 85 68. (c)......... d)..................Turin........... 19 Oswgatchie....... 08 Catskill.......... 05 Plymouth...... 37 48 69. (c (d)......d)................ Richford...... 20 Ghent.......... 09 Goshen.......... 07 Otego.......... 37 61 70. (c...(............ d)............... Gorham......... 21 Moravia........ 09 Sempronius..... 08 Dryden....... 37 87 71. Cc)....... (... d)................ Austerlitz..... 24 Batavia.. 1 10 Ticonderoga.... 9 Nelson......... 37 95 72. (c)..... Freedom..... 25 Stratford....... 10 Austerlitz...... 14 Stony Point... 38 20 73. Cc)........... (............. Ripley............ 26 Kent........... 10 Ghent............. 14 Newfane.....- 38 62 74. c)......... C (d)............... Candor........ 26 Sheldon........ 10 Atona......... 14 Nanticoke..... 38 94 75. (c)............ (d)..................Persia.......... 27 Ripley.......... 11 Collins......... 17 Independence... 39 41 76. (c)......... (d)................ Elmira......... 27 Riga........... 11 Dix............ 17 Carlton........ 39 54 77. (c)....,........ (d)..................Waterloo....... 28 Lima.......... 12 Sheldon.......... 19 Caldwell..... 40 84 78. (c)............ (d).......,......... Yates........... 29 Minetto........ 12 Ossining........ 19 Norway....... 41 69 79. (c)............... (d)................Wayland.... 30 Dryden........ 12 Amsterdam..... 21 Batavia....... 41 81 80. (Cc)0........ Collins....... C (a) Baldwin.......... 32 Italy........... 12 Milton.......... 23 Virgil.......... 42 21 81. (c).............. Ellery........ (a) Lodi.......... 32 Mayfield....... 12 Davenport...... 31 Richford...... 42 47 82. (c)..-......... Waterloo... (a) Batavia........ 33 Greece......... 13 Lyons.......... 32 Danby......... 42 51 83. c)............ DeWitt.... (a) Freemont..... 37 Shelter Island... 14 New Paltz...... 34 Gorham........ 45 88 84. c)..............Otego......... (a) Alexander...... 37 Davenport...... 14 Bolton......... 42 Austerlitz.....46 2 Upper Quartile. 0.............. (ca)............... 37............... 14.................443...............46 39 85. (c)............... Paris......... (a) Ava.......... 37 Austerlitz...... 14 Lima 43 Hamptonburgh 46 52 - - -.....______........ -T". AýAA~JVWLA" - rAA. - J U 86. (c)........ 87. Collins........ 88. Ellery......... 89. Wayland..... 90. Hamptonburgh 91. Turin........ 92. New Baltimore 93. Pittstown... 94. Greene........ 95. Richford...... 96. W ilson........ 97. Paris......... 98. Reading....... 99. Rodman..... 100. Kent........ 101. Lodi.......... 102. Otego........ 103. Newfane...... 104. Brunswick.... 105. Liberty....... 106. Mooers....... 107. Virgil........ 108. Ava......... 109. Westville..... 110. Lawrence...... (a) (a) (a} 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 04 04 04 Riga......... Wilmington... Pittstown.... Homer....... Walton....... Newfane..... Davenport.... Independence. Lenox........ Virgil....... Batavia..... Ava........ Rodman...... Brunswick.... Yates....... Westville..... Turin....... Liberty...... Bolton...... Reading...... Kent......... Milton....... Mooers...... Lodi..... Oswegatchie:.. Caldwell..... Shelter Island. 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 03 04 04 04 05 05 05 05 06 06 07 07 10 11 11 12 S25 35 44 3 02 Norway........ Forestburgh.... Nelson........ Sanford........ Osceola....... Goshen......... Independence... Danby........ Moravia........ Shelter Island... Washington..... Plainfield....... Green Island.... Lima.......... Nanticoke...... Bolivar........ Collins......... Somers........ Oyster Bay..... Princetown... W ilson........ Sandy Creek.... Oswegatchie.... Hadley......... Holland....... Newfane..... Greece......... 40 41 42 43 43 47 51 53 54 64 66 67 67 68 69 78 91 96 1 11 1 18 1 26 1 66 2 65 2 83 3 32 3 92 8 27 Indian Lake.... Florida......... Bethlehem...... Ramapo........ Baldwin........ Nelson........ Richford....... Ellery........ Bolton........ Riverhead...... Collins......... Alexander...... Virgil........ Holland....... Homer......... Otego.......... Princetown..... Hadley....... Freemont....... Norway........ Elmira......... Altona.......... Ossining........ Wilmington.... Somers....... Rodman....... Nanticoke.... 15 Otego.......... 17 Cobleskill.... 19 Homer......... 19 German Flats... 20 Oyster Bay..... 23 Yates.......... 24 Princetown.... 24 Walton......... 25 Pompey........ 31 Mooers....... 34 Elmira......... 34 Freemont....... 35 Stony Point.... 39 Minetto....... 39 Holland........ 40 Florida......... 41 Bethlehem..... 41 Lloyd......... 50 Carlton....... 50 Greece......... 53 W ilson......... 53 Newfane...... 64 Liberty..'.. 74 Riverhead...... 94 Nelson........ 97 Forestburgh.... 99 Oswegatchie.... 44 45 68 69 70 75 85 89 93 93 94 1 05 1 14 1 14 1 22 1 33 1 76 1 83 2 08 2 65 3 16 3 23 3 37 3 45 4 37 7 03 11 64 Freemont....... Italy.......... Wilmington..... Somers........ Sempronius..... Freedom...... Florida....... Alexander..... Princetown.... Minetto........ Sparta........ Baldwin........ Lodi........... Putnam........ Oyster Bay.... Osceola....... Riverhead..... Ava.......... Shelter Island... Oswegatchie.... Hadley......... Greece......... K ent........... Stratford...... Bolton........ Forestburgh.... Indian Lake... 46 62 48 93 49 32 49 93 49 99 50 74 51 01 51 04 56 66 56 64 56 73 57 15 57 19 58 49 59 85 61 87 62 38 63 15 63 62 63 96 78 01 78 17 78 81 84 80 85 99 92 03 109 70 111. Yates....... OS 112. Caldwell...... 15 (a) Denotes an expenditure of less than 5 mills. (c) 85 cases of sample had no expenditure for cemeteries. (d) 79 cases of sample had no expenditure for non-commercial public utilities. (e) 20 cases of sample had no expenditure for interest on temporary loans. (f) 65 cases of sample had no expenditure for interest on bonds. TABLE XXIII THE AVERAGE PER FAMILY COST OF THE VARIOUS FUNCTIONS OF VILLAGE GOVERNMENT IN ONE HUNDRED REPRESENTATIVE VILLAGES IN NEW YORK STATE (Based on the period 1917 to 1921, inclusive) Total Government General Governmental Protection of Persons Conservation of Sanittion Hi Cost Payments General vernmental and Property Health Sanitation Highways Education Village Amount Village Amount Village Amount Village Amount Village Amount Village Amount Village Amount 1. Galway......... $8 36 Spencer..... $0 50 Nelsonville... $0 00 Corinth...... $0 00 Akron....... $0 00 Dryden..... $5 43 (b).......... 2. Holcomb........ 9 97 Mooers....... 77 Freeville..... 00 Argyle...... 00 Alexander.... 00 Galway...... 5 97 (b)................ 3. Dryden....... 10 55 Mexico....... 90 Argyle...... 00 Madison... 00 Oxford....... 00 Frankfort.... 6 60 (b)............ 4. Bloomingdale... 11 06 Hagaman.... 96 Galway..... 00 Spencer...... 00 Bloomingdale. 00 Holcomb..... 6 66 (b).............. 5. Valley Falls.... 13 27 Valley Falls.. 1 00 Holcomb..... 00 Panama...... 00 Panama...... 00 Bloomingdale. 7 02 (b).............. 6. Mayfield........ 14 10 Alexander.... 1 05 Bloomingdale. 02 Bloomingdale. 01 Spencer...... 00 Allegany.... 8 08 (b).............. 7. Oakfield........ 14 83 Mayfield.... 1 05 Van Etten... 11 Holcomb..... 5 Madison.. 00 Rockville Cen. 8 79 (b)....... 8. Madison......... 14 94 Odessa....... 1 11 Madison..... 12 Akron........ 6 Argyle...... 00 Valatie....... 9 19 (b)................ 9. Andes......... 15 37 Unadilla.1.... 1 11 Andes........ 25 Lyons........ 8 Fishkill...... 00 Valley Falls... 9 42 (b)........... 10. Hagaman... 15 44 Alfred........ 1 12 Scottsville... 31 Addison...... 8 Addison...... 00 Scotia........ 9 64 (b).............. 11. Allegany..... 15 62 Middleburg.. 1 15 Spencer...... 33 Lake George.. 10 Dundee..... 00 Johnson City.. 9 71 (b).............. 12. Gilbertsville..... 16 39 Castleton.... 1 22 Fairhaven... 48 Amityville.... 10 Caledonia... 00 Theresa...... 9 73 (b)........... 13. Spencer....... 16 45 Montour Falls. 1 22 Gilbertsville... 65 Fort Ann..... 10 Alfred........ 00 Penn Yan.... 10 29 (b)............. 14. Valatie......... 16 71 Panama..... 1 23 Dryden...... 73 Lake Placid... 12 Union Springs. 00 Portville..... 10 38 (b)........ 15. Nelsonville...... 16 84 Honer....... 1 24 Altmar....... 76 Altmar...... 14 Warwick..... 00 Argyle....... 10 70 kb)............. 16. Hammond..... 17 24 Bloomingdale. 1 28 Mayfield.... 82 Union Springs. 15 Hammond.... 00 Clyde..... 10 76 (b).................. 17. Argyle....... 17 53 Fair Haven... 1 31 Hagaman..... 85 Interlaken.... 16 Odessa....... 00 Horseheads... 10 83 (b).............. 18. Alexander.,... 17 56 Dundee...... 1 32 Altamont..... 93 Alfred........ 21 Gilbertsville... 00 Mayfield.... 10 84 (b)........... 19. Odessa......... 17 73 Oakfield.... 1 32 Valley Falls.. 97 Caledonia... 27 Moosers...... 00 Andes....... 10 86 (b).............. 20. Mooers....... 17 82 Galway.... 1 33 Copenhagen... 1 09 Clinton..... 29 Fairhaven... 00 Nelsonville... 11 01 (b)............ 21. Theresa....... 18 70 Allegany..... 1 43 Panama...... 1 12 Montour Falls. 36 Mexico....... 00 Ilion......... 11 15 (b)............. 22. Port Leyden... 18 81 Chateaugay... 1 51 Odessa....... 1 19 Monticello.... 40 Van Etten.... 00 Oakfield...... 11 44 (b....... 23. Akron......... 19 27 Pleasant Val'y 1 53 Mooers....... 1 36 Philmont..... 41 Marathon.... 00 Montour Falls. 11 52 (b............... 24. Horseheads... 19 48 Fort Ann.... 1 63 Oakfield...... 1 37 Marlborough.. 44 Pleasant Val'y 00 Madison..... 11 61 (b).......,....... 25. Panama..... 19 73 Port Leyden. 1 71 Camden...... 1 42 Mooers....... 47 Forestville.... 00 Gilbertsville.. 11 92 (b)........... Lower Quartile.. 19 92............. 1 73............. 1 43............. 48............ 00............. 12 03 (b)........... 00 26. Fort Ann....... 27. Castleton....... 28. Philmont....... 29. Scottsville...... 30. Lewiston........ 31. Schoharie...... 32. Forestville.... 33. Montour Falls... 34. Caledonia....... 35. Marlborough.... 36. Fishkill........ 37. Van Etten..... 38. Fairhaven....... 39. Homer........ 40. Afton......... 41. Canisteo....... 42. Oxford........ 43. Frankfort...... 44. Freeville....... 45. Addison........ 46. Dundee......... 47. Pleasant Valley.. 48. Alfred........ 49. Copenhagen..... 20 11 20 22 20 24. 20 95 21 10 21 19 21 52 23 18 23 85, 23 88. 24 53 24 84 25 21 25 23 25 54 25 57 25 81' 25 80 25 97 26 09 26 52 26 53 27 06 27 07 Interlaken.... Theresa...... Oxford....... Dryden..... Schoharie.... Madison.... Holeomb..... Marlborough.. Hammond.... Forestville.... Canisteo..... Clinton..... Scottsville..... -Skaneateles... Caledonia... Valatie....... Warwick,..... Fonda..... Canton...... Horseheads... Malone...... Copenhagen... Amityville.... Gilbertsville,.. 1 74 1 74, 1 75 1 75' 1 76 1 86 1 89 2 07 2 15 2 18 2 19 2 20 2 22 224.2 33 2 37 2 58 2 60 2 60 2 66 2 73. 2 73 2 77 2 78 Lewiston.... Schoharie..... Valatie...... Fort Ann.... Forestville.... Marathon.... Horseheads..., Akron........ Alton........ Alfred........ Port Leyden.. Allegany..... Alexander.... Hammond.... Philmont..... New Paltz.... Fishkill...... Mexico....... Corinth...... Fonda....... Pleasant Val'y Marlborough.. Arcade.... Oxford....... 1 44 1 50 1 51 1 57 1 57 1 64 1 71 1 75, 1 821 1 90 2 04, 2 28 2 28 2 28 2 29 2 45 2 68 2 68 2 72 2 77 2 97 3 19 3 24 3 29 3 53 3 56 3 58 Oakfield...... Camden....... Horseheads... Gilbertsville... Dryden..... Schoharie..... Rockville Cen. Frankfort.... Canton....... Odessa....... Castleton..... Hammond.... Portville..... Middelburg... Freeville.... Mayfield..... Cedarhurst... Altamont..... Adams....... Canisteo..... Afton........ Andes........ Penn Yan.... Oxford....... Lewiston..... Fishkill..., Albion....... Jordan....... Dundee..... Nelsonville... 49 49 49 53 54 54 55 56 57 57 60 60 61, 64; 64 65 65 66 67 67 67 68 68 68 -Port Leyden.. Andes........ Afton........ Freeville.... Camden...... Altmar.... Castleton'.... Brewster.... Valatie....... Allegany..... Copenhagen.. Dryden..... Marlborough.. Lewiston..... Haverstraw... Arcade....... New Paltz.... Galway...... Horseheads... Canisteo..... Perry........ Unadilla...... Oakfield...... Southhampton 0 0 0 0 1 1I 2 2 2 4 4 5 6 9, 10, 11 12 13 14 16 17 17 22 Castleton..... Forestville... Hammond.... Hagaman..... Akron...... Fonda...... Philmont.... Port Leyden.. Caledonia.... Interlaken... Fishkill...... Schoharie.... Alexander.... Lewiston.... Holley....... Cedarhurst... Odessa...... Wellsville.... Homer...... Arcade....... Addison...... Mooers....... Marlborough.. Monticello.... 12 14 12 21 12 21 12 40 12 42 12 74 12 81 13 00 13 05. 13 16 13 18 13 42 13 45 13 47 13 75 13 84 13 90 13 97 13 98 14 16 14 37 14 68 14 69 14 81 (b)........ (b)... (b)........... (b)........... (b)......... (b)......... (b)........... (b)........... (b)........... (b)... (b).......... (b)... (b)........... (b)........... (b)........ (b).. (b).. (b).......... (b)......... I I I---------I - 1 -1-1 -1-I -I 50. Mexico......... Median......... 51. Middleburg.... 27 68 27 91 28 13 Frankfort.... Lewiston..... 2 80 2 82 2 83 Canisteo..... Castleton..... 69 70 70 Chateaugay... Clinton...... 32 33 34 La Salle...... Spencer,...... -1 - 1 14 87 14 94 15 01 (b).......... (b)........... 00 1------1----------1-----1-------~-1----1 1 - 1 1 - -l, 1 - 1 1 -- I - I I I 52. Coxssakie....... 53. Johnson City..... 54. Adams......... 55. Arcade......... 29 22 29 41 29 59 29 69 I Nelsonville... Penn Yan.... Philmont..... Frevil!e..... -I 2 85 2 92 2 93 2 95 I Sgotia........ Theresa. Dundee.... Adams..... ýl 3 66 3 84 3 88 3 98 I I 74 74 75 76 78 78 78 79 80 I Hagaman.... Scottsville.... Middleburg... Rockville C'r. Holcomb.... Philmont;.... Mayfield.. Homer.... Malone..... -I 56. Interlaken...... 29 79 Jordan....... 3 02 Coxsackie.... 4 45 Hagaman... 57 Chateaugay.... 30 31 Ilion......... 3 29 Perry........ 4 76 Alexander.. 58. Warwick........ 30 86 Brewster..... 3 30 Canton...... 4 93 Unadilla.... 59. Scotia......... 31 34 Altmar....... 3 36 Skaneateles.. 4 99 Warwick.... 60. Canton........ 31 46 Haverstraw... 3 36 Frankfort.... 4 99 New Paltz.. (a) Less than 5 mills. (b) Of the 100 villages only 35 had any educational expenditure. These alone have been listed. I 34 40 47 59 62 64 72 79 79 -I Canisteo..... Lyons....... Warwick..... Altamont..... Fort Ann..... Adams....... Scottsville.... Van Etten..... Afton........ I 15 13 (b)... 15 18 (b)... 15 20 (b)... 15 39 (b)... 15 53.. 15 61 (b.. 15 78 (b). 1646 (........ 16 46 (b -I TABLE XXIII - (Continued) TotalGovernment General Governmental Protection of Persons Conservation of Sanitation Highways Education Cot Payments Amount Village Amount Villand Property Health Village Amount Village Amount Village Amount Village Amount Village Amount Village Amount Village Amount 61. Rockville Center. 62. Altmar......... 63. Altamont....... 64 Unadilla........ 65. Marathon....... 66. La Salle....... 67. Penn Yan....... 68. Perry.......... 69. Fonda.......... 70. Camden........ 71. Amityvillc...... 72. Jordan......... 73. Monticello...... 74. Clinton......... 75. Haverstraw..... $31 61 31 73 31 95 31 96 32 11 32 22 32 97 33 14 33 65 34 37 34 58 35 27 35 27 35 45 36 28 Camden...... Akron........ Andes........ Coxsackie.... Van Etten.... Johnson City.. Afton...... Arcade.... Addison...... Altamont.... LaSalle....... Lake George.. Tannersville.. Monticello.... Perry........ $3 41 3 51 3 69 3 60 3 61 3 61 3 66 3 68 3 69 3 81 4 12 4 19 4 22 4 30 4 41 Montour Falls Holley....... Liberty...... Stamford..... Unadilla...... Homer....... Middleburg... Clinton...... Addison...... Monticello.... Johnson City.. Jordan....... Chateaugay... Interlaken.... Sloan........ $5 20 5 22 5 48 5 61 5 66 5 72 5 74 6 02 6 19 6 24 6 25 6 45 6 49 6 54 6 75 Arcade....... Sloan....... Theresa...... Holley....... Skaneateles... Galway...... Scottsville.... Brewster.... La Salle...... Perry........ Valley Falls... Mexico....... Fairhaven.... Stamford..... Chateaugay... $0 82 82 83 83 83 83 84 84 85 85 87 88 88 90 90 Interlaken.... Fort Ann..... Valley Falls... Amityville.... Theresa...... Jordan....... Montour Falls. Adams....... Schoharie.... Cedarhurst... Canton....... Scotia........ Nelsonville... Goshen....... Coxsackie.... $0 82 98 1 00 1 16 1 17 1 18 1 20 1 44 1 46 1 61 1 77 1 91 2 22 2 22 2 28 Haverstraw... Panama...... Canton....... Liberty...... Coxsackie.... Goshen....... Amityville.... Dundee...... Oxford....... Chateaugay... Middleburg... Mexico...... Marathon.... Corinth...... Clintop..... $16 46 16 55 16 74 17 10 17 38 17 67 18 01 18 03 18 12 18 41 18 52 18 95 19 02 19 12 19 55 (b)......,... (b........... (b........... ( )........... (b)........... Clyde........ Penn Yan.... Fairhaven.... Malone...... Marlborough.. Marathon.... Altamont..... Canisteo..... Haverstraw... Mooers....... $0 01 02 09 11 17 tO 20 00 25 27 38 39 Upper Quartil..... 36 76............. 4 47 1............. 6 91............. 90............. 2 29............. 19 56............. 45 Upper Quartile... 36 76............. I 4 119 2 95 76. Clyde.......... 77. Liberty........ 78. Corinth......... 79. New Paltz...... 80. Holley.......... 81. Cedarhurst...... 82. Ilion........ 83. Wellsville...... 84. Malone........ 85. Skaneateles..... 86. Brewster........ 87. Lyons.......... 37 24 37 27 37 73 37 92 38 17 38 40 39 22 39 50 39 67 41 20 41 79 42 87 Union Springs. Liberty...... Cedarhurst... Corinth...... Adams...... Wellsville.... Brockport.... Sloan........ Albion...... Marathon.... Holley...... 4 52 4 71, 4 90 5 01 5 03 5 11 5 54 5 62 5 68 5 76 5 87 5 99 LaSalle...... Portville..... Caledonia.... Union Springs. Penn Yan.... Lyons....... Goshen....... Albion...... Lake George.. Ilion......... Tannersville.. Cedarhurst... 7 07 7 11 7 33 7 33 7 64 8 35 8 43 8 70 8 71 8 81 9 22 9 99 Tannersville.. Copenhagen... Coxsackie.... Allegany..... Port Leyden.. Forestville.... Pleasant Val'y Wellsville..... Marathon.... Irvington..... Goshen.... Valatie....... 90 Tannersville.. 91 Skaneateles... 91 Altamont.....,92 Wellsville..... 95 Johnson City.. 1 00 Penn Yan.... 1 02 Holley....... 1 04 Monticello.... 1 05 Frankfort.... 1 08 Stamford..... 1 09 Lake George.. 1 09 Liberty...... 2 29 2 29 2 40 2 50 2 52 2 65 2 87 2 96 3 05 3 26 3 61 3 92 Fairhaven.... Pleasant Val'y Albion...... Perry....... Malone...... Unadilla...... Alfred........ Copenhagen.. Jordan....... Freeville.... Stamford..... Skaneateles... 19 56 19 68 19 96 19 99 20 29 20 60 21 33 21 41 21 78 22 37 22 65 22 87 Castleton..... Frankfort.... Adams....... Brockport.... Odessa....... Lewiston..... Canton....... Arcade....... Interlaken.... Alfred........ Stamford..... Montour Falls. 50 51 65 66 68 69 76 78 79 84 1 06 1 15 88. Goshen......... 46 79 Goshen....... 6 26 Wellsville..... 10 27 Johnson City.. 1 10 LaSalle....... 4 03 Sloan....... 23 82 Pleasant Val'y 1 30 89. Lake George.... 50 33 Rockville C'r.. 6 35 Warwick... 10 31 Liberty..... 1 12 Brockport.... 4 40 New Paltz.... 24 19 Goshen....... 1 34 90. Sloan.......... 51 70 Clyde........ 6 43 Clyde........ 11 13 Homer....... 1 13 Corinth...... 4 53 Camden...... 24 58 Wellsville.... 1 36 91. Union Springs... 53 01 Scotia........ 6 58 Brewster..... 11 28 Haverstraw.. 1 17 Ilion......... 4 82 Brewster.. 25 20 Dryden..... 1 41 92. Stamford..... 54 17 Argyle....... 6 74 Malone...... 11 68 Scotia........ 1 17 Albion....... 5 09 Brockport.... 25 22 Portville.... 1 65 93. Albion......... 59 86 New Paltz. 6 92 Lake Placid... 11 79 Clyde........ 1 26 Sloan......... 5 09 Altmar... 25 78 New Paltz. 1 79 94. Brockport...... 60 52 South Nyack.. 7 60 Haverstraw... 12 03 Van Etten.... 1 27 Clyde........ 5 19 South Nyack.. 26 92 Dundee...... 1 93 95. South Nyack... 61 94 Fishkill...... 7 71 Amityville.... 12 31 Malone...... 1 52 Lyons........ 6 32 Lake George.. 30 56 Ilion......... 2 14 96. Portville,....... 62 57 Southhampton 8 07 South Nyack.. 12 36 Brockport.. 1 79 South Nyack.. 7 71 Irvington... 32 12 Southhampton 2 44 97. Tannersville..... 62 82 Lake Placid... 8 81 Rockville C'r.. 14 98 Fonda....... 2 20 Fonda....... 8 10 LakePlacdi... 35 02 Bolomingdale. 2 55 98. Lake Placid..... 87 91 Stamford..... 10 86 Brockport.... 16 13 Ilion......... 2 42 Irvington..... 8 59 Union Springs. 41 00 South Nyack.. 2 57 99. Irvington....... 93 22 Portville..... 10 89 Southampton. 19 70 South Nyack.. 2 46 Lake Placid... 12 37 Tannersville.. 43 61 Irvington..... 3 30 100. Southampton.... 105 79 Irvington..... 12 81 Irvington..... 21 94 Southampton. 4 74 Portville..... 30 13 Southampton. 59 17 Albion....... 6 31 (a) Less than 5 mills. (b) Of the 100 villages only 35 had any educational expenditure. These alone have been listed. TABLE XXIII- (Continued) 1. ( c).................. 2. (c).................. 3. (e)... 4, Ii..............~ 4...............rt r~ it........... 9. (c).................. 1. (c). 3. (c... 12. (c... 15. (c). 16. ( c ). 17. C c )........ 18. C.... )...... 13. (c.................. 14. Cc).................. 15.................. 16. c)................. 17. (c).................. 19... 20:.................. 21. (c).................. 22. c)................. 25. c).................. 24. M.................. 25. (C)........... (d)............. (d)............ (d).......... (d)............. (d)............. (d).............. (d).............. (d)............... (d).......... (d)............. (d)............. (d)............. (d).............. (d)............. (d)............. (d).......... (d).......... (d).......... (d)............. (d)............. td)............. (d)............. (d)............. (d)............... (d)............................................................................................................ (e).............. (e).............. Ce)............ (e).......... (e).......... (e)............. (e).............. e)........... (e).............. (e)............... (e).......... (e)......... (e).............. (e).......... (e)............... (e).............. (e).......... (e).......... (e).............. (e).............. (e).............. (e).......... Ce)....... Ce)....... CI)........... D............... (i)............ CD.......... C)............... ()........... f...).......... C(.......... (D............. CD).............. cD............... C............... cD............. (D.............. (........... Frankfort........ Port Leyden...... Scottsville........ Monticello....... Copenhagen...... Oakfield.......... Mayfield......... Valley Falls....... Lyons............ C.)......... C(9)......... ()............ (9).............. (0)........... ()......... (g)......... (9). ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (g).......... (g)......... (9)............... (C)........... (g)............... (g)............... (g)............... (g)............... (g)............... (9)........... (C)......... (g)............... (C)......... (g).......... (h)......... (A)........ (h)............ (h)......... (h)............. h)........... (h)......... (A)........... (h)............ (A)........... (A).......... (A)........... (h).......... (A)............ (h)............ (A)........... (A)............ (h)............ CA)............ (h)........ (h)............ (h)............ (A)....... (h)............ (h)............ CA)...... (a) so 01 $0 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 03 I I I I -1--l -I - 1 - - ) - 1 1 I I SI 1 I II Lower quartile........ 26. (c)................ 27. (c).............. 28. Cc).................. 29. (c.. 30. (Cc........'.... -I 00.I 00 1............... 00 1................ 04 1................ 00 1............ 00. I.I _ _ _.. __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _...I I (d).............. (d).......... (d)............ Cdj::.. (e).......... (e)........... (e)............ (e)............... (e).............. Hagarnan...... Wellsville...... Oxford......... Perry........ Madison... 04 05 05 06 06 )...........I............... Cs)............ Cs)............ Andes............ C(h).................. (h).............. (h)............ (h)............. so 01 (h)............ 31, (c)................. 32. ).'........... 33. (c)........ 34....).. 35. (c)................. 36. (c)............. 37. Wc}.................. 36. (c).................. 37. ( c ). ~~~~~~~~ 38. )c,..,,., 39, (c)W................ 40. Rockville Center...... 41. Haverstraw........... 42. Oxford............. 43. Pleasant Valley..... 44. Montour Falls....... 45. Unadilla,......... 46. Allegany........... 47. Altamont......... 48. Amityville........... 49. Arcade........... 50. Penn Yan........... M edian............. 51. Tannersville.......... 52. Holley.......... 53. Monticello....-.... 54. Sloan............. 55. Brewster............ 56. Brockport........ 57. Clinton......... 5 P Perry........... 59. Malone........... 60. Holomb............. 61. Scohoharie.......... 62. Dryden.......... 63. Liberty.......... 64. Canisteo......... 65. La Salle.......... so 01 01 01 01 02 02 03 05 07 07 OS OS 08 09 (09 11 12 13 16 18 20 22 23 23 25 25 (d)............. (d)............. (d)............. (d)............. (d)............. (d)............. (d)............. (d)............. (d)............. (d)............. (d)............. (d)............. (d)............. (d)............. (d)............. (d)............. (d).............. (d)............. (d)............ (d)............. (d)............... (d).............. (d).............. (d).............. (d)............. (d).......... (d)............. (d)............. (d)............. (d)............ (d)............. id).............. (d)............ Id)............ 5d)............ 00 (e)............ (c............... e).............. (e)............... (e.)............ C.............................. (c)............... (c)............... (e).......... (e)............... (e)............... (e)............ C).............. (e).......... ce).............. (e)............... (e).......... (e)................(..)......... e)............... (e)............ )............... (e)............... (e)............... C).............. (c).......... ))............. (c).............. (e) (e).............. ie.).............. (c' (e) C....... Ic).................................. 00 -............................................................. Interlaken....... La Salle.......... Altamont......... Allegany......... Castleton......... Mooers........... Galway......... Philmont......... Unadilla......... Cedarhurst....... Odessa........... Fishkill......... Holley........... Scotia............ Bloomingdale..... Dryden......... Haverstraw...... Caledonia........ Akron............ Fort Ann.......................... Forestville........ Rockville Center.. Johnson City..... Holcomb......... Skaneateles....... Marathon....... Afton............ Schoharie........ Corinth........ Penn Yan... Stamford......... New Paltz........ Ilion............ Gilbertsville.... Warwick. 06 07 07 08 09 10 11 12 15 15 16 17 17 17 19 20 22 25 26 30 30 30 30 34 35 36 39 41 42 43 44 44 48 49 50 51 Fairhaven........ 01 Marlborough...... 01 Coxsackie........01 Union Springs..... 01 Pleasant Talley... 01 Freeville.......... 01 Galway.......... 01 Monticello......... 02 Oakfield.......... 02 Hagaman......... 02 Camden.......... 02 Perry............ 02 Canisteo...........02 Horseheads....... 03 Irvington......... 03 Valatie........... 04 Interlaken........ 04 Mooers............ 05 Homer.......... 05 Marathon........ 06 06 Addison.......... 06 Montour Falls.... 07 Johnson City..... 07 Penn Yan........ 07 Akron........ 07 Brockport........ 07 Dundee.......... 08 Scotia............ 08 Amityville........ C9 Wellsville......... 09 Argyle.......... 09 Middlebuýrg..-- 10 Panama... -.. 10 Altamont....... 10 La Salle......... 11 (0-) 1.....-... (h)............ (i)............ Ih)........... (h). (h)............ Panama........ Rockville Center Hagaman...... Amityville..... Fishkill........ Theresa....... Fairhaven...... Scottsville...... Philmont...... South Nyack.... Afton.......... Warwick....... Oxford......... Horseheads.... La Salle..... Adams......... Skaneateles. Tannersville. New Paltz...... Addison........ Homer....... Brewster.... Jordan......... Castleton..... Malone....... Portville...... Schoharie...... Montour Falls... Haverstraw.... sO 01 04 06 00 10 35 35 45 50 52 54 56 59 64 75 86 89 92 92 93 95 1 00 1 04 1 19 1 25 1 56 1 65 1 73 S1 86 2 16 0 - (c) 39 of the 100 villages have no expeanse for recreation from 1917-21. (d) 84 of the 100 villages have n3 expense for cenast ries from 1917-21. (e) 96 of the 100 villages have no expense for public utilities, noa-commnnrcial, fo: 1917-2L (f) 16 olthe 100 villages have no expenditure listed as " all other " for 1917-21. (q) 29 of the 10) villages have no interest for temporary debt for 1917-21. IA) 36 of the 101 villages have no interest for bonded debt for 1917-21. TABLE XXIII - (Concluded) 66. Albion........... 67. Canton........... 68. Interlakkn...n...... 09, Adams....... 70. South Nyack......... 71. Alfred....... 72. lake George........ 73. Copenhagen.d... 74. Spencer.......... 75. Caledonia............ Upper Quartile 76. Middleburg....... 77. Ilion........... 78. Goshen....... 79. Castleton (no ) 80. Warwick......... 81. Homer............. 82: Forestivill,... 83. Akron........... 84. Valatice.......... 85. Camden........ 86. Wellsville......... 87, Afton............... 88 Johnson City......... 89, Scottsville........ 00. Skaneateles........ 91. Port Leyden 9 2. Fonda............. 93. Clyde.............. H. Madison........... 9 5. Corinth.......... CO029 1(d).................... 33 (d)................... 40 (V).............. 40 (d).............. 48 (d)................... 50 (d)................... 55 (d)............... 58 (d)................... 61 (d)................... 61 (d).................... 61................ 00 1 (d)................ 67 (d).............. 68 W(d)................... 74 (d)................ 75 (d?)................ 77 Cd)................ 77 (d).................... 82 (d)................... 87 Wd)................ 88 Oakficld........... 02 90 lion..............02 1 02 Castleton.......... 08 1 05 Jordan........... 10 1 05 B3rockport.......... 15 1 09 Holley............ 15 1 12 Lewieton........... 37 1 23 Akron............ 38 1 28 Wellsville-........ 74 1 29 Altmar........... 95 1 0 Fonda........... 1 04 (e).............. ).............. Ce)............... (e).......... (e)............... (e).............. (e)............... (e)............... (e)............... e.............. Fairhaven... Fonda........-- Homer...;....... Dundee.......... Montour Falla.... Alfred......... Coxsackie. Sloan........... Mexico.... " '' - Clifton........... $0 53 54 55 55 55 58 60 61 65 65 Warwick:.'..-- Odessa........... Malone......... Clyde........... Schoharie........ Jordan........... Chateaugay. Liberty.......... Ilion............. Portville......... $o 11 12 13 13 14 15 16 16 16 16 Camden........ Canisten,...... Lake George.... Fonda..... - Allegany...... Chateaugay..... Canton......... Perry..... Unadilla........ Johnson City... $2 22 2 22 2 35 2 44 2 53 2 54 2 583 2 71 2 86 3 03 I I I -I -1. -1 - 1 1----- I I -I---- -1 -I I e...).......... (e)............... (e).............. (e).......... Ce)............. (e).......... (e)............ (e).............. (e)......... Ee)............. (e)............... Ce)............... Ce).............. Ce)............... (e).......... (e)............... Ce)............... (e)............... (e)............... (e).......... I $0 00 I I Malone. Jordan........... Arcade.......... Goshen........... Horseheads....... Panama.......... Altmar........... Van Etten........ Theresa.......... Middleburg....... Adams........... South Nyack... Tanneraville...... Lake Placid....... Liberty.......;. Alion........... Clyde............ Canisteo.... Canton.......... Camden,....: 60 67 68 70 70 71 71 74 82 82 91 92 1 01 1 02 1 06 1 08 1 08 1 08 114.117 1 35 I Holc~omb......... Southampton..- - Lake Placid..... Dryden.......... Theresa......... Allegany........ Cedarhurt.... New Palts........ Lake George...... Forestville........ Copenhagen...... South Nyack....Sloan........... Haverstraw....... Goshen........... Philmont......... Lyons............ Tannersville...... Alfred....... - " Unadilla.......... I 17 18 19 20 22 22 25 25 25 26 27 32 32 34 42 43 54 55 '55 59 61 I Forestillie..... Clinton.------ Liberty. --- Wellsville...... Marathon...... Stamfbrd..... Corinth........ Brockport..... Lyons.......... Penn Yan...... Ilion.......... Interlaken..... Arcade........ Monticello...... Frankfort...... Cedarhirst..... Southampton... Goshen......... Scotia......... Altamont....... I 3 12 3 21 3 35 3 47 3 48 3 89 4 38 4 43 4 75 '5 06 5 18 5 25 6 10 6 15 6 46' 6 60 7 02 7 33 7 97 8 13 8 28 96. Lyons.............. 1 69 Horseheads........ 2 28 (e)......................Southampton.. 1 44 Frankfort.......... 79 Sloan.......... 8 949 97. Fairhaven........... 1 99 Penn Yand........ 23 00 Lyons............. 01 Lewiston...... 155 Aftonr........... 796 Holley.......... 49 09 98. Southampton.........2 49 Van Etten........ 3 25 Montour Falls.... 02 Valatie........... 1 62 Stamford.........1 06 Albion.........11 93 99. Lake Placid.......... 3 05 Maxico........... 3 62 Addison........... 76 Brockport......... 1 69 Oxford........... 1 32 Irvington.13 36 100. Stamford............ 3 95 Skaneateles....... 5 61 Johnson City..1.. 74 Marlborough....... 3 25 Clinton.......... 2 90 LakePacid 15 48 (d) 84 of the 100 villages have no expense for Cemeteries from 1917-21. (e, 96 of the 100 villages have no expense for public utilities, non-commercial for 1917-21. TABLE XXIV THlE AVERAGE PER FAMILY COST OF THE VARIOUS FUNCTIONS OF CITY GOVERNMENT IN THE CITIES OF NEW YORK STATE. (FIRST CLASS CITIES TREATED SEPARATELY) (Based on the period 1917 to 1921, inclusive) General Government Protection Health Sanitation Highways Charities Cities Amount Cities Amount Cities Amount Cities Amount Cities Amount Cities Amount 1 Sherrill l........,. $2 35 Sherrill........... $2 48 Rensselaer.$...... 30 38 Sherrill........... $0 35 Sherrill...........$S5 96 Sherrill......... $0 00 2. Olean...,........ 5 29 Mechanieville,... 6 71 Oneida........... 0 50 Plattsburgb....... 1 58 Dunkirk.......... 6 02 Canandaigua.... 01 3I Port Jervis........... 6 05 Norwich.......... 7 52 Sherrill........... 0 52 Oswego..........1 63 Albany........... 6 24 Ogdensburg0..... 7 4. Hornell............. 6 15 Geneva.......... 8 90 Watervlict........ 0 77 Canandaigua...... 1 63 Johnstown....... 7 58 Tonawanda...... 46 5. Ogdensburg...........6 17 Plattsburghl..... 9 01 Salamanca.0.... 80 Salamanca....... 1 70 Watervliet.... 7 75 Oneonta..... 85 6. Dunkirk............. 6 31 Hudson........... 9 15 Canandaigua...... 0 84 Ogdensburg... 1 72 Mechanioville.. 8 06 Watervliet.... 99 7. Oneida..............6 63 Hornell.......... 9 20 Mechanieville0.... 0 87 Norwich..........1 74 Schenectady...... 8 10 Hudson........ 111 8. Amsterdam........... 6 75 Little Falls.... 9 22 Johnstown........- 1 00 Geneva........... 1 87 Corning.......... 8 25 Dunkirk........ 116 9. Corning............. 6 94 Cortland......... 9 47 Batavia..........1 05 Oneonta.......... 1 98 Fulton........... 8 52 Port Jervis...,. 1 18 10. Little FLls9^...........707 Salamanca........ 9 80 Port Jervis...... 1 13 Hornell.......... 2 20 Hudson.......... 8 58 Rome........... 1 25 11. Plattsburgh........... 7 09 Oneonta.......... 10 10 Glen Cove........ 1 13 Fulton........... 2 21 Olean............ 8 61 White Plains.... 1 44 12. Cortland..............7 12 Olean............ 10 72 Newburgb........ 1 14 Johnstown........ 2 83 Norwich.......... 8 89 Middletown.... 1 79 13. Johnstows............ 7 12 Johnstown..... 10 74 Fulton........... 1 14 Oneida........... 2 85 Utica............ 8 94 Mechanieville... 1 85 14. Jamestown........... 7 21 Dunkirk......... 11 10 Plattsburgh....... 1 19 Cortland.........2 92 Syracuse......... 8 99 Lackawanna.,.. 1 96 Lower Quartilde..... 7 23 -- I--~I 15. Poughkeepsie.... 16. Rome................ 17. Beacon............ 18. Norwich.......... 19. Geneva.......... 20. Gloversville. 21. Middletown.......... 32. Mechanieville.. 23. Hudson............... 24. Auburn............... 25. Kingston............ 7 25 7 53 7 57 7 64 7 64 7 68 7 76 7 02 8 01 8 06 8 42 Ogdensburg....... Newburgh........ Beacon.-.":** Gloverevilla. Corning. Canandaigua.. Oswego.......... Watervlict....... Batavia....... Amsterdam....... Rome............ 11 11 1............ 1 19 1............. - 1 1 - 1 1 - 3 03 1.................1 9 02 1.............. 1 -r.1 I i i I I 1 97 -I 11 12 11 88 11 95 12 14 12 18 12 40 12 59 12 63 13 82 13 91 13 92 Hornell...... Beacon......... Oneonta.......... Tonawanda...... Lockport......... Olean............ Cortland....... Middletown. Troy......... Little Falls...... Binghamton. 1 19 1 23 1 28 1 30 1 40 1 40 1 42 1 42 1 44 1 47 1 55 Rensselaer........ Little Falls...... Watery Se.... Oleant.......... Watertown....... N. Tonawanda.... Cohoes........... Dunkirk.......... Hudson.......... 3 13 3 17 3 25 3 41 3 78 3 89 3 98 4 01 4 42 4 62 4 74 Jamnestown..... Amsterdam.... Cortland........ Rensselaer..... Oneonta..... Binghamton..... Niagara Falls. Cohoes........... Troy............ Salamanca........ Ogdensburg....... 9 04 9 14 9 30 9 66 9 71 10 03 10 06 10 44 10 65 10 67 10 67 Cohoes..... Mt. Vernon... Hornell........ Norwich.. Niagara Falls... Johnstown... Cortland. Gloversvile..... Beseon......... Plattsburgh..... New Rochelle... 1 97 1 99 2 24 2 29 2 32 2 35 2 38 2 55 2 61 2 75 2 86 26. Newburgh............ 27. Ithaca................ 8 44 Middletown...... 8 55 Poughkeepsic......1-1I 28. Salamanca........... Medians............ 29. Utica............... 8 61 Port Jervis....... 8 75................. 8 89 Glens Falls....... S13 94 13 96 14 00 14 16 14 31 - 1 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 -I Ogdensburg..... 1 61 Jamestown...... 4 74 Glens Falls..... 10 71 Utica........ Cohoes........... 162 Mechanieville..... 4 80 Little Falls....... 10 75 Little Falls.... 3 00 3 10 Corning.......... 1 62 Saratoga Springs.. 4 97 Glen Cove........ 11 05 Ithaca.................... 1 63................. 5 00................. 11 11 New Rochelle..... 1 64 Beacon.......... 5 02 Poughkeepsie.... 11 17 Yonkers........ 3 11 3 17 3 22 1.. I.. 1- - = 1 - 1 - 30. Watervliet.......... 31. Binghamton........... 32. Lockport......... 33. Rensselaer........ 34. Canandaigua.......... 35. Watertown......... 36. Fulton............... 37. Glens Falls............ 38. Batavia.............. 39. Schenectady........... 40. Oneonta.............. 41. Cohoes.............. 42. Oswego.............. 9 01 9 18 9 20 9 23 9 60 9 77 9 79 9 80 9 93 9 95 10 06 10 06 10 24 Kingston........ Fulton........... Oneida........... Jamestown...... Cohoes........... Elmira........... Rensselaer........ Glen Cove........ Saratoga Springs.. Ithaca........... Auburn.......... Tonawanda....... Binghamton...... 14 65 14 88 15 50 16 20 16 62 16 69 17 52 17 77 18 60 18 69 19 08 19 46 20 16 Geneva........... Norwich.......... Rome.......... Ithaca........... Hudson.......... Gloversville....... Mt. Vernon....... Kingston......... Glens Falls....... White Plains...... Elmira........... Albany........... Saratoga Springs.. 1 -I 1 -1' - I Upper Quartiles....... 43. Limira.............. 44. Niagara Falls......... 45. Syracuse.......... 46. N. Tonawanda........ 47. Troy............. 48. Albany............... 49. Lackawanna......... 50. Mount Vernon........ 51. Tonawanda........... 52. Yonkers............. 53. New Rochelle......... 54. Saratoga Springs....... 55. White Plains.......... 56. Glen Cove........... 10 34............... 20 33................ 1 69 1 77 1 92 1 94 1 96 1 98 2 01 2 04 2 06 2 13 2 20 2 28 2 31 2 32 2 32 2 3.6 2 39 2 53 2 55 2 73 2 88 3 07 3 16 3 86 4 03 5 62 6 19 6 94 Tonawanda....... Lockport......... Binghamton...... Newburgh........ Auburn.......... Middletown...... Poughkeepsie.... Gloversville...... Mt. Vernon....... Glens Falls....... White Plains...... Rome............ Ithaca........... 8 63 Newburgh........ 8 75 Yonkers......... 5 08 5 27 5 65 6 42 6 47 6 48 7 02 7 06 7 42 7 68 8 55 -1 - I I - 1 Middletown...... Plattsburgh........ Gloversville....... Rome............ Elmira........... N. Tonawanda.... Hornell.......... Oswego.......... Geneva........... White Plains...... Batavia.......... 11 22 11 65 11 78 11 84 12 27 12 50 12 54 13 09 13 17 13 29 13 29 13 32 14 19 Oneida......... Batavia........ Auburn...... Elmira......... Corning....... Rensselaer...... Fulton........ Olean......... Albany......... Glens Falls..... Amsterdam..... Schenectady... Watertown..... 3 22 3 35 3 37 3 41 3 43 3 62 3 65 3 77 3 89 3 94 3 94 3 98 5 19 10 43 10 69 11 03 11 05 11 23 11 58 13 40 13 41 14 43 15 98 16 17 18 64 19 60 20 00 Watertown....... Utica............ Lockport......... Schenectady...... White Plains...... Mt. Vernon....... Niagara Falls..... N. Tonawanda.... Lackawanna...... Troy............ Syracuse......... New Rochelle..... Albany........... Yonkers.......... 20 49 20 66 20 77 20 96 22 03 22 56 22 58 22 82 25 42 26 09 27 27 28 13 29 90 31 91 Lackawanna...... Watertown....... Utica............ N. Tonawanda.... Dunkirk.......... Amsterdam....... Jamestown....... Poughkeepsie.... Oswego.......... Auburn.......... Niagara Falls..... Schenectady...... Syracuse.......... Yonkers........................ 8 84................. 14 36................ 5 41 Amsterdam....... 8 93 Lockport......... 14 53 Glen Cove...... 5 63 Port Jervis....... 9 43 Oneida........... 14 58 Syracuse........ 5 96 Albany.......... 9 48 Ithaca........... 14 68 Kingston....... 6 31 Syracuse......... 9 56 Tonawanda....... 14 98 Newburgh..... 6 49 Kingston......... 9 99 Auburn......... 15 62 Saratoga Springs 7 35 Utica........... 10 63 Mt. Vernon....... 16 01 Troy.......... 7 93 Batavia......... 11 26 Port Jervis....... 16 10 Oswego......... 8 51 Glen Cove........ 11 43 Canandaigua...... 16 13 Geneva....... 8 95 Troy............ 12 30 Watertown....... 17 64 N. Tonawanda.. 9 92 Niagara Falls..... 14 11 Beacon........... 18 13 Jamestown..... 10 18 Schenectady...... 14 34 Lackawanna...... 19 36 Salamanca...... 10 47 Yonkers......... 14 64 New Rochelle..... 20 83 Lockport....... 1 11 14 Lackawanna.... 15 11 Kingston........ 24 90 Poughkeepsie.. 11 81 New Rochelle..... 16 95 Saratoga Springs.. 29 39 Binghamton.... 11 81 0-A C0 r0n I I I------------I 1--- First class cities: New York City......... Buffalo................ Rochester.............. 23 94............... 36 61............... 20 03.............. 41 67................. 17 60................. 27 87................. 4 46................ 14 52 11 67............... 15 00 2 94............. 15 64........... _ 6 94............... 9 65............. 13 69............. 16 39 3 71 4 16 _ __ ~ TA&BLE XXIV - (Concluded) seretinPublic Utilities I oa Government RerainNon-commercial Bond Interest Temporary Interest All Other Cost Paymeints Cities A-mount Cities Amount Cities Amount Cities Amount Cities Amount Cities Amount 1. Sherrill.............. $0 00....................... Middletowin.....$1 67 Lockport.........$0o 00 Sherrill.......... $0 03 Sherrill......$14 33 2. Amsterdam............ 05....................... Sherrill........... 2 28 Rensselaer.....(a).... Oneonta........... 25. Johnstown.... 37 24 3. Rensselaer............ - 09....................... Oneida........... 2 57 Niagara Falls....(a).... Johnstown.......... 26 Hornell......38 00 4. Watervliet............. 17....................... Ogdensburg..... 3 01 Mt. Vernon.... 01 Cortland........... 30 Plattsbuýrghi 38 24 5. Cortland.............. 19....................... Kingston......... 3 48 Mechanicville... 01 Ogdensburg.... 31 Ogdensburg.... 3837 6. Plattsburgh............ 20.......................Amsterdam..... 3 52 Oneonta........... 01 Hornell............ 35 Norwich..... 39 06 7. Port Jervis............. 21....................... Hornell..:........ 3 56 Little Falls.... 01 Gloversville.... 36 Onoonta........ 40 13 8. Tonawanda............ 35....................... Canandaigua.... 3 58 Albany............ 02 Salamanca.,.........36 Mechanieville.. 40 79 9. Fulton................. 35...................... Plattsburgh..... 3 65 Auburn.......03 Glen Cove.......... 45 Cortland...... 41 11 10. Lackawanna............ 37....................... Ithaca........... 3 83 Comning........... 04 Oneida............ 46 Dunkirk..... 41 28 ~. 11. Mechanieville........... 38..... '.................. Port Jervis..... 3 93 Hudson........... 04 Oleano............. 51 Olean.......... 43 42 O 12. Johnstown............. 48....................... Oneonta.......... 4 05 Hornll........... 07 Kingston........... 52 Watervliet... 43 61 1.3. Hornell............... 50....................... Corning.......... 4 13 Ithaca............ 07 Saratoga Springs. 54 Little Falls. 43 99 14. Canandaigua........... 50....................... Auburn.......... 4 24 Elmira............ 08 Glens Fal... 55 Hudson......... 44 10 Lower Quartile......... 50................... 00................. 430.................. 09......... 1.5. X. Tonawanda.........5...................... Rome............ 4 35 Lackawanna... 09 Geneva...... 16.* White Plains........... 60....................... Glens Falls...... 4 39 Glen Cove.......... 09 Cohoes,...... 17. ]Batavia..........63....................... Johnstown...... 4 50 Saratoga Springs.. 31 Newburgh..... 18. Ogdensburg............ 63....................... Newburgh........ 4 64 Binghamton... 11 Watertown.... 19. H~udson............... 66....................... Little Falls.... *.. 5 06 Dunkirk........... 12 Elmira...... 20. Salamanca............. 70...................... Elmira........... 5 11 Plattsburgh.... 13 Canandaigua.... 21. Midldletown............ 74Husn................Hdo. 5 30 Poughkeepsie. 13 Binghamton.... 22. Mt. Vernon........._.. 76............Gloversville...... 5 40 Canandaigua... 13 Auburn. 23'. Glen Cove.!............ 77 Co....(a Lackawanna..... 5 46 Glens Falls.... 13 Middletown...... 24. Lockport.............. o 78 Watertown.....(a)... eOwego.......... 5 57 -Cortland........... 13 Hudson...... 25. Oneida............... 78 Olean...... ()....(a Be-aeon...........;5) 66 Oswego............ 14 Utica........... 26. Norwich............... 88 Tonawanda..... 0 01 Lockport......... 5 85 Tiny............. 15 Port Jervis.... 27. Glovprsvi~lle............ 90 WAtervliet......... 01 Dunkirk.......... 5 95- Port Jervis.... 19 Plattsburgh.... 57 Corning........ 44 24 62 Middletown. 46 39 62 Canandaigua 48 70 67 Oneida.......... 47 35 68 Gloversville.. 50 28 71 Amsterdam 51 48 80 Rome.......... 52 02 83 Salamanea 52 33 90 Fulton......... 52 92 92 Geneva..... 52 94 98 Port Jervis. 53 20 99 Coboes......... 53 83 99 Beacon......... 54 31 28. Beacon............ 91 Cortland.......... 2 Troy............ 5 95 Beacon........... 21 Little Falls....... 1 00 Glens Falls..... 56 12 M edians.............. 91................. 3................. 6 00 Combined Md. 6.12 22.............. 1 02.......... 56 44 29. Cohoes............... 91 Poughkeepsie..... 4 Glen Cove........ 6 04 N. Tonawanda.... 22 Beacon.......... 1 04 Rensselaer.... 56 76 30. Auburn............... 104 Oswego.......... 5 Norwich.......... 6 39 Rome............ 23 Ithaca............. 1 04 Newburgh..... 56 96 31. Rome................ 1 10 Kingston.......... 6 Saratoga Springs.. 6 49 Watertown...... 24 Tonawanda....... 1 11 Elmira......... 59 62 32. Oswego............... 1 16 Johnstown...... 7 Cohoes......... 6 72 Watervliet....... 26 Jamestown....... 1 11 Oswego........ 60 67 33. Jamestown............ 1 2 Oneonta......... 7 Jamestown....... 6 86 Oneida........... 27 Norwich.......... 1 16 Jamestown..... 61 53 34. Binghamton.......... 1 26 Lackawanna...... 8 Utica........... 6 99 Ogdensburg...... 31 N. Tonawanda.... 1 20 Auburn........ 62 72 35. Dunkirk.............. 1 28 Auburn.......... 12 Watervliet..... 6 99 Johnstown....... 32 Mechanieville..... 1 21 Ithaca......... 62 97 36. Glens Falls............ 1 34 New Rochelle.... 12 Olean............ 7 12 Middletown...... 33 White Plains...... 1 23 Utica.......... 66 87 37. Olean............... 1 41 Dunkirk.......... 13 Geneva......... 7 46 Sherrill........... 36 Albany.......... 1 25 Tonawanda... 66 99 38. Ithaca............... 1 47 Niagara Falls..... 14 N. Tonawanda... 7 88 Newburgh........ 37 Rome............ 1 25 Batavia.'...... 66 99 39. Schenectady........... 1 70 Middletown..... 14 Cortland........ 7 90 Gloversville...... 42 Watervliet........ 1 62 Binghamton.... 68 56 40. Elmira.............. 1 74 Schenectady...... 16 Binghamton...... 8 00 Cohoes........... 44 Amsterdam....... 1 62 Watertown... 70 65 41. Oneonta.............. 1 79 N. Tonawanda.... 17 Watertown....... 8 05 Geneva.......... 52 Corning.......... 1 70 Lockport....... 71 30 42. Little Falls............ 2 04 Newburgh........ 18 Salamanca........ 8 25 Tonawanda....... 55 Troy............ 1 95 N. Tonawanda.. 72 90 Upper Quartile........ 2 05................ 19................. 8 62................. 67............... 2 00............... 72 94 43. Niagara Falls.......... 2 05 Syracuse......... 19 Mechanieville..... 8 98 Norwich.......... 78 Dunkirk.......... 2 05 Poughkeepsie... 72 98 44. Geneva............... 2 17 Yonkers.......... 21 Fulton........... 9 12 Olean............ 82 Batavia.......... 2 20 Glen Cove.... 73 36 45. Watertown............ 2 26 Corning........... 23 Tonawanda....... 9 28 Batavia......... 86 Fulton............ 2 21 Kingston...... 75 41 46 Yonkers............ 2 42 Troyi........... 35 Rensselaer........ 10 11 Jamestown....... 86 Niagara Falls..... 2 22 Troy......... 8105 47. Corning............. 2 47 Albany........... 37 Batavia.......... 10 61 Amsterdam....... 89 New Rochelle..... 2 25 Schenectady... 82 70 48. Troy............... 3 01 Ithaca........... 83 Poughkeepsie..... 11 09 Salamanca........ 98 Lockport......... 2 36 Niagara Falls... 83 34 49. Utica............... 3 07 Little Falls....... 1 09 Syracuse......... 11 37 Fulton........... 1 06 Schenectady...... 2 44 Lackawanna.... 8670 50. Newburgh............ 3 46 Saratoga Springs.. 1 16 Schenectady...... 13 51 White Plains...... 1 10 Syracuse......... 2 47 Albany......... 87 48 51. Kingston............ 3 83 Canandaigua..... 1 18 Niagara Falls..... 15 14 Kingston......... 1 21 Rensselaer........ 3 03 Syracuse....... 89 29 52. Syracuse............. 3 90 Glens Falls....... 1 22 Albany........... 15 55 New Rochelle..... 1 28 Lackawanna...... 3 14 White Plains.... 90 25 53. Poughkeepsie.......... 4 13 Jamestown....... 1 23 New Rochelle..... 17 87 Utica........... 1 34 Mt. Vernon...... 3 18 Mt. Vernon..... 90 95 54. Albany.............. 6 92 Ogdensburg....... 2 75 White Plains...... 20 28 Schenectady...... 1 95 Poughkeepsie..... 3 33 Saratoga Springs 98 89 55. New Rochelle......... 7 00 Elmira............. 3 13 Yonkers.......... 21 92 Syracuse......... 2 37 Yonkers.......... 3 99 New Rochelle... 115 09 50. Saratoga Springs....... 9 33 Hudson.......... 3 63 Mt. Vernon....... 23 60 Yonkers.......... 6 59 Oswego.......... 4 52 Yonkers....... 121 99 New York City........... 3 79................. 2 41................. *42 27................ (*).................... 24............... 151 56 Buffalo................... 6 97................ 10 37................. *16 73................ (*)..................... 27............. 136 06 Rochester................. 6 28................. 43................ *16 92................ (*).................... 2 21............... 107 74 --1 (a) Less than 5 mills. * Only Total Interest Payments are given for First Class Cities. THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN DATE DUE JAN 0 8 1991 iii UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 3 9015 01764 3183 ~E1Dk,-ý i, DO NOT REMOVE OR MUTILATE CARD