cs4: *<*" >/ol esi. '. F "7" / >HTO, c n ^ t n .^ COMPOSITE FINANCES IN SELECTED CITY AREAS A Special Survey Sponsored by U, S. Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Social and Economic Statistics Administration Bureau of the Census Governments Division August 1974 THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES This report was prepared by the Governments Division, Bureau of the \ Hensus, Social and Economic Statistics Administration, Department of Commerce, under HUD contract IAA-H-25-72 that called for "a pilot study- to ascertain the feasibility of compiling comprehensive fiscal and related lata that fully reflect local government fiscal burdens." Acknowledgements This study was prepared in accordance with research specifications prescribed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The project manager was Mr. Maurice Criz, Assistant Chief of the Governments Division, who was assisted by Mr. Vance Kane, Chief of the Finance Branch ind Mr. Earle Knapp, Chief of the Taxation Branch. John McGuire and David Kellerman were responsible for the research and compilation of the lata. Dr. Arnold H. Diamond and Mr. David Einhorn of the Office of Policy Development and Research were responsible for overseeing this research Droject on behalf of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The cooperation of the local government officials in the ten survey jities in providing information for this report is gratefully acknowledged. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation http://archive.org/details/compositefinanceOOunit TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Conclusions and Principal Findings 3 Survey methodology- Identification of governments i Classification of accounts n General characteristics of survey cities g Review of survey results 10 Expenditure characteristics: 2.0 Individual area comparisons 20 Program priorities and service levels 15 Financing choices 28 Revenue characteristics: 29 Individual area comparisons 3/ Debt 36 Tax burden, tax effort, and fiscal capacity 40 Feasibility of future effort »6 A comparison with existing local area data 46 Project feasibility ,g Composite Finances in Selected City Areas List of text tables Table A — Number of Governmental Units Performing Services in Selected City Areas 6 Table B — Comparative Data in Selected City Areas: i960 and 1970 9 Table C — Total Local Governmental Per Capita Expenditures in Selected City Areas: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 11 Table D — Per Capita Expenditures by Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 12 Table E — Expenditure by Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Percentage Composition) l6 Table F — Rankings According to Per Capita Expenditure and Selected Functional Criteria, Selected City Areas: 1970 18 Table G — Six Highest Per Capita Expenditure Amounts, by Function, Selected City Areas: 1970 19 Table H — Composite Per Capita Expenditures by All Local Governments in Selected State and City Areas, Selected Functions: 1970-71 20 Table I — High-low Relationships of Per Capita Expenditures for Selected Functions, Selected City Areas: 1970 21 Table J — Comparison of Selected Service Levels Provided by Local Governments Inside Selected City Areas: 1970 23 Table K — Per Capita Revenue by Source for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 30 Table L — Revenue by Source for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Percentage Composition) 32 Table M — Total Debt Outstanding by Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 37 Table N — Long-term Full Faith and Credit Debt Outstanding by Function in Selected City Areas: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 38 Table — Long-term Nonguaranteed Debt by Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 39 11 Composite Finances in Selected City Areas List of text tables Table P — Selected State and Local Tax Payments and User Charges for Selected City Areas: 1970 42 Table Q — Per Capita and Percentage Relationships Regarding Tax Burden, Tax Effort, and Fiscal Capacity, Selected City Areas: 1970 43 Table R — Selected Percentage Relationships Regarding Tax Burden and Fiscal Capacity in Selected City Areas: 1970 44 Table S — Demonstration of Data Results for Selected Per Capita Expenditure and Revenue Elements, Selected Cities and Associated Counties: 1970 47 in LIST OF TABLES Table 1 — Revenue by Source for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 50 Table 2 — Expenditures by Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 72 Table 3 — S ummar y of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 92 Table U — Selected Tax Rates and Service Fee Charges for Local Governments in Selected City Areas : Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 122 Appendix 1 — Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 129 Appendix 2 — Dependent Agencies of Selected Central Cities and their Overlying Counties 177 Bibliography 179 IV COMPOSITE FINANCES IN SELECTED CITY AREAS Introduction Notwithstanding the vast array of statistics that abounds in the financial reports issued by local governments and public agencies, it has been exceed- ingly difficult to compare the fiscal burdens experienced by the residents in one community with the fiscal burdens experienced by residents in another community. Part of the difficulty is attributable to the fragmentation of local government and the resultant overlapping jurisdictions. Part of it is due to the tendency to measure fiscal burdens largely in terms of tax levies, particularly the property tax, and to disregard user charges and miscellaneous revenues. Similarly, among municipal credit analysts it has long been the tendency to measure debt burdens of local jurisidictions in terms of the "full faith and credit" debt outstanding without regard to the volume of "non-guaranteed" or' revenue bonds outstanding. Owing to these fractionated approaches, it has been most difficult to assess the amounts being spent at the local level for different kinds of public services and the overall fiscal burdens that in some way or other are being borne in order to pay for these services. Under the circumstances, evaluation of the cost effectiveness of local government activity becomes a complicated endeavor. In this setting, the Department of Housing and Urban Development commis- sioned the Bureau of the Census in the Commerce Department to study the feasibility of compiling comprehensive data on local government services, revenues collected and indebtedness incurred by all units of local government within a particular jurisdiction. More precisely, the Census Bureau was com- missioned to make a study of five large metropolitan cities (each with a population exceeding £00,000) and five proximate suburbs or satellite cities, performing for each area the following: (a) Delineate all public services provided. (b) Identify public agencies that provide the services and select criteria for measuring the quantity of services provided. (c) Ascertain cost of services and method of financing: taxes, user charges, revenue bonds, intergovernmental payments, or other. (d) Measure various taxes, charges, fees, fines, and other revenues used to finance services, irrespective of whether they are collected by the city, county, school district, special district, or public authority. (e) Convert all financial items into common base figures (for example, per capita, per household, or per standard value of dwelling unit), (f) Analyze relative importance of component taxes and charges that comprise overall fiscal burden. (g) Attempt to develop comparable measures of composite debt burden, that is, total indebtedness of cities, adjacent suburbs and overlapping special districts, public authorities and other public bodies. Express such indebtedness in per capita terms. (h) Contrast composite fiscal burdens, as they emerge from above computations, with existing measures of tax burden contained in other publications of the Bureau of the Census. (i) Contrast overall fiscal burdens among the 10 cities, and between each large city ana its smaller municipal neighbor. The study covered the following cities: Central City Satellite City Boston Waltham Chicago Evanston Houston Pasadena Los Angeles Burbank Philadelphia Chester In undertaking this study, it was recognized that in various communities certain public services are provided by privately owned organizations rather than by public agencies, e.g., privately owned hospitals, colleges, schools, museums, libraries and public utilities. But because of the problems of identifying each and every privately owned public facility and of gathering the requisite statistics, these private endeavors are omitted from the study. Also omitted are the facilities owned by, and the public services provided by, the Federal and State governments in the particular city because their 3 inclusion would have obscured the main focus of the study — locally provided public services. However, intergovernmental payments by the Federal and State governments are counted as part of the revenues received by the local governments to help pay for the services they provide. Conclusions and Principal Findings The heart of the study is set forth in four basic tables (that begin on page 50) and an appendix, each relating to the local government's fiscal year ending in 1970. Table 1 shows the revenues by source collected by all local governments and public agencies operating in whole or in part in the respective city areas. Table 2 shows the expenditures by function for all local governments and public agencies operating in whole or in part in these cities. Table 3 details the outstanding debt by type of debt and function for all these local governments and public agencies. Table k depicts selected tax rates and services fee charges for all these local governments and public agencies. Appendix 1 describes the methods of proration of local government finances for these public bodies operating in whole or in part in the respective city. Appendix 2 presents a partial listing of the dependent agencies of selected central cities and their overlying counties. Revenue amounts received directly from the Federal Government are not broken down by function (education, highways, health and hospitals, etc.). The amount of functional detail available varies from government to government so only the total amount is presented in this report. However, what functional detail there is, would be available on magnetic tape from the Governments Division, Bureau of the Census. The statistics set forth in these four tables demonstrate conclusively that it is, indeed, feasible to compile comprehensive data that permit measurements of overall fiscal burdens for identifiable bundles of public 3a services provided by local governments and public agencies. To be sure, considerable effort is involved in compiling the data and calculating the requisite proration ratios to allocate the financial data for overlapping jurisdictions. But, as is evident from the material presented below, the effort is worthwhile if there is to be a body of information that permits inter-city comparisons of fiscal burdens. Summary comparisons of the 10 city areas produces the following major findings. 1. The lowest expenditure per capita for all public services, $3^1 occurred in Houston. This amount was about three-fourths the per capita total for Pasadena, the neighboring satellite city, and much less than half of $775 per capita spent in Boston. The latter amount is one-and-a half times the per capita expenditure in Waltham, Boston's satellite. 2. Among the five large cities, expenditure per capita for education ($137) is lowest in Houston. In the same city the education proportion of total expenditure is highest among corresponding percentages in the five large cities. 3. In every local area situation, the ratio of per capita local taxes to per capita income is higher in the large central city than it is in the smaller outlying city. k. In four out of the five local situations the proportion of total expenditure for education is higher in the satellite city than in the central city. When education proportions for the 10 cities are ranked from highest to lowest, only one of those for the larger cities is among the top five. In each of the 10 cities, however, education accounts for more of total expenditure than any other single function. 5. Only two of the five smaller cities show any expenditure for housing and urban renewal. Among the seven cities with expenditures for this purpose, the range extends from $55 to $1 per capita. In three of the seven cities, housing and urban renewal is one of the six major expenditure targets, in terms of per capita outlay. 6. Among the 10 cities, expenditure per capita for public welfare ranges from $137 to $1. In every local situation except one, the proportion of families receiving welfare payments is greater in the central city than in the outlying city. 7. Property taxes per capita range from $387 to $107 among the larger cities, and from $383 to $117 among the smaller cities. As proportions of total revenue, the range extends from 5^ to 21 percent, and 68 to 30 percent, respectively. Among the five local situations, the property tax proportion is higher in the smaller city than in its neighboring larger city, except in the Houston area. The proportion in Evanston is more than 50 percent higher than that in Chicago. Lowest among the large cities is Philadelphia at 21 percent and $107 V er capita. A local income tax is a factor here, accounting for 2k percent of total revenue, or $119 per capita. The only other local income tax, in Chester, produced $36 per capita, or 8 percent of total revenue. 8. Intergovernmental revenue accounted for 30 percent of total revenue in Los Angeles, or $231 per capita, the latter highest among the 10 cities but only $19 more than the corresponding figure in Burbank, the satellite city involved. Lowest per capita amount was $63 for Houston, though this represented almost one-fifth of that city's revenue. Survey Methodology Identification of Governments Timing of the project was compatible with the quinquennial survey in which the Governments Division identifies all governmental units in the Nation as part of the 1972 Census of Governments. Standards had been established to classify each unit as an "independent" or a "dependent" jurisdiction. This organization count is based on a directory profile for each governmental unit and dependent school system. The profile contains location, mailing address, and selected characteristics — including population of counties, municipalities and townships and enroll- ment applicable to independent and dependent school systems (see Governmental 5 Organization , volume 1, 1972 Census of Governments). The directory profile was first prepared in 1951-52 and has since been periodically updated. With the directory profile as a basis, a listing of governments which did or could perform a service function within each city was prepared for later verification. Since the survey period was to reflect activities for any fiscal year ending in calendar year 1970, appropriate officials in each governmental unit were canvassed for 1970 financial statements, and pertinent material concerning relationships to the other area city involved. The results of this effort appear in table A. The number of governmental units active in the five areas range from 16 in Houston and Los Angeles to 5 in Boston. The lack of structural uniformity is immediately apparent. City boundaries tend to describe comprehensive service areas in the older settled cities. In Los Angeles and Houston, where annexation programs have been aggressive, several school districts lie entirely or partially within municipal territory. While city services provided in annexed areas may or may not be competitive with those provided elsewhere, any failure to meld non-city governmental service area boundaries with city limits as the latter expand aggravates fragmentation. The end product is likely to be a variety of service program levels within the same city, and counse- quently uneven use of revenue resources. In the city of Los Angeles, eight school districts share the educational responsibility, and property tax rates range from $9-99908 to $11.9^81 per hundred dollars of assessed valuation. Of 16 governmental units performing service in that city, 1*+ are authorized to levy a property tax. Table A. Number of Governmental Units Performing Services in Selected City Areas by Type: 1970 Central cities Governments Boston Chicago Houston Los Angeles Philadelphia County 1/ 1 1 1 _ City 1 1 1 1 1 School districts - 2 10 8 2 Special districts 3 8 ^ 6i/ 4 Other Total 1 1 12 H" H~ "X ! Satellite cities Governments Waltham Evanston Pasadena Burbank Chester County 1 1 1 1 1 City 1 1 1 1 1 School districts - 2 4 3 2 Special districts 3 8 4 2 5 Other Total 1 4 1 _ — — H 10 1 ± - Zero or rounds to zero. ■\ Suffolk County data have been included with data for the City of Boston. "^Sanitation districts treated as one entity. Classification of Accounts Financial statistics of State and local governments have been assembled in periodic censuses for more than a century, and in annual surveys since 1898. From these efforts there has evolved a financial classification system for recording on a comparable basis all governmental revenues and expenditures. That system was used as a basis for the present study. While certain categories are so broad as to preclude precise comparisons of governmental services provided, the system nevertheless provides a starting point, subject to revision and refinement stimulated by the research. After 1970 financial activities of all governmental units operating in the 10 subject cities were coded according to the Governmental Finances Classification Manual , an analysis of each governmental unit and its re- lationship to the city was completed. Wherever overlapping occurred, pro- ration methods were developed to make possible requisite allocations affecting financial and service activities. Proration bases most commonly used were population and assessed values. Other methods of proration used to assign portions of particular revenues and expenditures for certain functions to the selected city area were as follows: families receiving welfare assistance for public welfare, pupil enrollment for public elementary and secondary education, criminal cases for courts, corrections and police, water connections and/or consumption for water utilities, retail sales for sales taxes, and miles of roads for highways. Tables 1 to k contain detailed financial data for each city. Bases for proration and dependent agencies in the central cities and overlying counties are shown in the appendices. This text deals with summary comparisons of the 10 survey cities. Reference to a particular city in this summation includes the effort of all governmental units operating within the city, not just the city government alone. Thus the effect of each involved governmental jurisdiction is incorporated in results. This has particular significance with respect to the county governments affected, both as to program and economic impact. 8 Information sources include local financial and budgetary documents, as well as published State and Federal reports. In addition, unpublished departmental records were used, after consultation with the local officials involved. General Characteristics of Survey Cities The 10 cities vary not only in location and population, but also in relative wealth and stability. These elements obviously influence expen- diture levels and local government program priorities. Table B contains data concerning some of the factors that condition an understanding of the expenditure/revenue patterns discussed later. Three of the large cities — Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia — lost some residents between i960 and 1970, with the greatest proportional decline occurring in Boston, smallest of the three in size as well as in population. Houston and Los Angeles continued to grow, the former by almost one-third of its i960 population. Both have substantially more territory than the three older cities. Despite its expansion, however, Houston could not match its burgeoning suburb, Pasadena, which experienced more than a 50 percent increase in population over the decade. Only Waltham among the other satellites had any significant growth, and that at a rate far below that of Pasadena. In Evanston and Burbank there was little overall change, while Chester suffered a decline of more than 10 percent. All of the 10 cities exhibited growth in their nonwhite (largely black) populations, in compatibility with results reflected elsewhere in the 1970 census. Increases were significant only in the large cities and in Chester, the latter community now V? percent nonwhite. Income levels have increased in each city, though again in a framework of variation affecting individual amounts and percents. Among all families in the 10 cities, percentage increases range from kZ percent in Burbank to 69 percent in Waltham. The large city range extended from 52 percent in Chicago to 67 percent in Houston. \ s, P.O CO CN o on o p. c> 8 ■p -p C CO 0) (H '-n oo J- ON IA E .* 10 10 3 g| rH m H > CD O O NO U On ON-* Q IA IA Q O IA rH ON ~> (NJ C\J _*• ON CA tNJ- J-rH J-r-l IA IA On IA O NO fA rA iaca .CM -J- IA tN-vO IA Q NO rH LA CM ON OO O CA LA IA LA ONrH O 1^ ONrH OH ONCO OO IA (NJ NO (NJ IA 00 J- CON t>- IA NO ON LA t>- >£l tAJ- (NJ la O - CVLA NO (A OO NO NO OO 0O (NJ rH rH (NJ IN -3- O rH (NJ FA LA IA LA ON tA O- (XI NO NO NOrH H M IA Q -3-lA rA(NJ (njj- J-OJ C^O NO CO ONON rHNO CO LA OfNl rt ON NO' TN LA rH r~\ (NJ C^CO CM r^ rH -* ON rH tNOO LAQ 0NCO £ S NO rA NO ON (\J ON NO O- IAOO IA (NJ OOnO J- LA ON NO IA (NJ CN (NJ (NJ IA O 004 N£rH (0 3 o W 5 * ►J CO p. a tg rH to ir. HI I. Q •a ai ■ (8 P o rH 10 c/i •rl ■rl CD A A » £ P. O rH O J3 > 3 5 a, u -P > p. CD o >-> O -P O -P d, O M cfl <*H d) ° ^ P< O CO u co o 3 P. 3 co CO - C rH c c CD (0 CD o O CD O 'H h -p (NJ O (0 O >M o O 03 O NO 3 | ON 3 rH (0 (0 CD CD CD CD 3 SI 3l5 m m CO - o a -rl C ON O -P O NO • ■H CO •H ON ON -P U ■P rH LA a (0 ON M 01 M M rH O CD JS C P, CO O -H U TJH o -a u CD CD -PEP. (nP CD "O A CD ■P B h CD 4-> 3 O C r. O •H CD .p O CO rl U P. CD VI u f- 1 a ■p n a 0) 0) l/l H CO CO at CO a: -p ID c 10 CD (0 rl CD CD Cm H U, I Ul H s m u •J Tl 9 10 ■3 ctl Ph J3 H-> T3 CD S ■H ti •H O N CD ch C P< C (0 (m •H En O ■H •H -P rH E CO E (0 CD CO - CO •a cd ■ODE 3 r-i CD <: rH < O •H CO 8 CD O co e a N ■H u a M -p •rl P. CO •■< 3 m u o 1 < q •H W CD .'■; r? 11 S 4 O) rH 4-> a M I •P 1) 13 a a 01 •p C CD « J3 rl E o XI cc co co 10 Review of Survey Results Expenditure Characteristics As shown in tables C and D, gross 1970 per capita expenditure by- all governmental units within the selected cities ranged from $775 in Boston to $34-0 in Houston. As previously mentioned, these amounts reflect prorations of all governmental units affecting all or part of the city. Components of expenditure amounts by function, for each city, are contained in table 2 at the back of the text. As noted earlier, proration details are shown in the appendix. Three of the large cities, Boston, Chicago, and Los Angeles spend more per capita than their suburban counterparts. There is no correlation between gross governmental expenditure per capita and per capita personal income. Boston spends $297 more than Waltham and its per capita income is $225 higher. Chicago and Los Angeles, however, have lower per capita income than their suburban cities and spend $134- and $58 more per capita, respectively. In terms of tax effort, however, per capita taxes are a higher percentage of per capita income in the central city than in the satellite city. Expenditure priorities do not show a consistent relation- ship, even where the central city and its outlying municipality are subject to the same State statutory provisions. Individual area comparisons For this study the measures of area comparisons used the most are per capita data and percentages. The use of per capita data allows the comparison of revenues and expenditures for a variety of functions in cities with different population sizes. Percentages of total expenditures and of total revenues for specific functions and sources permits the following comparisons; a high percentage of total expenditures for one function by a particular city area demonstrates that government's choice of spending relatively more for one function than for other functions; a high percentage of total revenue from one source indicates a greater reliance on this revenue source. 11 Table C. Total Local Governmental Per Capita Expenditure in Selected City Areas: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (In dollars) Central city Satellite city Boston 775.46 Waltham 478.45 Chicago 604.68 Evanston 470.84 Houston 340.16 Pasadena 408.15 Los Angeles 774.99 Burbank 717.08 Philadelphia 549.65 Chester 512.33 12 u rA tA LA I OO ON IA l 1 1 1 o IA 1 1 1 VO t>- O CM OJ VO t>- ! 1 tNOJOJ-LAONCMLA -P IA O- J" OJ IA O IA IA IA rH IA ON OJ rH VO VOrHrHOOlA-3-COO CO OJ rH CO IA rH IA IA ON IAVO ONVD rH OJ ON ONrHOOLALN-OOCMlA J3 rH O 0^ r-l IA IA rH CM rH rH rH rH rH r-l O LA CM rH CO •H .C P. r-l T3 ir\[A r> i VO ON J" 1 1 1 IA O rHOJ-J-OOLNOIAIN OJ IAVO i C^CJNLALAiH OJ ONIAO VO C\J CO CJN C^ ^ IA CM ON lA OJ ON rHCMVOHJ-vOOC^OJlAIAtN-lA CMOON-3- ONVOOJONON O OJ [NOWO OJOO IAVO IN LA IA OJ IAON-4-VOLAOlAJ-rH 10 j- in in rH rH H J" rH rH OJ J" CM rH rH rH IA rH ■H 1AHH fa ■a OO VO O- 1 ON ON rH OO t>- 1 O IN on j- 1 J- t>- IA IA ON IA O- 1 i 1 1 O CM tN ONOO r-l LA to O OO ON OO IN O OO ON O O OOO 1 OO ONVO J- j- O OJ OJ VO CO rH VO IAVO jo IN CM rH OJ CM INOO rH OJ o J- t>- l>- O- CM J" IA CM t>- Cv. J- rH OJ ON ON CN 3 rH OO VO IAOO A OJ J- OJ rH OJ rH OJ r-l m IN rH rH 10 rH CD CMAr^ 1 OJ t>- LAVO ON 1 VO OJ OJ OJ HrHrHlAOVO-4-VOVO i X! CO rH rH IN rH VO ON J" hO c ra- ONVO OO 4-tr\ CO OJ rH t>- O LA -3" IN oj IA r-l rH O H AvO ONCO J" OJ Cn- IN LA INtNHOINOtNONlA IAO COCO HVOO-CN-COO-cOcOaN LAIA-d" ONOIAtNOlA INOO VO rH rA rA ON IAIA IA J- rH r-l OJ rH rH rH tO o O- rH rH rH 10 c iA-d- in p ON rH J" 1 1 1 1 VO OO O 1 O IA O CO VO VO CM 1 i 1 1 rH LN LA ON VO -3- ON rH OO LA CM in a\ <-{ t>-VO VO rH VO VO VO -J- -J" VO CNOO O IN IA LN 13 CO oo J- OJ OJ cm a o o w OJ OJ VO rH OJ OO IA OJ ^t OO LA IA OJ OJ 10 o <\j cn la ia rH rH rH OJ rH CM 10 j- rvi h fa £3 o ^ OMA 1 j- O tA 1 1 1 1 VO O-H 1 rHlACSNOJONONrHiH 1 rHVOJ--J-OOVOOJrH -p rH CO VO OJ CM VO OJ IAVO VOOOJ- t>--d-J-rH rH-d" tNJ- HIM ONVO to 3 O VO VO o IA rH o rH OJ CMVOOJOOIACn-Cn-iH rHOJlAINJ- lAHrH O 4- KM^ rH H rH CM rH rH OJ X tA rH rH o -3- CO CO 1 1 J- OO 1 O ON rH VO OJ IA 1 IA IA rH J" O IA J" 1 i 1 1 ON IN VO OO CO rH J" -p co in in rA tA IA O IA rH O-IA IA O ONOO IA IA O IN ON-d" OJ r-l O O to c O C\J CM rH ON IA rH O O -d- OJ OJ VO IA J- LA OJ OJ IN IA rH VO IAVO VO CO cv- j- j- rH OJ rH rH rH OJ rH r-l > J- OJ CM w bo CO O IA 1 ia ia o 1 t>- 4-JIAOO O 1 (NO H4" OJ On (A OJ OO J- O-d- i VOCOLAIAIALAOOCMLA CO VO CO CO On INVO CO OJ OJ VO VO OJ LACO VO rHJ-OONCOOJlAINrH o ■H J- IA o OJ in O CM -* rH o r-l J" J" O- tA ON O LA CM OO rHINJ-J-OVOJ-ONIA .C o n-vo rH rH IA rH rH CM OJ LA H OJ rH CM CM rH rH r-l OJ O VO rH rH CO IA OJ OJ OJ 1 ON IA 1 J" r-{ VO 1 J- CO 1 00 LfMNCM H LA LN rH i 1 HOJ-ONVOIALArH J3 J- J- J- J- ON IA oo J" r-l ONO OOMAO LA O IN CN-CM-d-oOOOOIAIN -P OO CM OJ CM [>- IN CM rH O OJ j- J- CM IA O J" CM CM o OJ - ININOJ LAVOVO CO LNVO VO VO H CM IA H rH rH r-l r-l 3 J" rH rH rH VO CN (N ON 1 IA On 1 IA IA 1 1 ONO rH ON ON IA LAvO LN IAJ- , rHlAOOOrHLAVOlAON O -p 10 J- H H r> LA O O VO cn o OJ H VO tA IA O rt [n-IAvO O IA-d- IA CM CM INLAVO INOO rHVOVO rH rH CO O- o J" VO O CO LA O IA cOvOOJLACNIAJ-OLA o INOO CO O- OJ H t>- IN VO J" rH CM LA IA H OJ r-l r-l rH OJ pq O- rH rH rH CD CD bO >> CJ CO H c U C CO CD O rl -P to rl 3 rH CD CO to C 10 -P to CD •H CD to 3 (0 -p o bO Si rH si to o X to CO T3 H x; ■P r-l a r-l C P rH CD to CD CO 0) rl CD -P r-l -P -P O Si U U bC CO -HO O CD O O -P c Si r-l E CO E 10 Cfl -rl O *H -P O 3 a 3 E ti -H bO -P O CO c CO CO X >i O !>> C -P Pi CD -P O CD •H T3 -P rH Si (h •H C mh o to (0 CO -H •H 10 -P O U T> to a co £3 xi a O 0) -P •!- H •rl CO Pi rH Pi O O c a 3 CD O 3 O II C 10 Pi 3 4- CD St CJ CO CD 10 to xi u +^ o -a co O fcl 10 rH O Pi 1H O O P CC to 3 o rl O rl tl rH O Pi O 0) •H c X CO to -P 3H ri •H C >> M S-, o ■H O CO U CO Si u U «)+> CO M Cn-H-HH-PliHIl C ■P -P CO .>> -P 3 CO o CD CD ■a T3 t3 c*H CD -P CD Si CD Pi CO CO c !» K«lil)Kt|«K« X>j3C0Crl3J3!rlrl o ■H CO O -P to -C 3 -rl ■P X c CD C rH J3 -h C Xi -P CJ In -P 10 -H -P •H T3 O O -H c a .G rH CO P m E CD CD ■p a 3 P rH -rl CD CD O O CO rH rl 3 •h x to -rH rl-Pt|CO0O-P00 p G 3 .-) O M M J3 o o > > 3 O CO C d 3 o DOfl C COO CHJ CJ CD TJ •H 3 o CD O -H CD CO CO O ■rl -rl (D C C fa a fa X X Pi fa W OlPiX J fa O OH > o o in O On rH T3 < c W u o t. H o cu •H >-l h ■P 0! a o o rH 3-3 H q rH &H ■a >> c J3 .. H (0 (0 10 oj 01 1m Ih 3 •H !>, T3 H-> C -H o> o k 41 J- 1 H\D K\ 1 IA HCOH 1 4 HO\ 1 1 CM H-> J- IAOn IA 10 CD VO <-n On CM J- CN-J- CM x: CM VO IA IA o a ■rl £ o. IA IA Ov-I O J- 1 -» CM VO 1 1 vo rH inoj lavo oo O CM CM On a> •a J- On O rH rH IA IN. lArA r-\ a VO rH rH CMJ- iH IA rH X S | VO O 1 O s 1 O C\J ONOO i r>- ca ia I CO O 5 O O IA LA rA h CN r-> VO IA VO '-' VO rH ON IAOO 3 lA>0 J" o m f- ' (0 01 rH 01 j- ln la-* j- o IA tAOO CM J" CD CM CM0O-H- 1 OO VO 60 5 O J- IA J- o o OO rH -3" VO O J" O rH CM ON LAOO LA rH IAJ- tA On to <-l 3 CO O 1 rH VO 1 1 1 KN IA LA 1 l 1 a -5 J" IN CM IA IA W o bO oo O onvo c\j rA 1 OO On On I ' R (0 rH VO O LA O- IA CO rH OO o •l-l rH CM r-. CM rH IA CN- rH "- 1 O J" CM r-l J3 LAVO r-\ LA O E O VO J" CM IA 1 1 IAJ- rA 1 1 IA tO CM VO VO -H- LA ON rA CM r-i H H-> LAOO rH CM O rH IA IN VO VO LACN VO CO 3 C NMArAH OO IA O O O 1 1 O o LAvO VO-J H rH Onvo J- LA - H-> CO IA00 rH OO IA IA OLA LN On LN o rH OO IN VO n rH co rH CO c ■H TJ E C rH t. CO co CO -rl H-> CO 01 O Ih rH ■O -rl CD £> C CO H-> E CO CO CD O E O CD •HO) O O H-> Ph O rH 3 I* -H CO rH H-> O rH C 10 CO *H P, -rl -rl 3 C "O CO O CO co 3 c C C CO 0) O 0> CD CD CO O <« > -rl C ■HOP. •u C X co U -h -H -t-» co o t, H-> 4-> 4-> bO-tJ COrH ■H CO CD •rl 4-> 0) U O C O rH rH > I-, H J301hC1>-HO)3CU h-> p, cd tcjcl-u boo ■rt U Pi h H-> W c 4-> CD H-> CD O C o Ol-^tCOlO O ,C -rl 4-> (0 0) CO rH •rl CO O CO k I-. rl CO H-> rH CO CO t-l u •P rH < 3 O 0. Oh S O H 3 o W (X ' t-i *> c < » 3 (i, 13 14 Boston and Waltham Per capita expenditure amounts are greater for Boston than for Waltham in many instances. Boston spends $4 per capita more for welfare, $74 more for hospitals, $55 more for housing and urban renewal and $42 more for police. Boston's per capita outlay for libraries is at least three times more than that for any other city in the survey. Along with a heavy emphasis on housing, Boston maintains a higher per capita expen- diture than Waltham for education ($180 to $162), though the latter city spends a greater percentage of its total expenditure for education than Boston. With few exceptions Boston has higher expenditure levels than Waltham on a functional basis. Chicago and Evanston Chicago per capita total expenditure exceeds that of Evanston by $134, but Evanston spends substantially more for education, absolutely and proportionately. Chicago is ahead in per capita spending for welfare, hospitals, urban renewal, and police. On the same per capita basis, Evanston spends twice as much as Chicago for libraries. Houston and Pasadena Outlays in Houston and Pasadena are less per capita than in the other cities. Pasadena spends $88 more per capita for education than Houston. This includes a substantial amount ($52) for the junior college it operates. While these two cities contain all or parts of more school districts (10 in Houston, 4 in Pasadena) than any of the other cities, such fragmentation apparently has not influenced cost. Among the 10 cities, Houston spends least for education and Pasadena the most, except for Evanston. One unique situation is that Pasadena spends twice as much per capita as Houston for highways. No other suborban city leads in this category. Houston spends less per capita for police protection than any of the other large cities. The figure for Boston is three times as much, for Los Angeles and Philadelphia at least twice as much. On a proportional basis, however, Houston is slightly ahead of Los Angeles, 6.5 percent of total expenditures compared to 6.2 percent. 15 Fire protection is a minimum cost item in Pasadena because volunteer firemen are used. Expenditure amounts are low in both cities for libraries and parks. Los Angeles and Burbank Total per capita expenditure amounts were $775 in Los Angeles and $717 in Burbank. In contrast with the four other pairs, there is only a minimal difference of $3 separating what each spends per capita for education, $186 for Los Angeles and $183 for Burbank. With regard to other functions, Los Angeles spends substantially more per capita than Burbank for welfare, hospitals, police, and urban renewal. Burbank leads in amounts for libraries and parks. Philadelphia and Chester Philadelphia and Chester present an expenditure relationship unique among the five situations. Chester's per capita income of $2,61 9 is lowest of the 10 cities and $^.22 lower than Philadelphia's (see table B) . Chester does spend $25 more per capita for education than Philadelphia, however, and $4-3 more for welfare. Chester is the only outlying city in the sample to use significant amounts for urban renewal. It also spends more per capita for corrections than any other survey city. Expenditure amounts indicate that this suburban community faces urban problems more commonly related to central cities. Program Priorities and Service Levels One reality of the metropolitan environment confirmed by the survey is the diversity characterizing responsibilities and priorities associated with performance of public functions. The pervasive preeminence of education can be noted as an exception, though even here money spent for schools was usually less, as a proportion of total expenditure, in the larger cities than it was in the smaller cities. The diversity becomes apparent in the expenditure rank profile contained in table F, and in the array, for each city, of its six highest expenditure functions, contained in table G. Examples of comparisons among amounts and proportions applicable to expen- diture per capita, in each city, are contained in tables H and I. a O [^ It o CD > 5 a 5 ■d bo o ■H O 73 i-h -4 fc rH ■H 01 01 c! o o <) n ix •H •H H •P U, O O O 91 hi) 01 01 i? 0) ■P £ CD 0) (> n t>. h -P in ■p •H Pl, •H O Tl C t3 EH 16 i coco o"cv'o" I LOCO I sO co I l> rH on^-cv O rH CV -*C~- -H;"CO O rH"cV"i-l'W o" OsO CV CV CO CV*-*'CV CO"o" CO^-s -4; rH I HH04-IAXO Os3 CO rH rH"rH"sO"CO O i-hVV O O O O- CO. CO ,-i OOO I 8 'WW' cv cv O -4 0-0 -* n"4Vn"o' -*^-> CJs ON CV O- O CV -* O rH -4 CV I C— lOsO cv £>-,/>- o .4- o 0^J-*-*0*"^'H'-0''CV"'-H"'rH''CV"iH'' 0*"0*"o''vh' , CV rH*',-?' ^ ,^- 8£2T CO o cv cv"co o' .CV rH , o _ cV HIArl -4-nO UA CO I I I ^D CV rH CV O so vq O tH^CV".-^©" o l l ^- rH irvic\ I o"-*o JrH ' o oco 0-COiC\-H;OCVCVCO | (r\iHvO'u\ c^cv.cv o u\ n oo NncvViVr d- ~- OsO sO I OH rH" 0>Ain 40 t> Olr^O^ CV CV o oo 3h o UN CO UN. rH COsO C- I o' r-TuVcO CVCV '-*" C-- CO -H-CO rH CO -j. •. ». \ •„ •„ . "T rH 'O CV rH rH ,-, CO O COsO 800 so" cv cv CV OO I CV CV UN O-CVrHOOO I COCV CV "NsO CO O- I «XM>»<0O«0 ^o w O'O OH44 rH O CO CO CV CO"-* H'CMO O rH"rH"0" h' cV I «0 IT\ I sO COrH O I sO Os o'o" ON -H; O COOssO UNCV O O UNsO cv cv cv o CVOMCNO-sOrH -d; u\ O O 'H'HO rH" c«V co I ON -J; CV rH o I rHrHOrHsOUNCVrHOsOrH I OrHONC— COO-sO -J; CO UN. CV CV O CV rH O u co CD op Hi co J H . -rH O r> cd l>»4J 3 err o OP B^ijrl HH O H ^1^^ •H --P CO -H CO CO «l ra-P -P -P O CO C CD C -H ical ash a payme 1 car N It- 3 h ° * CD 5 t, o Uh Orl CD CD T) T3 J3 ^ IS -P Si C CD ^ 0> 3g s g s « > >>„ g w _ -P M. > > 5 - CD X! CD aT^ ~ M3-P CI !H -P CO ' CD CD -H X, I CD O -rl CD _ s fi. fr< com a, k P ^3 J3 a g"^ s cd cd •H -H H +3 ^ CjQgllS a s ^ § js ^ a 3 h ■ •P i- l^-. o- J- i i co cmco i 1 -4 a a> O Jno -4 civO vO J3 o 3 ■ r-voo^-cN c- i rN^ i 1 00 r- >-<- NO O mOO CM in 1 1 t*\^^ 1 O m 1 1 to^o^ 1 >*T- i O^ «-0 t>> CMvO CM ■«*T^ to -rMV >- 1 1 p 01 o 00 r- CM O-JJ O (^ CO 00 o a: c o ■p 00 1 I CM O 1 1 f- vOOO 1 I 00 0] 1 O O O irwO r- ^J o H 0) t^T- I ^jm in i ^j\Dr- i 1 in o •H «- CM OO O 00OCM oo' J2 o 1 Mimn ir\t- i | oM^m I 1 00 p mi-OOO OlAr- ci a s i- r- r- r- c o ■p C- >- CM <- ^* C-- ■- <- O CM 1 1 oo -4 t- 3 t- O O Or^Ov^ 00 03 £ 01 iH 3 E 3 '3 0) -H ■P COO) O U r-J Tl -H » .O q oi p a o) co * o n u •H OP O O -HC-HT3'$ m t, -h .H P a) -P G p. h P p -P HDP «J rH -H 3 K o (D t< OCOrHiH> p a> -h t, PO.U1 t< .* P MO-P ai >> t< •H -P tl -H a P 01 o o^p l, ^ o id oi o x: p ai ■H « O 0j>. |< -rj a) -P fH -P 01 H<«30B.|i. 32 OH HI « <-i e rH f>- ia O OO OS IANO -d- OJ a! r-l CD H rH -P rH a> o 01 3 H-> 3 o c •H o rH ■H £> -p 3 oi (h ft co C 4-> 3 ■H +-= ft-H CO T3 o C a o ft o Eh P. CO r>- -3" IA ON O rH r^ CM no rA CD Rl c ft CD 3 O E < IAOO J" t>- OS O r-i OJ NO IA \, E°i) ■H 01 H-> *>> 1 O rH C«- (\JOO ON O J- IA rANO rH ,-i rH r-\ ft >- & 01 4-> CD o oi Eh •H CO Eh O r-< J" oj in IA o OO NO IA ON rH 4-> 3 ft rH .Q •H H-> O 3 ft-H Eh CM CO TJ O Ci CD ft Eh P. 01 k C P. 01 3 O E < rH NO oj r>. OO o -*■ rA IA ON 4-> -H H c CO rTO 3 3 rH 0) C\J (A J- i NO 1 t>- 1 IA ^ 0) OTJH c •H -H CO a> rH > +> Eh £> O C 3 Eh Oi c Pi ft Sh CO J3 Eh a 3 o •H ■a 4-> c 01 Eh 18 CO Eh -U 3 O ft oj r>- rA i NO 1 IA 1 rH -* M •H -M O c ft-H Eh ■H CO T3 ft 10 3 01 o is & -P w c P. 01 3 O E rH O- IA l NO 1 IA 1 OJ J- <■: ho a H 4-> CO Eh Oi Oi ft Eh O 3 rH -U -H ■(-> -H ft cn.no Cn! ^-t OO O rH O- IA J- ON C! T) 3 0) G ft c Eh 0) o Eh ft Sh 3 X 0) •H 4-> L> 01 ft o 3 c ■a o H H -P 01 Eh O IA O- OJ rA rH ONOO NO -3" 2 3 O rH ft H H-> O ft-H Eh CO T3 s 01 SB H-i 1h 01 o E < NO ON OO rH O oj r-< J- IA |n- rA CO CO •H 01 JS 10 rH ft 0) c CO 01 rH £ E C CO o o ho -p a e: O 0) 2-3 0) Eh •a oi O J3 CO CO ■M TJ < CO CO H-l >» -u -u o C CO CO JO rH CO v W rH •H CO 3 CO CO Eh •H OI 1 •H O CO J3 > O CO O 3 J3 J3 1 ( J m 3 O W SC ft i-q cq ft O 1 r 18 r" r— I f^of 2 -5 Cv 8 X> a o> O TJ ■P rH en a) a> t* t. CD co c •p a) C bO 111 t. a. 3 d o cd i •H E >» ■P u D ■p ^ 0) •H , u ts ■p -p 0) ■p >H ■H O u •H CD iH CO ■H r-l -P •H iH rH •H a) +> CD O ■P > t= P-l t=> 4 ?! u a o 1 tH cu i •H t>» ^ C x •P •P -P o at ■p ^ a) •H O •H (h •H CU a fH CD 3 m rH -P 3 •H H 1 s s ■P 0) £ s £ in O s -5 q O CM CO CM i> $ vO CO CM ,-! m ?j CM CM si CM CO C\ CM CM CM to ITi C^l CM CM cu o C O ■H ■P 1 s > t>> •H Ph •H 3 h b CO 5P +J CO -P ■P U CD CD C-i i +5 -P -P CD 2 CD a) a) •H O U CD •H a) •H J3 5 U ■p fH 31 a +^ CO o rH ■P •H CD C CD .C O o ■P bo X! CD £> CD 3 •H § rH +J CD h bO 3 m ■H bo •P a > s ■P O P-. C bo rH s CD ■P •H i-l s a M 2 •H 33 a M •o CD CO rH £ a 5 •A p CO O o o \3 3 CN vn ,1 d CO 8 r- vr\ \ts p> CM h CD CU 8 ■P ■< CD 1 T) CD ■ | a 5 bO CO ■H C C S c CD at cd o s U iH +^ bD 5 a) o 3 CD O •H •H CO s 3 CO £ I 9 . s O Ph £ £ o CO 3 £ 3 i3 o ■P E-< £> i d a co o o -d CO ■a! c ■d -h rH > o -H ■P § a) co o3 CD bD +J CD «H CD CD h cd •H aj CJ CO CO Ch tl CO u a o •H c >! O CD C % CO n rH cd h CD Ph -P CD (S s o Ph * a bo CD CO 5 vO s 3 § 3 CO ^ CD U U CD CD a ■P CD d bO 3 CO 11 a; X> •H to -P G e 3 u O > O- O ON a h r-\ cO •• o co o a iJ o •H rH 4-> H O < | ^S ,Q T3 (1) £h +> 3 o -P Q) •H rH ^^ t3 a) rn G CO f M a; cri * ra H H H cO n a> Tl cO fn -p CO •H 0) CO -P O CO ft-P S CO o O T3 -P • o ffi rH rH CO ,£> CO EH -p T3 cO fH G to G O -P CO U u cO «H H 3 o •H H rQ G ft r-3 4-> O -H < rA-d- H MD On rH rH O OJ A O OJ H H CO O- LN ON (A CO O A J" rA J- OJ On O ON ON ON KN. A LA CO On co rA O Onvo _j- 4- O A rH IN rH LA ON-d" O rA o- -3- O rH CO H LA OJ -t OOO OJ J- H on rAco O OJ o OJ VO (N -4" MD v£> O r-\ rA (N -4 rH ONMD A OJ ON A OJ OJ A rA H ON rA A CN H rH OJ MD OJCO L>- L>-VO LA rH rA VO OJ CO rH rA rAJ- rA 00 4-' OJ H r-\ ON IA rH A O CO (NvO LA rA4" H CO OMJNVD OJ o rH rA on o- o- rA OJ l>- O- OJ CO H -4 t>- o oj On CO \D O O CO O CO O- vo rA oj OJ IN- * OJ rH oj CO -4- 4" vo CO CO • « i L>-VO 4" co rA oj rH H OJ O AM3 OJ VO CO • • • O A OJ rAco oo OJ rH rH AND rA (A co rA oj r>- • • • • ON ON L>- rH On O- O- O rH H rH OJ CO -P -P T3 3 a O -P -P cO co -p o co PQ g o o hO -P cO co •H 3 ,G > Eh T3 •H -P cd P >1 cO 3 CO cm O cO -H 1x1 ft rH CO cO o CO Si H rH O ft G T3 L>- l>- rH (0 -H I 10 > 3 O ON rrj H l>-v£> cO 1>5 -P ON ON rH CO CO rH rH -H ,3 CO ft o T3 C cO 20 •P cO cO -H -P ^1 CO ft U T3 -P cO •P H cO -H H ^1 ft L>- I o ON u o cO -p cO & +> •H 3 d o o IN CO ON •H H cO - S (A O o cO d rH -H ^3 cO T3 -P a £ -H •H 5 CO Ti u CO •H cO -p a o O 1>3 cO -P rH CO CO CO G -H O tH CO > cd cO O o r>- co ON •H rH -P 1>3 O rH £i G o CO -P O b0 cO ft U CO > u o 1^ Tl 1 ■H ON 3 vo ON p <-{ cri -p a CO •H o rA •"3 bO G •H T3 G )h cO a) CO rH hO CO cO O U CO -H > oi as oi oi c as o> c c ffl 41 41 .C TJ TJ A£T) « t, 4) 0> rH 10 CO t, rH W t, L, 3 .c x: as as as 3 a) as 3 3 (6 o o s o. o, « * a, m fi ' j • ^^^-^ m a i k\ ir\ ru k\ avoo xxhh^hiv £ V <\j . ^r — . . . O O t\J 41 4J •rl TJ o c c C C • • O • CO 01 I o as as h-> as o *» i u HHH HI id . 41 tfl ■ • t. 10 H H 3 < H < CO 3 < < 01 CO •■• O X X O • J3 • O O • • m a, o. x -s a, jffli jj 41 iajooj rH 4-» O a] as a) as a) 4>4>4ia>aSBC eg c c 41 41 ■o is tj « £ « « J3 a) as "a "O as as as to 41 jo x> *j J j u i« tj 10 (0 01 rH fc. (h H S. 1. o) o as as as .c as 3 3 as 3 3 as as &, o, a, u 3 « m 3 iSuo.0, c 4) H O h * ■ V ■ OQ (X, .: ' OHIAOOJOOWH ONOOOOVD^S -? rH rH rH rH • rH ■ ■ :i: 01 ■rl "1 • o O c c c c c c O G O • G OCO OO 01 41 O 41 CO O H->0+-» 4J4-> M t0H->U)rHH-> • • 10 4J 10 • 10 10 u 3l03-rll0<<3l03<33 :, 000.00 • .000 -OO xpQx&.mr^rJxmxjscx — ^ , IMJ- rHrHOOrHXXOOC^-rHtTiOO i. \Q rH r-t r-t- — ' r-\ 01 rH ^' •rl c as a) a) etnoecd .meg.*.* a) ai h-> ai ai ai c < « c c x: 41 co .c -o tj as .C tj to as 41 to c 41 as co .2 4> as .a .2 H 11 HH 10 10 (nrHWriS-. — H co .C > as as to 3 co as 3 3 a B 1 W SOU3P.P. B3d,P3B . — . — - a (0 C^O^<\J.-HrHOOXXOOOf\JVOVO J a K\ <-i ,-i -J- CM — '■ rH rH rH •H +> ■H as o S3 C S C S3 C 4-1 O O • O O O CO •H ^ 11 Id 41 ^ 41 O •*-> O. Bi tOtOrHtOtOtO • 41 CO ■ • as H 33 -H 333 < » 3<< CJ 5 OOJ3000 'OO*' x x a. x x x ^mxi-)r^ U ^~ p- K\\O^OC^H-JX\OC>NHI^ (0 J- HI^CMvOvOO — -M3-3-OOJ- CM 10 CM rH rH H •H as 4-> rH C as as O O O^^ s. iijj E^JdCC 4J c c 4) c c c asqq4ioi Q co co ns -u m as as £ co d ts ts C ii J 10 B £fl 4-1J343C0C0 ^ShShOi^ShSh H S, S. » O >33j3333 tl 3 3 K « wca(no(5cQm smmt^ft, 4a H -'. 1 0! at. to ■H ^ X to ^ rf\j- irv^s rfsiA « co cmnvd cm o tOcOrMA0 4 0^vOtAlAK\fT\ r-\ r-\ r-i >-< *a o C O C C C O C t>0 • +j •rl bO-rl S. f CO OO^OC^OOtMrHCOOOOO 41 -rl -H C rH rH r-i iH r-t r-i t-\ r-i x> o 3 a> E OO, 3 <" £ 5< 2 O (0 4> 01 u •rl 41 O 41 C 41 -HTJ CO 01 O 41 r-t U -H \ ffl rH as ^ rHl j-> as •W C O •• H (h •H OS P. 10 C 41 d, JS v_- 4i as c CO C n 01 10 41 O 3 >>*> t, 60 JS hi n 0S T3 ■O 41 rH , tC 41 COIh tlOtO 3 » CO S-, 41 tMj 41 ■ rl P< O 41 4i cr\ 10 l5 rH O 41 O • rH a) O 41 • u bO >> rl C C 41 "3.5 < 'H rH B.41 0) -H as to 3 3 41 10 £3 01 to P ho 22 Table H shows, for each of five major functions, how per capita ex- penditure in the 10 cities compares with the corresponding statewide average. Results for every city but Pasadena exceed the statewide average for public safety outlays. On the other hand, per capita expenditure for education falls short of the statewide average in each of the five large cities but only two of the smaller ones. Such indications constitute a useful focus for further research. Similar analytical benefit can occur from the high-low relationships shown in table I for major functions. Again there is a pattern of variation affecting not only education but less costly expenditure objectives as well. All of the above data contribute to delineating what has sometimes been termed the fiscal dimension of governmental finances. The fiscal dimension is a basis for comparison common to or adjustable to all functions performed by the governmental units concerned. The emphasis is on apportion- ment of funds among functions rather than on relationships of apportioned funds to units of output or indications of service level associated with a particular function. The latter analytical basis is the functional dimension, evident in this report from the display of service level data in table J. These data relate to specifics like the following for the functions indicated: Education Enrollment Pupils in average daily membership (ADM) or average daily attendance (ADA) Number of instructional personnel (teachers, principals, other) Housing and urban renewal Number of units of rental housing Public safety Full-time equivalent employees in public or fire protection activity Public welfare Families receiving public assistance Libraries Number of books The above data come from a variety of sources, depending in part on the degree of budgetary sophistication within the local jurisdictions affected. Annual budgets and associated supplementary reports often provide functional unit information. T) l O K Tl 0> ■rH H > a u a, ■ - in ■ >-* 4> n to 4i 23 rH rH rH ^N *-> i IT* rH i l\l H J H rH O (M O * J" IB Ov ON J- OJ 1 1 41 J3 VO* W rH W 8 tv OJ rH IA IN rH d O rH rH - -^ rH ^ - CO •H p. rH in ON^N oo ^ o\^ R o- l> VO VO OJ f> --r K OJ • - J- rA IA c J- ^9 °° 9 ° 9 IA IA l> ON OJ rA on d IA o < |vj3g~ VO 00 rA O IA vo r-l 10 o LA *1 s rH rH rH ^ 111 av ON r-l LA rH ON rH VO J- rH I I ON rH 1 ■a LA O CO OO o 00 ov 1 i OJ 1 3 VO £ ^ {i 00 . S3 r\j 00 J- rvi rH d a & On W IAW Pi ' — rH ^ OJ w - - - " — ~ - ^^ c in rH i-l rA rH ON rH IA IM CN oo IA o H OJ VO rH o J" €-< rH rH OJ rH J- oo VO OJ IA -P -s- (N O O o la o J- O VO IA LA VO J- o 00 o n 1M OJ c J" 2 r-\ 3 -d- rH OJ ol rH W OJ w J- w rH X ** w OJ ■w eOrNHn IN IA CO 1 ON "- c o 4-> IA J- «"> CT^ 1 OJ r-l r-l 10 OJ < J" < J" < IA [V VO O c id r-\ I\| *-9 °i 9 °. S rH oo rH IA rH r-l o r-l o > rH v^ LA-^ rA^ w OJ rH - ■- - - — - — ^ «: s: < S < 5S o 99 9999 '- 10 o J- v£> rA rA mj-OOJ- o CJN VO J- ON rA J" J- CO rA o O rA I>- O a LA IA rH rH ■H t\j oj co oj k\ i^--r c IA rH CN OJ rA VO o 00 o .C ft] rH CJ> rH LA OJ OJ o IA rH 5 J" J- OJ OJ o VO VO rH IA LA - -- - - - - ■ E Sn lU J- &s VO ^ rH -~^ O o OJ ON rA ON 00 OJ J- IA J= OJHOS LA LA rA rA LN -p r-i c rH *■% 19*9 t~\ OJ LA tA r>. IA r-l o r-l O ra LA--^ o ^-s 3 rH r-l < E 99 < S < E 9999 C o rH J- CO rA o (A J- O ON OJ rH oo rN o- LA C- rA 4J C^VD rH J- D- rA oo 00 OO 10 r«S O OO IA LAVO VO 00 OO J- LA 00 j- o O o O c8 oj rH rH r-l onvo oj rv rH o rA OJ rH rH OO OV OJ rA rl 01 41 O >. OJ o a +* Pi c CO to 5 >-. Si XI 41 be •H > to >, >» 4-> to o CO -P a 4-> 4-> 10 •H ■a t3 & •H •H •H to (h 41 4> a 10 to 10 " 10 H o U CO B 4i •a xt 01 41 to 41 (0 41 ■ 01 10 rH to B ja ■H -H o 41 41 41 Oj 41 41 T> •< rH r-l o Tl O 41 B to E > > rH r>>-H r>> ■H >> C >> c H ■0 o X X 0) 3 o o 41 O H-i O ■P O O O o a) c 4-> 4-> o rl C rl In p. r-l -rl r-l •H rH -rl rH r-i ■a 3 ■H B P, P. P. > P. > i 1 ^ ^ H-> q b TJ c c rH 41 -P 41 H-> 41 41 41 QJ ■P 10 rH 41 ja x: >> 3 4) +> 3 •!-> -P to ■H O o hP HP 10 to ■!-> +» ■p -*-> P. 3 4) •H -H B c -P CO -P re HP O HP O cfl o 41 > 4-> •H rH •H +i C c c 3 c c C (h c Ih -p 41 o t. H O 3 > u bO u 41 3 to 3 (0 41 41 41 41 41 P, 41 P ■H O X B 3 •a C a lM rH 4> 4J bO r-l O rH O rH r-l Pi •H u A hp 41 41 '/j (0 ch •rl 10 H o rH a rH c a Cfl 'H 10 •H Cfl 01 CO 41 CO > 10 u ■H n bC O 3 > c CO 41 CO 01 •H > rH > rH > t, > !h O i. ■ •o n « rH H •H CO H (L % -P E -M to •H O -rl O •H -H -rl •H 9 .-I • c i) U •H H It) 4> C HJ >.', c c c 3 3 Ph 3 Pi 3 hh 3 O m u 4) (h 41 rH O cr o* c cr 01 a If; > rH ti 4) O 8 4-» 3 In 41 Ih 8 X! 41 C 41 C CO C 41 c Pi X) o i< ■ r-t a •a XI ■h aJ rH (h c > > •H HP •rl • H c rH a 41 H •H B 4) E <>-i O 01 to -o > CD Pi Pi 8 u. -a 5 a rH 10 [N 10 u 41 C O bO S CO E E Pi E E HP c *» 3 a 3 41 •rl r-« 41 41 41 •rl -H CO •H -H ■rl c o n C P. £ P. ■•-> (0 IS B 13 * ■H r^ H 01 r-\ tn rH t, rH o •P -P O -1- P > o •H H 4> 10 >>-U 4^ f-\ r-l Pi -H U} OJ B 01 CO ■p 1 1 I •H •H 4J •H U U fc. h 41 c c 3 O •H Li H E C x> o x> u 01 r-l r4 Ih rH rH hP a Pi U 4> K 41 O 3 •rl r-l tr-H 6 4> E a CO -H a <*H O H H 41 rH rH u u c o 3 n 3 a. o a O. r. 0. ■as (0 rH XI CO Pi 3 •H B Vh (0 3 z z rH O H rH rV tH Pi 41 o T-l IS ■rl ON > r-l n u ft in 10 id rH a> < A r? > ■a Vh a> U +> w o a> T-l H 0) a> -p CO t) IP ID H -a 0) ■H to (0 d ■mH n m cJ +j o c in 0) ■H 1= a c *H p. JJ F > o o C3 H crt *-> o n e» M ^H -O *>» CTl JH H v\ 24 t< p-flr-n ai . — ll. — 1 1 -p rH IA 1 1 1 1 OO CM CT\ ON J- n5 J- NO O C^ tM 1 CO tA rA 1 1 1 1 NO COO A H A o 0) l>- -a- oo rH d H -H- .d rH H o tA CM O IA r-l cd •H w r3 ft H NO OO ^L ^L ^£on tA A O OO ^L H IA o IA IA NO 01 -H- J- OO M3 \J2 C~- ON-h- o NO 0O r-l CM OO - IA IA id jh NO rH 00 \D 1>- rH l>- CM IANO rH OO t>- J- - 0) tA K\ J- ON H 2 CM NO CM CM ON LIN ON Q rH IA O bfl -3- ON OO CM OO v_- OO CM -d- OO O A o IA d IA H <■: rH IA CM CM OO H CM CM tA as J- CM CM J" O t>- CM H IA NO IA 10 OO o tA CM o hH r-l H cd d CD o O 1 1 1 1 LTMXJd- [N On) ON] IA CM tA tA NO 1 •a IM. i-H 1 1 1 1 t>- -H- tA CM t>- ON 1 cd IA tAOO CM CM - ra r-t 03 tA ON ft CM d O OO CA [A ON < A H ON < On]On| OO CM ON H O J- o ON J- CM rH A S O - A o rA^ CM A ^^ CM t>- rH tM NO CO tA r>- 3 IA -d- ON ON r-l IA J- rH J- H o -i- .* A w (3 o ^1 ^1 -p o 1 1 1 1 1 IN- IANO ON CM tA CC4- rH H OO 1 ra [>- NO 1 c IM A CM o o CM ON rH H 3 rH H > NO rH J"" w IA rH o bo IA J- ^N "Sk "^ CM OO C^ l>- NO H -T-00 3* ^k l>- CM cd o IA OO o AVO IANO (>- CM CM tA CM O ON H o o CM KN yj cs tv ON a\H r-l CM tA O d H OO •H rH A J! H OO i-\ ON tA tA ■J- COH ON o O o ^H" OO O -d" CA A O IA Os OO t> NO ON O tA rH rH r-l J 1 J- CM ^ON ^ ^cL NO IA t>--d" tA ON J- tA o o i IA Si H LA o- ON ONV£> J- IA C-- NO CM H H NO +> J- rH CM CM tA rH CM OO tN r-l tA d CM H rH CM rH cd IA ^O O tA CM -* 3 r-l rH d O -p CO NO ^ ^ ^D NO CM IA - OO CM C^ CM OO tA — - tA rH rH tA A IA H 03 J" •-< IA A tAOO NO O rH CM CM tA IA IA -H- H CM H H ra 13 d >> ra d o +> ■D cd •H 10 •rl > 3 CQ (0 T3 ra rH H CD ■H ^^ CO U § d •H CO CD P c CO 3 CD ■rl B TJ >i O 10 ■rl T) OS O "p T3 Sh O Ctj rH d si o ^1 O CD r", CO rH cd to ^-\ cd -P In bO C to -P -P -a PirH C c •rl d to ^ CO >, CO Ch O rH cd •H § E cd •H o CS •H 3 do •a cd d CD ■H td rl o TJ •rl ^^ CO -P ^^ CQ T3 ra CO H CQ Ph o Si ■H a ■P p u c at a xi ^-y 10 CD 3 T3 CD rH to -P CD -P CD U o c« ■3 rH CD 6 U O El d h ■H cd h c 10 3 ft CD O rH -P -p H cd o U ■H > •H > In cd O CD to O eco ra\ 3 cd > HOOl P CO -^ ra o' •a •rl xi (h -P ■H o Si O 3 M cd X r". rH p> XI •H ra CO o* h CD CD J3 cd O^ CD -P T) cd h OJ1 cdH ri rH cd 3 s CD a o H +> o > ^ d (H -H cd o O P< In CD e r^ •rl (0 u P. T3 rH -H ft-a to CO to o H (0 O rH CD rH o > cd ra o H rH O O cd o ■H ctj Si hO H as d cd 3 hO >-> cd n h CO co a 3 CO -P CD t< -H rH fn d H 3 § „ O CO o u d P M cd >a !h ■H o P 1 p o 3 ■P CD o CO H 3 .d 'rt CD TJ 3 arH CD ■rl 3 cd bO rH CD Pi ■H O H b»o (h ra /3 cd O bid J3 H O X> -H ra cd d J3 Cd rH H XI td U U XI to -P V rH u fc Ah O CO in H -P Si -H cd s -h in 1 ra ra a < to E 11 h •H cd H t< CD t»H ■rl O O u g CD 3 +> Ph a H ^ O ■P r-H 1m 3 3 -H 3 d cd id 3 tl CD cd bO -d CD > o rH Si 3 !h o u a, < EH Ph X> z m o s cd ft H S << S « ZZ P < XI 2 O a) H ■H in cd CD to 3 Pc O 3 < l-H EH EV W 3 fi 4) O •H 0^ > ^H o > n p v 4> -p co o o ■o ,-t •p CO x >» o) x E-i fa e i i i CO i i i ■ JC t_> IS •rl X P. a •o § " ~ (0 rH C^ rH •rl X Ol, | 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 OQ CO 41 01 R ■* g bo h"\ oo 5 Cf\ C\J CO o ►J a 0) 1 1 1 TJ 1 1 1 g ■0 a, c o fc H 8 ■4-> J- O- co 3 OJ O 33 C o -p 1 1 1 CO 1 1 1 c 10 > w o Si a J- J- rH o CM [>- •H rA J- X CJ OO rA e CO CO rH J- X IA 00 -P O rH rH CO CA 2* c o tA K\ tN 4-1 h°\ CM co rA on & LT\ r-i ■a >> a) +-> *> -rl "S, as o crSl fa ojl Oi 0) CO CO p< X -p -p CO O -PC c T> 41 CO 01 fa >> C E rH 6 10 CO rH rl C 10 C T> <-\ O X fa -P fa g (OH 4-> 4) H 4) WH -rl > P, > 4-> •rf X 3 O CO O CO O. 3 bO O 60 CO P. CO X V O rH rH H o X C 10 C CO •rl •rl 4-> O -H O > •o h o o fa 41 CO P,rH CO rH 8 ■p -o\ CO >o CO as aij-l O >-. 4) >> fa xi rvjl x X jo x •a 4) CO § p. O) rH <»-i TJ 4> T3 O rH 10 O 4) rH 4) X> 4-> 4J X 4-1 c >> io n p a a to o HH All CH l< ■rl O rl CO X 4) -H 41 4-> •H to O E P. CO P. O rH > X 3 O > O c x < z < £ 3 0. 25 a X d n (i •n fa h c 0. 0) S X N 4-» B •p ii o a e 4-> >» >>-p U, rH rH a Tl B ■rl •H 01 l rH CI a) r: X XI -n H C) B rH fa H B oi •H Ml n> ,1 p «, ■ m () > fa P ■ n 01 (1 > > <—t P < < .-1 Oi 'J 1 ] SB < X a 99 1 1 2 p. c 3 01 p, co X c at o CO CO CO o Tl H --1 •P rH CO tl H X o 3 >v C . 4-1 4> 4-> •H 4J l-l rH 4J o •rl CO PC X Pi CO (4 b0 4) •rl Pi in > fa a fa •H a 0) < C O -M C IT, B rH P, 3 •rl 4) 0i X a p P4 B a> X £ 4> & § rj^ co a •O -rl i >> CO r-j *• C CO : o q J- IA VO ■3 -a bfl U) Dl -V ill Pi 3 .T, Pi rH c a CO n p. •H >> oi T) 4) CO a rl H ■p co 5 H m m •rl +> o fa d ■rt H 10 •H b. 4) p. O | P. c >> o 15 CO a a 10 fa C CM 4-> 2 rH CO CO CO -P p o Bl CO p, 1 ■P o o •H fa •rl P. -1-1 .P- 01 41 o o z eX X 41 Eh Eh P, -I cj l*\ -3- 26 ID O ■H O > H > T3 u CD ID -p w o ID •O H ID ffi ■P 01 u } O -P -P d ■H o o s O •H d (0 CD -d 3 >5 10 .d O 5 -P TJ H p< VO W "1 u •H 1 d Ph o a CIS d 0) a) Ph d in H 4-> CIS -p •p 3 o o O ■H w OS ■H to +> 10 ■a d -p H co O d +> a> as d w O H o +> o d -p CO CIS P. CIS pq to Ph rH O •H ■6R T3 u (h to o o to •H •H =H o ■a H J fl (h o 3 CD CD •H Ph +> si d cd -p o d S b •H 3 P. fn a a) CD CD a> ID P< CD 13 ■a -C -a -a 13 > to >» •H ■H o S d c -p -H -P P. P. o H K\ ^f IT) M m nj M M t\i 27 Consideration of fiscal and functional dimensions together contributes to a more complete understanding of expenditure responsibilities and .efficient use of fiscal capacity within a particular city area. Data contained in table F, for example, give some indication of respective city area positions relating to education, housing and urban renewal, piblic safety, and public welfare. In education, for example, the proportion of total expenditure spent for education is highest for Pasadena, second for Evanston. In the latter city, however, the amount spent per pupil is higher than that in any of the survey cities. Pasadena ranks last in current operating expenditures per pupil since this covers only elementary and secondary schools. Pasadena's per capita education expenditures were raised to a high level because the San Jacinto Junior College expenditures are included in those data. Large cities (Philadelphia, Chicago, and Boston) occupy the next three highest rankings among those for expenditure for pupil. All occupy lower per capita expenditure rankings. A reverse situation is indicated for Chester. The large city showing is comparable with the "municipal overburden condition". This latter term has been used to describe jurisdictions (usually large cities) faced with an inordinately high proportion of non-educational expenditures. Fiscal and functional indications are similarly helpful to analysis for other functions, even if only as prods to further inquiry. In public safety Houston ranks third in proportion of total expenditure but eighth in per capita amount and ninth in public employees per population unit. In public welfare Boston ranks first in the families-receiving-assistance ratio but fifth in per capita expenditure and eighth in proportion of total expenditure. Reasons for these results can be expected to emerge from the enhanced analysis which the data make possible. Data fuel analysis but do not substitute for it. 28 Financing Choices An important survey result is identification of revenue sources for each expenditure function. Despite variations in amounts spent, sources of funds to finance particular functions. follow remarkably similar patterns for the ten city areas. For example, fire and police functions in the nine cities were financed by general purpose funds to the extent of 95 percent or more of the amounts involved. The City of Chicago did assign a portion of motor vehicle taxes to support police expenditure. In 1970 there was little outside financial support for these two basic functions. This contrasts with financing of functions relating to health, where intergovernmental support (primarily in the form of State grants) was a significant factor for the large cities, as the following summary indicates: Percent of Health Expenditure Financed by Intergovernmental Revenue Boston 52.7 Chicago Mf.2 Houston 2hA Los Angeles 57.2 Philadelphia 57-6 Waltham 7-9 Evans ton 16.6 Pasadena kA Bur bank 100.0 Chester 10.6 Intergovernmental support for health hovered around 50 percent for all the large cities except Houston where the corresponding proportion was 24 percent. The satellite cities, with substantially lower per capita expenditure, received only token intergovernmental support. 29 Highway financing included use of intergovernmental aid, special taxes, charges, and fines, in addition to general purpose revenue. The net effect of these multiple revenue sources is a higher level of per capita expenditure than that for several other basic functions. Percent of Highway Expenditure Financed by Special Purpose Rev enue Boston 31.6 Waltham 18.9 Chicago 100.0 Evanston 95.7 Houston 1.6 Pasadena 20.7 Los Angeles 56.7 Burbank 100.0 Philadelphia 63.4 Chester 89.3 Revenue Characteristics The revenue structure for each of the 10 cities has five components, with taxes dominant in each instance. Only in Chester does the second major type, intergovernmental aid, approach the importance of taxes. The intergovernmental revenue proportion for Chester is only 2.2 percentage points less than its tax percentage. The other three types are current charges, miscellaneous revenue, and utility revenue. Actual percentage composition for each city is shown in table L. Total revenue does not include payments from other local governments or revenue received by government employee -retirement systems. Revenues from other local governments are excluded to avoid counting the same revenue twice in a given city area. Employee-retirement systems' revenues also have been omitted since these revenues are for the benefit of the pension fund members rather than for the general population. 30 <\J no C^no r- rANO O rA O -d/oo -d- ojoo oo OJ O ON-d" OO o O r^ 01 un<- on oj c^ oj I I I I l I J- I I I IA ON O- o ^" O M 1AO tA oj r- rAOO O ^°0 I rANO p- Onoo IA OJ J- 10,00 O OJ <- no -d- v- no r- OJ «- y3 (\l (A rANO r- J- rA rA IN.* «- 00 O O J- O- rAOO OOO hO O 1^4- ON IN- -d" rA oj no v- o oj oj r- -d" oj L>- rA rA r>- -d" rA OJ o 000 LA o J- rA rA O O-* 00 NO r- LA OnOJ O- NO LA 00 oj ^ on NO J- qn I- NO LA ^f LA l>-NO ?n, v- O «M 00 rA-d- on VO IOIA J- rA LA oj [>- on ON ON OJ no oj 00 -d" -d- rA O no LA I NO NO 00 oj rAr>- VO OJo lA^- LN-O OJ LA O OJ < rA O NO tA rA o NO NO ON J" tA OJ OJ ON-d- rA rA 1- t- rA rA rA laoo lA-d" 00 in- 00 c- no O ONoo la rA rA I no -d" O O O la ON J- r>- r- r- O-d" oj > s 3 Si l, a -M Iti O Q> -*-> 01 3 'H > OJ O J3 .H O "I u>x> bo e Tl X S> u w V Ih tJ h > u O > +> > -P H 0,-H (h (S -rl +> II l< II o Pi ID O ID O S dlrl 11 !< II .O 10 H O * d 'H O Si O O H (ij I) O -P .Q .P J3 :g<2 ■a O -P O O O (D Eh O o -p co (. - W> §3 (0 ffl CO si H bO-P 01 (D O ■H <> Sh 3 -P 11 (1 +J O cii 3 -P * -C A J3 10 Tl H 13 O -p O CI ai Hi ID 7! f) t ) M U U Tl V u rt 3 w m bO CO c ° V On > o do o c •H « c i-t O 1) >> 3 ■!-> C -H 1) O a u id u h 01 ■ -3- 1 1 oo J- CM On 1 1 lA It-ocTnOvIIAQQ'--* 1 Oknoo rAv£»5cACA 1 [N ON CA OOtN r-' lArAOO rA <- J- lA CM CM 0) o I" i- J- cm CM a) •rl X -» cm-t OO -3J NO ON OO CM «- rA v- CM f- r- ioocmno»akn,nO»-ooo i "8 a. on rAoo COOOCTc-JftlvOCOr r ca cm On O OOO lA I- «- J- 0-3 rA O On CM C^ CA CM rA 5 rliNr cm •r* £ 1 cmno rA O O- 1 CM 1 O -5 i- O ON 1 *- NO t>- 1 O-NONOO'-fA 1 NO CM -3- C^ O CMCA0O OOOOtAO-CA r- O OJO OnnO O O -3- O ^~ r- canO r- rA J- CM CN. 3 r- r- tA rA OQ ^~ (0 V rH d (Ml^r O ON O CM CA CM rA t- oo O rA c^ J- on O J- -3- 1 J" ON to c (N J- r- <- ON r>~ ON NO CA OONOOOJ- rAOCMCMOO O- ON c\j r\j o O fA CM ON CA O OC^J-CM<-^-ONO-<-»-J- O NO cm «- O CM o- 10 3 s 1 O ON no O 1 I r- 1 I'OO-O- 1 C^J-CArACACA 1 1 1 11 oo J- J- <- r- CA0O rA rA r- NO CM O- c>- T3 ffl T- IN NO v- oo lAOO OCAONOIACA co co a. c o i r>- on <- O CA On CM CM l^-v-CM ICMCMOOONj-cMCM 1 1 +-> 10 3 OO NO CM CA On rA r- lA 0O c-co NO^-CTncMCMnOnO «- rA O «~ O »- 00 r- -3-OJCM CMCMJ-r-CNNOO O ac c o 1 r- CA oo no i i i -3- IO 1-3" l-3--3-^-CArACA 1 1 op 10 § NO CM CA O- OO -3- O O-d-OcMCAO 3 o o d *- ■* lA CM CM cn-j- rAOO J- j-" CA r- -3- > w o T- ON CM | J" C^ O T" NO iONi-rAcM>-<-cAc>-r^j- i 1 CA bO 18 J- ON O on r^ on j- j- CMrA'-CMONNOr-r-OOC^ ^ o <-" J-' o r- OO r- o CM ca r- cm r- o O J- caoo r>- T— •H o *~ t- NO r- CA B NO t> «o On O- ONOO OO rA «- -3- tS <- NO OO 1 ONvO lA 1 CAOftlJ- IM r I 1 r- CO J- ir\ c— rcf\r r- O <- CM CN CA CM X • • • +J ^ o o O O O CA o O CM»~0 O^^OCn-CA CM rA r- CM a) 3 lA rA OJ CA J- rA O oo o- CMOOCMJ-CAONONrACNt- CM • 1 ON O OlAr O «- On CM NO «- ONDNONO-3-<-CA'-f-aO CA IM CO CM rA LA O O lA CA O 1A r-rAo^CM^-CN-CN-CMO-crN CM o n lA CA rH CM H r-i § 3 CO 3 1) -H 1) § a o c cm I* i) J3 O U T3 1) U 11 ■u •H C CO E +» c. co u e aj as -ho rH CO C J3 4-» CO CO CO C-, a> CD X ■*-> ■*-> O C J2 CO 4J O x c, M U -H 1) >, In 60 -H O -*-> O 3 O rH CO E 4-> 3 a CD rH O t> O. -H 3 t. T3 CO O O CO U >H . a bo 4-> •H CO CC, 60 T3 T3 1> CO ■*-> CO CO fc. C (-. H C rH > C ■!-> C C 3 •HCrt , H'HC,10lcl«6 O * -H (h *> 1 CO rl O C-. B -H 1> •H 4-» M CO 3 C •H O D 3 4->llcOOCODD 1> Ih H C.C 3 C f « C 8 CO CO O -H CO ■*-> CO -H OXH 3XfciC0t.>t ) 4-> CO Ct1-POOO^V4Jt)DD co 3 c XX CO CO a. x < 3 ft. x O JHXO*' C* C*J ID o P. CO C 'H ±> CO CO rH t. •H tO to HfcO >-,3 O W H .*-> *> a •H c r-t 3 •H U. *> 31 P a a 5 mo -pr~ a o 2 < ~ 1 a U-H CD ■& 'aiw o ►J 3 C .<" o HfH ■H 4* +> •H o (H o o in ft ^£ § o o 3 co 0) 5g o as 01 co cd -p ^ a) >> Ph cd -p id 3 -H Oh CO TJ 0) « -P o ID • rH J «B (1) 35 II) E-i a) a a. 3 8't^vtr^o'vJoo' r- (M c'v c-\ cm i i i i i CO O I- 32 • • _* I cm c- o*. 0T-0*---*0O-~tCM0 •r- O r-^f I C~- 00 I P- C- OO^O^O Or<> (V r- lAffl i-O O m \D ^D Cv "J3 -£> I v^O i- vO CO '\0 r^ O* O *- CM -t vr> *- ^O I *- m o P--* CM cm *- o ^om^o O O OCO CM ^f O O c> CM r- C\ <- O O *- c^v^ ^"^ fid (^«0 t-O OCO vDtOvO I CM I o' t>- (^ insfin n N OO UMO'- O O P-v£>0 ^-4 »r\ 1 • • sO r- O- C^v I sO CM I CM o" sO t> t> cr\ o ir\ o o^o i i cm cmt\ r- O CM ^o a- cm c^ CM CM P- O P- O ^O en r- i— OvOOlfN^t ir\ -^> C*"\ rH 1 1 o • O oo Cl C^ CM sO -*^f l^ o'o' OvOOO OtO I^O-iOC\ I (ONlTi OlTNCM I I 1 I I O P- vO -r\ -4- o cm t- p- in ir\ •~o o) a B a> o 3 -P -H CD -P af > W o P - P> -p a iH 3 o.x> CD m u u O M ID PS •r-| d a) o fi (C M W 3 co 3 )rH © 3 T3 h hi CD -P pl rH rH CD CO o CD CD -H T3 H J3 HO 3 iH l-i (H CD CO tn CD C , •p !> o o o -p CD cd 1 -P o CD IH a ■HJ3 „ d O In > rH 4^> a) x: •H ID -P O O rd 3 O O -P XI & A s rH U CD IH to 0) pl d o o CD pi CO P. CO O C O 0) X3££g S o o o 4^ CO CD J3 CD C M CD o ftcS fH cS M£ O H > in o -p P a c~ § *"" £-3 9) > bo S-S "S 01 H •• a) d oi bo o a) a) c/> a> -P d.5 33 h ■ +> a ■ ja CM r<\^ i i ^ i- i- i i ^ 1 CM iv> 1 ^i->ti- Vl\(\l 1 I m O 0"- ^o'-i d i- dJ3 JL'rn d i- d in in CJ a) 2 a r-l IP "3 ^^ -* cm in o , ^r\Or CM CM i o^-» ooi>i-oom\oo-^ i 1 vD •2- O"-or0 *3 d ^ ^ do ■AiJ OOOi-Omt-CM ■sj i i CM«0 »-J| 1 .- 1 OO-^- CM 1 CM IMS CM CM en 1 o o i o o cio ^. hO ^ O i— — ' O O t- O O IT- -* ^Jd ■ 0) rH ID Hi -4 N^ffv'^ • . . H -~-vr\ ~jn l> t- - ■^CT-vO^CMCMmOCMCMv- 1 CM O 5 O O O CM — ' -~^d oV do ■ — ooooocM<-omm o o ■ o ►J g "3 O vO I vO c\ <>rO 1 1 ~^ | l^rir 1 T-OCMOC~-t> 1 1 1 3 D a) CM C"| O CM HO CM i- d d do'o'r>}4 a. c o -p - o 60 a) o CM CO i en ~*o t-^ lOCM^CMCMCOt^ov-tO 1 I m 3 N NOON O l- CM O O OOOOOt-00*-CM to o 1 CM 1 ni- CM r i-OIr CM CM lin^ I I '— r- c^ ^^cm ^4- I 1 00 -p • • « • • N • • ■3 3 o O O O O O O l- O O o o ■ — ^o o «^to f> -~t c o -p CM 1 m m i> ■^? r : C0 . ■:«: ^->TiT-vO-~tCM«-Oc<>t»\CV 1 i r- 1 o O P" o — "> — CM O O O OOOOOOt- "-<0>r>CM cn ' 01 p bfl 3 >h £ 0) 1 3 1 O .C ID -H a> bo a o a o id £ C ID M o J3 oi net) a m « id a> o. c H o g •H OOa al '. i '1 'i' r-( C +> doe o O i-l O O -P nH (3 d c to id o bo £ oi t. oi 3 a) a bop p c ttoH h q m 3^ ID 01 -H 1 1 i-, l! -H n > Jl HftOI (..< o i-H 3 -P ™ o +3 a) CO r-j 0) -H hd u M bop ID -P 3 Bf P a) q) J2 to t) 5 -H ^ -P p oi p, a) 3 •h a) B. bo t> t) •HhHHh-9mO)3§> p a) aj o oi a> oj co PC 0) -C EL ID tH OH bO CO > d U -H ID%3H+ 3< Dh O HSO+= CX1>>P m C&3 ^S^h^cS -p 01 a o 33 k d? to ID 3 •H ■p d^ b r-l 1 -p E • i c CJ o N u g r, ■p ir\ | 01 o bo Tl m (4 E S a p c? p i H UJ n B s 2^J 1 4) ■ !] M 1 1 T~ 34 Taxes in the 10 cities yield approximately 4-0 to 70 percent of total revenue. As might be expected, the property tax is the levy most widely used, though in Philadelphia it takes second place to the local income tax. The only other tax more than nominally involved is the local sales tax, used in the California, Illinois, and Texas cities surveyed. Table K shows the per capita amounts applicable for each of the three taxes; the percentage relationship of each to total expenditures are presented on table L, Intergovernmental payments yield 37 percent of total revenue in Chester. Amounts involved are used directly for urban renewal programs and welfare assistance. The intergovernmental proportion is lowest in Evanston, where 11 percent of total revenue comes from this source. Individual Area Comparisons Boston and Waltham • Neither Boston nor Waltham has an alternative to the property tax. Boston has the highest property tax revenue per capita among the 10 cities, and the amount in Waltham is exceeded only by that in Evanston and (very slightly) in Burbank. In Boston the property tax yields $74 per capita more than in Waltham. Boston also gets twice as much per capita as Waltham in intergovernmental aid. Little revenue comes from other sources. Collections from educational charges are lower in Boston than in any of the other cities. Boston has no park and recre- ation fees, a source which brings Waltham only 47 cents per capita. Both cities depend primarily on the property tax. 35 Chicago and Evanston Both Chicago and Evanston supplement the property tax with general sales and public utility taxes. Evanston nevertheless has the second highest per capita property tax yield of the 10 cities, a reflection of its locally financed emphasis on elementary and secondary education. Direct charges associated with this function also produce substantial amounts in Evanston. As noted earlier, intergovernmental aid is pro- portionately lower here than elsewhere and less than half the level existing in Chicago. Motor vehicle license fees have some importance in both cities, but only Chicago benefits from housing charges and air- port fees, pert facility charges, and highway tolls. Houston and Pasadena These cities tax less and spend less than any of the others. In 1970 per capita taxes in Pasadena amounted to -4.3 percent of per capita income, lowest such ratio among the 10 cities and less than half the corresponding figure in Boston, Waltham, and Chicago. Houston is second lowest at 5.5 percent. Houston and Pasadena rank seventh and eighth, respectively, in per capita property tax. The only cities lower are Fniladelphia and Chester, each of which has a local income tax. Houston and Pasadena have modest sales tax collections. In general, levels of revenue and expenditure are lower than usual in both places. Los Angeles and Burbank Both Los Angeles and Burbank supplement property tax yields with general sales taxes, licenses, and minor levies on tobacco and public utilities. The revenue structure in both cities is varied and productive. Collections from charges and fees related to educational, hospital, and park services are substantial. Burbank and Los Angeles rank first and second, respectively, in per capita revenue from all sources. 36 Philadelphia and Chester As noted earlier, Chester receives a greater proportion of its revenue in the form of intergovernmental aid than any other city. The greatest share of this is used in the financing of education. Public welfare responsibilities in the city account for the next most substantial amount. Philadelphia's requirements for this function are much less, on a proportional basis. Both cities have comparatively low per capita property taxes. Both use the local income tax, a levy which in 1970, at the same rate in each place, yielded $119 per capita in Philadelphia and only .$36 per capita in Chester. Philadelphia collected a variety of payments for services which Chester does not provide. These charges related to hospitals, sewerage, airport, and water transport facilities. In 1970 however, Chester had large rental collections from urban renewal fa3ilities. The amount involved, $18 per capita, was more than twice the corresponding figure for Philadelphia. Debt Long term full faith and credit A key index of financial stability is the amount of long term full faith and credit or guaranteed debt a government has outstanding. "Long term" refers to all obligations having a maturity of more than one year. "Pull faith and credit" means the debt is guaranteed for payment by the general taxing powers of the government. As data contained in tables M and N indicate, each of the survey cities has some obligations of this type outstanding. The per capita range extends from $667 in Philadelphia to $U7 in Chester. Nonguaranteed debt Nonguaranteed debt is backed not by the general tax powers of the government but rather some specified revenue source such as highway charges, sales taxes, etc. Each of the city areas also has some nonguaranteed debt, the per capita amounts varying widely from $14 in Burbank to almost $4-00 in Chester. Philadelphia is lowest among the large cities at $135 per capita. Facilities and activities associated with nine public functions are >> •• 01 £ D) U CO X 60 0> 01 C >i C 18 *» ffl 4-> -ri 10 10 O 3 H w t3 ^J 1 t. 01 CO 00 VO CM OOO 1 1 ICM 1 1 1 CO rA rA 1 ;, IA IA CM . CjvCNJI 1 IOVI 1 IOVJ-CJVI rH rH O ■ o cm .j- <\j O O Ov rH J- IA 00 01 OOOH X IAOO rH j- CM CM Ov VO O f> rl cm J- og IA rH KS o rA CM co vo iavo r- vo o--» j- r>^r icoooo-J hk\j oia i IA Q IOOOvtNlAvp-3-CMCMCM 1 O-tA t^OOvCMCMOOIAO U | IA t>.00 .G R IA ON IA 3 rH VD CM f\J HtOJ O vo rA 00 VO r-l Ov OVO CM rHO J-OvrAQrHVDQrAcJv O-vo orAvotAiA rA oo rH IA rH CM r-l rA rH rH -3- X) 'i CO !>■ ry cm r\j r-l •H r-l iH £ H CM (M O OOO | Ov ia-j I ooi i i i i iONivovoQir> 5 M0OJ- 1 J-l I 1 I I irAlrHCMQC^lA rH CO f\J 00 CM C- rAOO rH rA Ih Ov IA J" 3 QCOH rA cm rA rA cm J- r> rA rvi rH PQ r-i r-* rA rA 10 01 OO r> Q rH tAOO OS CM r^ ia i rAOvoQrHoorAj-^fr^ CMCM ICMrHOvc5vvOCMtACMC-.C> r>- J- IA Ov •-I r>. o-oo oo 0> c t\i tACM^i ovrH r>-r>.rAoocMr>-OrHvorAO VO VO Ov C^ rA rA 0O 0O rAvO VO l\JrH CN vo rA J- -? rA vo rH rAvO r-l < ia-3- cm oo rA rA IA rH Ov r-l J- rH cm o rAvO to Q CM rH rH J s O-VO rH 1 lAIOvl 1 1 ICMIOrHrHI CMIOI 1 1 1 VO ■ IA Ov ov 1 tA CM J- J- J- J- 1 IA.* r-l 01 KMf\o I rH O CM 1 ON rH OO ■c 3 OVOO rH f>-CO0O rH CM VO VO VO rAJ- Ov ro ia j- CM CM VO IA a. c IAJ- O-J- r-l CM OV J" 00 rH O r>- 1 tA J" J" 1 1 OO rH l>- o VO ffvO^O J-rHOrHCMOINOV ICMOO 1 OOCMvooOJ-oOOr>- 0v r>- r>- 1 j- ^- o 4-1 to 3 O IAVO 00 (N rA J-' O- IA J- O CS CNJ- CM IA CM CO tA J- rAO OOCMtM J- rA CMrH rN rA OVOO o J- ia r>- VO tA rH x 00 VO rH CM CM rH rH g o CM C*~00 r>- Ov 1 1 IA-3" 1 1 1 lAcO J" rA 1 H IV CM IA *j CM J- CO 00 vOI IJ-Ovl 1 lOOlAoOvOI CM OVJ- IA K>^ IAO Ov rH tA C^ C^ OVVO IA c OO VO CM to vo c^vo cm rH rH cm rA rA CM r-l CM J" 0O > rA CM CM J- rA w O rA rH vo OO- 1 ON rH VO OO OV 1 LA ON CO 1 r-l rA tAOO o J- rAOO CM OOCM lrHOlAQ-3- lOOOOrH 1 oh tAvo r> o I s - vo on on c- tA tA ON ■- to o O Ov rA (N o rioO j- cn r>. rA O CM Ov ON rH OvOrAr-iVO -J ON IA J- ON rH rH VO rAO rHlNVOQCM 0\OJ CMCM rH rA cm rACMrH >^ IA CM CM u CM CJv Ov J" CM E to rH r>- O- r>- lAllllrHIIICMvOil vo rA rA O A c^ rA cm o IA 1 1 1 IC^I 1 IVOO-I 1 I rA tAOO 4-1 J- rAJ" t>- O CM O J" -d- r-4 rA rH iH to HCvftJH O rA a^\D 't) OO 00 O 3 rA rH rH r-l J- CM CM OVJ- J- rH IA Q ON O Ov rA 1 rHQlAvOlA 1 OvOOVVOrHrH lOOOrAOVO 1 r-i Ov rAvO JVOJ- J- -* oo rA IA O O J- rA cm OrHJ-CMvO-* OvvOrACTvrA IA -t-> oo oo o to IA Ov ovvo CMrArHON O Cv-OvO-VOCM -J vo ov cv- cH rA rH O O rA CM VO CM VO OV 0> VO J- H IA rA rH rH r-l +> x> 0) c •a O to •H r^ B t § Li 01 C r-l 'H H-> 3 to e 1 > C -M 0> o +> XI C 01 r-l r-l -H O t-i T3 XI T3 4-> H C 10 x> j-> c co 0) o CO CD +» u, o> to to -ho TJ 0» X* 4-> 4-> r-l H O p. +» 73 -o U Ih U -n r-l at T3 to e t3 oi 4-> 3 01 T3 E O 3 O rH C8 o 2 -a a oi I-, a> p.h c 3 0> 01 Ih -a 10 O 3 Ih 01 4-1 O £u E h-> C C CO i c to « < S c 01 f t) « e bCOIOrHOlB 10 fc. C U c-H>,aibO(0to*j4JbD[rjco -h ■H CO ■a X> jC t, 4J 4-1 at t. iMiti o ±> o x; P, 01 ^ 10 B, n j; (» 41 e» o B 4-1 rH 3 ■h at H fc o 3 rH 1J C O H 3 Ull > li 3 1. « 1, X h f « a J3 H-> r-J C ■ ftlOf atT3-riootajo-HcatflH->rHalrH ■wt3XXt0PHX <<3PhOh3W n •H o d o & « £Z W -gEHtS* >> o O -n e-i Eh Eh S 1 1 37 o cd c -P 'H CO T3 X> cu o x a . ■a 3 IB 10 CO 3 ■* 1*1 4-> •H H C) H 3 T) U, (D I CO w c c rH cd COQIIIIIIIOOIIII O +> OOO^IIIII IICTNIIII no to CM O rH ID Xi 00 CM NO H O cd •H KN O-J" IOOCX)CMJ-rHJ-lALAI 1 O O-CAOO 1 CO ONCO U"\.NO CM CM CM 1 1 KS Xi Ph NO O- O O-OmcMCMOOO • rH 0) CT^HO -J O^fAOHOO^ CM On l>- ON Qmj-ininmrHrH • - - ' - - ON U CO KN l^rlJ- N 3 CM rH rH m CO at t>-[>-inimoioimoNONinj- co H COCMCM 1 CM rH 1 ON 1 in in CM -3" CO O 91 m ON rH t>- C- ON in U"NNO O- rH • bO a OO NO CMrH m CM O ON rH < J-O- VOI^ -d- MHO ONJ- CM rH rH co o i-5 s NOiniCTsllllCMOIIII ON k\ cu i o I I i i ir\ tr\ i i i i o 0) on in cm o- j- . ■a - - - c- cd CO rH NO rH CO cd P< J- (M CM c J" rH CM ON J- CO 1 in ON in rH rH 1 1 O o ojh OHir\ i coo t\i\om i i o mcocM^ocoo ON-?oNi>r^ • -p co 3 o cm in cm oo in j-ct\ooonctn rH o in-* m cm on cm cm X NO CM CM a o O-ONI 1 1A4- 1 1 1 CO rH 1 1 ri m p -d- no i ij-oni i iinooi ico t>- CO VO ON rH in O- rH rH c " - - r>. cd O- rH rH m > CM CM w cAooioNNoooooNCMmioN o o mx> cm irHONQoooNrHinim cm ONOrH moN_fooNoocM O- • bO cd o oono o cm m c^ in m on co •H <- m o rH in m ^ JS ONCM rH rH KN o E cd O-inillllllCMllli r>. .fi minillll'lloOIIII in ■P m ON kn rH - - - o cd NO NO rH 3= rH rH J- in o on o on m i i in m i i m no NO ON O ONNO rH NO 1 1 m ON 1 1 ON l>- c ■J O H4" c\Jcfl\o moo OO < o p ONCMmrHONOO l>-NO NO rH CO *- m cm m no cm cm o m rH pq o u to N 1 o -p ewal ermi: isess CO rg C -p eu Si a CD rH ™ o ° fc T3 XI t^ p C cd o ° o cd cd o , cu p< a 9 u -a to 3 £ N E co "a cd cd ts ^ -> O CO rH CD G COrHC: V ,„g in ■p •H>5Cdb0cdM-P-PcdC0 . H 4J 2 9 -pcd-Pcd ctn cu s-, -h •• ra -r J a CO o cd3-H(HC0.HOtn!H-Hti-Pl0-P_,iS rH3bOC03(H3SH-P^!-HPCl)cdJ3 "5 5 ■H I P O Cd^-H 11 Cd OH Cd-PrH CdrH !h -H "tf r 3 q 3 -PH3:WcOC 1< X<30h3MEh50 j^ Cti h Eh S H 1 38 > a -A& o .- ■S ^ •H H d bC b •rl •n 2 O 01 E rH t. 41 IACO 1 C\J 1 1 1 1 »\|C\ 1 O X)t\J 1 Ov 1 1 1 1 _? 0\ 1 lIS -4-> i. -* O O -3" IA CO n j.: i-h cm •a to cm p p • vo j- j- vo r5- <\i vo \o CM rH •H J= E £ J- 1 1 1 1 t]\ 1 Olf\ 1 1 IA -J 1 1 1 1 IA 1 M3 J" 1 1-4 to J3 CM ■ CM VO IA IA b 3 pq • i. 0) O 1 IvoprHCOOlA-IOOIA IAI IOsOvOCMOvDJ-CMOv IA fAONftJ MniAO^OCO 41 < IA CM \D 00 r-\ 00 IAVO CO O CM J- ON IA IA O CM \£> rH CO (H ON CM VD o ►J i-< s 41 < — 1 1 1 1 IOI 1 t— 1 t— l 1 1 •a Oi 1 1 1 rH 1 I o\rj\ i i f. CM CN -J -4- to OO r-l \0 ^O 0. c t>- 1 O rH IAOO 1 1 IA IA 1 1 o O IC^OOCO 1 IJ--T 1 1 VO IACO r-i IA o o 4-> w 3 O- 4-XH CM CM O rH -£> CM r>. C^ ■ X r-i c o CO 1 1 1 1 I1AIIAIAIO ooi 1 1 i I oo I p vO I -7 4-) CO LA C^ CO VO <-H c to VO CM IA C\J r-i > w o HQIAVOOOON 1 VO MA 1 CM 60 C0001AQ4- IOOO.VO 1 H IA O <0 IA O 0O LAOvO IA CO -H CM rH IA Q -3- P HOIT> IA HO IAONCM iflO-J IA .c o ON i-H lArH CM rH B -: O-l 1 rH 1 1 1 O vo 1 IvO CMI IC^I 1 ICON 1 1 f>- 4-> -3- CM VD J" J- H CO CM IA CM \D VO 3 rH J" 1 lOlrHP 1 IA IA 1 CO -3- 1 1 IA 1 0O p 1 H\D 1-4 C o IA t>- ONVO O IA VO -*-» w On rH O- Os O CM r>. o O CM t> NO BQ r-X CO rH CO c <-t H a e 3 fc. 41 41 e -■-> 4) C 41 rH O (h TJ X> •H C 10 4 •M C CO 4> O CO CO HO 4) O +> ** r-K U u hHH O 3 O rH CO 4> P. -C c t- -a to o 3 C C CO •O S CO "m -a M C CO t, C O a a) C l« B 41 (-, HUI { 3l ' § O H-> Uh E-" 3 39 40 financed with revenue bonds in the large cities. In the smaller munici- palities five functions are involved. Many of the specific amounts allo- cated to individual cities are prorations of aggregates applicable to authorities or special districts that overlap two or more municipal jurisdictions. The following summary shows the functions involved and the number of cities affected in each case. Selected City Areas With Nonguaranteed Debt Outstanding by Function: 1970 Number of Number of Function Central Cities Satellite Cities 1 2 5 2 3 5 3 3 1 A 3 U U 2 Highways Parks and recreation Housing and urban renewal Airports Water transport and terminals Parking facilities Utilities - water and electric Transit Exhibit and convention center Short-term debt Obligations which mature within one year or less constitute short term debt. Ordinarily the analytical significance is minor, except as an indication of deficient cash flow, possibly in the period preceding receipt of major tax revenue. Nevertheless any unusual absolute or relative change in the amount borrowed should signal the need for further inquiry in time period comparisons. In recent years due to taxpayer resistance to bond referendums as well as general bond market conditions local governments have increasingly turned to the use of short-term debt to finance a variety of items. Text table M and table 3 at the end of the text contain information relating to short-term debt for the selected city areas. Tax burden, tax effort, and fiscal capacity Various measures of burden, effort, and capacity can be developed, the major constraint being availability of requisite data. For this project the following have been identified: 41 Property tax burden - percentage relationship of taxes paid to selling price of property (also known as effective tax rate). Overall tax burden - Percentage relationship of applicable total State and local taxes to a stated amount of family income. Tax effort - Percentage relationship of per capita local taxes (all types) to per capita income. Relative fiscal capacity - Percentage relationship of per capita income for the city to per capita income for the State. Table P contains data which reveal the taxes payable in each of the survey cities for a family of four having an annual income of $15,000 and owning a residence having a sales price of $25,000. Tables Q and R contain the pertinent per capita and percentage relationships together with associated data. Property taxes amount to 1.5 percent of the sales price of a $25,000 house in Chester. This is lowest among the 10 cities, only about two-fifths of the highest corresponding figure, 3.9 percent in Boston. The Texas cities of Houston and Pasadena also exhibit relatively low effective tax rates, extending from 1.6 percent to 2.3 percent, depending on the particular combinations of taxing jurisdictions involved. Philadelphia is also low at 2 percent. This and the Chester rate demonstrate the need for comprehensive review in comparisons of local burden. Philadelphia and Chester have low effective rates, but they are the only cities in the group with local income taxes. Houston and Pasadena have neither State nor local levies on income. In terms of overall burden, the relationship of all State and local taxes to annual family income of $15,000, Los Angeles, Burbank, and Boston are highest (close to 10 percent), while Houston aid Pasadena are lowest at less than U percent each. In Philadelphia and Chester overall burdens are 7.5 percent and 4.. 7 percent, respectively. Obviously it is sometimes necessary to look beyond property tax indications only. Ti 3 a >1 m -p p: O CD N g ON H 01 ft X (0 ol 01 H P: H < 01 o ^ -— s a -p •H o 01 T"S rH a T3 rH o -p Ti © o •p Pl crt rH H -p wx co CQ 73 P; o -p ^ o co .H bO CO Pi • l ft O 0) U H ^-1 CO 01 p H "C CQ LA rA IA O -? ^ J- ON O -d- q Q) 3 w ■EL r- ca OJ VO (N r- OJ vo bO LA rA r- J- CO (N LA LA Od IN co 3 •H »- •> •- #• •* •» ^ W V - *- v - V ^- V - r~ ,£ X o Ct3 -p -p rt LA IA T" VO rA O LA-d- O-d- H * r- la oj rA IN IN tN IA oj vo m p. ? LA rA t- -d- V£> VO -d-J- OJ o- g§ O *- r- •- ^ •« (-3 r- r - r- *~ *- v~ ^~ EH O ^ cvJl •— N* tQ U cq 0) pj bO ? CD O Pi 0) -P H 3 CQ (C H .3 (H CtJ rAlrAl ^ O T3 hD -P Pi 3 03 O CO IN IN OJ ^- *- lAd VO LA J- -d" rA t>- r- 0> (N OJ ONVO CO 3 O r - LNVO J- -d- OJ ON O MD OJ ON -p o O 1-3 VO Q -d- rA co \o O IA MD IN LA LA Ss r- vo EH T" T~ t - ^~ v- *- V - H IN CN o o LA LA rA rA O O CO o3 J- -d- vO VO LA LA O O CO CO -p -P OJ OJ c" r - OJ OJ v *- Pl o 0) EH 1 cti H ft 03 V 1 1 OJ OJ ^- t - CO CO 1 1 X 0) -p CO s 1 1 LA LA rA rA LA LA 1 1 CD -P H 03 O- LN CO CO -d- -d- LA LA o o 05 ■P -d- -d- O O OJ OJ -d- -d- CO CO CO CO OJ OJ ^- t— ^- r - s— v- CO H -P d CO CO LA LA, o o o o fi -p -d- -d- IN IN ON ON LA LA 0) 14 o EH -d- -d-. OJ OJ VO ^D -d- r- TO ft 3 O O X o 1 I 1 1 1 1 LA LA c« -p ,3 I I 1 1 1 1 -d" v- CD o -P CO co LA LA ON ON o 03 J- -d- IN CN | | a -P -d- -d- OJ OJ U) vo 1 1 H CO X ^ 3 bO OJ r- «- tA J- LA VO CO J" ON -p •H L>- v- LA LA IN t- O IN ONVO CQ r-J-P -p a w OCO LA CO LA LA VO LA -d- rA 5h 3 O 03 s OJ r- 0> CTs INd" IN rA J- ON ^ ft o (N «- -d- OJ 5^ O r- ONVO ft l-H" ON CO LA CO LA LA J- rA CQ o3 •H CD ^1 03 r-\ ft CD a 03 0) r-\ U S o o c a bO^i CD U 03 §1 bO-P O CD ^1 T3 03 CO -P T3 03 -P >5 •P -P •H 3 co o3 ^l r^ CO •P CO r-{ 3 CQ CO u ■H CD •H as -S > O 03 o 3 A ^J c > O H n ft h5 m ft O k2 O A — o -P vo . •H VO co ■? IN O t& U o ti O -P CD bO CQ T( 03 •H O J CQ •H O ^) u „ 03 •-KN O • bO LA IN fl • #* •H ON ©* 03 •H o s ^ T! J^rH 4 a -P 03 H T3 03 03 O 3 H O •H O -sP •- O ft LA LA T" • ••» *ft ON OJ V$ OJ «H • O fl LA O *9= -P B CQ ^J o o si S ^> •H H H ffl 03 r) 3 s) we 5-68; anies % O CO o bO ^! o a rH •H •P ^H > •P bO oS o3 d s .3 > < O O ft u H CO f3 •H O O o J«J l-H - -H 'H o »iJ «H LA rA o o OJ ON v -' • H t»5 VO H CQ ** •H rH O s rH 03 -H 03 •r) Pi rH tH ^> X> 03 O 03 ft •H CO • O u !H 03 LN o -P ft > ON «H o o3 0—^1 rH T3 H rA Pl 4-> ON X •H 3 • H VO o3 CO pL) O o3 &* X> • £ o •H , fH bO O o o -P Pi pj Pi U O #» Pi o pq M o LA -P N CM T) CO xi o £h i& •h pi d CQ O 3 O 03 Pl -P >LA ^ rj LA .£3 • bO CO p 3 H O O »^H 03 -p CO Pl Pl u o > Pi #* <; O u 73 -P S G co Pl o d O O 3 X rH -P l-H" 5 o u 03 CO u CQ oj o g >, •H 3 rH CD s Pl N X 03 03 ^^C§ 1 EH EH EH 1 ^~ OJ rA ■P p o X 0> 01 *- c •H • • -P to «J CO ^ a 0) p K ■3 >■ hO P CO •rl +3 t ) c CU •J u a' P p 0; C) Oh U rH ■d CU c co 01 p id •H -i-> •rl ft ct o P a. ft r-\ ■s EH CO CO P ■P ■rH •rl CD ft ft e a) -t-> CO O on j- ONOO rH OJ OJ OO OJ o O X3 o o* • • • • ■ • • • • • a> c VO LA ON CO O ON OJ r-i on r>- O fA rA oj P T5 P -H OJ rH r-i r-i ft ft a) 5 & CO p •rl P •H CD Ph-H Ph E CO T3 CO O O J" L>- OJ O fA LA LA r-i V£> O P O O ,JR. • • • • • • • • • • a LA J" O- ON o oj ONMD CO ON P P. x P -rl CD OJ rH r-i r-i r-i r-i r-i r-i r-i ft - rA LA IA ~t J" VO C^ CJ rH o o^ • • • • • • • • • • CO p OJ ON oo oo LA-H- co oo CO VO P O P -H H CD O CD ft rH P. CO Cfl +*N. 4-> •rlOJl •H CD Ph Ph S CO 3 Cfl O O oo no no CTN r-i fA LA -H- MD u a u o ^ CD p tA rA L>- rH ON O ON CO MD ^O P > P -H OJ rH H H rH r-i r-i r-i r-i CD CD CD ft u Ph CO -t-> ■rl Ph VD O O rH -J" o ON O OJ OJ Cfl P O X> -H- <-\ rH LA r-i O fA ON on rA CD fA rH CO LA CO -H- VD fA rH O P TS CO IA NO -H- NO NO O- fA ONMD CD Ph *# CD cfl P -P 3 •rl -P ft'H LA LA C^OO OJ OJ O r-i i>- rA Cfl TS • • • « • • • • • • o p IAOO -H- O O CO LA O- ON OJ 0) O- O- O L>- J- o ES rH -H- H P Ph CD X 1>-J- NO -H- IA-H- o- o- LA LA ft CD «* CO Cfl CD -p X •rl Cfl Ph P CO LA no o OJ NO O ON ON ON Cfl • • • • • • • ■ • • O r-i r-i -H- [>- ON LA OJ fA OJ O H Cfl CJN rH ON OJ CO -H- IAvO LA O- P O IA fA OJ _j- r-\ r-i rA fA OJ r-i CD O ft r-i «# CO P •rl CD Ph 3 On CO rA fA O CO O-OO NO r-i Cfl P O CD rH OO fAVO IA4- VO OJ co rA > r-i LA O ON fA fA VO O on rA P CD C^-Hr NO LA fA fA O-OO J- -H- CD P Ph *** CO -P ■H\ PhtHI ON-H" O fA LA O l>- fA H On Cfl CD ON OJ OJ -j- On rA 0--J- J- r-i o E O fA -HT rH fA fA ON fA O NO o P o rA rA fA LA fA fA rA-H- rA oj CD P ft -H **> cfl (0 •H CO CD Xi CD r-i Ph P P cfl CD r-i cfl E O O P P c°3 CD P §1 hO P O CD XI (D >> CO CO •P T3 53 jb Cfl P -p p p O C CO Cfl r-i 10 ■rl 10 rH •rl CO 3 (0 to p •H CD O O CO Xi > O Cfl O 3 Xi Xi m :* o w K ft P5 pq ft o 43 Cfl P • •H p Ph P o cfl cfl ■H o ,p P to cO p <-{ TJ 3 Ph fl P o t>0 cfl Ph p p •H O CD P P .C CO Ph -P r-i CO <*H « o >} Cfl CO • Ph o •P •H P >> +J P [fl S -H •H P O P P CD -P > Xi O O P m hfl P P a rH -H ^ CO o p to P •> t3 p tsi o CiH -H •H +J +-' -H CO Jti CJ rH P P CO ft T3 O P E Uh cfl P to -H rH ( I E Ph tN O E '.V P -H r-\ cm CD E X P O -P P CJ P P > -H •rl P O ON P VO r-i ON Cfl - rH -P P P P P O E =H P > P CD p H > ^ O H (fl hO cfl rH P P •rl P Cfl P > P E m ■r-i p P CO • p > (0 a) TJ O •'-: P hO X rH p Cfl cfl CJ P +3 p p m •rl P rH T3 •H Cfl P p hO s P P -d -rl o > T3 tit a P •rl P rH TS O P Cfl Cfl P Cfl +J P -rl •H •H _ ft > T?er cap revenue of Stat Cfl o p a) Oh hh Table R. Selected Percentage Relationships Regarding Tax Burden and Fiscal Capacity in Selected City Areas: 1970 Total taxes as Per capita income a percent of Median annual in city as percent City area annual family family income as of per capita income of $15,000 percent of $15,000 income, statewide Boston 9-8 60.9 89-3 Waltham 8.7 76.8 8o.o Chicago 7-2 68.3 79-8 Evans ton 9-1 to 9.3 92.9 120.0 Houston 3-7 to k.9 65.8 104.2 Pasadena 3-9 to ^. 5 73-7 102.2 Los Angeles 9-3 to 10.0 70.2 92.7 Bur bank 9.** to 9-8 76.7 101.2 Philadelphia 7.5 G2.h 83.1 Chester *f.7 56.7 71.6 45 Even the overall burden relationships are insufficient by them- selves. As table B indicates, there are significant differences in per capita and per family incomes among the survey cities. The extent of differences in median family incomes, relative to the $15,000 income level, are shown in table R. Thus, the median family income in Chester is only 57 percent of $15,000. At the other extreme in Evanston, median family income stands at more than 90 percent of the $15,000 total. Consider- ation of such differences is important to any judgements about burdens within the framework of tax effort and fiscal capacity. The latter measure adds some of the perspective. Per capita income in Chester, for example, is slightly more than 70 percent of per capita income in Pennsylvania. This is the lowest such city-State relationship among all the survey cities. In contrast both Houston and Pasadena, like Chester low in burden comparisons, rank above the State average in per capita income. Evanston' s fiscal capacity is highest by the indicator used. Its per capita income is 20 percent higher than that for the State of Illinois. Its margin over Chicago is even greater. Evanston almost matches Chicago, however, in tax effort. In the two Illinois cities, per capita total taxes as a percent of per capita income amount to 8.3 percent and 8.7 percent, respectively. Highest in tax effort is Boston, at 10.6 percent. Again, the lowest results occurred in Houston and Pasadena. In each of the five areas studied, the central city exhibited a tax effort greater than that in the peripheral satellite city. Tax burden and tax effort reflect the usual emphasis on taxes as the source of burden and measure of effort common in current literature. However, a start has been made to expand the notions of burden and effort to include not only taxes but intergovernmental revenue, current charges, miscellaneous general revenue, and utility revenue by the use of per capita revenue/per capita income in table Q. This measure stresses that all revenues raised by the local government eventually become a burden on income, either directly or indirectly. User charges are combined with selected tax payments in table P. These charges are part of the burden on family income as well as on real property, income, and sales taxes that are usually cited as the sources of burden. Water and sewer charges have been included in this table because they were services commonly provided by local government. Charges for electric utilities are only displayed in a footnote because Los Angeles and Burbank were the only two local governments to provide this service It is not suggested that measures discussed exhaust the possibilities for making comparisons among tax burden, tax effort, and fiscal capacity existing in local areas. Those used are common, but others exist. The important objective in the present context is to demonstrate that a comprehensive comparison is necessary for useful analysis of local situations. Feasibility of future effort A comparison with existing local area data Table S demonstrates the differences between the data available from existing Census publications and data available from the present study. Only the latter effort produces data reflecting the impact within a city area of all governments operating therein. Amounts for education expense and property taxes are shown for each survey area. In Chicago, for example, the city government collected $81.32 per capita from property taxes in 1970 and spent $2.39 per capita for education. Over the entire area of Cook County, not limited to Chicago, all governments collected $210.22 per capita in property taxes and spent $20^.68 per capita for education in 1970. The same comparisons, applicable to area and government coverage are possible for each of the other survey areas. As the foregoing text demonstrates, comparisons can extend to all survey city areas for all expenditure and revenue elements covered in the survey. 47 Table 3. Demonstration of Data Results for Selected Per Capita Expenditure and Revenue Elements, Selected Cities and Associated County Areas: 19701/ (in dollars) City government City area County area only all governments all governments Education expense Boston 180.17 180.17 X Waltham 162.42 162.42 X Suffolk County X X 174.35 Middlesex County X X 210.21 Chicago 2.39 173.80 X Evanston X 242.78 X Cook County X X 204.68 Houston ( z ) 136.89 X Pasadena X 224.84 X Harris County X X 184.11 Los Angeles City X 185.65 X Bur bank X 182.86 X Los Angeles County X X 209.43 Philadelphia City 4.51 177.23 X Chester X 201.73 X Philadelphia County X X 174.36 Delaware County X X 190.46 Property taxes Boston 386.67 386.67 X Waltham 298.93 313.01 X Suffolk County X X 371.22 Middlesex County X X 313.21 Chicago 81.32 244.53 X Evanston 51-33 382.64 X Cook County X X 210.22 Houston 55.60 151.53 X Pasadena 36.03 117.78 X Harris County X X 169.92 Los Angeles City 59.05 277-48 X Bur bank 54.13 313.31 X Los Angeles County X X 263.15 Philadelphia City 57.63 106.69 X Chester 34.32 129.84 X Philadelphia County X X 106.69 Delaware County X X 171.16 X Not applicable. (z)Less than $0,005 per capita. City government data from City Government Finances in 1970-71 except that for Los Angeles, Bur bank, and Philadelphia data are from City Government Finances in 1969-70 . County area data from Local Government Finances in Selected Metropolitan Areas and Large Counties: 1970-71 , except that for Los Angeles County and Philadelphia County, data are from edition for 1969-70 of same publication. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. 48 Project feasibility Judgments concerning the feasibility of future effort naturally incor- porate a balancing of advantages obtained against effort necessary. The advantages have already emerged, and they are significant. As the data summarized in this report have demonstrated, it is now possible, with respect to the 10 survey cities, to identify realistic composites of expenditures applicable to individual public functions, and revenues ap- plicable to individual funding methods, for municipal areas. The complication that certain of the expenditures and revenues emanate from governmental units totally or partially overlapping the municipal area involved has been overcome within a system of proration methods adapted to the measurable magnitudes available. Because the expenditure and revenue composites now exist, interarea comparisons are now possible (for example, by function and by financing methods) for the 10 cities and for groupings within them, which previously could be undertaken only on the premise of inadequate data. The importance of such comparisons in better identification of public needs and better allocation of public resources is evident, especially as the comparisons affect functions with major impact in some or all metropolitan areas (for example, public education, housing and urban renewal, and public welfare). The effort necessary to produce the above type of data is best con- ceived within the distinctive objectives of the project. Because ultimate results reflect considerable data proration, conventional jurisdiction-based data assembly procedures associated with other census publications may require augmentation, A county financial report may list expenditures for 49 highways, as an example, but proration of such amounts to municipalities within the county will depend as well on the acquisition of proration data in this case, miles of roadway in municipalities served, possibly weighted on a population basis to reflect intensive use (as in California). Similarly, education expenditure allocations will necessitate acquisition of data on enrollment, or on students in average daily membership or attendance, for municipalities totally or partially within the school district concerned. For basic proration bases such as population, serious problems of data currency can be expected. Intercensus estimates based on decennial population figures for territorial units within jurisdictions supplying aggregate fiscal data will be required. These estimates are not always easily assembled, yet they are important to achievement of useful proration. It should be noted also that variety among local procedures must be recognized as a central reality. A reporting procedure standard in one jurisdiction cannot necessarily be expected to occur in a neighboring unit. As more projects of this type occur, however, it is natural to expect that standardization will be stimulated, not only among the governments supplying the data, but also among those conducting the surveys. In sum, the benefits to be gained from the more penetrating analysis that composite burden data will make possible outweigh the efforts likely to be encountered in producing the data. 50 Table 1 Revenue by Source For All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Boston, Massachusetts: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) Item City of Boston Other governments Amount Percent Per capita (dollars) Total revenue 17 Intergovernmental revenue From State government Education Highways Public welfare Health and hospitals Housing and urban renewal General support Other From Federal government General revenue from own sources Taxes Property Motor vehicle licenses Miscellaneous licenses Charges and miscellaneous revenue Current charges 409,552 88,496 70,118 42,154 3,204 3,599 1,583 85^ 9,313 9,411 18,378 311, 104 251,152 247,884 4o 3,228 59,952 48,619 Education 2,223 School lunch sales 1,418 Other local school charges 805 Highways 379 Hospitals 34,314 Sewerage 3,284 Sanitation other than sewerage 32 Parks and recreation 91 Housing and urban renewal 1,973 Airports - Water transport and terminals - Parking facilities 3,314 Miscellaneous commercial activities 650 Other 2,359 46,795 17,346 14,466 14,466 & 2,880 % 15,160 15,160 12,950 938 (MPA) 8,239 (BHA) 3,334 (MPA) 439 (MPA) 456,347 105,842 84,584 42,154 3,204 3,599 1,583 854 9,313 23,877 21 , 258 326,264 251,152 247,884 40 3,228 75,112 61,569 2,223 1,418 805 1,317 34,314 3,284 32 91 10,212 3,334 439 3,314 650 2,359 100.0 23.2 18.4 9.2 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.2 2.0 5-2 4.7 71.5 55-0 54.3 (z) 0.7 16.5 13-5 0.5 0.3 0. 2 0. 3 7.5 0. 7 (z) (2) 2. 3 0. 8 0. .1 0. .7 .1 • 5 711.85 165.10 131.94 65.75 5.00 5.61 2.47 1.33 14.53 37.25 33.16 508.94 391.77 386.67 0.06 5.04 117.17 96.04 3.47 2.21 1.26 2.05 53.53 5.12 0.05 0.14 15.93 5.20 0.68 5.17 1.02 3.68 51 Table 1 Revenue by Source for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Boston, Massachusetts: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) Total City Other of Amount Percent Per capita Item Boston governments dollars Special assessments 399 399 0.1 0.62 Sale of Property 2,269 61 2,330 0.6 3.64 Housing and urban renewal 1,569 - 1,569 0.4 2.45 Other 700 61 (MBTA) 761 0.2 1.19 Interest earnings 2,714 2,149 V 4,863 1.1 7-59 Fines and forfeits 4,572 - 4,572 1.0 7.13 Other and unallocable 1,379 10 (BHA) 1,389 0.3 2.17 Utility revenue 9,952 14,289 24,241 5-3 37.81 Water 9,952 _ 9,952 2.2 15.52 Transit — 14,289 (MBTA) 14,289 3-1 22.29 Note: BHA-Boston Housing Authority MBTA- Massachusetts Bay Trans] .t BMD-Boston Metropo litan Distri ct Authority MPA-Massachusetts Port Authority Because of rounding detail may not add to totals. -Represents zero or rounds to zero. (z)Less than .05 percent. 1 Excludes intergovernmental transfers from local governments and employee-retirement system revenues; see text. Consists of BMD, 8, and MBTA, 14,458 ^Consists of BHA, 903, MBTA, 1,881, and MPA,96. L Consists of BHA, 230, BMD, 317, MBTA, 1,141, and MPA, 461. Table 1 Revenue by Source for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Waltham, Massachusetts: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 52 City of Waltham Other governments Total Item Amount Percent Per capita (dollars) 1/ Total revenue — ' 23,596 4,668 28,264 100.0 458.96 Intergovernmental revenue 3,372 1,655 5,027 17.8 81.63 From State government 3,130 1,466 4,596 16.3 74.63 Education 1,114 - 1,114 4.0 18.09 Highways 119 - 119 0.4 1.93 Public welfare 171 - 171 0.6 2.78 Health and hospitals 10 79 89 0.3 1.44 General support 1,627 1,387-^ 1,627 5-8 26.42 Other 89 1,476 5-2 23-97 From Federal government 242 189 & 422 1-5 6.85 General revenue from own sources 19,269 1,645 20,914 74.0 339.61 Taxes 18,496 874 19,370 68.5 314.54 Property 18,^+09 867 19,276 68.2 313.01 Miscellaneous licenses 87 7(MC) 94 0.3 1-53 Charges and miscellaneous revenue 773 771 1,544 5.5 25.07 Current charges 592 573 1,165 4.2 18.91 Education 355 _ 355 1.2 5.77 School lunch sales 288 - 288 1.0 4.68 Other local school charges 67 - 67 0.2 1.09 Highways - 90(MPA) 90 0.3 1.46 Hospitals - 35(MC) 35 0.1 0.57 Sewerage 48 - 48 0.2 O.78 Sanitation other than sewerage 12 - 12 0.1 O.19 Parks and recreation 29 - 29 0.1 0.47 Housing and urban renewal - 49(WHA) 49 0.2 0.79 Airports - 319(MPA) 319 1.1 5.18 Water transport and terminals - 42(MPA) 42 0.2 0.68 Parking facilities 51 - 51 0.2 0.83 Other 97 38 135 0.5 2.19 Special assessments 96 - 96 0.4 1.56 Sale of property, other 3 6(MBTA) 9 (z) 0.15 Table 1 Revenue by Source for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Waltham, Massachusetts: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita' 53 Total City of Other Per capita Item Waltham governments Amount Percent | (dollars') Interest earnings 30 160^/ 190 0.7 3.09 Fines and forfeits 39 30 69 0.2 1.12 Other and unallocable 13 2 15 l»J 0.24 Utility revenue 955 1,368 2,323 8.2 37.72 Water » 955 _ 955 3.4 15.51 Transit - 1,368(MBTA) 1,368 4.8 22.21 Note: MBTA-Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority MC-Middlesex County Because of rounding detail may not add to totals. -Represents zero or rounds to zero, (z) Less than .05 percent. MPA-Massachusetts Port Authority WHA-Waltham Housing Authority 1 Excludes intergovernmental transfers from local governments and employee-retirement system revenues; see text. Consists of MBTA, 1,384, and MC, 3. ^Consists of MBTA, 180, and MPA, 9. ^Consists of MBTA, 109, MC, 6, MPA, 44, and WHA, 1. Table 1 Revenue by Source for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Chicago, Illinois: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 54 City of Other Total Item Per capita Chicago governments Amount Percent (dollars) V Total revenue -* 782,246 1,249,179 2,031,426 100.0 603.34 Intergovernmental revenue 179,13^ 402,417 581,551 28.6 172.72 From State government 71,858 313,502 385,360 19.0 114.45 Education - 193,342.2/ 193,342 9-5 57.42 Highways 27,209 484 (CCo) 27,693 1.4 8.22 Public welfare - 110,531(CCo) 110,531 5.5 32.83 Health and hospitals 8,745 4(NCC) 8,749 0.4 2.60 Housing and urban renewal - 493 (CHA) 493 (z) 0.15 General support 25,085 755 (CCo) 7,893 2/ 25,840 1.3 7.67 Other 10,819 18,712 0.9 5.56 From Federal government 107,276 88,915^ 196,191 9.7 58.27 General revenue from own sources 543,383 674,599 1,217,983 60.0 361.75 Taxes ■ 440,056 561,913 1,001,969 49.3 297.59 Property 264,707 558,612 5/ 823,319 4o.5 244.53 General sales and gross receipts 66,189 968 (CCo) 67,157 3.3 19.95 Selective sales 62,438 - 62,438 3.1 18.54 Public utilities 59,769 - 59,769 2.9 17.75 Other 2,664 - 2,669 0.1 0.79 Motor vehicle licenses 28,000 - 28,000 1.4 8.32 Miscellaneous licenses 18,726 - 18,726 0.9 5.56 Other - 2, 333 (CCo) 2,333 0.1 O.69 Charges and miscellaneous revenue 103,327 112,686 216,014 10.7 64.16 Current charges 61,815 75,532 137,348 6.8 40.79 Education _ 12,126 12,126 0.6 3.65 School lunch sales - 11,777(CBE) 11,777 0.6 3-50 Other local school charges - 177(CBE) 177 (z) 0.05 Institutions of higher education - 172(CC) 172 (z) 0.05 Highways 4,740 - 4,74c 0.2 1.41 Hospitals 49 16,751 (CCo) 16,80c 0.8 4.99 Sewerage 82 6~519 y 8; (z) 0.02 Parks and recreation - 6, 51< 0.3 I 1.94 Housing and urban i i renewal 696 i i 28, 827 (CHA) I 29,523 1.4 j 8.77 i Table 1 Revenue by Source for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Chicago, Illinois: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 55 City of Other Total Item Per capita Chicago governments Amount Percent (dollars) Airports 4o,o83 _ 40,083 2.0 11.90 Water transport and terminals - - 1,399 0.1 0.41 Parking facilities 8,277 1,399(CRPD) 9,911 1/ 8,277 0.4 2.46 Other 7,888 17,799 0.9 5.29 Special assessments 4,405 4,405 0.2 1.31 Sale of property 6,926 262 7,188 0.4 2.13 Housing and urban renewal k^lk 4,114 0.2 1.22 Other 2,812 262 (OCp) 21,597 2/ 3,074 0.2 0.91 Interest earnings 14,130 35 , 727 1.8 10.61 Fines and forfeits Other and unallocable 13,516 2,535 435 (CCp) 14, 860 2/ 13,951 17,395 0.7 0.9 4.15 5.17 Utility revenue 59,729 172,163 231,892 11.4 68.87 Water 59,729 - 59,729 2-9 17.74 Transit 172,163(CTA) 172,163 8.5 51.13 Note: CBE-Chicago Board of Education CC-City Colleges of Chicago CCo-Cook County CHA-Chicago Housing Authority CPD-Chicago Park District CRPD-Chicago Regional Port District CTA-Chicago Transit Authority MFE-Metropolitan Fair and Exposition MSD-Metropolitan Sanitary District NCC-North Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District SCCMD-So. Cook County Mosquito District Because of rounding detail may not add to totals. -Represents zero or rounds to zero, (z) Less than .05 percent. 1 Excludes intergovernmental transfers from local governments and employee-retirement system revenues; see text. Consists of CBE, 181,649, CC, 11,383, and CCo , 310. ^Consists of CCo, 692, CTA, 5,917, and MFE, 1,284. Consists of CBE, 46,839, CC, 1,962, CCo, 226, CHA, 36,938, CPD, 167, and MSD, 2,783. Consists of CBE, 384,528, CC, 24,711, CCo, 62,762, CPD, 48,123, MSD, 38,199, and SCCMD, 289. Consists of CCo, 497 and CPD, 6,022. 'Consists of CCo, 9,910 and NCC, 1. Consists of CBE, 5,957, CC, 817, CCo, 3,071, CHA, 1,395, CPD, 3,665, CRPD, 142, CTA, 1,154, MFE, 2,914, MSD, 2,479, and SCCMD, 4. Consists of CBE, 9,875, CC, 92, CCo 2,823, CPD, 270, MFE, 6l4, and MSD, 1,186. Table 1 Revenue by Source for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Evanston, Illinois: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 56 Total City Other Item of I Evanston governments Amount Percent I Per capita (dollars) Total revenue—' 1 1 , 660 35,931 47,591 100.0 596.32 Intergovernmental revenue 1,335 4,136 5,471 11.5 68.55 From State government 1,335 2,9^3 4,278 9-0 53.60 Education - 2,787^ 2,787 5-9 34.92 Highways 775 - 775 1.6 9.71 General Support Other 560 18 CCCo) 578 138 1.2 -0.3 7.24 1.73 From Federal government - 1,193^ 1,193 2.5 14.95 General revenue from own sources 9,204 28,245 37,450 78.6 469.25 Taxes 7,723 26,515 34,238 71.9 429.00 Property 4,112 26,426^ 30,538 64.2 382.64 • General sales and gross receipts 1,617 27 (CCo) 1,644 3-4 20.60 Selective sales 1,306 - 1,306 2.7 16.36 Public utilities 1,245 - 1,245 2.6 15.60 Other 61 - 61 0.1 0.76 Motor vehicle licenses 500 - 500 1.1 6.26 Miscellaneous licenses 188 - 188 0.4 2.36 Other - 62 (CCo) 62 0.1 0.78 Charges and miscellaneous revenue 1,481 1,730 3,212 6.7 4o.25 Current charges 756 1,119 1,876 3.9 23.51 Education - 804 804 1-7 10.07 School lunch sales - 495^ 495 1.0 6.20 Other local school charges Hospitals - 'iff 309 49 0.6 0.1 3.87 0.61 Sewerage - 20 (MSDC) 20 (z) 0.25 Sanitation other than sewerage 46 - 46 0.1 O.58 Parks and recreation 127 12 (CCo) 140 0.3 1.76 Table 1 Revenue by Source for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Evanston, Illinois: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 57 City of Evanston Other governments Total Item Amount Percent Per capita (dollars) Parking facilities Other Sale of property, other Interest earnings Fines and forfeits Other and unallocable Utility revenue Water Transit 386 197 157 247 293 28 1,121 1,121 234 (CCo) 6 ICCo) 347 -^ 3,550 3,550 (CTA) 386 431 163 594 320 259 4,671 1,121 3,550 0.8 0.9 0.3 1.2 0.7 0.5 9-9 2.4 7-5 4.84 5.40 2.04 7.44 4.01 3.25 58.53 14.05 44.48 Note: CCo-Cook County CTA-Chicago Transit Authority EHSD #65- Evanston High School District #65 EHSD #202-Evanston High School District #202 ET-Evanston Township Because of rounding, detail may not add to totals. -Represents zero or rounds to zero, (z) Less than .05 percent. MSDC-Metropolitan Sanitary District of Chicago NSMAD-North Shore Mosquito Abatement District SCCTS-Suburban Cook County Tuberculosis Sanitorium SPD-Skokie Park District Excludes intergovernmental transfers from local governments and employee-retirement system revenues; see text. Consists of CCo, 7, EHSD #65, 2,1 83, and EHSD #202, 597- ^Consists of CCo, 16, and CTA, 122. L Consists of CCo, 6, CTA, 1,032, EHSD #65, 85, and MSDC, 70. ^Consists of CCo, 1,746, EHSD #65, 13,110, EHSD #202, 10,122, ET, 361 , MSDC , 96O, NSMAD, 32, SPD, 6, and SCOTS, 89. Consists of EHSD #65, 217, and EHSD #202, 278. Consists of EHSD #65, 163, and EHSD #202, 146. o Consists of CCo, 17, and SCCTS, 32. Consists of CCo, 76, CTA, 24, EHSD #65, 149, EHSD #202, 34, MSDC, 62, and NSMAD, 2. in Consists of CCo, 58, EHSD #65, 55, EHSD #202, 84, ET, 4, and MSDC, 30. Table 1 Revenue by Source for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Houston, Texas: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 58 City Total Item of Houston Other governments Amount Percent Per capita (dollars) 1/ Total revenue — ' 174,148 238,803 412,949 100.0 334.96 Intergovernmental revenue 5,584 72,393 77,977 19.0 63.25 From State government 1,586 70,131 71,717 17-5 58.17 Education - 69,222^ 69 , 222 16.8 56.15 Highways 299 - 299 0.1 0.24 Health and hospitals - 691 (HCH) 691 0.2 O.56 General support - 50(HC) 50 (z) o.o4 Other 1,287 168(HC) 1,455 0.4 1.18 From Federal government 3,998 2,262^/ 6,260 1.5 5.08 General revenue from own sources 1^7,308 166,409 313,716 75-9 254.47 Taxes 109,801 118,521 U/ 118,27^ 228 , 320 55-3 185.20 Property 68,538 186,812 45.2 151.53 General sales and gross receipts 28,556 - 28,556 6.9 23.16 Selective sales 9,655 - 9,655 2-3 7.83 Public utilities 8,752 - 8,752 2.1 7.10 Other 903 - 903 0.2 0.73 Motor vehicle licenses 58 124(HC) 182 0.1 0.15 Miscellaneous licenses 2,99^ 123(HC) 3,115 0.8 2.53 Charges and miscellaneous revenue 37,507 47,889 85,396 20.6 69.27 Current charges 17,689 39,205 56,894 13.7 46.15 Education - 19,845./ 9,668^ 19,845 4.7 16.09 School lunch sales - 9,668 2.3 7.84 Other local school 9,965^ charges - 9,965 2.4 8.08 Institutions of higher education _ 212(SJC) 212 (z) O.17 Hospitals - 2,308(HCH) 2,308 0.6 1.87 Sewerage 4, 542 - 4,542 1.1 3.69 Sanitation other than sewerage 260 - 260 0.1 0.21 Parks and recreation 1,346 505 (HC) 1,851 0.4 1.50 Housing and urban renewal 1,173(HHA) 1,173 0.3 0.95 Table 1 Revenue by Source for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Houston, Texas: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 59 City of Houston Other Total Item governments Amount Percent Per capita (dollars) Airports 9,104 9,104 2.2 7.39 Water transport and terminals - 10,009(PH) 10,009 2.4 8.12 Parking facilities 1,869 - 1,869 0.4 1.52 Other 568 5,365(HC) 5,933 1-5 4.81 Special assessments 2,597 1 ' 726 8V 5,3^ 2,597 0.6 2.11 Sale of property, other 1,503 3,229 0.8 2.62 Interest earnings 9,601 14,944 3.6 12.12 Fines and forfeits 5,334 801 (HC) 6,135 1-5 4.98 Other and unallocable 783 814 1,597 0.4 1.29 Utility revenue 21 , 256 _ 21,256 5-1 17.24 Water 20,492 - 20,^92 ■f-9 16.62 Gas 764 - 764 0.2 0.62 Note: AISD-Aldine Independent School District ALISD-Alief Independent School District CCISD-Clear Creek Independent School District CFISD-Cypress Fairbanks Independent School District GPISD-Galena Park Independent School District HC-Harris County HCH-Harris County Hospitals HCSCD-Harris Co. Soil Conservation District HHA-Houston Housing Authority Because of rounding, detail may not add to total. -Represents zero or rounds to zero, (z) Less than .05 percent. HISD-Houston Independent School District NFISD-North Forrest Independent School District PH-Port of Houston PISD-Pasadena Independent School District SBISD-Spring Branch Independent School District SJC-San Jacinto College 3 Excludes intergovernmental transfers from local governments and employee-retirement system revenues; see text. "Consists of AISD, 1,1 14, CFISD, 393, GPISD, 987, HISD, 52,773, NFISD, 3,762, PISD, 2,060, SBISD, 7,826, and SJC, 307- Consists of CFISD, 12, HC, 86, HHA, 598, HISD, 1,446, NFISD, 9, and PISD, 111. Consists of AISD, 47, ALISD, 173, CFISD, 116, GPISD, 637, HC, 27,209, HCH, 10,246, HISD, 65,328, NFISD, 1,396, PH, 790, PISD, 2,232, SBISD, 9,983, and SJC, 117- Consists of AISD, 174, CFISD, 50, GPISD, 178, HISD, 6,713, NFISD, 634, PISD, 4o8, and SBISD, 1,511. Table 1 60 Revenue by Source for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Houston, Texas: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) Consists of AISD, 133, CFISD, 97, GPISD, 94, HISD, 8,702, NFISD, 3^, PISD, 209, and SBISD, 694. Consists of HC, 141, HISD, 1,5^7, NFISD, 3, PISD, 6, and SBISD, 9. Consists of AISD, 1, CFISD, 17, GPISD, 21, HC, 2,273, HHA, 52, HISD, 2,343, NFISD, 53- PH, 340, SBISD, 237, and SJC, 6. Consists of AISD, 39, CFISD, 15, GPISD, 10, HC, 586, HISD, 123, and PISD, 41. Table 1 Revenue by Source for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Pasadena, Texas: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 61 Item City of Pasadena Other governments Total Amount Percent Per capita (dollars Total revenue!/ 8,743 Intergovernmental revenue 15 From State government Education School lunch sales Other local school charges Institutions of higher education Hospitals Sewerage Sanitation other than sewerage Parks and recreation Water transport and terminals 15 Education Highways Health and hospitals General support Other 15 From federal government General revenue from own sources 7,322 Taxes 5,417 Property 3,217 General sales and gross receipts 1,498 Selective sales, public utilities 497 Motor vehicle licenses — Miscellaneous licenses Other 205 Charges and miscellaneous revenue 1,905 Current charges 1,398 669 577 6i 21,138 8,891 8,526 8,299^/ 171 (HC) 50(hch; 6(HC) 365^/ 12,247 29,881 8,906 8,541 8,299 171 50 6 15 365 19,569 100.0 29.8 I 28.6 27.8 0.6 0.2 (z) (■) 1.2 I 65.5 7,316 7,298^ ' 12,733 10,515 42.6 35.2 - 1,498 5.0 9(HC) 9(HC) 497 9 9 205 1.7 (z) (z) 0.7 4,931 4,433 3,117w 1,356*/ 6,836 5,831 3,117 1,356 22.9 19.5 10.4 4.5 682V 682 1 2.3 1,079(SJC) 167 (HCH) 1,079 167 669 3.6 0.6 2.3 37(HC) 577 98 1.9 0.3 724(PH) 724 2.4 334.70 99.76 95.67 92.96 1.91 O.56 0.07 O.17 4-09 219.19 142.62 117.78 16.78 5.56 0.10 0.10 2.30 76.68 65.31 34.91 15.19 7.64 12.08 1.87 7.49 6.46 1.10 8.11 Table 1 Revenue by Source for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Pasadena, Texas: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 62 City Total Item of Pasadena Other governments Amount Percent Per capita (dollars) Other 91 388(HC) 479 1.6 5.36 Special assessments 78 78 0.3 0.87 Sale of property, other 2 3l u 33 0.1 0.37 Interest earnings 45 235-^ 280 0.9 3.14 Fines and forfeits - 58CHC) 174^ & 0.2 O.65 Other and unallocable 382 556 1.9 6.23 Utility revenue, water 1,406 1,406 4.7 15.75 Note: CCISD-Clear Creek Independent School District CLWA-Clear Lake Water Authority DPISD-Deer Park Independent School District HC-Harris County HCH-Harris County Hospitals PH-Part of Houston PISD-Pasadena Independent School District SJC-San Jacinto College Because of rounding, detail may not add to totals. -Represents zero or rounds to zero, (z) Less than .05 percent. •^Excludes intergovernmental transfers from local governments and employee-retirement system revenues; see text. 2 Consists of CCISD, 11, DPISD, 104, PISD, 6,619, and SJC, 1,565. ^Consists of CCISD, 4, DPISD, 1, HC, 4, and PISD, 356. ^•Consists of CCISD, 52, CLWA, 8, DPISD, 770, HC, 1,093, HCH, 436, PH, 32, PISD, 4,312, and SJC, 595. ^Consists of CCISD, 2, DPISD, 42, and PISD, 1,312. Consists of CCISD, 1, DPISD, 9, and PISD, 627. ^Consists of HC, 10, and PISD, 21. Consists of CCISD, 1, DPISD, 13, HC, 165, PH, 25, and SJC, 31. Consists of HC, 42, PISD, 131, and SJC, 1. Table 1 Revenue by Source for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Los Angeles, California: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 63 Item City of Los Angeles Total Other governments Amount Percent Per capita (dollars) Total revenue^ Intergovernmental revenue From State government Education Highways Public welfare Health and hospitals General support Other From Federal government General revenue from own sources Taxes Property General sales and gross receipts Selective sales Alcoholic beverages Public utilities Tobacco products Other Miscellaneous licenses Other Charges and miscellaneous revenue Current charges Education School lunch sales Other local school charges Institutions of higher education Highways Hospitals Sewerage 776,510 76,162 70,463 28,311 20,630 21,522 5,699 440,286 308,959 166,283 131,327 68,489 7,866 772 186 1,382,517 573,602 559,599 181,433^ 26,383(LAC) 303, 498 (LAC) 12,742^ 25,6l9(LAC) 9,924^ 14,0035/ 782,450 628,646 615,1306/ 68,564 7,7792/ 32,294 1,583 6,295 - 2,068 441 (LAC) - 701 (LAC) 23,931 441 (LAC) 40,936 2,875(LAC) 882 1,279(LAC) 2,159,027 649,764 630,062 181,433 54,694 303,498 12,742 46,249 31,446 19,702 1,222,736 153,804 118,057 30,568 16,529^ 9,289^/ 4,750(LAJC) 62,556 124(LACSD) 781,413 285,131 186,546 30,568 16,529 9,289 4,750 7,866 63,328 310 100.0 30.1 29.2 8.4 2.5 14.1 0.6 2.1 1.5 0.9 56.7 937,605 i 43-4 36.2 76,343 1 3.6 33,877 1.5 6,295 | 0.3 2,509 i 0.1 701 (z) 24,372 1.1 43,811 2.0 2,l6l j 0.1 13.3 8.6 1.4 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.4 2.9 (z) 766.68 230.74 223.74 64.43 19.42 107.77 4.53 16.42 11.17 7.00 434.20 332.95 277.48 27.11 12.03 2.24 0.89 0.25 8.65 15.56 0.77 101.25 66.24 10.86 5.87 3.30 1.69 2.79 22.49 0.11 Table 1 Revenue by Source for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Los Angeles, California: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 6A City of Other Total Item Los Angeles governments Amount Percent Per capita (dollars) Sanitation other than ' sewerage 495 - 495 (z) 0.17 Parks and recreation 7,158 4,086(LAC) 11,244 0.5 3.99 Housing and urban renewal 447 7,157(LACHA) 7,604 0.4 2.70 Airports 27,860 70(LAC) , 27,930 1.3 9.92 Water transport and terminals 15,908 - 15,908 0.7 5.65 Parking facilities 1,460 - 1,460 0.1 0-52 Miscellaneous commercial activities 76(CWB) 76 (■) 0.03 Other 6,337 13,420^/ 19,757 ! 0.9 7.01 Special assessments 13,181 5(LACSD) 13,186 ! 0.6 4.68 Sale of property 5,703 2,177 7,880 | 0.4 2.80 Housing and urban renewal 4,011 ■ 4,011 ; 0.2 1.43 Other 1,692 2,177^ 1 25,981^ 3,869 | 0.2 1.37 Interest earnings 27,634 53,615 ! 2.5 19.04 Fines and forfeits . 15,371 5,147(LAC) 20,518 1.0 7.29 Other and unallocable 949 2,437^ 3,386 ! 0.2 1.20 Jtility revenue 260,062 26,465 i 286,527 13.2 101.74 Water 60,937 1 6,769(MWD) 67,706 ; 3.1 24.04 Electric 199,125 - 199,125 9.2 70.71 Transit 1 k 19,696(SCRT) , 19,696 0.9 6.99 Note: BHUSD-Beverly Hills Unified School Dist. BUSD-Burbank Unified School District CWB-Central and West Basin Water Replenishment Dist. ECJC-E1 Camino Junior College IUSD-Inglewood Unified School Dist. LAC-Los Angeles County LACHA-Los Angeles City Housing Authority LACSD-Los Angeles County Sanitation Dist. LAJC-Los Angeles Junior College LAUSD-Los Angeles Unified School District LVUSD-Las Virgenes Unified School District MAD-Mosquito Abatement District MWD-Metropolitan Water District SCRT-Southern California Rapid Transit SMUSD-Santa Monica Unified School District Table 1 65 Revenue by Source for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Los Angeles i California: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) Because of rounding, detail may not add to totals. -Represents zero or rounds to zero, (z) Less than .05 percent. ^-Excludes intergovernmental transfers from local governments and employee-retirement system revenues; see text. Consists of BHUSD, 32, BUSD, 11, LAC, 1,967, LAJC, 10,025, LAUSD, 169,396 and LVUSD, 2. ^Consists of LAC, 12,734 and MAD, 8. ^Consists of LAC, 9,192, MWD, 591, and SCRT, 141. 5Consists of BUSD, 12, LAC, 3,576, LACHA, 5,986, LACSD, 28, LAJC, 557, LAUSD, 3,553, MWD, 158, and SCRT, 133. Consists of BHUSD, 12, BUSD, 3, CWB, 18, ECJC, 9, IUSD, 72, LAC, 238,408, LACSD, 304, LAJC~T32,571, LAUSD, 329,863, MAD, 145, MWD, 13,713, and SMUSD, 12. Consists of LAC, 4,533, and SCRT, 3,246. Consists of BHUSD, 7, BUSD, 2, and LAUSD, 16,520. Consists of BHUSD, 2, BUSD, 1, LAC, 496, and LAUSD, 8,790. 10 Consists of LAC, 13,418, and MAD, 2. 11 Consists of LAC, 1,313, and LAJC, 864. 12 Consists of BUSD, 9, CWB, 25, LAC, 12,231, LACHA, 225, LACSD, 49, LAJC, 877, LAUSD, 9,115, MWD, 3,138, and SCRT, 312. 13Consists of LAC, 1,210, LAUSD, 1,133, and MWD, 94. Table 1 Revenue by Source for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Burbank, California: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 66 Item City of Burbank Total Other governments , Amount Percent Per capita (dollars) Total revenue Intergovernmental revenue From State government Education Highways Public welfare Health and hospitals General support Other From Federal government General revenue from own sources Taxes Property General sales and gross receipts Selective sales Public utilities Tobacco products Other Miscellaneous licenses Other Charges and miscellaneous revenue Current charges Education School lunch sales Other local school charges Institutions of higher) education Highways Hospitals I Sewerage Sanitation other than sewerage 26,658 2,167 2,151 799 699 653 16 12,096 8,747 4,811 2,671 992 934 58 273 3,349 2,154 44,687 16,704 12,492 3 835 4,212V 26,717 23,501 23,033^/ 277 6/ 61 17(LAC) 27 (LAC) 17(LAC) 90 (LAC) 40(LAC) 3,216 2,203 1,166 601(BUSD) 3672/ 198(LAJC) 37(LAC) 423(LAC) ; 71,345 I 18,871 ' 14,643 4,0212/ \ 4,021 854 (LAC) : 1,653 5,405(LAC) 5,405 1,094(IAC) 1,094 806(LAC) ! 1,505 312^ 965 j 4,228 f 38,813 '32,248 ; 27,844 2,948 1,053 I 951 27 75 363 40 6,565 4,357 1,166 601 367 198 37 423 3 835 100.0 26.5 20.6 5.6 2.3 7.6 1.6 2.1 1.4 5.9 54.3 45.1 39.0 4.1 1.4 1.3 (z) 0.1 0.5 0.1 9.2 6.1 1.6 0.8 0.5 0.3 /(z) 0.6 (z) 1.2 802.79 212.34 164.77 ! 45.25 18.60 j 60.82 12.31 j 16.93 I 10.86 47.57 : 1 j 436.74 ! 362.86 \ 313.31 33.17 11.84 10.70 i 0.30 0.84 4-09 0.45 73.88 49.03 13.12 [ 6.76 i 4.13 2.23 O.42 4.76 0.03 9.40 Table 1 Revenue by Source for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Burbank, California: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 67 i Total City i ~^ of , Other i Per capita Item Burbank governments Amount Percent (dollars) _ . Parks and recreation 420 128 (LAC) 548 0.8 6.17 Airports - 2(LAC) 2 (a) 0.02 Parking facilities 80 - 80 0.1 0.90 Other 816 447(LAC) 1,263 1.8 14.21 Special assessments 32 „ / 32 (■) 0.36 Sale of property, Other 86 80*/ 166 0.2 1.87 Interest earnings 645 693^ 1,338 1.9 15.06 Fines and forfeits 377 162 (LAC) 539 0.8 6.06 Other and unallocable 55 78^ 133 0.2 1.50 Utility revenue 12,395 1,266 13,661 19.2 153.71 Water 2,427 642(MWD) 3,069 4.3 34.53 Electric 9,968 - 9,968 14.0 112.16 Transit 1 624(SCRT) 624 0.9 7.02 Note: BUSD-Burbank Unified School District LAC-Los Angeles County LAJC-Los Angeles Junior College LAUSD-Los Angeles Unified School District MWD-Metropolitan Water District SCRT-Southern California Rapid Transit Because of rounding, detail may not add to totals. -Represents zero or rounds to zero. (z) Less than .05 percent. ^Excludes intergovernmental transfers from local governments and employee-retirement system revenues; see text. 2 Consists of BUSD, 3,546, LAC, 57, and LAJC, 418. ^Consists of LAC, 289, MWD, 19, and SCRT, 4. ^Consists of BUSD, 4,068, LAC, 112, LAJC, 23, MWD, 5, and SCRT, 4. Consists of BUSD, 10,597, LAC, 10,336, LAJC, 1,394, LAUSD, 77, and MWD, 629. Consists of LAC, 174, and SCRT, 103. Consists of BUSD, 353, and LAC, 14. Consists of LA.C, 41, LAJC, 36, and SCRT, 3. I Consists of BUSD, 171, LAC, 374, LAJC, 37, MWD, 101, and SCRT, 10. 10 Consists of BUSD, 29, LAC, 42, LAJC, 4, and MWD, 3. Table 1 Revenue by Source for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except peg , capita) 68 Total City of Other Per capita Item Philadelphia governments Amount Percent (dollars) Total revenue!/ 558,193 413,277 971,470 100.0 498.55 Intergovernmental revenue 73,769 188,400 262,169 27.1 134.54 From State government 43,046 179,808 222,854 23.0 114.37 Education _ 166,3382/ 166,338 17.1 85.36 Highways 3,599 - 3,599 0.4 1.85 Public welfare 9,999 - 9,999 1.0 5.13 Health and hospitals 18,083 - 18,083 1.9 9.28 Housing and urban renewal 3,579 10,191(PHA) 13,770 1.4 7.07 General support 1,611 3,2792/ 1,611 0.2 0.83 Other 6,175 9,454 1.0 4.85 From Federal government 30,723 8,59247 39,315 4.1 20.17 General revenue from own sources 460,855 179,896 640,751 65.9 328.83 Taxes 357,041 131,881 488,922 50.3 250.91 Property 112,291 95,595(PCS) 207,886 21.4 IO6.69 Selective sales, other 2,086 4,430(PCS) . 6,516 0.7 1 3.34 Income taxes 212,064 1 19,144(PCS) 231,208 23.6 118.65 Motor vehicle licenses 18 - 18 (z) 0.01 Miscellaneous licenses 26,418 - 26,418 2.7 13.56 Other 4,164 12,712(PCS) 16,876 1.7 8.66 Charges and miscellaneous revenue 103,814 48,015 151,829 15.6 77.92 Current charges 50,056 35,930 85,986 8.9 44.13 Education - 9,521 9,521 1.0 4.89 School lunch sales _ 6,043(PCS) 6,043 0.6 3.10 Other local school charges 1 87 (PCS) 87 (z) 0.05 Institutions of higher education - 3,391(PCC) 3,391 0.4 1.74 Highways 145 11,429(DPA) 11,574 1.2 5.94 Hospitals 4,514 - 4,514 0.5 2.32 Sewerage 19,173 19,173 2.0 9.84 Table 1 Revenue by Source for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 69 City of Other 1 Total rer capita Item Philadelphia governments Amounts Percent (dollars) Sanitation other than sewerage 359 - 359 (z) 0.18 Parks and recreation 661 - 661 0.1 0.34 Housing and urban renewal 2,625 13,272(PHA) 15,897 1.6 8.16 Airports 10,317 - 10,317 1.1 5.29 Water transport and terminals 2,302 7 , 2,302 0.2 1.18 Parking facilities 1,466 716 (PPA) 2,182 0.2 1.12 Other 8,494 992 (SEPTA) 9,486 1.0 4.87 Special assessments 142 142 GO 0.07 Sale of property 7,814 - 7,814 0.8 4.02 Housing and urban renewal 6,933 - 6,933 0.7 3.56 Other 881 - 881 0.1 0.45 Interest earnings 11,863 6,125^/ 17,988 1.8 9.23 Fines and forfeits 5,190 ~L, 5,190 0.5 2.66 Other and unallocable 28,749 5,960^-/ 34,709 3.6 17.81 Utility revenue 23,569 44,981 1 68,550 7.0 35.18 Water 23,569 i 23,569 2.4 12.10 Transit ~ j 44, 981 - 7 - ; 44,981 i 4.6 1 23.08 Note: DPA-Delaware Port Authority PCC-Philadelphia Community College PCS-Philadelphia City School Because of rounding, detail may not add to totals. -Represents zero or rounds to zero, (z) Less than .05 percent. PHA-Philadelphia Housing Authority PPA-Philadelphia Parking Authority SEPTA-Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority Excludes intergovernmental transfers from local governments and employee-retirement system revenues; see text. Consists of PCC, 1,825, and PCS, 164,513. Consists of DPA, 71, and SEPTA, 3,208. Consists of PCC, 341, and PCS, 8,251. ^Consists of DPA, 3,213, PCC, 286, PCS, 241, PHA, 1,379, PPA, 34, and SEPTA, 972. Consists of DPA, 16, PCS, 5844, and PHA, 100. Consists of DPA, 1,981, and SEPTA, 43,000. Table 1 Revenue by Source for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Chester, Pennsylvania: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 70 Item City of Chester Total Other governments Amount Percent Per capita (dollars) 1/ Total revenue-^-' Intergovernmental revenue From State government Education Highways Public welfare Health and hospitals Housing and urban renewal Other From Federal government General revenue from own sources Taxes Property Income taxes Miscellaneous licenses Other Charges and miscellaneous revenue Current charges Education School lunch sales Other local school charges Institutions of Higher education Highways Sanitation other than sewerage Parks and recreation Housing and urban renewal Parking facilities Other 5,108 348 348 158 20 170 4,760 4,209 1,933 2,020 107 149 i i I 551 166 14 110 42 19,290 8,798 8,117 6,7352/ 68(DC) 1,055(DC) 17(DC) 242=2/ 681V 7,928 5,473 5,381^/ 92(CSD) 2,455 1,713 130 1(CSD) 49(CSD) 80(DCCC) 329 (DPA) 8(DC) 4(DC) 1,002(CHA) 240 ^ 24,398 9,146 8,465 6,735 226 1,055 20 17 412 681 12,688 9,682 7,314 2,020 107 241 3,006 1,879 130 1 49 80 329 8 18 1,002 110 282 100.0 37.5 34.7 27.6 0.9 4.3 0.1 0.1 1.6 2.8 52.0 39.7 30.0 8.3 0.4 1.0 12.4 7.7 0.5 (z) 0.2 0.3 1.4 (z) 0.1 4.1 0.4 1.2 433.11 162.36 150.27 119.56 4.01 18.73 0.36 0.30 7.31 12.09 225.24 171.88 129.84 35.86 1.90 4.28 53.37 33.36 2.31 0.02 O.87 1.42 5-84 0.14 0.32 17.79 1.95 5.01 Item Table 1 Revenue by Source for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Chester, Pennsylvania: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar Amounts in thousands except per capita) City Total of ; Other Chester governments 71 Special assessments Sale of property Housing and urban renewal Interest earnings Fines and forfeits Other and unallocable Utility revenue Water Transit 4- 21 207 49 108 5 5(DC) 5^52/ 4l(DC) 151(DC) 2,564 1,270(CWA) 1,2941/ Amount 21 5 752 90 259 2,564 1,270 1,294 Percent 0.1 (z) 3-1 0.4 1.1 10.5 5-2 5-3 Fer capita (dollars 0.37 0.09 13-35 1.60 4.60 45-51 22.54 22.97 Note: CCA-Canmunity College Authority DCCC-Delaware County Cqnmunity CHA-Chester Housing Authority College CSD-Chester School District DPA-Delaware Port Authority CWA-Chester Water Authority SEPTA-Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit DC-Delaware County Authority Because of rounding, detail may not add to totals. -Represents zero or rounds to zero, (z) Less than .05 percent. ^Excludes intergovernmental transfers from local governments and employee-retirement system revenues; see text. 2 Consists of CSD, 6,680, and DCCC, 55. Consists of DPA, 150, and SEPTA, 92. ^Consists of CHA, 671, and DCCC, 10. ^Consists of CSD, 4,201, and DC, 1,180. Consists of DC, 211, and SEPTA, 29. Consists of CCA, 1, CHA, 24, CSD, 118, CWA, 219, DC, 62, DPA, 93, and SEPTA, 28. 8 Consists of DPA, 57, and SEPTA, 1,237. Table 2 Expenditures by Function 1'or All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Boston, Massachusetts: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 72 Function City of Boston Other governments Total Amount Percent Per capita (dollars) Expenditure, total Education Local schools City-operated schools only Highways Public welfare Other cash assistance Vendor payments for medical care Other Hospitals Own hospitals Other hospitals ' Health Police protection Fire protection Sewerage Sanitation other than sewerage Parks and recreation Housing and urban renewal Urban renewal projects Other Libraries Financial administration General control Courts Other General public buildings Interest on general debt All other Airports Water transport and terminals Correction Parking facilities Protective inspection and regulation 434,534 115,502 115,502 113,334 13,128 7,104 4,132 2,276 696 50,066 49,819 247 3,004 42,332 25,870 5,423 9,855 12,970 24,819 24,819 14,537 3,656 11,420 8,432 2,988 6,816 14,779 66,172 5,404 1,992 3,319 62,593 1,456(MPA) 10,598 10,598(BHA) 1,367^ 6,631 5,560(MPA) 1,056(MPA) 497,127 115,502 115,502 113,334 14,584 7,104 4,132 2,276 '696 50,066 49,819 247 3,004 42,332 25,870 5,423 9,855 12,970 35,417 24,819 10,598 14,537 3,656 11,420 8,432 2,988 6,816 16,146 72,803 5,560 1,056 5,404 1,992 3,319 100.0 23.2 23.2 22.8 2.9 1.4 0.8 0.5 0.1 10.1 10.0 0.1 0.6 8.5 5.2 1.1 2.0 2.6 7.1 5.0 2.1 2.9 0.7 2.3 1.7 0.6 1.4 3.3 14.7 1.1 0.2 1.1 0.4 0.7 775.46 180.17 180.17 176.79 22.75 11.09 6.45 3.55 1.09 78.10 77.71 0.39 4.69 66.03 40.35 8.46 15.37 20.23 55.24 38.71 16.53 22.68 5.70 17.81 13.15 4.66 IO.63 25.19 113.57 8.76 I.65 8.43 3.11 5.18 Table 2 Expenditures by Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Boston, Massachusetts: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 73 City of Boston Other governments Total Function Amount Percent Per capita (dollars Miscellaneous commercial activities Other and unallocable 597 5^,860 15(BMD) 597 5^,875 0.1 11.1 0.93 85.60 Utility expenditure Water Transit 7,081 6,092 989 ^2,5^+1 ^2,5^+1 (MBT) ^9,622 6,092 ^3,530 10.0 1.2 8.8 77-^0 9-50 67.90 Note: BMD-Boston Metropolitan District BHA-Boston Housing Authority MBTA-Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority MPA-Massachusetts Port Authority Because of rounding, detail may not add to totals. -Represents zero or rounds to zero. Consists of BMD, 1,358, BHA,7, and MPA,2. Table 2 Expenditures by Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Waltham, Massachusetts: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita; 74 City of Waltham Other governments Total Function Amount Percent Per capita (dollars) Expenditure, total 22,979 6,485 29,464 100.0 478.45 Education, city- operated schools 10,002 / / 10,002 34.0 162.42 Highways 909 199 -J 1,108 3.8 17.99 Public welfare 453 _ 453 1.5 7.35 Other cash assistance 175 - 175 0.6 2.84 Vendor payments for medical care 87 - 87 0.3 1.41 Vendor payments, other 10 - 10 (z) 0.16 Other 181 - 181 0.6 2.94 Hospitals, other 81 170(MC) 251 0.9 4.08 Health 126 - 126 0.4 2.05 Police protection 1,461 3(MC) 1,464 5.0 23.77 Fire protection 1,867 _ 1,867 6.3 30.32 Sewerage 863 - 863 2.9 14.01 Sanitation other than sewerage 773 - 773 2.6 12.55 Parks and recreation 736 7(MC) 743 2.5 12.07 Housing and urban renewal - 44(WHA) 44 0.2 .71 Libraries 259 _ 259 0.9 4.20 Financial administration 452 6 (1IC) 458 1.5 7.44 General control 226 . 260 486 1.7 7.89 Courts - 176 (MC) 176 0.6 2.86 Other 226 84 (MC) 310 1.1 5.03 General public buildings 267 740(MC) 1,007 3.4 16.35 Interest on general debt 887 142^/ 1,029 3-5 16.71 All other 3,173 842 4,015 13.6 65.20 Airports - 533 (MPA) 533 1.8 8.66 Water transport and terminals - lOl(MPA) 101 0.3 I.64 Correction - 149 149 0.5 2.42 Parking facilities 33 _ 33 0.1 .53 51.95 Other and unallocable 3,140 59 (MC) 3,199 10.9 Utility expenditure Water Transit 444 444 4,072 4,072(MBTA) 4,516 444 4,072 15.3 1.5 13.8 73.34 7.21 66.13 Table 2 75 Expenditures by Function f or All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Waltham, Massachusetts Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) Note: MBTA-Massachusetts Bay Transit Auth. MPA-Massachusetts Port Authority MC-Middlesex County WHA-Waltham Housing Authority Because of rounding, detail may not add to totals. -Represents zero or rounds to zero, (z) Less than .05 percent. Consists of MC, 60 and MPA, 139. 2 Consists of MC, 55 and WHA, 87. Table 2 Expendit vires by Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas , Chicago, I llin ois: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 76 City of Chicago Other governments Total Function Amount Percent Per capita (dollars) Expenditure, total 799,359 1,236,584 2,035,943 100.0 604.68 Education 8,048 577,151 585,199 28.8 173.80 Local schools 8,048 533,539i/ 541,587 26.6 160.85 Institutions of higher education - 43,6l2(CC) 43,612 2.2 12.95 Highways 59,319 387(CCo) 59,706 2.9 17.73 Public welfare 1,268 101,772 103,040 5.0 30.60 • Other cash assistance - 43,332 43,332 2.1 12.87 Vendor payments for medical care - 14,270 14,270 0.7 4.24 Vendor payments, other - 4,177 4,177 0.2 1.24 Welfare institutions - 2,199 2,199 0.1 O.65 Other 1,268 37,794 39,062 1.9 11.60 Hospitals 9,436 72,055 81,491 4.0 24.20 ■ Own hospitals 9,436 72,055(CCo) 81,491 4.0 24.20 Health 25,023 1,820-^ 26,843 1>3 7.97 Police protection 186,186 _ 186,186 9.2 55.30 Fire protection 64,683 - 64,683 3.2 19.21 Sewerage 24,231 45,937(MSD) 70,168 3-5 20.84 Sanitation other than sewerage 52,317 - 52,317 2.6 15.54 Parks and recreation 7,833 68,931^ 76,764 3.8 22.80 Housing and urban renewal 37,571 58,869 96,440 4.7 28.64 Urban renewal projects 37,571 - 37,571 1.8 11.16 Other - 58,869(CHA) 58,869 2.9 17.48 Libraries 13,621 - 13,621 0.7 4.05 Financial administration 10,582 6,O09(CCo) 16,591 0.8 4.93 General control 8,138 28,329 36,467 1.8 10.83 Courts 165 20,876(CCo) 21,041 1.0 6.25 Other 7,973 7,453(CCo) 15,426 0.8 4.58 General public buildings 23,763 8,950(CCo) 32,713 1.6 9.72 Interest on general debt 33,702 44,241^ 77,943 3.8 23.15 All other 190,239 49,390 239,629 11.7 71.18 Airports 42,416 - 42,416 2.1 12.60 Water transport and terminals - 302(CRPD) 302 _ 0.09 Correction 18 8,588(CCo) 8,606 0.4 2.56 Parking facilities 5,778 — 5,778 0.3 1.72 Protective inspection and regulation 11,202 - 11,202 0.5 3.33 Table 2 Expenditures by Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Chicago, Illinois: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 77 City of Chicago Other governments Total Function Amount Percent Per capita (dollars) Other and unallocable Utility Expenditure Water Transit 130,825 ^3,399 43,399 4o,500 5/ 172,7^3 172,7'+3(CTA) 171,325 216,142 43,399 172,7^3 10.6 2.1 8.5 50.88 64.19 12.89 51-30 NOTE: CBE-Chicago Board of Education CC-City Colleges CCo-Cook County CHA-Chicago Housing Authority CPD-Chicago Park District CTA-Chicago Transit Authority MFE-Metropolitan Fair and Exposition MSD-Metropolitan Sanitary District NCC-North Cook County Soil and Water Conservation District CRPD-Chicago Regional Port District SCCMD-So. Cook County Mosquito District Because of rounding, detail may not add to totals. -Represents zero or rounds to zero, (z) Less than .05 percent. Consists of CBE, 532,992 and CCo, 5^7* Consists of CCo, 1,535, SCCMD, 278, and NCC, 7- ^Consists of CCo, 7,573 and CPD, 61,358. Consists of CBE, 27,772, CC, 2330, CCo, 5,555, CHA, 292, CPD, 4,332, CRPD, 840, MFE, 2,369, and MSD, 751- ^Consists of CCo, 7,788 and MFE, 32,712. Table 2 Expenditures by Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas , Evanston, Illinois: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 78 City of Evan st on Other governments Total Function Amount Percent Per capita (dollars'! Expenditure, total 11,814 25,763 37,577 100.0 470.84 Education, local schools - 19,376 ^ 19,376 51.6 242.78 Highways 905 905 2.4 11.34 Public welfare _ 765 765 2.0 9.58 Cash assistance, other - 263 (CCo) 263 6.7 5.30 Vendor payments for medical care - 87(CCo) 87 0.2 1.09 Vendor payments, other - 25(CCo) 25 0.1 0.31 Welfare institutions - 13(CCo) 377 ^ 78 V 13 C«) 0.l6 Other - 377 1.0 4.72 Hospitals, other - 186 0.5 2.33 Health 403 481 i.3 6.03 Police protection 2,068 _ 2,068 5.5 25.91 ' Fire protection 1,184 - 1,184 3.1 14.84 Sewerage 82 1,155(MSD) 1,237 3.3 15.50 Sanitation other than sewerage 984 - 984 2.6 12.33 Parks and recreation 1,580 179 (CCo) 1,759 4.7 22.04 Libraries 622 - 622 i-7 7.79 Financial administration 175 142(CCo) 317 0.8 3.97 ' General control 302 612 914 2.4 11.46 Courts 69 432(CCo) 501 1.3 6.28 Other 233 ieo^ 413 1.1 5.18 General public buildings 268 2l2(CCo) 480 1.3 6.01 Interest on general debt 283 997^ 1,280 3.4 16.04 All other 2,285 256 2,541 6.8 31.84 Correction - 7l(CCo) 71 0.2 .89 Parking facilities 327 - 327 0.9 4.10 Other and unallocable 1,958 l85(CCo) 2,143 5.7 26.85 Utility expenditure 673 1,805 2,478 6.6 31.05 Water 673 - 673 1.8 8.43 Transit 1,805(CTA) 1,805 4.8 22.62 Table 2 Expenditures by Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Evanston, Illinois: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 79 Note: CCo-Cook County CTA-Chicago Transit Auth. EHSD#65-Evanston Sch. Dist. #65 EHSD#202-Evanston High Sch. Dist. #202 ET-Evanston Township Because of rounding, detail may not add to totals. -Represents zero or rounds to zero, (z) Less than .05 percent. MSD-Metropolitan Sanitary District NSMAD-N. Shore Mosquito Abatement District SCCTS-Suburban Cook Co. TB San- itarium SPD-Skokie Park District Consists of CCo, 12, EHSD #65, 11,757, and EHSD #202, 7,607. 2 Consists of CCo, 230, and ET, 147. ^Consists of CCo, 74 and SCCTS, 112. ^Consists of CCo, 36 and NSMAD, 42. Consists of CCo, 176 and ET, 4. Consists of CCo, 158, EHSD #65, 326, EHSD #202, 491, MSD, 21, and SPD, 1. Table 2 Expenditures by Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Houston, Texas: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 80 Function City Houston Other governments Total Amount Percent Per capita (dollars) Expenditure, total Education Local schools Institutions of higher education Highways Public welfare Vendor payments, other Welfare institutions Other Hospitals, other Health Police protection '. Fire protection Sewerage Sanitation other than sewerage Parks and recreation Housing and urban renewal Libraries Financial administration General control Courts Other General public buildings Interest on general debt All other Airports Water transport and terminals Correction Parking facilities Protective inspection and regulation Other and unallocable Utility expenditure Water Gas 185,666 3 3 18,734 21 21 5,913 24,940 22,710 16,998 9,236 8,552 2,637 4,049 2,658 978 1,680 914 12,957 20,433 7,444 201 57 2,465 10,266 34,911 34,579 332 233,689 168,754,. l68,456v 298 (SJC) 1,991 5(HC) 323 (HC) 1,663(HC) 15,547(HCH) 1,521(HC) 2,298(HC) 587(HC) 1,367(HHA) 393(HC) 3,033(HC) 6,522 4,177(HC) 2,345(HC) 1,455(HC) 13,685^ 16,536 10,378(PH) 3,395(HC) 2,763(HC) 419,355 168,757 168,459 298 18,734 2,012 5 323 1,684 15,547 7,434 27,238 22,710 16,998 9,236 9,139 1,367 3,030 7,082 9,180 5,155 4,025 2,369 26,642 36,969 7,444 10,378 3,596 57 2,465 13,029 34,911 34,579 332 100.0 40.3 40.2 0.1 4.5 0.5 00 0.1 0.4 3.7 1.8 6.5 5.4 4.0 2.2 2 r .2 o;.3 0.7 1-7 2.2 1.2 1.0 0.5 6;.3 8.9 1.8 2.5 0.9 GO 0.6 3-1 8.3 8.2 0.1 340.16 136.89 136.65 0.24 15.20 1.63 0.26 1.37 12.61 6.03 22.09 18'.42 13.79 7 f .49 7.41 l'.ll 2.46 5 t .74 7 r .44 4.18 3.26 1.92 2i.6l 30.00 6.04 8.42 2.92 0^.05 2.00 10.57 28.32 28.05 0.27 Table 2 81 Expenditures by Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Houston, Texas: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) footnotes Note: AISD-Aldine Ind. Sch. Dist. HISD-Houston Ind. Sch. Dist. ALISD-Alief Ind. Sch. Dist. NFISD-North Forrest Ind. Sch. Dist. CCISD-Clear Creek Ind. Sch. Dist. PH-Port of Houston CFISD-Cypress Fairbanks Ind. Sch. Dist. PISD-Pasadena Ind. Sch. Dist. GPISD-Galena Park Ind. Sch. Dist. SBISD-Spring Branch Ind. Sch. Dist. HC-Harris County SJC-San Jacinto College HCH- Harris County Hospitals HHA-Houstcn Housing Auth. Because of rounding, detail may not add to totals. -Represents zero or rounds to zero, (z) Less than .05 percent. ^-Consists of AISD, 2,255, CFISD, 1,271, GPISD, 2,439, HISD, 128,220, NFISD, 7,696, PISD, 4,515, and SBISD, 22,060. 2 Consists of AISD, 69, ALISD, 56, CFISD, 40, GPISD, 72, HC, 3,192, HCH, 84, HHA, 274, HISD, 6,367, NFISD, 368, PH, 1,265, PISD, 323, SBISD, 1,551, and SJC, 24. Table 2 Expenditures by Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Pasadena, Texas Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 82 City of Pasadena Other governments Total Function Amount Percent Per capita (dollars) Expenditure, total 11,609 24,829 36,438 100.0 408.15 Education - 20,073 20,073 55.1 224.84 Local schools - 15,405"^/ 15,405 42.3 172.55 Institutions of higher education - 4,668(SJC) 4,668 12.8 52.29 Highways 2,920 - 2,920 8.0 32.71 Public welfare — 84 84 0.2 0.94 Welfare institutions - 14(HC) 14 (z) 0.l6 Other - 70(HC) 70 0.2 0.78 Hospitals, other - 1,125(HCH) 1,125 3.1 12.60 Health 80 HO(HC) 190 0.5 2.13 Police protection 1,316 l66(HC) 1,482 4.1 I6.6O Fire protection 150 _ 150 0.4 1.68 ' Sewerage 2,023 - 2,023 5.6 22.66 Sanitation other than ' / sewerage 1,648 — 1,648 4.5 I8.46 Parks and recreation Libraries 442 205 42(HC) 28(HC) 484 233 1.3 0.6 5.42 2.6l Financial administration 207 219 (HC) 426 1.2 4.77 General control 318 472 790 2'.1 *T.P I. I- 8.85 Courts 152 302(HC) 454 1.2 5.09 Other 166 170(HC) 336 0.9 3.76 2.34 General public buildings 104 105(HC) 209 0.6 Interest on general debt 827 1,2083' 2,035 5'.6 22.79 All other 356 1,197 1,553 4.3 17.40 Water transport and terminals - 751 (PK) 751 2.1 8.41 Correction - 246 (HC) 246 0.7 2.76 Other and unallocable 356 200(HC) 556 1.5 6'. 23 Utility expenditure, water 1,013 1,013 2.8 11.35 Table 2 Expendit vires by Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Pasadena, Texas Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 83 Note: CCISD-Clear Creek Ind. Sch. Dist. DPISD-Deer Park Ind. Sch. Dist. HC- Harris County HCH-Harris County Hospitals PISD-Pasadena Ind. Sch. Dist. PH-Port of Houston SJC-San Jacinto College Because of rounding, detail may not add to totals. -Represents zero or rounds to zero. (z)Less than .05 percent. ^■Consists of CCISD, 39, DPISD, 86l, and PISD, 14,505. Consists of CCISD, 23, DPISD, 64, HC, 255, HCH, 6, PISD, 640, PH, 101, and SJC, 119. Table 2 Expenditures by Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Los Angeles, California: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 84 City of Obher Total Function Amount Percent Per capita Los Angeles governments (dollars) Expenditure, total 822,788 1,359,651 2,182,439 100.0 774.99 Education - 522,803 .. 522,803 23.9 185.65 Local schools - 478, 246 +S 478,246 21.9 169.83 Institutions of higher education - 44,557(LAJC) 44,557 2.0 15.82 Highways 70,379 26,134 96,513 4.4 34.27 Public welfare 214 386,020 386,234 17.7 137.15 Categorical cash assistance - 261, 219 (LAC) 261,219 12.0 92.76 Other cash assistance - S,7l6(LAC) 8,716 0.4 3.09 Vendor payments, other - 8,895(LAC) 8,895 0.4 3.16 Welfare institutions - 328 (LAC) 328 U) 0.12 Other 214 106,862(LAC) 107,076 4.9 38.02 Hospitals 4,243 103,097 107,340 4.9 38.12 Own hospitals 4,243 - 4,243 0.2 1.51 Other hospitals - 103,097(LAC) 103,097 4.7 36.61 Health - 22,269^ 22,269 1.0 7.91 Police protection 105,038 29,649(LAC) 134,687 6.2 47.83 Fire protection 51,821 - 51,821 2.4 18.40 Sewerage 19,852 607(LACSD) 20,459 1.0 7.26 Sanitation other than sewerage 24,609 - 24,609 1.1 8.74 Parks and recreation 39,086 13,735(LAC) 52,821 2.4 I8.76 Housing and urban renewal 16,284 10,633 26,917 1.2 9.56 Urban renewal projects 16,284 16,284 0.7 5-78 Other Libraries 11,573 10,633(LACHA) 10,633 11,573 0.5 0.6 3-78 4.11 Financial administration 12,839 12,540(LAC) 25,379 1.2 9.01 General control 12,008 46,496 58,504 2.7 20.77 Courts - 36,651(LAC) 36,651 1.7 13.01 Other 12,008 9,845(LAC) 21,853 1.0 7.76 General public buildings 15,821 15,128(LAC) 30,949 1.4 10.99 Interest an general debt 16,588 27,168^ 43,756 2.0 15. 54 All other 71,121 93,167 164,288 7.5 58.34 Airports Water transport and 31,449 573 32,022 V5 11.37 terminals Correction 13,658- 61 17,509 13,658 17,570 0,6 0.8 4 r .85 6.24 Table 2 Expenditures by Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Los Angeles, California: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 85 City of Other Total Function Per capita Los Angeles governments Amount Percent (dollars) Parking facilities Protective inspection 1,245 - 1,245 0.1 0.44 and regulation Miscellaneous commercial 1 1 , 267 - 1 1 , 267 0.5 4.00 activities Other and unallocable 13,441 58(cwb) 75,027 58 88,468 (z) 4.0 0.02 31.42 Utility expenditure Water Electric Transit 351,312 83,558 267,754 50,205 27,500(MWD) 22,705(SCRT) 401,517 111,058 267,754 22,705 18.4 5.1 12.3 1.0 142.58 39-44 95.08 8.06 LACSD-Los Angeles Co. Sanitation Dist. LAJC-Los Angeles Junior College LAUSD-Los Angeles Unif. Sch. Dist. LVUSD-Las Virgenes Unif. Sch. Dist. MAD-Mosquito Abatement Dist. MWD-Metropolitan Water Dist. SCRT-Southern Calif. Rapid Transit SMUSD-Santa Monica Unif. Sch. Dist. Note: BHUSD-Beverly Hills Unif. Sch. Dist. BUSD-Burbank Unif. Sch. Dist. CWB-Central and West Basin Water Replenishment Dist. ECJC-E1 Camino Junior College IUSD-Inglewood Unif. Sch. Dist. LAC-Los Angeles County LACHA-Los Angeles City Housing Authority Because of rounding, detail may not add to totals. -Represents zero or rounds to zero, (z) Less than .05 percent. Consists of BHUSD, 326, BUSD, 43, LAC, 429, LAUSD, 477,440, and LVUSD, 8. Consists of LAC, 22,111 and MAD, 158. ^Consists of BHUSD, 1, BUSD, 1 , LAC , 6,559, LACHA, 1,112, LACSD, 17, LAUSD, 18,518, LVUSD, 1, and SMUSD, 959- Table 2 Expenditures by Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Burbank, California Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 86 City of Other Total Function Amount Percent Per capita Burbank governments (dollars) Expenditure, total 27,447 36,281 63,728 100.0 717.08 Education _ 16,251.. 14,394-^ 16,251 25.5 182.86 Local schools - 14,394 22.6 161.97 Institutions of higher education - 1,857(LAJC) 1,857 2.9 20.89 Highways 2,014 900(LAJC) 2,914 4.6 32.79 Public welfare — 7,733 7,733 12.2 87.01 Categorical cash assistance - 5,233(LAC) 5,233 8.2 58.88 Other cash assistance - 175 (LAC) 175 0.3 1.97 Vendor payments, other - 178(LAC) 178 0.3 2.00 Welfare institutions - 6 (LAC) 6 (■) 0.07 Other - 2, 141 (LAC) 2,141 3.4 24.09 Hospitals, other - 697 (LAC) 697 1.1 7.84 Health 12 696(LAC) 708 1.1 7.97 Police protection 2,856 933(LAC) 3,789 6.0 42.63 Fire protection 2,173 — 2,173 3.^ <4..45 Sewerage 310 - 310 0.5 3.49 Sanitation other than sewerage 1,069 - 1,069 1.7 12.03 Parks and recreation 1,992 432(LAC) 2,424 3.8 27.27 Libraries 640 - 640 1.0 7.20 Financial administration 904 395(LAC) 1,299 2.0 14.62 General control 727 1,216 1,943 3.0 21.87 Courts 177 906 (LAC) 1,083 1.7 12.19 Other 550 310(LAC) 860 i.3 9.68 General public buildings 351 476 (LAC) 827 i.3 9.31 Interest an general debt 271 409-2/ 680 1.1 7.65 All other 2,968 2,992 5,960 9.3 67.O6 Airports - 18(IAC) 18 (z) 1.0 0.20 Correction - 613 (LAC) 613 6'.90 Parking facilities 346 — 346 0.5 3^89 56.07 Other and unallocable 2,622 2,36l(LAC) 4,983 r.s Utility expenditure 11,160 3,151 14,311 22.4 161.03 Water Electric Transit 1,955 9,205 2,431 (MWD) 720(SCRT) 1 4,386 9,205 720 6.9 14.4 1.1 49.35 103.57 8.10 87 Table 2 Expenditures by Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Burbank, California: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) Note: BUSD-Burbank Unif. Sch. Dist. LAC-Los Angeles County LAJC-Los Angeles Junior College LAUSD-Los Angeles Unif. Sch. Dist. MWD-Metropolitan Water Dist. SCRT-Southern Calif. Rapid Transit Because of rounding, detail may not add to totals -Represents zero or rounds to zero, (z) Less than .05 percent. Consists of BUSD, 14,180 and LAC, 214. 2 Consists of BUSD, 94, LAC, 272, LAJC, 41, and LAUSD, 2. Table 2 Expenditures by Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 88 City of Philadelphia Other governments Total Function Amount Percent Per capita (dollars) Expenditure, total 601,973 469,071 1,071,044 100.0 549.65 Education 5,527 339,816 345,343 32.2 177.23 Local schools 5,527 333, 279 (PCS) 338,806 31.6 173.87 Institutions of higher education - 6,537(PCC) 6,537 0.6 3.36 Highways 20,369 3,58l(DPA) 23,950 2.2 12.29 Public welfare 19,376 _ 19,376 1.8 9.94 Vendor payments, other 257 - 257 (z) 0.13 Welfare institutions 4,296 - 4,296 0.4 2.20 Other 14,823 - 14,823 i.4 7.6l Hospitals 37,264 - 37,264 3.5 19.12 Own hospitals 32,037 - 32,037 3.0 16.44 Other hospitals 5,227 - 5,227 0.5 2.68 Health 15,724 - 15,724 *s$ 8.07 Police protection 35,144 _ 85,144 8.0 43.70 Fire protection 31,621 - 31,621 3.0 16.23 Sewerage 14,751 - 14,751 1.4 7.57 Sanitation other than sewerage 30,237 - 30,237 2.8 15.52 Parks and recreation 46,249 - 46,249 4.3 23.73 Housing and urban renewal 48,343 34,191 82,534 7.7 42.36 Urban renewal projects 45,339 - 45,339 4.2 23.27 Other 3,004 34,191(PHA) 37,195 3.5 19.09 Libraries 9,644 - 9,644 0.9 4.95 Financial administration 12,568 — 12,568 1.2 6.45 General control 31,002 - 31,002 2.9 15.91 Courts 20,699 - 20,699 1.9 10.62 Other General public buildings 10,303 9,610 _ 10,303 9,6lO l'.O 0.9 5.29 4|. 93 31.90 Interest on general debt 33,597 28,570-^ 62,167 5'.8 All other Airports Water transport and 125,113 17,593 628 125,741 17,593 11.7 1.6 64 t . 53 9 t .03 terminals Correction Parking facilities Protective inspection 20,244 22,490 2,853 196 (DPA) 432(PPA) 20,440 22,490 3,285 V9 2.1 0.3 10.49 11.54 I.69 and regulation 7,482 ™ 7,482 0.7 3.84 Table 2 Expenditures by Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 89 City of Philadelphia Other governments Total Function Amount Percent Per capita (dollars) Other and unallocable Utility expenditure Water Transit 5M51 25,83** 25,83*+ 62,285 62,285 ^ 5M51 88,119 25,83^ 62,285 5.1 8.2 2. if 5-8 27.9^ 45.22 13.26 31.96 Note; DPA-Delaware Port Authority PCC-Philadelphia Community College PCS -Philadelphia City Schools PHA-Philadelphia Housing Authority PPA-Philadelphia Parking Authority SEPTA-Southeastern Pa. Transit Authority Because of rounding, detail may not add to totals. -Represents zero or rounds to zero, (z) Less than .05 percent. Consists of FCC, 15,919, PPA, 360, PHA, 8,821, and DPA, 3,^70. ^Consists of DPA, 3,206 and SEPTA, 59,079- Table 2 Expenditures by Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Chester, Pennsylvania: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 90 City of Other Total Function Chester governments Amount Percent Per capita (dollars) Expenditure, total 6,429 22,431 28,860 100.0 512.33 Education - 11,364 . 11,179 -' 11,364 39-3 201.73 Local schools - 11,179 38.7 198.45 Institutions of higher education 185(DCCC) 185 '' 0.6 3.28 Highways 550 103(DPA) ' 653 2.3 11.59 Public welfare - 2,987 2,987 10.3 53.03 Welfare institutions - 1,887 (DC) 1,887 6.5 33.50 Other - 1,100 (DC) 1,100 3-8 19.53 Health 86 103(DC) 189 0.7 3.36 Police protection 1,403 71 (DC) 1,474 5.1 26.17 Fire protection 535 - 535 1-9 9.50 Sewerage 390 - 390 1.4 6.92 Sanitation other than sewerage if 61 171 (DC) 632 2.2 11.22 Parks and recreation 660 25(DC) 685 2.4 12.16 Housing and urban renewal , other - 1,108(CHA) 1,108 3.8 19.67 Libraries 63 - 63 0.2 1.12 Financial administration 348 108(DC) 456 1.6 8.10 General control 238 654 892 3.1 15-84 Courts - 4i4(dc) 41 4 1.4 7-35 Other 238 24o(DC) 478 1-7 8.49 General public buildings 59 100(DC) 159 0.5 2.82 Interest on general debt 385 463 & 848 2-9 15.05 All other 1,251 1,371 2,622 9-1 46.54 Water transport and terminals - 6(DPA) 6 (2) 0.11 Correction - 1,119(DC) 1,119 3.9 19.86 Parking facilities 120 — 120 0.4 2.13 Other and unallocable 1,131 246 y 1,377 4.8 24.44 Utility expenditure - 3,803 3,803 13.2 67.51 Water Transit - 1,971(CWA) 1,832^ 1,971 1,832 6.8 6.4 34.99 32.52 Table 2 Expenditures by Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Chester, Pennsylvania: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Dollar amounts in thousands except per capita) 91 Note: CHA-Chester Housing Authority CSD-Chester School District CWA-Chester Water Authority CCA-Community College Authority DC-Delaware County DCCC-Delaware County Community College DPA-Delaware Port Authority SEPTA-Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority Because of rounding, detail may not add to totals. -Represents zero or rounds to zero, (z) Less than .05 percent. 1 Cansists of DC, 5 and CSD, 11,174. Consists of DC, 78, CSD, 59, CHA, 221, DPA, 100, and CCA, 5. ^Consists of DC, 226 and DPA, 20. ^Consists of DPA, 133 and SEPTA, 1,699. Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Boston, Massachusetts: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 92 Prorated Amount Annual annual Debt prorated to service service Government and type of debt outstanding Boston expenditure expenditure All local governments in Boston City area Total debt 1,001,868 535,049 31,375 iw NA p^ 20,243 i / NA p^- 7 Long-term debt 837,715 428,808 NA iU 60,010 p NA i^t 45,249 p General debt 516,744 331,902 NA NA Full faith and credit 358,124 292,571 NA NA Nonguaranteed 158,620 39,331 NA NA Utility debt 320,971 96,906 NA NA Full faith and credit 26,893 26,893 989 i NA p 989 i NA p Nonguaranteed 294,078 70,013 NA i NA i Short-term debt 164,153 106, 24l 140 p / NA i^ NA p^ 140 p 7 na q NA p^ Boston City Total debt 339,281 339,281 15,975 i-,/ NA p^ 15,975 iw NA p^ Long-term debt 249,728 249,728 14,297 i 20,508 p 14,297 i 20,508 p Full faith and credit 236,013 236,013 NA NA Nonguaranteed 13,715 13,715 NA NA General debt 220 , 470 220,470 NA NA Full faith and credit 209,120 209,120 NA NA Education 32,095 32,095 NA NA Highways 23,100 23 , 100 NA NA Hospitals 1,499 1,499 NA NA Housing and urban renewal 34,000 34,000 NA NA Parks and recreation 619 619 NA NA Sewers 9,260 9,260 NA NA Other and unallocable 108,547 108,547 NA NA Nonguaranteed 11,350 11,350 NA NA Housing and urban renewal 1,750 1,750 NA NA Parking facilities 9,600 9,600 504 i NA p 504 i NA p Utility debt 29,258 29,258 NA NA Full faith and credit Transit 26,893 26,893 989 i NA p 989 i NA p Nonguaranteed Water 2,365 2,365 NA i 140 p NA i 140 p Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Boston, Massachusetts: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 93 Prorated Amount Annual annual Debt prorated to service service Government and type of debt outstanding Boston expenditure expenditure Boston City (continued) Short-term debt Housing and urban renewal 89,553 89,553 1,678 i NA pi/ 1,678 i NA pi/ Boston Housing Authority Long-term general full faith and credit debt Housing and urban renewal 24,663 24,663 7 i 19,234 p 7 i 19,234 p Boston Metropolitan District Long-term general full faith and credit debt Other and unallocable 124, 3^1 58,788 2,872 i 4,834 p 1,358 i 2,285 P Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority 351,713 81,562 12,511 i,/ NA p^ Total debt 2,901 i . NA p^ Long-term utility nonguaranteed debt NA ii/ Transit 291,713 67,648 NA 12/ 6,898 p 1,600 p Short-term debt Transit 60,000 13,91^ NA ±1/ NA p2/ NA ii/ NA p2/ Massachusetts Port Authority Total debt 161 , 870 30,755 10 v NA ir 7 NA p^ Long-term general nonguaranteed debt NA ii/ NA ii/ Water transport and terminals 147,270 27,981 8,536 p 1,622 p Short-term debt Water transport and terminals 14,600 2,774 NA i2/ NA pi/ NA 12/ NA pi/ Because of rounding detail may not add to totals. i Interest. p Principal. NA Not available. Principal payments for short term debt are not available. Interest expenditures can be displayed for total debt but not for long-term or short-term debt separately. Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Waltham, Massachusetts: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 9A Government and type of debt Debt outstanding Amount prorated to Waltham Annual service expenditure Prorated annual service expenditure All local governments in Waltham City area Total debt Long-term debt General debt Full faith and credit Nonguaranteed Utility debt Full faith and credit Nonguaranteed Short-term debt Waltham City Total debt Long-term general full faith and credit debt Education Other and unallocable Long-term utility Full faith and credit Water Middlesex County Total debt Long-term general full faith and credit debt Other and unallocable 561,015 484,252 192,539 4l,998 150,5^1 291,713 291,713 76,763 16,180 16,180 10,955 5,225 27,968 25,818 31,471 29,764 23,288 17,337 5,951 6,476 6,4 7 6 1,707 16 , 180 16,180 10,955 5,225 1,253 1,157 14,718 i NA p NAl/ NA NA i 2,620 p NA NA i 6,908 p NA i 6,908 1/ NA ±1 887 i 1,655 P NA i 1,645 p NA i 885 p NA i 760 p s> 1,223 i NA p3/ 585 ii/ 975 P 1 ,307 i NA P NAl/ NA NA i 2 ,620 NA P NA i 163 P NA i 1/ 163 NA £/ 887 i 1,655 P NA i 1,645 p NA i 885 P NA i 760 p io"pi/ 55 i NA p3/ 26 il/ 44 p Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Waltham, Massachusetts: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 95 Prorated Amount Annual annual Debt prorated to service service Government and type of debt outstanding Waltham expenditure expenditure Middlesex County (continued) Short-term debt 2,150 96 638 d/ NA P 3/ 29 i^ NA P 3/ Hospital 2,100 9k 101 i NA p 5 i NA p Other and unallocable 50 2 537 i 24 i NA p NA p Waltham Housing Authority Total debt 3,284 3,284 87 i NA p 87 i NA p Long-term general nonguaranteed debt Housing and urban renewal 3,271 3,271 NA1/ NAl/ Short-term debt Housing and urban renewal 13 13 NA1/ NA1/ Massachusetts Bay Transit Total debt 351,713 7,808 12,511 i v NA p=^ 278 i . NA p 2 ' Long-term utility nonguaranteed debt Transit 291,713 6,^76 NA ii/ 6,898 p NA ii/ 153 P Short-term debt Transit 60,000 1,332 NAi/y NAi/y Massachusetts Port Authority Total debt 161 , 870 2,9^6 10 h/ NA p 2 ' NA p^/ Long-term general nonguaranteed debt Other and unallocable 147,270 2,680 NA il/ 8,576 p NA ii/ 155 P Short-term debt Other and unallocable 14,600 266 NA ii/ NA p3/ NA il/ NA p3/ Because of rounding detail may not add to totals. i Interest. p Principal. -- Zero or rounds to zero. NA Not available. Interest expenditures can be displayed for total debt but not debt separately. The payment of principal ($10,000) left no utility water debt Principal payments for short-term debt are not available. for long-term or short-term outstanding. Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Chicago, Illinois: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 96 1 ! Prorated Amount Annual annual Debt prorated to service service Government and type of debt outstanding Chicago expenditure expenditure All local governments in Chicago City area Total debt 2,476,374 2,293,040 94,261 i . NA p^ 86,827 iw NA p^ Long-term debt 1,977,780 1,823,314 NA iU 117,644 p 2/ NA i-' 103,261 p General debt 1,735,922 1,613,325 NA i 103,674 p NA i 90,655 p Full faith and credit 1,010,219 901 , 921 NA NA Nonguaranteed 725,703 711, 404 NA NA Utility debt 2^1,858 209,989 9,281 i 13,970 p 8,039 i 12,686 p Full faith and credit 9,335 9,012 NA 3/ NA 3/ Nonguaranteed 232,523 200,977 NA 3// NA & NA p^ NA3^/ NA p^ Short-term debt 498,594 469,726 Chicago City Total debt 1,215,91^ 1,186,027 41,435 v NA p^ 40,264 i . NA p^ Long-term debt 972,743 942,856 32,658 i 46,650 p 31,487 i 45,503 P Full faith and credit 463,298 463,246 13,763 i 28,963 P 13,569 i 28,921 p Nonguaranteed 509 , 445 479,610 18,895 i 17,687 P 17,918 i 16,582 p General debt 796,938 796,938 25,771 i 39,905 P 25,771 i 39,905 P Full faith and credit 462,993 462,993 12,625 i 28,718 p 12,625 i 28,718 p Highways 100,127 100,127 NA NA Sewerage 68,580 68,580 NA NA Parks and recreation 3,900 3,900 NA NA Housing and urban renewal 33,400 33,400 1,109 i NA p 1,109 i NA p Airports 7,000 7,000 NA NA Water transport and terminals 5,900 5,900 NA NA Other and unallocable 244,086 244,086 NA NA Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Chicago, Illinois: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 97 Prorated Amount Annual annual Debt prorated to service service Government and type of debt outstanding Chicago expenditure expenditure Chicago City (continued) Nonguaranteed 333,9^5 333,9^5 13,146 i 11,187 p 13,146 i 11,187 P Highways 101,000 101,000 2,033 i 2,033 i Airports 194,008 194,008 9,888 i 5,902 p 9,888 i 5,902 p Other and unallocable 38,937 38,937 1,225 i 5,285 p 1,225 i 5,285 p Utility debt 175,805 145,918 6,887 i 6,745 P 5,716 i 5,598 p Full faith and credit Water 305 253 1,138 i 245 p 944 i 203 p Nonguaranteed Water 175,500 145,665 5,749 i 6,500 p 4,772 i 5,395 P Short-term debt 243,171 243,171 8,777 i / NA p^ 8,777 U, NA p^ Corporation purposes 136,415 136,415 NA NA Judgement tax fund 3,300 3,300 NA NA Forestry fund 4,000 4,000 NA NA Library 7,775 7,775 NA NA Municipal T.B. sanitarium 5,175 5,175 NA NA City relief fund 8,485 8,485 NA NA Urban renewal 22,694 22,694 NA NA HHFA 4o , 580 4o,58o NA NA Public building commission 14,747 14,747 NA NA Cook County Total debt 197,738 112,968 9,723 i NA pi/ 5,555 i NA pi/ Long-term general full faith and credit 148,038 84,57^ 5,822 i 26,527 P 3,326 i 15,155 P Parks and recreation 35,150 20,081 1,321 i 2,575 P 2,226 Other and unallocable 112,888 64,493 4,501 i 23,952 p 16,255 Short-term debt 49 , 700 28,39*+ 3,901 i x/ NA p^ 2,228 i,, NA p^ Parks and recreation 5,800 3,31'+ 226 i 129 Highways 6,000 3,^28 300 i 1,171 Other and unallocable 37,900 21,652 3,375 i NA p 1,928 NA p Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Chicago, Illinois: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 98 Government and type of debt Debt outstanding Annual prorated to Chicago Annual service expenditure Prorated annual service expenditure Chicago Park District Total debt Long-term general debt Full faith and credit Parks and recreation Nonguarant e ed Parks and recreation Short-term debt Parks and recreation Chicago Housing Authority Long-term general nonguaranteed debt Housing and urban renewal City Colleges of Chicago Total debt Long-term general full faith and credit debt Education Short-term debt Education Chicago Board of Education Total debt Long-term general full faith and credit °. debt Education Short-term debt Education Metropolitan Sanitary District Total debt Long-term general full faith and credit debt Sewerage 79,620 52 , 620 49,015 3,605 27,000 330,356 29,450 29,450 370,039 209 , 630 160,^09 89 , ^07 71,093 79,620 52,620 49,015 3,605 27,000 330,356 29,450 29,450 370,039 209 , 630 160 , 409 52,491 41,739 4,332 i NA p NA NA NA NA 292 i 6,156 p 2,330 i 5,700 p 2,330 i 1,000 p 4,700 pV 27,772 i NA p NA i 18,500 p NA 1,279 i NA p 4,332 i NA p NA NA NA NA 292 6,156 2,330 i 5,700 p 2,330 1,000 4,700 pV 27,772 i NA p NA i 18,500 p NA 1,279 i NA p NA i NA i 3,350 p 1,967 P Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Chicago, Illinois: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 99 Prorated Annual Annual annual Debt prorated to service service outstanding Chicago expenditure expenditure Metropolitan Sanitary District (continued) Short-term debt Sewerage 18,31*+ 10,752 NA NA Chicago Transit Authority Total debt 66,053 64,071 2,394 i 7,225 p 2,322 i 7,008 p Long-term utility full faith and credit debt Transit 9,030 8,759 NA NA Long-term utility nonguaranteed debt Transit 57,023 55,312 NA NA Metropolitan Fair and Exposition Authority Total debt 76,948 47,169 3,864 i 682 p 2,369 i 4i8 P Long-term general full faith and credit debt Other and unallocable 40,000 24,520 NA NA Long-term general nonguaranteed debt Other and unallocable 36,948 22,649 NA NA Chicago Port District Long-term general nonguaranteed debt Water transport and terminals 20 , 849 20,849 840 i 840 i 504 p 504 p Because of rounding detail may not add to totals. i Interest. p Principal. — Zero or rounds to zero. NA Not available. Principal payments for short-term debt are not available. 2 Interest expenditures can be displayed for total debt but not for long-term or short-term debt separately. Expenditures for interest and principal of utility debt are available for total utility debt only. The payment of principal ($4,700,000) left no short-term debt outstanding. Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Evanston, Illinois: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 100 Prorated Amount Annual annual Debt prorated to service service Government and type of debt outstanding Evanston expenditure expenditure All local governments in Evanston City area Total debt 391,815 36,322 14,852 i . NA p-' 1,412 i . NA p-f Long-term debt 322,701 34,235 NA i= 39,124 p NA i& 2,220 p General debt 251,018 30,251 NA i 31,704 p NA i 1,983 P Full faith and credit 248,233 27,466 NA NA Nonguaranteed 2,785 2,785 . NA NA Utility. debt 71,683 3,984 2,554 i 7,420 p 124 i 237 P Full faith and credit 9,030 181 NA NA Nonguaranteed 62,653 69,114 3,803 NA f NA xf, NA p=^ NA / NA p^ Short-term debt 2,087 Evanston City Total debt 10,333 7,366 443 i 598 p 359 i 495 p Long-term general debt 4,703 4,703 283 i 403 p 283 i 403 p Full faith and credit Other and unallocable 1,918 1,918 NA NA Nonguaranteed Parking facilities 2,785 2,785 NA NA Long-term utility nonguaranteed debt Water system 5,630 2,663 160 i 195 P 76 i 92 p Cook County Total debt 197,738 3,223 9,723 i n/ NA p^ 158 L, NA p^ Long-term general full faith i and credit debt 148,038 2,413 5,822 i 26,577 P 95 i 427 p Parks and recreation 35,150 573 1,321 i 2,575 P 22 i 42 p Other and unallocable 112,888 l,84o 4,501 i 23,952 p 73 i 385 p Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Evanston, Illinois: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 101 Prorated Amount Annual annual Debt prorated to service service Government and type of debt outstanding Evanston expenditure expenditure Cook County (continued) Short-term debt 49 , 700 8io 3,901 i / NA p^ 64 i^ NA p-^ Parks and recreation 5,800 94 226 i NA p 4 i NA p Highways 6,000 98 300 i NA p 5 i NA p Other and unallocable 37,900 618 3,375 i NA p 55 i NA p Suburban Cook County T.B. — — — Sanitarium District — Skokie Park District Long-term general full faith and credit debt Parks and recreation 2,577 21 89 i 195 P 1 i 2 P Metropolitan Sanitary District Total debt 89,^07 1,440 1,279 i NA p 21 i NA p Long-term general full faith and credit debt Sewerage 71,093 1,145 NA i 3,350 p NA i 54 p Short-term debt Sewerage 18, 31^ 295 NA NA Evanston High School District #202 550 if/ NA p^ 491 if/ NA p^ Total debt 16,110 14,383 Long-term general full faith and credit debt Education 15,010 13,401 NA i 530 p NA i 473 P Short-term debt NA if/ NA p^ NA if/ NA p^ Education 1,100 982 Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Evanston, Illinois: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 102 Prorated Amount Annual annual Debt prorated to service service Government and type of debt outstanding Evanston expenditure expenditure Evanston High School District #65 Total debt 9,597 8,568 37*+ i 3,399 p 334 i 3,035 p Long-term general full faith and credit debt Education 9,597 8,568 NA ±2/ 699 P NA i2/ 624 p Short-term debt Education NA i.2/ 2,700 pi/ NA i 2 / 2,411 p2/ Chicago Transit Authority Long-term utility debt 66,053 1,321 2,394 i 7,225 p 48 i 1^5 P Full faith and credit Transit 9,030 181 NA NA Nonguaranteed Transit 57,023 1,140 NA NA Town of Evanston — — — North Shore Mosquito Abatement Distric ;t — — Because of rounding detail may not add to totals. i Interest. p Principal — Zero or rounds to zero. NA Not available. Principal payments for short-term debt are not available. 2 Interest expenditures can be displayed for total debt but not for long-term or short-term debt separately. The payment of principal ($2,700,000) left no short-term debt outstanding. Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Houston, Texas: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 103 Prorated Amount Annual annual Debt prorated to service service Government and type of debt outstanding Houston expenditure expenditure All local governments in Houston City area Total debt 1,008,509 840,065 38,454 i . NA p^ 31,742 i , NA p^ Long-term debt 1,002,479 835,201 NA i& 45,356 p NA i^t 39,523 P General debt 888,363 732,497 NA i 42,909 P NA i 37,371 p Full faith and credit 773,363 627,833 104,664 NA NA Nonguaranteed 115,000 NA NA Utility debt 114,116 102,704 5,426 i 2,447 p 4,883 i 2,202 p Full faith and credit 33,068 29,761 NA i 1,007 P NA i 906 p Nonguaranteed 8i,o48 72,943 NA i 1,440 p . NA iV NA p^ NA i 1,296 p / NA ig NA p^ Short-term debt 6,030 4,864 Houston City Total debt 484,016 472,604 18,600 i 23,690 p 18,057 i 23,445 p Long-term debt 484,016 472,604 18,600 i 23,690 p 18,057 i 23,445 p General debt 369,900 369,900 13,174 i 21,243 p 13,174 i 21,243 p Full faith and credit 291,^25 291,425 10,385 i 20,943 p 10,385 i 20,943 p Highways 35,212 35,212 NA NA Sewerage 28,814 28,814 NA NA Parks and recreation 5,058 5,058 NA NA Airport 4,965 4,965 NA NA Other and unallocable 217,376 217,376 NA NA Nonguaranteed 78,475 78,475 2,789 i 300 p 2,789 i 300 p Parks and recreation 10,370 10,370 379 i 200 p 379 i 200 p Airport 68 , 105 68,105 2,410 i 100 p 2,410 i 100 p Utility debt 114,116 102,704 5,426 i 2,447 p 4,883 i 2,202 p Full faith and credit Water system 33,068 29 , 761 NA i 1,007 p NA i 906 p Nonguaranteed Water system 81, 048 72,943 NA i 1,440 p NA i 1,296 p Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Houston, Texas: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 104 Prorated Amount Annual annual Debt prorated to service service Government and type of debt outstanding Houston expenditure expenditure Harris County Total debt 120, 9^1 81,539 4,735 i 8,468 p 3,192 i 5,709 P Long-term general full faith and credit debt 120,941 81,539 4,735 i 3,192 i 8,468 P 5,709 P Flood control 22,665 15,281 867 i 2,135 p 585 i 1,439 P Other and unallocable 98,276 66,258 3,868 i 2,607 i 6,333 p 4,270 p Houston Housing Authority Total debt 7,779 7,779 274 i 274 L, 213 P^ 213 pi/ Long-term general debt ; Nonguaranteed NA ±i/ NA i£/ Housing and urban . renewal if, 801 4,801 1 274 p 274 p Short-term debt NA if/ NA p^ NA if/ NA p^ Housing and urban renewal 2,978 2,978 Clear Lake City Water Authority 1 Harris County Hospital District Long-term general full faith and credit debt Hospitals 3,870 2,609 124 i 84 i 263 p 177 p Harris Soil Conservation District 45,680 30,797 1,876 i Port of Houston Total debt 1,265 i 1,515 P 1,515 P Long-term general debt Full faith and credit Water transport and terminals 13,956 ■ 9,409 NA NA Nonguaranteed Water transport and terminals 31,724 21,388 NA NA Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Houston, Texas: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 105 Government and type of debt Debt outstanding Amount prorated to Houston Annual service expenditure Prorated annual service expenditure Houston ISD Long-term general and credit debt Education full faith 184,051 177,628 6,597 i 7,278 p 6,367 i 7,024 p Northeast Houston ISD 12,355 7,582 599 i .304 p Long-term general and credit debt Education full faith 368 i 187 P Aldine ISD Total debt 19,7^2 1,599 848 i NA p 69 i NA p Long-term general and credit debt Education Short-term debt Education full faith 19,117 625 1,5^8 51 NA i 361 p NA NA i 29 P NA Spring Branch ISD Total debt 5^,618 44,551 1,901 i 918 p 1,551 i 7^9 P Long-term general and credit debt Education Short-term debt Education full faith 52,396 2,222 42,739 1,812 NA i 918 p NA NA i 7^9 P NA Pasadena ISD Total debt 36,722 7,917 1,499 i 1,388 p 323 i 300 p Long-term general and credit debt Education Short-term debt Education full faith 36,722 7,917 1,499 i 1,088 p 300 p 323 i 235 P 65 P Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Houston, Texas: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 106 | Prorated Amount Annual annual Debt |J prorated to service service Government and type of debt outstanding Houston expenditure expenditure Alief ISD Total debt 9,516 1,844 291 i NA p 56 i NA p Long-term general full faith and credit debt Education 9,48o 1,837 NA i NA i 380 p 74 p Short-term debt Education 36 7 NA NA Cypress^Fairbanks ISD Total debt 10,951 1,015 ^31 i NA p 40 i NA p 'Long-term general full faith and credit debt Education 10,782 999 NA i 266 p NA i 25 P Short-term debt Education 169 16 NA NA Galena Park ISD Long-term general full faith and credit debt Education 12,437 1,924 467 i 421 p 72 i 65 P Clear Creek ISD 1 — — — — 1 San Jacinto College Long-term general full faith and credit debt j Education 5,831 677 212 i 130 p 24 i i 15P Because of rounding detail may not add to totals. i Interest. p Principal. — Zero or rounds to zero. NA Not available. Principal payments for short-term debt are not available. 2 Interest expenditures can be displayed for total debt but not for long-term or short-term debt separately. Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Pasadena, Texas: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 107 | Prorated Amount Annual annual Debt prorated to service service Government and type of debt K outstanding Pasadena expenditure expenditure All local governments in V . iloin 1 1 v 'i it;i Total debt 279 , 106 57,137 11,000 i 13,941 p 2,327 i 2,330 p Long-term debt 279 , 106 57,137 11,000 i 13,614 p 2,327 i 2,198 p General debt 261,025 50 , 646 10,200 i 13,294 p 2,035 i 2,028 p Full faith and credit 229 , 301 48,936 NA NA Nonguaranteed 31,724 1,710 NA NA Utility debt 18,081 6,491 800 i 320 p 292 i 170 p Full faith and credit 11,590 — 508 i 150 p — Nonguaranteed 6,^91 6,^91 292 i 170 p 292 i 170 p Short-term debt 3^7 ¥ illW Pasadena City Total debt 26,422 26,422 1,119 i 1,003 P 1,119 i 1,003 P Long-term general full faith and credit debt Other and unallocable 19,931 19,931 827 i 833 P 827 i 833 p Long-term utility nonguaranteed debt Water system 6,491 6,491 292 i 170 p 292 i 170 p Harris County Total debt 120,941 6,519 4,735 i 255 i 8,468 p 456 p Long-term general full faith and credit debt Flood control district 22,665 1,222 867 i 2,135 P 47 i 115 p Other and unallocable 98,276 5,297 3,868 i 208 1 6,333 p 341 p Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Pasadena, Texas: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 108 Prorated Amount Annual annual Debt prorated to service service Government and type of debt outstanding Pasadena expenditure expenditure Port of Houston Total debt 45,680 2,462 1,876 i 1,515 P 101 i 82 p Long-term general full faith and credit debt Water transport and terminals 13,956 752 NA NA Long-term general nonguaranteed debt Water transport and terminals 31,724 ; 1,710 NA NA Harris County Hospital District Long-term general full faith and credit debt Hospitals 3,870 209 124 i 263 p 6 i Clear Lake Water Authority Long-term utility full faith and credit debt Water system 11,590 ~ "" 508 i 150 p ~ "" Pasadena ISD Total debt 36,772 15,701 1,499 i 1,388 p 640 i 593 p Long-term general full faith and credit debt Education 36,772 15,701 1,499 i 1,088 p 640 i 465 p Short-term debt Education — — si- i 300 p 128 p Deer Park ISD Total debt 13,288 1,815 465 i 666 P 64 i 91 p Long-term general full faith and credit debt Education 13,288 1,815 465 i 639 P 64 i 87 p Short-term debt Education 27 p *» P Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Pasadena, Texas: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 109 Prorated Amount Annual annual Debt prorated to service service Government and type of debt outstanding Pasadena expenditure expenditure Clear Creek ISD Long-term general full faith and credit debt Education 1^,712 7hk 462 i 358 P 23 i 18 p San Jacinto College Long-term general full faith and credit debt Education 5,831 3,265 212 i 130 p 119 i 73 p Because of rounding detail may not add to totals. i Interest. p Principal. -- Zero or rounds to zero. NA Not available. The payment of principal ($327,000) on short-term debt left no short-term debt outstanding Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Los Angeles City, California: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 110 Prorated Amount Annual I annual Debt prorated to service service Government and type of debt outstanding Los Angeles | 1 expenditure expenditure : All local governments in i I j Los Angeles City area ■ Total debt 2,912,130 2,158,258 107,724 i . NA pi' 79,756 i ■ . NA pi/ Long-term debt 2,825,809 2,071,937 NA & NA i» 204,722 p 120,720 p General debt 1,489,644 1,055,813 NA i NA i 90,995 P 62,687 P Full faith and credit j 1,263,377 838,028 48,590 i 84,771 p 32,3H i 56,908 p Nonguaranteed 226,267 217,785 NA i NA i 1 I 6,224 p 5,779 p Utility debt \ 1,336,165 1,016,124 47,262 i 36,000 i 1 113,727 P 58,033 P Full faith and credit 403,23^ 110,559 NA NA Nonguaranteed I 932,931 905,565 NA / NAl T/ NA pi- 7 NA . NA i-/ NA p^ Short-term debt 86,321 1 1 86,321 Los Angeles City i 1 Total debt | 1,358,815 1,347,612 48,769 i 48,769 i [ NA p NA p Long-term debt j 1,274,135 1,262,932 44,592 i 44,592 i i 55,552 p 55,552 p General debt 364,173 364,173 12,812 i 12,812 i 18,551 P 18,551 p Full faith and credit 194,555 194,555 6,545 i 14,390 p 6,545 i 14,390 p Highways 125 125 NA NA Sewerage 62,260 62 , 260 NA NA Parks and recreation 31,710 31,710 NA NA Airport 43,990 43,990 1,635 i 1,630 i 1,510 p 1,510 p Other and unallocable 56,470 56,470 4,882 i 4,882 i 12,880 p 12,880 p Nonguaranteed 169,618 169,618 6,267 i 6,267 i 4,161 p 4,l6l p Airport 96 , 900 96 , 900 4,698 i 4,698 i 2,850 p 2,850 p Water transport and terminals 32,490 32,490 1,172 i 1,172 i l,l4o p 1,140 p Parking facility 1,728 1,728 50 i 50 i 101 p 101 p Other and unallocable II 38,500 38,500 347 i 70 p 347 i 70 p Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Los Angeles City, California: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 111 Prorated Amount Annual annual Debt prorated to service service Government and type of debt outstanding Los Angeles expenditure expenditure Los Angeles City (continued) Utility debt 909,962 898,759 32,181 i 37,001 p 31,780 i 36,553 P Full faith and credit 4,195 4,087 NA i 1,685 P NA i 1,652 p Water system 3,445 3,342 NA i 970 p NA i 941 p Electric 750 745 NA i 715 P NA i 711 P Nonguaranteed 905,767 894,672 NA i NA i 35,816 p 34,901 p Water system 233,035 226,044 NA i NA i 8,370 p 8,119 P Electric 672,732 668,628 NA i 26,946 p NA i 26,782 p Short-term debt Housing and urban renewal 8*+, 680 84,680 3,776 i NA p 3,776 i NA p Los Angeles County Total debt 435,950 171,854 16,681 i 28,796 p 6,559 i 11,565 p Long-term general debt 424,435 171,854 16,201 i 28,563 p 6,559 i 11,565 P Full faith and credit 410,182 166,083 15,484 i 27,816 p 6,269 i 11,263 P Flood control districts 358,717 145,245 13,525 i 22,665 5,476 i 9,177 p Other and unallocable 51,^65 20,838 1,959 i 5,151 P 793 i 2,086 p Nonguaranteed Water transport and terminals 14,253 5,771 717 i 747 P 290 i 302 p Long-term utility full faith and credit debt Water system 11,515 481 i 233 P "" Los Angeles Housing Authority 44,037 44,037 1,112 i Total debt 1,112 i NA ipi/ NA pi/ Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Los Angeles City, California: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 112 ! Prorated Amount Annual annual Debt prorated to service service Government and type of debt outstanding Los Angeles expenditure expenditure Los Angeles Housing Authority (continued) Long-term general nonguaranteed debt Housing and urban renewal 42,396 42,396 NA i 1,316 p NA i 1,316 p Short-term debt Housing and urban renewal l,64i 1,641 NA i NA i NA p2/ NA p2/ Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Long-term utility full faith and credit debt Water system 387,064 106,288 12,935 i 3,552 i 1 72,732 p 19,972 p Southern California Rapid Transit 1 District Long-term utility debt 27,624 1 11,077 1,665 i 668 i ! 3,761 p 1,508 p Full faith and credit Transit 46o 184 NA NA Nonguaranteed Transit 27,164 10,893 NA NA Los Angeles County Sanitation Distric t Long-term General full faith and credit debt Sewerage 22,270 463 809 i 875 p 17 i 18 p Central and West Basin Water Replenishment District — — — — Southeast Mosquito Abatement District — — — Los Angeles Unified School District Long-term general full faith and credit debt Education 550,118 450 , 492 22,613 i 18,518 i 35,874 p 29,377 P Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Los Angeles City, California: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 113 Government and type of debt Debt outstanding Amount prorated to Los Angeles Annual service expenditure Prorated annual service expenditure Burbank Unified School District Long-term general full faith and credit debt Education 2,673 3 9 1 * i 561 p NA i 1 P Beverly Hills USD Long-term general full faith and credit debt Education 10,195 15 35^ i 635 1 i 1 P Inelewood USD Long-term general full faith and credit debt Education ^,772 3^ 161 i ^23 p 1 i 3 p Las Virgenes USD Long-term general full faith and credit debt Education 8,858 1 3*+6 i 187 p — Santa Monica USD Long-term general full faith and credit debt j Education 20,730 21 765 i 1,265 p 1 i 1 P Los Angeles Junior College District | 39,02^ 26,361 1,^+19 i 2,7^+5 P Long-term general full faith and credit debt Education 959 i 1,85** P El Camino Junior College District j -- — — — » Because of rounding detail may not add to totals. i Interest. p Principal. — Zero or rounds to zero. NA Not available. Principal payments for short-term debt are not available. 2 Interest expenditures can be displayed for total debt but not for long-term or short-term debt separately. Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Burbank, California: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 1U ' ^— — -^ — — Prorated Amount Annual annual Debt prorated to service service Government and type of debt outstanding Burbank expenditure expenditure All local governments in Burbank City area Total debt 1,456,453 30,129 55,932 i 145,661 p 1,114 i 3,265 p Long-term debt 1,456,453 30,129 55,932 i 145,662 p 1,114 i 3,265 p General debt 1,023,075 17,803 40,598 i 68,286 p 690 i 1,665 P Full faith and credit 1,008,162 16,904 39,855 i 67,487 p 642 i 1,600 p Nonguaranteed 14,913 899 743 i 799 p 38 i 65 P Utility debt 433,378 12,326 15,334 i 434 i 77,376 P 1,600 p Full faith and credit 4o6 , 214 11,981 NA NA Nonguaranteed 27,164 345 NA NA Short-term debt — — — — Burbank City Total debt 14,000 14,000 524 i 1,190 p 524 i 1,190 p Long-term general debt 6,825 6,825 271 i 540 p 271 i 540 p Full faith and credit Other and unallocable 6,165 6,165 245 i 488 p 245 i 488 P Nonguaranteed 1 Other and unallocable 660 660 26 i 32 p 26 i 52 p Long-term utility full faith and credit debt Education 7,175 7,175 253 i 650 p 253 i 650 p Los Angeles County Total debt 435,950 7,130 16,683 i 272 i 28,796 p 48l P Long-term general debt 424', 435 7,130 16,201 i 272 i 28,563 P 48l p Full faith and credit 410,182 6,891 15,484 i 27,816 p 260 i 468 p Flood control district 358,717 6,026 13,525 i 22,665 p 227 i 381 p Other and unallocable 51,465 865 1,959 i 33 i 5,151 p 87 P Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Burbank, California: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 115 Prorated Amount Annual annual Debt prorated to service service Government and type of debt outstanding Burbank expenditure expenditure Los Angeles County (continued) Nonguaranteed Water transport and terminals 14,253 239 717 i 747 P 12 i 13 P Long-term utility full faith and credit debt Water system 11,515 481 i 233 P " Burbank USD Long-term general full faith and credit debt Education 2,673 2,672 94 i 561 p 94 i 561 p Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Long-term utility full faith and credit debt Water system 387,064 4,800 12,935 i 72,732 p 160 i 902 p Los Angeles Junior College District Long-term general full faith and credit debt Education 39,024 1,132 1,419 i 2,748 P 41 i 80 p Southern California Rapid Transit • Long-term utility debt 27,624 351 1,665 i 3,761 p 21 i 48 p Full faith and credit Transit 460 6 NA -- Nonguaranteed Transit 27,164 345 NA — Los Angeles Unified School District Long-term general full faith and credit debt Education 550,118 44 22,613 i 35,874 2 i 3 P Because of rounding detail may not add to totals. i Interest. p Principal. — Zero or rounds to zero. NA Not available. Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 116 Prorated Amount Annual annual Debt prorated to service service Government and type of debt outstanding Philadelphia expenditure expenditure All local governments in 1,936,951 1,791,166 77,543 iw NA p^ Philadelphia City area Total debt 70,047 i, y NA p-f Long-term debt 1 , 707 , 704 1,561,919 NA 1& 66,060 p NA i^f 66,060 p General .debt 1,457,279 1,378,599 NA i 59,496 p NA i 59,496 p Full faith and credit 1,180,648 1,180,648 NA i 56,619 p NA i 56,619 p Nonguaranteed 276,631 197,951 NA i 2,877 P NA i 2,877 P Utility debt 250,425 i 183,320 11,499 i 6,564 p 7,880 i 6,564 p Full faith and credit 119,025 119,025 4,396 i 6,564 P 4,396 i 6,564 p Nonguaranteed 131 , 400 64,295 7,103 i 3,484 i Short-term debt 229,247 229,247 NA p . NA if NA p^ NAp NA if, NA p^ Philadelphia City Total debt 1,082,998 1,082,998 37,993 i NA pi/ 37,993 i NA pi/ Long-term debt 937,062 937,062 NA i2/ 50,411 p NA 12/ 50,411 p General debt 818,037 818,037 NA i 43,847 p NA i 43,847 p Full faith and credit 811,382 811,382 NA i 43,690 p NA i 43,690 p Education 2,^91 2,491 NA NA Highways 9Q,084 90,084 NA NA Sewerage 204,788 204,788 NA NA Parks and recreation 39,098 39,098 NA NA Housing and urban renewal ! 43,382 43,382 2,976 i NA p 2,976 i NA p Airports 50,254 50,254 NA NA Water transport and terminals 51,261 51,261 NA NA Other and unallocable 330,024 330,024 NA i 43,690 p NA i 43,690 p Nonguaranteed Housing and urban renewal 6,655 6,655 457 i 457 i ! ! 158 p 157 P Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 117 Government and type of debt Debt outstanding Amount prorated to Philadelphia Annual service expenditure Prorated annual service expenditure Philadelphia City (continued) Utility debt Full faith and credit Water system Short-term debt Housing and urban renewal Philadelphia Housing Authority Total debt 119,025 1^5,936 196,239 Long-term general nonguaranteed debt [ Housing and urban renewal 113,933 Short-term debt Housing and urban renewal Philadelphia Community College Philadelphia School District Long-term general full faith and credit debt Education Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Long-term utility nonguaranteed debt \ Transit Philadelphia Parking Authority Total debt Long-term general nonguaranteed debt Parking facilities Short-term debt Parking facilities 82,306 369,266 70,500 7,9^8 6,9^3 1,005 119,025 1^5,936 196,239 113,933 82,306 369,266 35,532 7,9^8 6,9^3 1,005 4,396 i 6,564 p 4,396 i 6,56*+ P NA i2/ NA pV NA ±2/ NA pi/ 8,821 i NA p 8,821 i NA p NA i 2,485 p NA i 2,485 P NA i NA p NA i NA p 15,919 i 12,929 P 4,102 i NA p 360 i NA p NA i 235 P NA 15,919 i 12,929 p 2,067 i NA p 360 i NA p NA i 235 P NA Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 118 [■■ Prorated Amount Annual annual Debt prorated to service service Government and type of debt outstanding Philadelphia expenditure expenditure Delaware River Port Authority Long-term general nonguaranteed debt 210,000 99,183 10,348 i NA p 4,887 i NA p Highways 1^9,100 70 , 420 7,347 i NA p 3,^70 i NA p Transit 6o , 900 28,763 3,001 i 1,417 i NA p NA p Because of rounding detail may not add to totals. i Interest. p Principal. — Zero or rounds to zero. NA Not available. Principal payments for short-term debt are not available. "Interest expenditures can be displayed for total debt but not for long-term or short-term debt separately. Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Chester, Pennsylvania: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 119 Prorated Amount Annual annual Debt prorated to service service Government and type of debt outstanding Chester expenditure expenditure All local governments in Chester City area Total debt 3^+3,717 33,980 16,773 i,y NA p^ 1,181 i,, NA p^ Long-term debt 336,267 29,751 NA j~* 3,238 p NA i^ 1,500 p General debt 189,681 20,308 NA i 1,816 p NA i 789 P Full faith and credit 30,589 8,288 NA i 1,592 p NA i 565 P Nonguaranteed 159,092 12,020 7,568 i 22h- p 321 i 22^ p Utility debt 146,586 9, ¥+3 7,570 i 1,422 p 333 i 711 p Full faith and credit — — — — Nonguaranteed 1^6,586 9, ¥+3 7,570 i 333 i Short-term debt 7,h-50 ¥229 1,422 p / NA p^ 711 p^ NA p^ Chester City Total debt 8,325 8,325 385 i 385 i NA pi/ NA pi/ Long-term general full faith ■ and credit debt Other and unallocable ¥335 ¥335 NA i2/ 260 p NA li/ 260 p Short-term debt Other and unallocable 3,990 3,990 NAi/2/ NAl/2/ Delaware County Total debt 25,7^9 1,985 1,018 i NA pi/ 78 i NA pi/ Long-term general full faith and credit debt Other and unallocable 2^,164 1,863 923 i 1,113 P 71 i 86 p Short-term debt Housing and urban renewal 1,585 122 95 i 7 i NA pi/ NA pi/ Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Chester, Pennsylvania: Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 120 Government and type of debt Debt outstanding Amount prorated to Chester Annual service expenditure Prorated annual service expenditure Chester School District Long-term general full faith and credit debt Education Chester Housing Authority Long-term general nonguaranteed debt Housing and urban renewal Chester Water Authority Long-term utility nonguaranteed debt Water system Delaware River Port Authority Total debt Long-term general nonguaranteed debt Highways Long-term utility nonguaranteed debt Transit Delaware County Community College Delaware County Community College Authority Short-term debt Education Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation .Authority Long-term utility nonguaranteed debt Transit 2,090 9,992 1,875 70,500 15,185 210,000 149,000 60,900 2,090 9,992 7,593 2,856 2,028 828 117 1,022 59 i 219 P 221 i 224 p 467 i ^77 P 10,438 i NA p 7,347 i NA p 3,001 i NA p 83 i NA p 4,102 i NA p 59 i 219 p 221 i 224 p 233 i 711 P 41 i NA P 00 i NA P 41 i NA P 5 i NA p 59 i NA p Table 3 Summary of Outstanding Debt by Type of Debt and Function for All Local Governments in Selected City Areas, Chester, Pennsylvania: Fiscal Year JEnding in 1970 (Thousands of dollars) 121 Prorated Amount Annual annual Debt prorated to service service Government and type of debt outstanding Chester expenditure expenditure Because of rounding detail may not add to totals. i Interest. p Principal. — Zero or rounds to zero. NA Not available. Principal payments for short-term debt are not available. 2 Interest expenditures can be displayed for total debt but not for long-term or short-term debt separately. Table k Selected Tax Rates and Service Fee Charges for Local Governments in Selected City Areas; Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 122 Boston, Massachusetts City Area City of Boston Property taxes Hospitals Water Sewerage Boston Housing Authority Housing and urban renewal Massachusetts Bay Transit Transit Waltham, Massachusetts City Area City of Waltham Property taxes Water Sewerage Middlesex County Property taxes Hospitals Waltham Housing Authority Housing and urban renewal $15.68 per $100 of assessed value $77-00 per day - ward only $3.00 per 1,000 cubic feet; $20 annual minimum $1.00 per 1,000 cubic feet of water Average rent in federally subsidized units $61.38 per month; in State subsidized units $77*51 per month Fares (below ground) $0.25 per ride; (surface) $0.20 per ride $11.07 per $100 of assessed value $10 annual minimum; $0.29 per 100 cubic feet up 10,000 cubic feet $k per front foot $4.48 per $100 of city assessed value is for county purposes County hospital - semi-private room $48.57 per day Average rent in federally assisted units, $55*50 per month; in State assisted units, $60.75 per month Chicago, Illinois City Area City of Chicago Property taxes General sales and gross receipts taxes Selective sales taxes: Public utilities Other Motor vehicle licenses Water Cook County Property taxes General sales and gross receipts taxes Chicago Board of Education Property taxes City Colleges of Chicago Property taxes Chicago Housing Authority Housing and urban renewal $2,652 per $100 of assessed value 1% municipal retailers occupational tax; 1% service occupational tax; 1% municipal hotel operation tax 5% gross receipts tax on sale of gas or electricity or transmitting messages by electricity 3% amusement tax Under 35 horsepower, $15 per year; over 35 horse- power, $30 per year Average - $37 per year for a residential unit $0,592 per $100 of assessed value 1% retailers occupation tax; 1% service occupation tax $2,710 per $100 of assessed value $0,216 per $100 of assessed value Average rent $65-13 Table k Selected Tax Rates and Service Fee Charges for Local Governments in Selected City Areas; Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 123 Chicago, Illinois City Area (continued) Chicago Park District Property taxes $0.^88 per $100 of assessed value Metropolitan Sanitary District of Chicago Property taxes SO. 232 per $100 of assessed value Chicago Transit Authority Transit Fare $0. / +0 per ride South Cook County Mosquito District Property taxes Evanston, Illinois City Area City of Evanston Property taxes General sales and gross receipts taxes Selective sales taxes: Public utilities Motor vehicle licenses Water Town of Evanston Property taxes Cook County Property taxes General sales and gross receipts taxes Evanston High School District #202 Property taxes Evanston School District #65 Property taxes Chicago Transit Authority Transit Metropolitan Sanitary District of Chicago Property taxes Northeast Park District Property taxes North Shore Mosquito Abatement District Property taxes Ridgeville Park District Property taxes Skokie Park District Property taxes Suburban Cook County Tuberculosis Sanitarium District Property taxes $0,022 per $100 of assessed value $1.2^+2 per $100 of assessed value 1% municipal retailers occupation tax; 1% service occupation tax 3% gross receipts tax on the sale of gas or electricity or transmitting messages by electricity Under 35 horsepower, $10 per year; over 35 horse- power, $20 per year First 1,000 cubic feet, $6; next 9,000 cubic feet $0.27 per 100 cubic feet $0,106 per $100 of assessed value $0,592 per $100 of assessed value 1% retailers occupation tax; 1% service occupation tax $2.^62 per $100 of assessed value $2,988 per $100 of assessed value Fare $0. I +0 per ride $0,232 per $100 of assessed value $0,086 per $100 of assessed value $0,012 per $100 of assessed value $0,036 per $100 of assessed value $0,232 per $100 of assessed value $0.02*+ per $100 of assessed value Table h Selected Tax Rates and Service Fee Charges for Local Governments in Selected City Areas; Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 124 Houston, Texas City Area City of Houston Property taxes General sales and gross receipts taxes Selective sales taxes: Public utilities Sewerage Water Gas Harris County Property taxes Aldine ISD Property taxes Alief ISD Property taxes Cypress Fairbanks ISD Property taxes Galena Park ISD Property taxes Houston ISD Property taxes Northeast Houston ISD Property taxes Pasadena ISD Property taxes San Jacinto College District Property taxes Spring Branch ISD Property taxes Harris County Hospital District Property taxes Hospitals Houston Housing Authority Housing and urban renewal Port of Houston Authority Property taxes Pasadena, Texas City Area City of Pasadena Property taxes General sales and gross receipts taxes Selective sales taxes: Public utilities $1.80 per $100 assessed value 1% rate 1-997% of gross receipts of gas, electric light, and power companies in cities with a population of 10,000 Monthly sewer service rate: SO. 75 per 1,000 gallons of water used for 9i000 or less; $0.08 per 1,000 gallons for the next 51 1 000 gallons Monthly water charge: $0.66 2/3 per 1,000 gallons for the first 3,000 gallons; SO. 38 per 1,000 gallons for the next 6,000 gallons Monthly gas charge: S2.00 for the first ^00 cubic feet; $1.17 for the next 260 cubic feet; $1.50 for the next 300 cubic feet. $2.02 per $100 assessed value $1.85 per $100 assessed value $1.65 per $100 assessed value $1.82 per $100 assessed value $1.80 per $100 assessed value $1.70 per $100 assessed value $1.8^5 per $100 assessed value $1.88 per $100 assessed value $0.20 per $100 assessed value $1.76 per $100 assessed value $0.63 per $100 assessed value $27 daily rate - semi-private room Average rent per unit $37«99 per month $0.065 1 + per $100 assessed value $1.15 per $100 assessed value 1% rate 1*997% of gross receipts of gas, electric light, and power companies in cities with a population of 10,000 Table 4 Selected Tax Rates and Service Fee Charges for Local Governments in Selected City Areas; Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 125 Pasadena, Texas City Area (continued) City of Pasadena Sanitation, other than sewerage Water Harris County Property taxes Deer Park ISD Property taxes Clear Creek ISD Property taxes Pasadena ISD Property taxes San Jacinto College District Property taxes Clear Lake Water Authority Property taxes Harris County Hospital District Property taxes Hospitals Port of Houston Authority Property taxes Los Angeles City Area City of Los Angeles Property taxes General sales and gross receipts taxes Selective sales taxes: Alcoholic beverages Public utility Other taxes Water Electric Los Angeles County Property taxes General sales and gross receipts taxes Other taxes Beverly Hills USD Property taxes Burbank USD Property taxes Inglewood USD Property taxes $2.50 per month refuse collection $0.65 per 1,000 gallons per month for the first 2,000 gallons; $0.69 per 1,000 gallons per month for the next 18,000 gallons $2.02 per $100 assessed value $1.79 per $100 assessed value $1.73 per $100 assessed value $1.88 per $100 assessed value $0.20 per $100 assessed value $0.55 per $100 assessed value $0.63 per $100 assessed value $27 per day - semi-private room $0.0654 per $100 assessed value !-3597 per $100 assessed value 1% 3% of charges to users of telephone and gas utilities; 3% of charges for residential and 10% of charges for commercial or industrial use of electricity $0,275 per $500 of value - realty transfer tax $6.28 per month - average rate for residential customers $6.96 per month - average rate for residential customers $2.9057 per $100 assessed value 0.25% in addition to the 1% city tax inside Los Angeles City $0.55 per $500 of value - realty transfer tax $3.3217 per $100 assessed value $4.1254 per $100 assessed value $5.2104 per $100 assessed value Table k Selected Tax Rates and Service Fee Charges for Local Governments in Selected City Areas; Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 126 Los Angeles City Area Los Angeles USD Property taxes Santa Monica USD Property taxes El Camino Junior College District Property taxes Los Angeles Junior College District Property taxes Central and West Basin Water Replenishment District Property taxes Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles Housing and urban renewal Los Angeles County Sanitation District Property taxes Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Property taxes Water Southeast Mosquito Abatement District Property taxes Southern California Rapid Transit District General sales and gross receipts taxes Transit Burbank, California City Area City of Burbank Property taxes General sales and gross receipts taxes Selective sales taxes: Public utility Other taxes Sanitation, other than sewerage Water Electric B5.28H per $100 assessed value S3- 3308 per $100 assessed value $0.6259 per $100 assessed value $0.^322 per $100 assessed value $0,003 per $100 assessed value $Vp per month average rent $0.1^06 per $100 assessed value - District 1 $0.0768 per $100 assessed value - District k $0.17^9 per $100 assessed value - District 5 $0.1576 per $100 assessed value - District 8 $0.1700 per $100 assessed value $^9 per acre foot - softened and filtered water $^5 per acre foot - filtered water ).0057 per $100 assessed value Wo Fares : ).30 per ride; $0.05 for a transfer .5300 per $100 assessed values 1% 5% of charges for use of electricity 3% of rent - transient occupancy tax $2.00 per month - single residence charge; $1.50 per month - multi-unit residences $0.20 per 100 cubic feet up to 10,000 cubic feet; $0.18 per 100 cubic feet for the next ^0,000 cubic cubic feet $0.50 per month for first ko kilowatt hour; $0,036 per kilowatt hour next 60 kilowatt hours; $0.02 per kilowatt hour next 200 kilowatt hours; $0.01^5 per kilowatt hour above 300 kilowatt hours Table k Selected Tax Rates and Service Fee Charges for Local Governments in Selected City Areas; Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 " 127 Burbank, California City Area (continued) Los Angeles County Property taxes $2.9057 per $100 assessed value General sales and gross receipts taxes 0.25% in addition to the 1% city tax inside Los Angeles City Burbank USD Property taxes $^.125^ per $100 assessed value Los Angeles USD Property taxes $5.28 i +'+ per $100 assessed value Los Angeles Junior College District Property taxes $0.^322 per $100 assessed value Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Property taxes Water Southern California Rapid Transit District General sales and gross receipts taxes Transit Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Area City of Philadelphia Property taxes Income tax Other tax Hospitals Water Philadelphia City School District Property taxes Income tax Other tax Philadelphia Housing Authority Housing and urban renewal Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Transit $0.1700 per $100 assessed value $^9 per acre foot - softened and filtered water Fares: ).30 per ride, $0.05 for a transfer $ i +. / +75 per $100 assessed value J>% income tax and net profit tax 1% - real property transfer tax $6l per day - ward $12.50 for 6 months with an allowance of 3*000 cubic feet of water $2.10 per $100 assessed value 2% on the unearned income of individuals (e.g., investments in stocks and mortgages held) 2% of gross receipts - general business tax Rents in used house program, 3 bedroom house - $63 per month; k bedroom house - $65 per month; 5 bedroom house - $67 per month Fares: $0.30 per ride; $0.05 for each transfer; school fares $0.15 per ride Chester, Pennsylvania City Area City of Chester Property taxes Income tax Other tax $2,660 per $100 assessed value 1% tax on wages Mercantile tax: $0.10 per $100 wholesale sales; $0.15 per $100 retail sales Table k Selected Tax Rates and Service Fee Charges for Local Governments in Selected City Areas; Fiscal Year Ending in 1970 128 Chester, Pennsylvania City Area (continued) Delaware County Property taxes Chester School District Property taxes Chester Housing Authority Housing and urban renewal Chester Water Authority Water Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Transit $2.25 per $100 assessed value $6.05 per $100 assessed value Average rent per unit, $56.83 per month $0.^3 per 1,000 gallons for the first 25,000 gallons; $0.30 per 1,000 gallons between 25,000 and 250,000 gallons Fares: $0.30 per ride; $0.05 for each transfer; school fares $0.15 per ride Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 129 Boston Maschusetts City Area Section A. Local Governments City of Boston Suffolk County (Suffolk County data are included in the City of Boston financial reports.) School Districts: Boston City School District (Financial data included in the City of Boston reports.) Special Districts: Boston Housing Authority Boston Metropolitan District Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Massachusetts Port Authority (The Massachusetts Port Authority is now classified as a State agency by the Bureau of the Census. However, this authority has been included in the Boston City area finances because of its large expenditures in Boston and to insure comparability with the other k central cities with port authorities.) Section B. Percentage of Local Governmental Finances Assigned to the Boston City Area Local Governmental Finances % Basis of Proration City of Boston (includes Suffolk County) Revenue Expenditures Debt All finances were collected from and used for 100 the municipal area, except a portion of Suffolk County data applicable to Chelsea City, Revere City and Winthrop City. Data for these cities could not be separated from Boston City data. Boston City School District Revenue Expenditures Debt 100 All finances were collected from and used for the municipal area. Boston Housing Authority Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Current charges: Housing and urban renewal Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings Other and unallocable Expenditures: Housing and urban renewal: Other Interest on general debt Debt 100 J The Boston Housing Authority operates inside the city of Boston. Boston Metropolitan District Intergovernmental revenue from State: Other Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings \ 46.95 Population of Boston as a percent of total population of the area served. (Bureau of the Census) Appendix 1 130 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas Boston Massachusetts City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances % Boston Metropolitan District Expenditures : Interest on general debt Other and unallocable Debt ^7.28 46.95 47.28 Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Intergovernmental revenue from State: Other Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Miscellaneous revenue: > 23-19 Sale of property: Other Interest earnings Utility revenue: Transit Expenditures: Utility expenditures: Transit Debt Basis of Proration Assessed value of Boston Metropolitan District inside Boston as a percent of total district assessed value. ( Report of the trustees of the Boston Metropolitan District ) Population of Boston as a percent of total population of the area served. (Bureau of the Census) Assessed value of Boston Metropolitan District inside Boston as a percent of total district assessed value. (Report of the trustees of the Boston Metropolitan District) Population of Boston as a percent of total population of the area served. (Bureau of the Census) Massachusetts Port Authority Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Current charges: Highways Airports Water transport and terminals Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings Expenditures: Highways Interest on general debt Airports Water transport and terminals Debt ^ >19.00 Population of Boston as a percent of total population of the Massachusetts State Economic Area C (Boston). (Bureau of the Census) Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 131 Waltham Massachusetts City Area Section A. Local Governments City of Waltham Middlesex County School Districts: Waltham City School (Financial data included in the City of Waltham reports.) Special Districts: Waltham Housing Authority Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Middlesex Conservation District Massachusetts Port Authority (The Massachusetts Port Authority is now classified as a State agency by the Bureau of the Census. This authority has been included in the Waltham City area finances because of its large expenditure in the Massachusetts State Economic Area C.) Section B. Percentage of Local Governmental Finances Assigned to the Waltham City Area Local Governmental Finances City of Waltham Miscellaneous revenue: Utility Revenue: Water Expenditures: Utility expenditures Water Debt 100 Basis of Proration Services are provided only in Waltham. (Waltham City Water Department) Middlesex County Intergovernmental revenue from State: Health Hospitals Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes: Property Miscellaneous licenses Current charges: Hospitals Parks and recreation Other Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings Fines and forfeits Other and unallocable ^+.^0 Population of Waltham as a percentage of Middlesex County population. (Bureau of the Census) 6.00 Patients of the county hospital who are Waltham residents as a percentage of total county hospital patients. (Middlesex County Hospital) k.kO Population. k.ky Assessed value of Waltham as a percentage of total assessed value in Middlesex County. ( Annual Report of the County Commissioner ) k.kO Population. 6.00 Waltham patients of the county hospital. 4.*+0 Population. Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 132 Waltham Massachusetts City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances % Middlesex County Expenditures: Highways Hospitals Police Parks and recreation Financial administration General control: Courts Other General public buildings Interest on general debt Correction Other and unallocable Debt 3-30 6.00 2.25 } k.ko 2.25 \k.ko k.k8 X k.ko k.k8 Basis of Proration Highway expenditures of the county inside Waltham as a percentage of total county highway expenditures. (Middlesex County Highway Department) Waltham patients of the county hospital. Criminal cases in Waltham as a percentage of total criminal cases in the county. (Middlesex County Court) Population. Criminal cases in Waltham as a percentage of total criminal cases in the county. (Middlesex County Court) Population. Debt service costs provided by Waltham as a percentage of total debt service costs of Middlesex County. (Middlesex County Treasurer) Population. Debt service costs. Waltham Housing Authority Revenue Expenditures Debt 100 Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Intergovernmental revenue from State: Other Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Miscellaneous revenue : Sale of property: Other Interest earnings Utility revenue: Transit Expenditures: Utility expenditures: Transit Debt V 2.22 All units are located in the city and are either city or State financed. (Waltham Housing Authority) Waltham population as a percentage of area served population. (Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Annual Report ) Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 133 Waltham Massachusetts City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances Middlesex Conservation District Intergovernmental revenue from State: Other Expenditures: Health % k.ko Basis of Proration Population of Waltham as a percentage of Middlesex County. (Bureau of the Census) Massachusetts Port Authority Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Current charges: Hospitals Airports Water transport Miscellaneous revenue: Interest Expenditures: Highways Airports Water transport Interest Debt 1.82 Population of Waltham as a percentage of the total population of the Massachusetts State Economic Area C (Boston). (Bureau of the Census) Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 134 Chicago Illinois City Area Section A. Local Governments City of Chicago Cook County (County financial data include data for Forest Preserve Districts of Cook County. ) School Districts: Chicago Board of Education City Colleges of Chicago Special Districts: Chicago Housing Authority Chicago Park District Chicago Regional Port District Chicago Transit Authority Metropolitan Sanitary District of Chicago Metropolitan Fair and Exposition Authority North Cook County Soil Conservation District South Cook County Mosquito Abatement District Section B. Percentage of Local Governmental Finances Assigned to the Chicago City Area Local Governmental Finances City of Chicago Miscellaneous revenue: Utility revenue: Water Expenditures: Utility expenditures: Water Debt: Water \ % 83.00 / Basis of Proration Water hookups inside Chicago as a percentage of total water hookups in Chicago. (Chicago Water Department) Cook County Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education 61.30 Highways O.83 Public welfare 88. 90 General support Other Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes: Property 57-87 General sales 6A-.05 Other 61.30 City population as a percentage of total county population. (Bureau of the Census) County miles inside Chicago as a percentage of total county miles. (County Highway Department Welfare families in Chicago as a percentage of total county welfare families. (Bureau of the Census) 61.30 Population. Assessed value inside Chicago as a percentage of total county assessed value. (Cook County) Sales inside Chicago as a percentage of total county sales. (Bureau of the Census, Census of Business , 1969) Population of Chicago as a percentage of total county population. (Bureau of the Census) Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 135 Chicago Illinois City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances Cook County Current charges: Hospitals Parks and recreation Other Miscellaneous revenue: Sale of property: Other Interest earnings Fines and forfeits Other and unallocable Expenditures: Education 98.00 Highways Public welfare: Other cash assistance Vendor payments for medi care Other vendor payments Welfare institutions Other Hospitals, own Health Parks and recreation Financial administration General control: Courts Other General public buildings Interest on general debt Correction Other and unallocable Debt Chicago Board of Education Revenue Expenditures Debt City Colleges of Chicago Revenue Expenditures Debt 55-89 0.85 70.00 61.30 57.8? 72.00 61.30 57.87 100 100 Basis of Proration Chicago patients in county hospitals as a percentage of the total number of county patients. (Cook County Hospitals) Population. Population of Chicago as a percentage of the total county population. (Bureau of the Census) Enrollment of Chicago students as a percentage of the total enrollment in Cook County. (Bureau of the Census) County miles inside Chicago as a percentage of the total county miles. (County Highway Department) Welfare families in Chicago as a percentage of the total county welfare families. (Bureau of the Census) Chicago patients in county hospitals. Population. Estimate of expenditures in Chicago. (Clerk of Circuit Court) Population. Assessed value. Criminal court cases that involve Chicago residents as a percentage of the total criminal court cases. (Clerk of Circuit Court) Population. Assessed value. Revenues are from inside Chicago and services are provided inside Chicago. ( Report of Comptroller, 1970 , City of Chicago) Revenues are from inside Chicago and services are provided inside Chicago. ( Report of Comptroller, 1970 , City of Chicago) Appendix 1 136 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas Chicago Illinois City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances Chicago Housing Authority Revenue Expenditures Debt Chicago Park District Revenue Expenditures Debt Chicago Regional Port District Revenue Expenditures Debt' \ % Basis of Proration All units are located in the city and are 100 city or State financed. ( Annual Statistical Report , Chicago Housing Authority) Revenues are from inside Chicago and services 100 are provided inside Chicago. ( Report of Comptroller, 1970 , City of Chicago) 100 Area of operation is inside Chicago. Chicago Transit Authority Intergovernmental revenue from State : Other Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings Utility revenue: Transit Expenditures: Utility expenditures: Transit 97.00 Revenue from Chicago estimated by Transit Authority. This matches bus and rapid transit miles within Chicago. (Chicago Transit Authority) 97-00 Bus and rapid transit miles within Chicago. (Chicago Transit Authority) Metropolitan Sanitary District of Chicago Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes : Property Current charges: Interest earnings Other and unallocable Expenditures: Sewerage Interest on general debt Debt 67.00 67.67 Chicago population as a percentage of the area served population. ( Report, Metropolitan Sanitary District, 1970 ) Tax revenues received from Chicago for Metropolitan Sanitary District. (Comptroller of Metropolitan Sanitary District and County Assessor of Cook County) Population Bonded debt applicable to Chicago. ( Report of Comptroller, 1970 , City of Chicago) Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 137 Chicago Illinois City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances Metropolitan Fair and Exposition Authority Intergovernmental revenue ^ from State: Other { Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings Other and unallocable Expenditures: Interest on general debt Other and unallocable Debt J Basis of Proration 61.50 City population as a percentage of county population. (Metropolitan Fair and Exposition Authority recommended this proration method) North Cook County Soil Conservation District Intergovernmental revenue from State: Health Current charges: Other Expenditures: Health 85.OO Area in Chicago as a percentage of the total area in district. (Bureau of the Census) South Cook County Mosquito Abatement District Taxes: Property Interest earnings Expenditures: Health 58.00 Tax revenue from Chicago as a percentage of the total district revenues. (South Cook County Mosquito Abatement District) 56.^44 Assessed valuation inside Chicago as a percentage of the total district assessed valuation. (South Cook County Mosquito Abatement District) 58.OO Tax revenues from Chicago. Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 138 Evanston Illinois City Area Section A. Local Governments City of Evanston Township of Evanston , . Cook County (County financial data include data for Forest Preserve Districts of Cook County.) School Districts: Evanston High School District #202 Evanston School District #65 Special Districts: Chicago Transit Authority Housing Authority of Cook County (No revenue or expenditure activity inside Evanston.; Metropolitan Sanitary District of Chicago North East Park District (Data were not available.) North Shore Mosquito Abatement District Ridgeville Park District (Data were not available.) Skokie Park District Suburban Cook County T.B. Sanitarium District Section B. Percentage of Local Governmental Finances Assigned to the Evanston City Area Local Governmental Finances City of Evanston Miscellaneous revenue: Utility revenue: Water Expenditures: Utility expenditures: Water Debt: Water % Basis of Proration V7.3O Percentage of total water consumption attributed to Evanston. (Evanston Water Department) Township of Evanston Revenue Expenditures 100 Township of Evanston is coterminous with the City of Evanston. Cook County Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education Highway Welfare General support Other Intergovernmental revenue from Federal \, 1.^5 City population as a percentage of the total county population. (Bureau of the Census) One quarter of a mile of county roads in the City of Evanston. (Cook County Highway Department) 0.5^ Families on welfare in Evanston as a percentage of families on welfare in Cook County. (Bureau of the Census) V? Population Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 139 Evanston Illinois City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances % Cook County Taxes: Property General sales Other Current charges: Hospitals Parks and recreation Other Miscellaneous revenue: Sale of property: Other Interest earnings Fines and forfeits Other and unallocable Expenditures: Education: Local schools Highways Public Welfare: Other cash assistance Medical vendor payments Other vendor payments Welfare institutions Other Hospitals: Other Health Parks and recreation Financial administration General control: Courts Other General public buildings Interest on general debt Correction Other and unallocable Debt 1.61 1-77 1.^5 0.10 Basis of Proration Assessed value inside Evanston as a percentage of the total county assessed value. (Cook County) Sales inside Evanston as a percentage of the total county sales. (Bureau of the Census, Census of Business , 1967) Population. Evanston patients in county hospitals as a percentage of the total number of county patients. (Cook County Hospitals) 1.^5 Population. 1.27 Enrollment of Evanston students as a percentage of the total enrollment in county total. (Bureau of the Census) One quarter of a mile of county highways in Evanston. (Cook County Highway Department) 0.5^ Welfare families in Evanston as a percentage of the total county welfare families. (Bureau of the Census) 0.10 Evanston patients in county hospitals. L 1.^5 City population as a percentage of the total 1 county population. (Bureau of the Census) l.V? Records of courts do not isolate residents of Evanston. City population as a percentage of the total county population. (Bureau of the Census) S 1.45 Population. I.63 County debt overlapping the city of Evanston. ( Annual Report , City of Evanston) > 1.1+5 Population. I.63 County debt of Evanston. Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas UO Evanston Illinois City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances % Evanston High School District #202 Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education 80.00 Intergovernmental revenue from Federal \, 89-20 Taxes : Property Current charges: Education: School lunch sales Other local school charges Miscellaneous revenue: > 80.00 Interest earnings Other and unallocable Expenditures: Education: Local schools Interest on general debt Debt Evanston School District #65 Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes : Property > 89-28 Current charges: Education: School lunch sales Other local school charges Miscellaneous revenue: ? 99-78 Interest earnings Other and unallocable Expenditures: Education: Local schools Interest on general debt Debt ysg Basis of Proration Enrollment of Evanston as a percentage of the total district enrollment. (Bureau of the Census) City assessed value as a percentage of the total district assessed value. (Evanston High School District #202) Enrollment of Evanston residents as a percentage of the total district enrollment. (Bureau of the Census) District debt overlapping Evanston. ( Annual Report , City of Evanston) Enrollment of Evanston residents as a percentage of the total district enrollment. (Bureau of the Census) Assessed value inside Evanston as a percentage of the total district assessed value. ( Annual Report , City of Evanston) Enrollment of Evanston residents as a percentage of the total district enrollment, (Bureau of the Census) .28 Assessed value in Evanston 99.78 89.28 Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 1*+1 Evanston Illinois City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances Chicago Transit Authority Intergovernmental revenue from State: Other Intergovernmental revenue 2.00 from Federal Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings Utility revenue: Transit Expenditures: Utility expenditures: Transit Interest Debt Metropolitan Sanitary District of Chicago Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes: Property Current charges: Sewerage Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings Other and unallocable Expenditures: Sewerage Interest on general debt Debt North Shore Mosquito Abatement District Revenue: Property tax Expenditures: Health Skokie Park District Taxes : Property Current charges: Parks and recreation Expenditures: Parks and recreation Interest on general debt Debt 1.00 2.00 1.70 } 1.61 19.39 2^.16 0.80 0.83 Basis of Proration Revenue from Evanston as a percentage of the total authority revenue. (Chicago Transit Authority) Bus and rapid transit miles inside Evanston as a percentage of the total authority miles. (Chicago Transit Authority) Chicago Transit Authority debt overlapping city of Evanston. (Chicago Transit Authority) Tax revenue from Evanston as a percentage of the total district tax revenue. (Chicago Metropolitan Sanitary District) District debt overlapping Evanston. ( Annual Report , City of Evanston) Actual collections from Evanston. (North Shore Mosquito Abatement District) City population as a percentage of the total service area population. (Bureau of the Census) Assessed value in Evanston as a percentage of the total district assessed value. (Skokie Park District) District debt overlapping Evanston. ( Annual Report , City of Evanston) Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas U2 Evanston Illinois City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances Suburban Cook County T.B. Sanitarium District Taxes: Property Current charges: Hospitals Expenditures: Hospitals, other Basis of Proration k.JO Portion of district's tax revenue from City of Evanston. (Suburban Cook County T.B. Sanitarium District) 4.00 Evanston residents served by district. (Suburban Cook County T.B. Sanitarium District) — Zero or rounds to zero. Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 143 Houston Texas City Area Section A. Local Governments City of Houston Harris County School Districts: Aldine ISD Alief ISD Clear Creek ISD Cypress Fairbanks ISD Galena Park ISD Houston ISD Northeast Houston ISD (Formerly named North Forest Independent School District) Pasadena ISD San Jacinto College District Spring Branch ISD Special Districts: Harris County Hospital District Harris County Soil Conservation District Housing Authority of the City of Houston Port of Houston Authority Section B. Percentage of Local Governmental Finances Assigned to the Houston City Area Local Governmental Finances City of Houston Miscellaneous revenues: Utility revenues: Water Expenditures: Utility expenditures: Water Debt: Water % Basis of Proration 90.00 Estimate of Houston revenues. (Houston City Water Department) Harris County Intergovernmental revenue from State: Highway General support Other Intergovernmental revenue from Federal } County has no responsibility for maintaining roads within Houston area. (Harris County Highway Department) 70.76 Population of Houston as a percentage of Harris County population. (Bureau of the Census) 77-90 Welfare families in Houston as a percentage of total county welfare families. (Bureau of the Census) Welfare families were used to prorate Federal intergovernmental revenue of Harris County because all of the Federal intergovernmental revenue was for welfare. Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 1U Houston Texas City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances Harris County Taxes: Property Motor vehicle licenses Miscellaneous licenses Current charges: Parks and recreation Other Miscellaneous revenue: Sale of property: Other than housing and urban renewal Interest earnings Fines and forfeits Other and unallocable Expenditures: Highway Public welfare: Vendor payments, other Institutions Other Health Police Fire Sanitation Parks and recreation Libraries Financial administration General courts: Court Other General public buildings Interest on debt 65-95 s } 77.90 70.76 Basis of Proration Calculated percentage of assessed valuations within Houston. (Bureau of the Census) , 70.76 Population. County has no responsibility for maintaining roads within Houston area. (Harris County Highway Department) Welfare families in Houston as a percentage of total county welfare families. (Bureau of the Census) City population as a percentage of total county population. Sheriff of Harris County suggested population as means of prorating county police activity to Houston. Small dollar amounts expended for fire arc not in Houston. (Harris County Financial Report , 1970 ) Small dollar amounts expended for sanitation are not in Houston. (Harris County Financial Report, 1970 ) Population City population as a percentage of total county population. (Bureau of the Census) Harris County recommended population as the best means of prorating Court expenditures to Houston area. City population as a percentage of total county population. (Bureau of the Census) Overlapping debt based on assessed value of Houston as a percentage of Harris County assessed value. ( Financial Report, 1970 1 City of Houston) Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas U5 Houston Texas City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances Harris County Expenditures: Correction Other and unallocable Debt: Water Flood control Other and unallocable Aldine ISD Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education Taxes: Property Current charges: Education: School lunch sales Other local charges Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings Other and unallocable Expenditures: Education: Local schools Interest on debt Debt Alief ISD Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes: Property Current charges: Education: School lunches Other local charges 70.76 70.76 90.00 \ 67.^2 17.50 1.35 > 8.10 1- 10.43 Basis of Proration City population as a percentage of total county population was the best available method of prorating correction expenditures to Houston. (Bureau of the Census) City population as a percentage of total county population. (Bureau of the Census) (Houston Overlapping debt based on assessed value. Area of service inside Houston City. Water System) Enrollment of Houston residents as a percentage of total enrollment. (Aldine Independent School District) Assessed value of school district in Houston as a percentage of total district assessed value. (Aldine Independent School District) >. 17.50 Enrollment District debt overlapping the City of Houston. (City of Houston, Annual Financial Report, 1970 ) No Houston residents were enrolled in Alief ISD. (Alief Independent School District) Assessed value of the school district in Houston as a percentage of total district assessed value. (Alief Independent School District) No Houston residents were enrolled in Alief ISD. (Alief Independent School District) Appendix 1 ^ Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas Houston Texas City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances Alief ISD Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings Other Expenditures : Education: Local schools Interest on general debt Debt Clear Creek ISD Revenue Expenditures Debt \ > 19-38 Basis of Proration No Houston residents were enrolled in Alief ISD. (Alief Independent School District.) District debt overlapping the City of Houston. (City of Houston, Annual Financial Report, 1970 ) Clear Creek ISD reports no revenue expenditures or debt applicable in Houston. Cypress Fairbanks ISD Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes : Property Current charges: Education: School lunches Other local school charges Miscellaneous revenues: Interest earnings Other and unallocable Expenditures: Education: Local schools Interest on general debt Debt Galena Park ISD Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education Taxes: Property Current charges: Education: School lunch sales Other local school charges 22.01 Enrollment of Houston residents as a percentage of total enrollment. (Cypress-Fairbanks ISD) 4.26 Assessed value of the school district within Houston. (Cypress-Fairbanks ISD) 22.01 Enrollment. ) 9-27 District debt overlapping the City of Houston. (City of Houston, Annual Financial Report, 1970 - 30.77 Enrollment of Houston residents as a percentage of total enrollment. (Bureau of the Census) 14.70 Assessed value of the school district in Houston. (Bureau of the Census) ,30.77 Enrollment. Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas U7 Houston Texas City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances Galena Park ISD Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings Other and unallocable Expenditures: Education: Local schools Interest on general debt Debt Houston ISD Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes: Property Current charges: Education: School lunch sales Other local school charges Miscellaneous revenue: Sale of property: Other than housing and urban renewal Interest earnings Other and unallocable Expenditures: Education: Local schools Interest on debt Debt Northeast Houston ISD Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes: Property J } 1 } Current charges: Education: School lunch sales Other local charges ) Basis of Proration 50.77 Enrollment. 15.^7 District debt overlapping the City of Houston. (City of Houston, Annual Financial Report, 1970 ) 9^.00 Enrollment of Houston residents as a percentage of total enrollment. (Houston Independent School District) 91.^+0 Assessed value of school district inside Houston. (Houston Independent School District) ► 9^.00 Enrollment 96.51 District debt overlapping the City of Houston. (City of Houston, Annual Financial Report, 1970 ) 88.50 Enrollment of Houston residents as a percentage of total enrollment. (Northeast Houston ISD) 88.50 Enrollment of Houston residents as a percentage of total enrollment. Assessed value of school district within Houston area is not available. (Northeast Houston ISD) 88.50 Enrollment. Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas U8 Houston Texas City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances % Northeast Houston ISD Miscellaneous revenue: Sale of property: Other than housing and urban renewal Interest earnings Other and unallocable Expenditures: Education Local schools Interest on debt Debt Pasadena ISD Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education 22.10 Intergovernmental revenue from Federal 22.10 Taxes : Property Current charges: Education: School lunches Other local charges Miscellaneous revenue: Sale of property: Other than housing and urban renewal Other and unallocable Expenditures: Education: Local schools Interest on general debt Debt Basis of Proration .88.50 Enrollment. } 61.37 District debt overlapping City of Houston. (City of Houston, Annual Financial Report, 1970 ) Assessed value of the school district in Houston as a percentage of total district assessed value. (Bureau of the Census) Assessed value. Enrollment of Houston residents in Pasadena ISD is not available. y 22.10 Assessed value. } 21.56 District debt overlapping the City of Houston. (City of Houston, Annual Financial Report, 1970 San Jacinto College District Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education Taxes: V 1 ! ."0 Property Current charges: Education: Higher education charges / Assessed value of the school district in Houston as a percentage of total district assessed value. (Bureau of the Census) Enrollment of Houston residents in the district is not available. (San Jacinto College) Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas U9 iouston Texas City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances San Jacinto College District Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings 11. M+ Other and unallocable Expenditures: Education: Higher education Interest on debt Debt Spring Branch ISD Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education Taxes: Property Current charges: Education: School lunch sales Other local school charges Miscellaneous revenue: Sale of property: Other than housing and urban renewal Interest earnings Expenditures: Education: Local schools Interest on debt Debt Harris County Hospital District Intergovernmental revenue from State: Health and hospitals 85.00 82.60 y 81.57 70.76 Taxes : Property 62. 30 Basis of Proration District debt overlapping the City of Houston. (City of Houston, Annual Financial Report, 1970 ] 11.00 Assessed value. District debt overlapping the City of Houston. (City of Houston, Annual Financial Report, 1970 / Enrollment of Houston residents as a percentage of total enrollment. (Spring Branch ISD) Assessed value of school district in Houston as a percentage of total district assessed value. (Spring Branch ISD) > 85.OO Enrollment. District debt overlapping the City of Houston. (City of Houston, Annual Financial Report, 1970 . The Harris County Hospital District reports patient records are not kept on the basis of city residence. Population of Houston as a percentage of Harris County population is the proration ratio used. (Bureau of the Census) Assessed value of Hospital District inside Houston as a percentage of the total district assessed value. (Bureau of the Census) Appendix 1 -jcg Proration of Loeal Government Finances to Selected City Areas Houston Texas City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances Harris County Hospital District Current charges: Hospitals Hospitals, other Interest on debt Debt Harris County Soil Conservation District Intergovernmental revenue from State: Other Miscellaneous revenue: Other and unallocable Expenditures: Other and unallocable } % 70.76 \e?A2 5.00 Basis of Proration Population. Overlapping debt based on assessed value of Houston as a percentage of Harris County assessed value. (City of Houston, Financial Report, 1970 ) Houston percentage of land area served by the district. (Harris County Soil and Conservation District) 70.76 Population. } Housing Authority of the City of Houston Revenue Expenditures Debt Port of Houston Authority Taxes : Property Current charges: Water transport and terminals Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings Expenditures: Interest on debt Water transport and terminals, Debt 100 All units are located in Houston. 65.95 Calculated percentage of assessed values within Houston. (Bureau of the Census) 70.76 Population of Houston as a percentage of Harris County population. (Bureau of the Census) 65.95 Assessed values within Houston. -- Zero or rounds to zero. Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 151 Pasadena Texas City Area Section A. Local Governments City of Pasadena Harris County School Districts: Deer Park ISD Clear Creek ISD Pasadena ISD San Jacinto College District Special Districts: Clear Lake Water Authority Harris County Hospital District Harris County Soil Conservation District Port of Houston Authority Section B. Percentage of Local Governmental Finances Assigned to the Pasadena City Area Local Governmental Finances % Basis of Proration } City of Pasadena Revenue Expenditures Debt Harris County Intergovernmental revenue from State: Highways General support Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes: Property Motor vehicle licenses v Miscellaneous vehicle licenses Current charges: Parks and recreation Other Miscellaneous revenue: Sale of property: Other than housing and urban renewal Interest earnings Fines and forfeits Other and unallocable 100 All finances were collected from and used for the municipal area. 5.12 City population of Pasadena as a percentage of total county population. (Bureau of the Census) Miles of county roads within Pasadena are not available. (Harris County Highway Department. ) 5-12 Population. 3.29 Welfare families in Pasadena as a percentage of total welfare families in Harris County. (Bureau of the Census) Intergovernmental revenue from Federal was for welfare. 2.65 Calculated percentage of county assessed value inside Pasadena. (Bureau of the Census) »5«12 Population Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 152 Pasadena Texas City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances Harris County Expenditures: Highway Public welfare: Other vendor payments Welfare institutions Other Health Police Fire Sanitation; other than sewerage Parks and recreation Libraries Financial administration General control: Courts Other General public buildings Interest on general debt Correction Other and unallocable Debt Deer Park ISD Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes: Property Current charges: Education: School lunch sales Other local school charges Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings Expenditures: Education: Local schools 5.12 5.39 \ 5.12 5.39 „ 13-66 13-66 Basis of Proration County has no responsibility for maintaining roads within Houston area. (Harris County Highway Department) Welfare families within Pasadena as a percentage of total welfare families in Harris County. (Bureau of the Census) Population. County expenditures for fire are not for activity inside Pasadena. County expenditures for sanitation, other than sewerage, are not for activity inside Pasadena. Population City population as a percentage of Harris County population. (Bureau of the Census) Harris County reports court expenditures cannot be identified as being inside Pasadena. Population. County debt overlapping the City of Pasadena. ( Harris County Annual Financial Report, 1970 ) Population. County debt overlapping the City of Pasadena. (City of Pasadena, Annual Financial Report , 1970) Enrollment of Pasadena residents as a percentage of total district enrollment. (Bureau of the Census) Enrollment ; assessed value of Deer Park ISD inside Pasadena is not available. (Deer Park Independent School District) *■ 13.66 Enrollment Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 153 Pasadena Texas City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances Deer Park ISD Expenditures: Interest on general debt Debt Clear Creek ISD Intergovernmental revenue from State Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes: Property Current charges: Education: School lunch sales Other local school charges Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings Expenditures: Education: Local schools Interest on general debt Debt ) Basis of Proration 13.66 Enrollment of Pasadena residents as a percentage of total district enrollment. (Bureau of the Census) Debt overlapping the City of Pasadena is not available. k 0-50 Enrollment of Pasadena residents as a percentage of total district enrollment. (Clear Creek ISD) 1.00 Assessed value of Clear Creek ISD inside Pasadena as a percentage of total district assessed value. (Clear Creek ISD) 0.50 Enrollment. } 5.06 Debt of Clear Creek ISD overlapping Pasadena. (Clear Creek ISD) Pasadena ISD Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes : Property Current charges: Education: School lunch sales Other local school charges Miscellaneous revenue: Sale of property: Other than housing and urban renewal Other and unallocable Expenditures: Education: Local schools 71.00 Enrollment of Pasadena residents as a percentage of total enrollment. (Pasadena Independent School District) ^2.00 Pasadena ISD assessed value inside Pasadena as a percentage of total district assessed value. (Pasadena Independent School District) > 71.00 Enrollment Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 154 Pasadena Texas City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances % Pasadena ISD Expenditures: \ Interest on general debt I 42.70 Debt J San Jacinto College District Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education 56.00 Taxes: Property Current charges: Education: Higher education charges Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings Other and unallocable Expenditures: Institutions of higher education Interest on general debt Debt > 56.00 Clear Lake Water Authority Taxes: Property 1.64 Current charges: Sewerage Miscellaneous revenue: Sale of property: Other Interest earnings Utility revenue: Water Expenditures: Utility revenue: Water Basis of Proration Pasadena ISD assessed value inside Pasadena as a percentage of total district assessed value. (Pasadena Independent School District) Enrollment of Pasadena residents as a percentage of total district enrollment. (Bureau of the Census) V 56.00 Enrollment, Enrollment; debt overlapping the City of Pasadena is not available. (San Jacinto College District) Assessed value of Clear Lake Water Authority inside Pasadena as a percentage of the total Clear Lake Water Authority assessed value. (Clear Lake Water Authority) There are no charges in Pasadena. Lake Water Authority) (Clear There are no Pasadena residents served by the Clear Lake Water Authority. (Clear Lake Water Authority) Harris County Hospital District Intergovernmental revenue from State: Health and hospitals 5-12 The Harris County Hospital District reports patient records are not kept on the basis of city residence. City population as a percentage of county population. (Bureau of the Census) Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas Pasadena Texas City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances % Harris County Hospital District Taxes: Property 2.65 Current charges: Hospitals y 5*12 Expenditures: Hospitals: Other Interest on general debt 3*59 Port of Houston Authority Taxes: Property 2.65 Current charges: Water transport and terminals Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings J Expenditures: Interest on general debt 5-39 Water transport and terminals 5-12 Debt 5-39 Basis of Proration Assessed value of Harris County Hospital District inside Pasadena as a percentage of the total district assessed value. (Bureau of the Census) The Harris County Hospital District reports patient records are not kept on the basis of city residence. City population as a percentage of county population. (Bureau of the Census. Debt overlapping City of Pasadena. (City of Pasadena, Annual Financial Report, 1970 ) Calculated percentage of assessed value within Pasadena. (Bureau of the Census) 5.12 Population. Debt of Port of Houston Authority overlapping the City of Pasadena. Pasadena, Annual Report, 1970 ) Population. Debt overlapping the city. (City of -- Zero or rounds to zero. Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 156 Los Angeles City Area Section A. Local Governments City of Los Angeles Los Angeles County School Districts: Beverly Hills USD Burbank USD Inglewood USD Las Virgenes USD Los Angeles USD Santa Monica USD El Camino Junior College District Los Angeles Junior College District Special Districts: Central and West Basin Water Replenishment District Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles Los Angeles County Sanitation District Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Southeast Mosquito Abatement District Southern California Rapid Transit District Section B. Percentage of Local Governmental Finances Assigned to the Los Angeles City Area Local Governmental Finances % Basis of Proration City of Los Angeles Miscellaneous revenue: Utility revenue: Water 97.00 Services rendered inside Los Angeles City as a percentage of total services rendered. (Los Angeles City Department of Water and Power) 99-39 Services rendered inside Los Angeles City as a percentage of total services rendered. (Los Angeles City Department of Water and Power) Electric Expenditures: Utility expenditures: Water Electric Debt: Water Electric 97.00 Services rendered inside Los Angeles City. 99*38 Services rendered inside Los Angeles City. 97.00 Services rendered inside Los Angeles City. 99.38 Services rendered inside Los Angeles City. Los Angeles County Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education Highways 36.18 Enrollment in Los Angeles City schools as a percentage of total county school enrollment. (Bureau of the Census) ^7.26 Los Angeles City State allocation as a percentage of total Los Angeles County State allocations. (Los Angeles County Road Department) Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 157 Los Angeles City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances Los Angeles County Intergovernmental revenue from State: Public welfare Health and hospitals: Health Hospitals General support Other Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes: Property General sales gross receipts Selective sales Miscellaneous licenses Other Current charges: Education: Other local school charges Hospitals Sewerage Sanitation, other Parks and recreation Airports Other Miscellaneous revenue: Sale of property: Other Interest earnings Fines and forfeits Other and unallocable Expenditures: Education: Local schools % Basis of Proration *+6.92 Welfare families in Los Angeles City as a percentage of total Los Angeles County welfare families. (Bureau of the Census) / +0.0 i + Population of Los Angeles City as a percentage of Los Angeles County population. (Bureau of the Census) ^+6.97 Welfare families in Los Angeles City. 40.0^ Population. 38.52 Assessed values of Los Angeles City as a percentage of total county assessed values. ( Statement of Bonded Indebtedness, Supple - mental Report of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors ) >^1.33 Sales in Los Angeles City as a percentage of total Los Angeles County sales. (Bureau of the Census) \ 40.0^ Population. 36.18 Enrollment in Los Angeles City schools as a percentage of total county school enrollment. (Bureau of the Census) 59.20 Los Angeles City patients as a percentage of total Los Angeles County hospital patients. (Los Angeles County Hospital District) Not applicable inside Los Angeles City. } *\ ' 40.0 1 * Population. 2.00 Services rendered inside Los Angeles City as a percentage of total services provided. (Los Angeles County Board of Education) Appendix 1 -jcg Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas Los Angeles City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances Los Angeles County Expenditures: Highways Public welfare: Categorical cash assistance v Other cash assistance Other vendor payments Welfare institutions Other Hospitals, other Health Police Fire Park and recreation Libraries Financial administration General control: Courts: Municipal courts Superior courts Other General public buildings Interest on general debt Airports Correction Other and unallocable Utility expenditures: Water Debt % Basis of Proration 35*73 Los Angeles County maintained miles inside Los Angeles City as a percentage of total county maintained miles. (Los Angeles County Road Department) Welfare families in Los Angeles City as a ►46.92 percentage of total welfare families in Los Angeles County. (Bureau of the Census) > 59*20 Los Angeles City patients as a percentage of total Los Angeles County hospital district patients. (Los Angeles County Hospital District) 40.04 Population. Services are not rendered inside Los Angeles City. (Los Angeles County) Population. Los Angeles City has its own library system. ( Los Angeles County Taxpayer's Guide ) Population. } 4o.o4 40.04 90.66 36.00 4o.o4 40.49 40.04 36.00 40.04 40.49 Cases inside Los Angeles City as a percentage of total municipal court cases. (Municipal Court, Los Angeles Judicial District) Felony cases in the Central District of Los Angeles Superior Court as a percentage of total felony cases filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court. (Los Angeles Superior Court) Population Debt overlapping Los Angeles City. ( Supplemental Report of the Board of Supervisors, Los Angeles County ) Population. Felony cases in the Central District of Los Angeles Superior Court as a percentage of total felony cases filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court. (Los Angeles Superior Court) Population of Los Angeles City as a percentage of Los Angeles County population. (Bureau of the Census) Los Angeles City has its own water system. Debt overlapping Los Angeles City. Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 159 Los Angeles City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances Beverly Hills USD Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education Taxes: Property Current charges: Education: School lunch sales Other local school charges Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings Other and unallocable Expenditures: Education: Local schools Interest on general debt Debt Burbank USD Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes: Property Current charges: Education: School lunch sales Other local school charges Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings Expenditures: Education; Local school Interest on general debt Debt % Basis of Proration 3- 18 Enrollment of Los Angeles City residents as a percentage of total district enrollment. (Beverly Hills Unified School District) 0.15 Assessed value of Los Argeles City as a percentage of total di Lrict assessed value. ( Los Angeles County Taxpayer's Guide ) 3.l8 Enrollment. } 0. 15 Assessed value. I Enrollment of Los Angeles residents as a 0.30 percentage of total district enrollment. (Burbank Unified School District) 0.03 Assessed value of Los Angeles City as a percentage of total district assessed value. ( Los Angeles County Taxpayer's Guide ) 0.30 Enrollment. } .o. 03 Debt of Burbank Unified School District overlapping the City of Los Angeles. (Burbank Unified School District) Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 160 Los Angeles City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances Inglewood USD Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education Taxes: Property Current charges: Education: School lunch sales Other local school charges Miscellaneous revenue: Sale of property: Other Interest earnings Expenditures: Local schools Interest on general debt Debt Las Virgenes USD Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes : Property Current charges: Education: School lunch sales Other local school charges Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings Expenditures: Education: Local schools Interest on general debt Debt v \ Basis of Proration No Los Angeles City residents are enrolled in the district. (Inglewood Unified School District) 0.72 Assessed value of Los Angeles City as a percentage of total district assessed value. ( Los Angeles County Taxpayer's Guide ) No Los Angeles City residents are enrolled in the district. (Inglewood Unified School District) > 0.72 Inglewood Unified School District debt overlapping the City of Los Angeles. (Inglewood Unified School District) 0.10 Enrollment of Los Angeles City residents as a percentage of total district enrollment. (Las Virgenes Unified School District) 0.01 Assessed value of Los Angeles City as a percentage of total district assessed value. ( Los Angeles County Taxpayer's Guide ) 0.10 Enrollment. 0.01 Assessed value. Appendix 1 -|£,1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas Los Angeles City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances Los Angeles USD Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes: Property Current charges: Education: School lunch sales Other local school charges Miscellaneous revenue: Other and unallocable Interest earnings Expenditures: Education: Local schools Interest on general debt Debt Santa Monica USD Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes: Property Current charges: Education: School lunch sales Other local school charges Miscellaneous revenue: Other and unallocable Expenditures: Education: Local schools Institutions of higher education Interest on general debt Debt % Basis of Proration i 81.00 Enrollment of Los Angeles City residents as a percentage of total enrollment. (Los Angeles Unified School District) 81.89 Los Angeles City assessed valve as a percentage of total district assessed value. (Los Angeles Unified School District) 81.00 Enrollment. 81.89 Los Angeles Unified School District debt overlapping the City of Los Angeles. (Los Angeles Unified School District) I No Los Angeles City residents are enrolled in the district. (Santa Monica Unified School District) 0.10 Assessed value in Los Angeles City as a percentage of total district assessed value. (Santa Monica Unified School District) No Los Angeles residents are enrolled in the district. 0.10 Assessed value. Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 162 Los Angeles City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances El Camino Junior College District Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education Taxes: Property Current charges: Education: Higher education charges Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings Expenditures: Institutions of higher education Interest on general debt Los Angeles Junior College District Basis of Proration Enrollment of Los Angeles City residents as a percentage of total enrollment. (El Camino Junior College District) 0.10 Assessed value in Los Angeles City as a percentage of total assessed value. ( Los Angeles County Taxpayer's Guide ) Enrollment of Los Angeles City residents as a percentage of total enrollment. (El Camino Junior College District) District had no debt in 1970. Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes: Property Current charges: Education: Higher education charges Miscellaneous revenue: Sale of property: Other Interest earnings Other and unallocable Expenditures: Institutions of higher education Interest on general debt Debt N I 60.00 Enrollment of Los Angeles City residents as a percentage of total enrollment. (Los Angeles Junior College District) 67^55 Assessed value in Los Angeles City as a percentage of total district assessed value. (Los Angeles Junior College District) 60.00 Enrollment of Los Angeles City residents as a percentage of total enrollment. (Los Angeles Junior College District) \ r 67.55 Assessed value. Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 163 Los Angeles City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances Central and West Basin Water Replenishment District Taxes: Property Current charges: Other Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings Expenditures: Miscellaneous Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles Revenue Expenditures Debt Los Angeles County Sanitation District Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes: Property Current charges: Sewerage Miscellaneous revenue: Special assessments Sale of property: Other Interest earnings Other and unallocable Expenditures: Sewerage Interest on general debt Debt % Basis of Proration 9.40 Assessed value in Los Angeles City as a percentage of total district assessed value. (Central and West Basin Replenishment District) 4.39 Revenue for charges from Los Angeles City as a percentage of total revenue from charges. (Central and West Basin Water Replenishment District) 9.40 Assessed value. 4.39 ) 100 } 2.08 Revenue for charges from Los Angeles City as a percentage of total district revenue from charges. (Central and West Basin Water Replenishment District) The authority only serves the City of Los Angeles. Assessed value in Los Angeles City as a percentage of the total district assessed value. (Los Angeles County Sanitation District) Appendix 1 ^ Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas Los Angeles City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Intergovernmental revenue from State: Other Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes: Property Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings Other and unallocable Utility revenue: Water Expenditures: Utility expenditures: Water Debt Basis of Proration 27-^+5 Population of Los Angeles City as a percentage of total area served population. ( Annual Report of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ) 27.^6 Assessed value in Los Angeles City as a percentage of total assessed value in Metropolitan Water District. ( Annual Report of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ) J 27.^5 Population. k 15*71 Sales to Los Angeles City as a percentage of total sales. ( Annual Report of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ) 27-^6 Debt overlapping the City of Los Angeles. ( Annual Report of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California) I Southeast Mosquito Abatement District Intergovernmental revenue from State: Health and hospitals Taxes : Property Other Expenditures: Health M+.80 Assessed value in Los Angeles City as a percentage of total district assessed value. (Southeast Mosquito Abatement District) Southern California Rapid Transit District Intergovernmental revenue from State: Other Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes: General sales gross receipts Miscellaneous revenue: Sale of property: Other Interest earnings Utility revenue: Transit y kO.Ol Population of Los Angeles City as a percentage of total area served. (Bureau of the Census) Appendix 1 165 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas Los Angeles City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances % Basis of Proration Southern California Rapid Transit District Expenditures: Utility expenditures: ■Prosit UO.Ol Population of Los Angeles City as a percentage of total area served. (Bureau of the Census) -- Zero or rounds to zero. Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 166 Burbank California City Area Section A. Local Governments City of Burbank Los Angeles County School Districts: Burbank USD Los Angeles USD Los Angeles Junior College District Special districts: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Southern California Rapid Transit District Section B. Percentage of Local Governmental Finances Assigned to the Burbank City Area Local Governmental Finances City of Burbank Revenue Expenditures Debt 100 Basis of Proration All finances were collected from and used for the municipal area Los Angeles County Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education Highways Public welfare Health and hospitals: Health Hospitals General support Other Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes: Property 1.05 Enrollment in Los Angeles City schools as a percentage of total county school enrollment. (Bureau of the Census) 1.53 Burbank State allocation as a percentage of total Los Angeles County State allocations. (Los Angeles County Road Department) 0.9^ Welfare families in Burbank as a percentage of total Los Angeles County welfare families. (Bureau of the Census) 1.26 Population of Burbank as a percentage of Los Angeles County population. (Bureau of the Census) 0.?A Welfare families in Burbank as a percentage of total Los Angeles County welfare families. (Bureau of the Census) 1.26 Population. I.67 General sales gross receipts V 1.59 Selective sales / Miscellaneous licenses Other Assessed value in Burbank as a percentage of total Los Angeles County assessed value. ( Los Angeles County Taxpayer's Guide ) Sales in Burbank as a percentage of total Los Angeles County sales. (Bureau of the Census) v 1.26 Population. Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 167 Burbank California City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances % Los Angeles County Current charges: Education: Other local school charges 1.05 Hospitals Sewerage Sanitation, other Parks and recreation Airports Other Sale of property Other Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings Fines and forfeits Other and unallocable Expenditures: Education: Local schools Highways Public welfare: Categorical cash assistance Other cash assistance Other vendor payments Welfare institutions Other Hospital, other Health Police Fire 0.40 } V } Sewerage s Sanitation, other than sewerage^ Expenditures: Parks and recreation Libraries Financial administration General control : Courts Other General public buildings 1.26 Basis of Proration Enrollment in Burbank City schools as a percentage of total county school enrollment. (Bureau of the Census) Burbank City patients as a percentage of total Los Angeles County hospital patients. (Los Angeles County Hospital District) Not applicable inside Burbank. . 1.26 Population. 1.05 Enrollment. 1.23 Los Angeles County maintained miles inside Burbank as a percentage of total county maintained miles. (Los Angeles County Road Department) °A Welfare families in the City of Burbank as a percentage of total welfare families in Los Angeles County. (Bureau of the Census) O.'+O Burbank patients as a percentage of total Los Angeles County hospital district patients. (Los Angeles County Hospital District) 1.26 Population. Services are not rendered inside Burbank. (Los Angeles County) Not applicable inside Burbank. Population. Burbank has its own library system. ( Los Angeles County Taxpayer's Guide ) 1.26 Population. Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 168 Burbank California City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances % Los Angeles County Expenditures: Interest on general debt Airports Correction Other and unallocable Utility expenditures: Water Debt: Long-term general debt Water Burbank USD Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes: Property Current charges: Education: School lunch sales Other local school charges Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings Other and unallocable Expenditures: Education: Local schools Interest on general debt Debt 1.68 } } Basis of Proration Debt overlapping the City of Burbank. ( Annual Financial Report of Burbank) 1.26 Population. Burbank has its own water system. 1.68 Debt overlapping the City of Burbank. Burbank has its own water system. 99*70 Enrollment of Burbank residents as a percentage of total district enrollment. (Burbank Unified School District) 99.97 Assessed value of Burbank as a percentage of total district assessed value. ( Los Angeles County Taxpayer's Guide ) > 99.70 Enrollment. 99.97 Debt of Burbank Unified School District overlapping the City of Burbank. (Burbank Unified School District) Los Angeles USD Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes: Property 0.02 Enrollment of Burbank residents as a percentage of total enrollment. (Los Angeles Unified School District) Burbank assessed value as a percentage of total district assessed value. (Los Angeles Unified School District) Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 169 Bur bank California City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances % Los Angeles USD Current charges: Education: School lunch sales Other local school charges Miscellaneous revenue: Sale of property: Other Interest earnings Other and unallocable Expenditures: Education: Local schools Interest on general debt 0.01 Other and unallocable Debt Basis of Proration 0.01 Enrollment of Burbank residents as a percentage of total enrollment. (Los Angeles Unified School District) Los Angeles Unified School District debt overlapping the City of Burbank. (Los Angeles Unified School District) Enrollment. Debt overlapping the City of Burbank. Los Angeles Junior College District Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education ^ 2.50 Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes: Property 2.89 Current charges: Education Miscellaneous revenue: Sale of property: Other Interest earnings Other and unallocable Expenditures: Education: Institutions of higher education Interest on general debt Debt Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Intergovernmental revenue from State: Other } 2.90 0.88 Enrollment. Calculated assessed value in Burbank as a percentage of total district assessed value. (Bureau of the Census) ► 2.50 Enrollment. Debt of Los Angeles Junior College District overlapping the City of Burbank. ( Annual Financial Report of the City of Burbank ) Population of Burbank as a percentage of total area served population. ( Annual Report of the Metropolitan Water District ) Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 170 Burbank California City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Taxes : Property Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings Other and unallocable Utility revenue: Water 1.26 } Basis of Proration Assessed value in Burbank as a percentage of total area served population. ( Annual Report of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California) 0.1 1.49 Population. Sales to Burbank as a percentage of total sales ( Annual Report of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California) Southern California Rapid Transit District Intergovernmental revenue from State: Other Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Taxes : General sales gross receipts Miscellaneous revenue: Sale of property: Other Interest earnings Utility revenue: Transit Expenditures Utility expenditures: Transit Debt 1.27 Population of Burbank as a percentage of total area served population. (Bureau of the Census) — Zero or rounds to zero. Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 171 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Area Section A. Local Governments City of Philadelphia (City-county government) School Districts: Philadelphia City School District Philadelphia Community College District Special Districts: Delaware River Port Authority Philadelphia Housing Authority Philadelphia Parking Authority Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Section B. Percentage of Local Governmental Finances Assigned to the Philadelphia City Area Local Governmental Finances % Basis of Proration City of Philadelphia Current charges: Hospitals Miscellaneous revenue: Utility revenue: Water Expenditures: Hospitals Utility expenditures: Water Debt 95-00 Patients who are Philadelphia residents as a percentage of total county patients. (Philadelphia General Hospital) 99-00 Area served inside Philadelphia as a percentage of total area served. (Philadelphia Water Department) 95-00 Patients who are Philadelphia residents. 99-00 Area served inside Philadelphia. 100 Debt entirely applicable to the City of Philadelphia area. ( Annual Report of the City of Philadelphia) Philadelphia City School District Revenue Expenditures V 10C Debt } Philadelphia Community College District Revenue Expenditures Debt 100 All of the students are Philadelphia residents. All of the students are Philadelphia residents. (Bureau of the Census) Delaware River Port Authority Intergovernmental revenue from State: Other Current charges: Highways Miscellaneous revenue: Sale of property: Other Interest earnings k ^7-23 Population of Philadelphia as a percentage of total population of area served. (Bureau of the Census) Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 172 Philadelphia Pennsylvania Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances % Delaware River Port Authority Miscellaneous revenue: Other and unallocable Utility revenue: Transit Expenditures: Highways Interest on general debt Water transport and terminals Other and unallocable Utility expenditures Debt Basis of Proration v ^7.23 Population. Philadelphia Housing Authority Revenue Expenditures Debt Philadelphia Parking Authority Revenue Expenditures Debt Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Intergovernmental revenue from State: Other Current charges: Other Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings Utility revenue: Transit Expenditures: Utility expenditures: Transit Debt } } 100 100 The Philadelphia Housing Authority operates only inside Philadelphia. (Philadelphia Housing Authority) The Philadelphia Parking Authority is located and operated only inside Philadelphia. (The Philadelphia Parking Authority) > 50.^+0 Philadelphia population as a percentage of total population of area served. (Bureau of the Census) Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 173 Chester Pennsylvania City Area Section A. Local Governments City of Chester Delaware County School Districts: Chester School District (Chester School District Authority included in school district finances. ) Delaware Community College District Special Districts: Chester Housing Authority Chester Water Authority Delaware County College Authority Delaware River Port Authority Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Section B. Percentage of Local Governmental Finances Assigned to the Chester City Area Local Governmental Finances % Basis of Proration All finances were collected from and used for the municipal area. City of Chester Revenue Expenditures Debt 1 100 Delaware County Intergovernmental revenue from State: Highways 9-38 Public welfare 36.83 Other Taxes: Property 9.38 7-71 Sanitation, other Parks and recreation Current charges: Other Miscellaneous revenue: Sale of property: Housing and urban renewal Interest earnings Fines and forfeits Other and unallocable Expenditures: Education: Local schools Population of Chester as a percentage of total county population. (Bureau of the Census) Welfare families in Chester as a percentage of total Delaware County welfare families. (Bureau of the Census) Population. Assessed value of Chester as a percentage of total assessed value in Delaware County. (Delaware County Annual Financial Report ) > 9.38 Population. 10.15 Chester City school enrollment as a percentage of total Delaware County school enrollment. (Bureau of the Census) Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 174 Chester Pennsylvania City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances % Delaware County Expenditures: Highways Public welfare: Welfare institutions Other Health Police > 36.88 9.38 33.33 Sanitation, other than sewerage"\ -,r> Parks and recreation / Housing and urban renewal Financial administration General control: Courts Other General public buildings Interest on general debt Correction Other and unallocable Debt 9-38 33.33 } 9.38 7.71 33-33 9-38 7.71 Basis of Proration County does not provide maintenance service or assume responsibility for highway construction inside Chester. (Delaware County Engineer) Welfare families in Chester as a percentage of total welfare families in Delaware County. (Bureau of the Census) Population. Percentage of Delaware County police operations inside Chester. (Delaware County Sheriff) Population. Chester has its own housing authority. Population. Percentage of Delaware County police operations inside Chester. Population. Assessed value of Chester as a percentage of total assessed value in Delaware County. (Delaware County Annual Financial Report ) Percentage of Delaware County police operations inside Chester. Population. Assessed value. Chester School District Revenue Expenditures Debt Delaware Community College District Intergovernmental revenue from State: Education Intergovernmental revenue from Federal Current charges: Higher education charges Expenditures: Education: Institutions of higher education Interest on general debt 100 A ►9»38 Population Chester School District enrolls only Chester residents. (Bureau of the Census) Appendix 1 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas 175 Chester Pennsylvania City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances % Chester Housing Authority Revenue Expenditures Debt } 100 Basis of Proration All units are in the city and financed by the city or State. (Chester Housing Authority) Chester Water Authority Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings Utility revenue: Water Expenditures: Utility expenditures: Water 50.00 Population of Chester as a percentage of total population of area served. (Chester Water Authority) Delaware County College Authority Expenditures: Education: Institutions of higher education Interest on general debt Debt Delaware River Port Authority Intergovernmental revenue from State: Other Current charges: Highways Miscellaneous revenue: Sale of property: Other Interest earnings Other and unallocable Utility revenue: Transit Expenditures: Highways Interest on general debt Water transport and terminals Other and unallocable Utility expenditures: Transit Debt k 9.38 Population I.36 Population. Appendix 1 176 Proration of Local Government Finances to Selected City Areas Chester Pennsylvania City Area (continued) Local Governmental Finances % Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Intergovernmental revenue from State: Other Current charges: Other Miscellaneous revenue: Interest earnings \ 1.^5 Utility revenue: Transit Expenditures: Utility expenditures: Transit Debt Basis of Proration Population of Chester as a percentage of total area served population. (Bureau of the Census) — Zero or rounds to zero. 177 Appendix 2 - Dependent Agencies of Selected Central Cities and their Overlying Counties CITY OF BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS All functions of Suffolk County Boston City Schools Boston Redevelopment Authority Brighton-Watertown Incincerator Authority Massachusetts Parking Authority (Boston Common Garage) Municipal Auditorium Public Libraries Health and Hospitals Department: Boston City Hospital Long Island Chronic Disease Hospital Mattapan Chronic Disease Hospital (Boston Sanatorium) Temporary (Welfare) Home Suffolk County House of Correction Suffolk County Jail CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Calumet Skyway Department of Urban Renewal Chicago Public Building Commission Chicago Public Library Chicago Railroad Terminal Authority Parking Facilities Correctional Institutions (House of Correction, Farm Colony, and Cermak Memorial Hospital) Community Conservation Board Municipal airports (Midway, O'Hara Field, and Meigs Field) Municipal Tuberculosis Sanitarium Municipal Contagious Disease Hospital Ports (Dept. of Rivers and Harbors) Water Department COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS Cook County Forest Preserve District Cook County Hospital Oak Forest Hospital County Home Arthur J. Audy Home for Children and Herrick Division County Jail Cook County School of Nursing Public Aid Public Health Department CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS Civic Center Facilities Farmers Market Public Library Municipal Prison Farm Municipal airports (William P. Hobby and Intercontinental ) Gas Supply) Water Supply) - Utilities Department HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS Harris County Flood Control District County Library Mosquito Control District Health Department County Parks Burnett-Bayland Home (Welfare) Harris County Children's Home (Welfare) Correctional institutions (Boys School, Rehabilitation Center, Juvenile Detention Home, and County Jail) 178 Appendix 2 - Dependent Agencies of Selected Central Cities and their Overlying Counties (continued) CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA Harbor Department (ports Facilities) Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency Municipal Airports (LA International and Van. Nuys) Sport Arena Department of Water and Power (water supply and electric light and power) Vehicle Parking Districts Los Angeles City Receiving Hospital Los Angeles Convention and Exhibition Center Public Library LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Otis Art Institute Air Pollution Control District Los Angeles County Flood Control District Los Angeles County Public Library Los Angeles County-West Covina Civic Center Authority Los Angeles County Southeast General Hospital Authority County Airports (Brackett Field, Fox Airdield, Compton Airport and El Monte Airport) Marina Del Rey Music Center and Garage Arboreta and Bontanic Gardens Museum of Art Frank G. Bonelli Regional Park and Recreation Authoiy.ty Los Angeles County Parking Authority E. Los Angeles County Facilities Authority Los Angeles - La Miranda Public Facilities Authority Museum of Natural Hostory County hospitals Correctional institutions All county service areas All county waterworks districts Fire Protection districts (including Altadena, Consolidated, Dominguez, East Los Angeles, Lancaster, Palmdale, Universal City, and Wrightwood) Garbage disposal districts (including Athens-Woodcrest-Olivita , Belvedere , Clifton Heights, Firestone, Malibu, Mesa Heights, Walnut Park, and West Hollywood-Sherman ) Recreation and park districts (including Baldwin Park, Bella Vista, Hacienda, Montebello, 120th and Central) Long Beach-Los Angeles County Civic Center Authority Los Angeles County - Norwalk Sheriff's Station Authority CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA Philadelphia County and all functions thereof City piers and docks Municipal airports (International and North Philadelphia) Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia City welfare institutions (Riverview and Children's Reception and Welfare Centers) Correctional institutions (Holmesburg Prison, Detention Center, Youth Study Center, and House of Correction) Philadelphia General Hospital Philadelphia Free Library Water Department Philadelphia Institution District 1 (y BIBLIOGRAPHY General Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, City Financial Emergencies: The Intergovernmental Dimension . Washington, D.C., 1973. Financing Schools and Property Tax Relief - A State Responsibility . Washington, D.C., 1973- Fiscal Balance in the American Federal System , Volumes 1 and 2. Washington, D.C., October 1967. Measuring the Fiscal Capacity of Tax Effort of State and Local Areas , Report N- r >8. Washington, D.C., March 1971- State Aid to Local Government . Washington, D.C., April 1969. Campbell, Alan K. and Seymour Sacks, Metropolitan America: Fiscal Patterns and Governmental Systems . New York, N.Y. , The Free Press, 1967- Commerce Clearing House, Inc., State Tax Reporter, State and Local All Taxes... All Taxables . Chicago, Illinois, Commerce Clearing House, Inc. Drachler, Norman, "The Large-City School System: It Costs More to Do the Same," Equity for Cities in School Finance Reform . Washington, D.C., The Potomac Institute, April 1973- Edel, Matt, and Jerome Rothenberg, Readings in Urban Economics . New York, MacMillian, 1972. Levin, Betsy et al., The High Cost of Education in Cities: An Analysis of the Purchasing Power of the Educational Dollar . Washington, D.C., The Urban Institute, 1973- Netzer, Dick, Economics of the Property Tax . Washington, D.C., The Brookings Institution, i960] Economics and Urban Problems . New York, N.Y., Basic Books, 1970. Perloff, Harvey, and Lowdon Wingo, Issues in Urban Economics . Washington, D.C., Resources for the Future, 1967- Potomac Institute, Inc., Equity for Cities in School Finance Reform . Washington, D.C., 1973. Sacks, Seymour et al., City Schools/Suburban Schools, A History of Fiscal Conflict . Syracuse, Syracuse University Press, 1972. U.S. Department of Commerce, Social and Economic Statistics Administration, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Survey of Current Business . Washington, D.C., August 1972. U.S. Department of Commerce, Social and Economic Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, Local Government Finances in Selected Metropolitan Areas and Large Counties: I97O-7I . Washington, D.C., 1972. Characteristics of the Population 1970 Census of Population . Washington, D.C.,1972. City Government Finances . Washington, D.C., 1972. County and City Data Book 1972, A Statistical Abstract Supplement . Washington, D.C., 1973- Detailed Characteristics 1970 Census of Population . Washington, D.C., 1972. Governmental Finances in 1970-71 . Washington, D.C., 1972. State Tax Collections in 1972 . Washington, D.C., December 1972. Quarterly Summary of State and Local Tax Revenue , (GT 72, No. k) . Washington, D.C., March 1973- Governmental Organization , Volume 1, 1972 Census of Governments. Washington, D.C. , July 1973. 180 Taxable Property Values and Assessment-Sales Price Ratios , Volume 2, 1972 Census of Governments, in two parts: Part 1, Taxable and Other Property Values . Washington, D.C., April 1973. Part 2, Assessment Sales-Price Ratios and Tax Rates . Washington, D.C., 1973- Tiebout, C. M. , The Community Economic Base Study . New York, N.Y. Committee for Economic Development, 1962. 181 Local Jurisdiction Materials Boston - Waltham Boston, Assessing Department, Annual Report of the Assessing Department for the Year 1970 . Boston, 1971. Boston, Auditing Department, City of Boston Summary of Appropriations and Expenditures for the Fiscal Year 1971 - Boston, 1971- Boston, City Council, Appropriations and Tax Orders for Current Expenses of the City and County for the Financial Year 1970 passed by the City Council up to April 15, 1970 . Boston, 1970. Boston, Finance Commission, Annual Report to the Legislature for 1970 . Boston, 1971. Boston, Office of the Business Manager, School Committee, Annual Report of the Business Manager to the School Committee of the City of Boston 1970 . Boston, 1970. School Committee of the City of Boston Budget General School Purposes 1970 . Boston, 1970. Boston, Secretary, School Committee of the City of Boston, Annual Statistics of the Boston Public Schools School Year 1969-70 . Boston, 1971. Boston, Housing Authority, Consolidated Budget HAA-Aided Developments Fiscal Year April 1, 1969-March 31, 1970 . Boston. Financial Statements for Year Ended March 30^ 1970 . Boston. Boston Metropolitan District, Trustees, Annual Report 1970 . Boston, 1971. Boston and Suffolk County, Auditing Department, Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ending December 31, I967 . Boston, 1968. Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Company, Financial Statistics of Massachusetts Including State, Counties, Cities, Towns, Districts and Authorities . Boston, 1971' Massachusetts Port Authority, Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1970 . Boston. Expense Budgets for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30 1 1970 . Boston. Examination of Financial Statements Year Ended June 30 1 1970 by Certified Public Accountant . Boston, 1970. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Board of Directors, Annual Report 1969 . Boston, 1970. Annual Report 1970 . Boston, 1971. Annual Report 1971 . Boston, 1972. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Chairman, Board of Directors, Current Expenses Budget for Calendar Year January 1, 1970 through December 31 » 1971 . Boston, 1970. Middlesex Conservation District, Chairman, Statement of Cash Receipts and Disbursements of Funds Provided by the Department of Natural Resources for the iare Ended June 30, 1970 and 1971 . Acton, Massachusetts. Middlesex County, County Treasurer, Statement of the Receipts and Expenditures of the County of Middlesex for the Year Ending December ~$\, 1970 - Waltham, Mayor, Executive Budget Recommendations to the City Council of the City of Waltham, Massachusetts for the Fiscal Year 1970 . Waltham, 1970. Waltham Housing Authority. Annual Report 1970 . Waltham, 1971. Financial Statements for Fiscal Year Ended September 30 1 1970 . Waltham. 182 Chicago - Evanston Chicago, City Clerk, Annual Appropriation Ordinance 1971 - Chicago, 1970. Chicago, Department of Streets and Sanitation, Annual Report 1970 • Chicago. Chicago, Comptroller, Report of the Comptroller of the City of Chicago for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 1970 . Chicago, 1971. Chicago, Board of Education, Annual Financial Report Year Ended December 31, 1970 - Chicago, 1971- Chicago Housing Authority, Annual Narrative Report 1970 . Chicago. Annual Statistical Report December 31, 1970 . Chicago. Chicago Park District, Comptroller, Annual Report for 1970 . Chicago. Chicago Regional Port District, Board of Directors, Annual Report for Fiscal Year July 1, 1969 to June 30, 1970 - Chicago. Chicago Regional Port District, General Manager, Operation Budget July 1, 1969 to June 30, 1970 . Chicago. Operation Budget July 1, 1970 to June 30, 1971 . Chicago. Chicago Transit Authority, Chairman, Annual Report 1970 . Chicago. Civic Federation, 38th Annual Study of Debts/Taxes/Assessments; The Major Chicago Area Governments . Chicago, 1971. Community Consolidated School District No. 65, Board of Education, Annual Budget July 1, 1969 to June 30, 1970 . Evanston. Community Consolidated School District No. 65, Township Treasurer, Financial Statements 1969-1970 . Springfield, Illinois. Cook County, Board of Commissioners, The Annual Appropriation Bill of Cook County for the Fiscal Year 1970 - Chicago, 1970. Cook County, Comptroller , Comptroller ' s Report of Cook County for Fiscal Year 1970 - Chicago, 1971- Cook County, Housing Authority, Financial Statements for Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 1970 . Chicago. Evanston, Finance Director and Comptroller, Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 1970 . Evanston, 1971. Evanston, City Council, An Ordinance Making Appropriations to Defray All Necessary Expenses and Liabilities for the Fiscal Year Beginning January 1, 1970 and Ending December 31, 1970 * Evanston. Evanston, Public Health Director, 96th Annual Report Evanston North-Shore Health Department 1970 . Evanston. Evanston, Water and Sewer Department, Annual Report 1970 * Evanston. Evanston Township High School District No. 202, Board of Education, Budget for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, I969 and Ending June 30, 1970 . Evanston. Combined Statement of Cash Receipts and Disbursements for the Year Ended June 30, 1970 Together with Auditors' Report by Certified Public Accountant . Chicago, 1970. Illinois, Director of Revenue, 26th and 27th Annual Report 1969-1970 . Springfield, Illinois, 1970. Illinois, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Annual Statistical Report for the Year Ended June 30, 1970 . Springfield, Illinois. Metropolitan Fair and Exposition Authority, General Manager, Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1970 . Chicago, 1970. Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, Annual Financial Report Year Ended December 31, 1970 . Chicago, 1971. 183 North Shore Mosquito Abatement District, Board of Trustees, Balance Sheet Audit December 31, 1970 . Northfield, Illinois, 1971. North Shore Mosquito Abatement District, Ecologist, Forty-Fourth Annual Report on Mosquito Control 1972 . Northfield, Illinois, 1973. Skokie Park District, Board of Commissioners, An Ordinance Providing for the Annual Appropriation for General Corporate Purposes, and Providing Recreational Programs as per Sections 5-1 an ^ 3-2 of the General Park District Code, and for Bond and Interest Payments of the Skokie Park District, for the Fiscal Year Beginning May 1, 1970 and Ending April 30th, 1971 . Skokie, Illinois. Financial Statements Skokie Park District, Skokie, Illinois for the Fiscal Year Ended April 30, 1970 . Skokie, Illinois. South Cook County Mosquito Abatement District, Board of Trustees, Annual Budget and Appropriation Ordinance . Harvey, Illinois. Report on Examination of Financial Statements for the Years Ended June 30, 1972 and 1971 . Harvey, Illinois, 1972. Seventeenth Annual Report 1971 . Harvey, Illinois. 184 Houston - Pasadena Aldine Independent School District, Superintendent, Official Budget 1971-1972 . Houston. Alief Independent School District, Board of School Trustees, Amendment to Texas Public School Official Budget for Fiscal Year 1970-71 - Alief Independent School District . Houston, 1971. Audit Report . Houston, 1970. Clear Lake City Water Authority, Board of Directors, Audited Financial Statements and Other Financial Information, September 30, 1970 - Houston. Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District, Board of School Trustees, Amendment to Texas Public School Official Budget for Fiscal Year 1969-70 . Houston, 1970. Deer Park Independent School District, Board of School Trustees, Texas Public School Official Budget for I969-7O, Peek Park Indepe ndent School District . Deer Park, Texas, 1969- Galena Park Independent School District, Board of Trustees, Budget 1969-1970 . Galena Park, Texas. Budget 1970-1971. Galena Park, Texas Statement of Income and Expense 1969-70 . Galena Park, Texas. Statement of Income and Expense 1970-1971 . Galena Park, Texas. Harris County, Planning Department, Harris County 1970-1990 Population and Density by 1970 Census Tracts . Houston, 1972. Harris County, County Auditor, Annual Financial Report for Year Ended December 31, 1970 . Houston, 1971. Harris County and Harris County Flood Control District Financial Statements and Supplemental Schedules for the Year Ended December 31) 1970 - Houston, 1971. Harris County and Harris County Flood Control District 1971 Budget . Houston. Harris County Hospital District, Board of Managers, Budget Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 1970 . Houston. Financial Statements as of March 31 1 1970 together with Auditors' Report and Comments . Houston, 1970. 1969-70 Proposed Budget . Houston. Harris Soil and Water Conservation District, Board of Supervisors, Audit Report August 31, 1970 and August 31, 1969 . Houston, 1970. Annual Report September 1, 1969 to August 31 1 1970 * Houston. Housing Authority of the City of Houston, Fiscal Director, Financial Statements for Fiscal Year Ended December 31) 1970 * Houston. Operating Budgets for Fiscal Year Ending December 31) 1970 * Houston. Houston, City Controller, Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 1970 . Houston, 1971. Houston, City Council, City of Houston, Texas, $23,000,000 Water System Revenue Bonds Series 1973 . Houston, 1973. Notice of Sale and Proposal for Bonds, City of Houston, Texas, $30,000,000 Public Improvement Bonds, Series 1973A . Houston, 1973- 185 Houston, Department of Traffic and Transportation, City of Houston Traffic Volume Summary - January 1972 - Houston, 1973- Houston, Director, Houston City Planning Department, Planning Department Annual Report 1972 - Houston. Houston Independent School District, Controller's Office, Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year I969-7O . Houston, 1970. Humble Independent School District, Board" of Trustees, Report of Examination 1970 . Humble, Texas, 1970. Kay Independent School District, Budget Report (amended) September 1, I969 to August 31, 1970 . Katy, Texas* Northeast Houston Independent School District, Business Manager, Official Budget for School Year I969-7O . Houston. North Forest Independent School District, Board of Trustees, Official Budget 1971-72 . Houston. Pasadena, Mayor and City Council, Report on Examination, City of Pasadena, Texas, September 30) 1970 * Pasadena, 1971- Pasadena, Office of the Mayor, Annual Budget 1970-71 . Pasadena, 1970. Pasadena Independent School District, Board of School Trustees, Amendment to Texas Public School Official Budget for Fiscal Year 1969-70 - Pasadena, 1970. Port of Houston, Executive Director, Annual Report 1970 « Houston, 1970. San Jacinto College, Board of Regents, Audit Report August 31 1 1970 « Pasadena, 1970. Sheldon Independent School District, Superintendent, Budget 1970-71 - Houston. Spring Branch Independent School District, Board of Trustees, Recommended Budget Fiscal Year 1970-71 . Houston, 1970. Report on Examination Year Ended August 31, 1970 - Houston, 1970. Spring Branch Independent School District, General Superintendent, Recommended Budget Fiscal Year 1969-70 - Houston. Tax Research Association of Houston and Harris County, Inc., Public School Finances in Harris County, Texas, 1971-72 and Data for Eight Large City Districts . Houston, 1973- 186 Los Angeles - Bur bank Beverly Hills Unified School District, Annual Financial and Budget Report-Adopted Budget for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 1969 and Ending June 30, 1970 . Beverly Hills, California. Burbank, Finance Department, Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1970 . Burbank, 1970. Burbank Unified School District, Director of Accounting, Budget Report June 30, 1970 . Burbank, 1970. Financial Report for the School Year Ended June 30) 1970 . Burbank, 1970. California State Board of Equalization, Annual Report 1969-70 One Hundred Twenty-First Fiscal Year Ended June 30; 1970 . Sacramento, California, 1970. California State Department of Education, California Public Schools Selected Statistics 1969-70 . Sacramento, California, 1971. California Taxpayers' Association, California Tax 1971-1972 Research Bulletin, California Counties Departmental Budgets . Sacramento, California, 1972. California State Controller, Annual Report of Assessed Valuation and Tax Rates as of September 1970 of the Counties of California for the Fiscal Year 1970-71 * Sacramento, California. Annual Report of Financial Transactions Concerning Counties of California Fiscal Year 1969-70 . Sacramento, California. Annual Report of Financial Transactions Concerning Water Utility Operations of Special Districts of California, Fiscal Year 1969-70 - Sacramento, California. Central and West Basin Water Replenishment District, Board of Directors, Report on Audit of Accounts for the Year Ended June 30) 1970 . Downey, California, 1970. El Camino Junior College District, Board of Trustees, Report on Examination of the Books and Records of Account Year Ended June 30) 1970 * El Camino, California, 1970. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, Director, Administrative Services, Balance Sheet and Statement of Operating Receipts and Expenditures for Fiscal Year Ended December 31) 1970 . Los Angeles. Inglewood Unified School District, Annual Financial and Budget Report 1969-70 and 1970-71-Inglewood Unified School District . Inglewood, California. Las Virgenes Unified School District, Annual Financial and Budget Report- Adopted Budget for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 1969 and Ending June 30) 1970 . Calabasas, California. Los Angeles City, Controller, Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1970 - Los Angeles, 1970. ~ " "~~ Lbs Angeles City Junior College District, Instructional and Fiscal Services Division, Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30) 1970 » Los Angeles. Los Angeles County, Auditor-Controller, Tax Payers' Guide, Tax Rates and Legal Requirements, Los Angeles County, California 1969-1970 . Los Angeles. Tax Payers' Guide, Tax Rates and Legal Requirements, Los Angeles County, California 1971-1972 . Los Angeles. Los Angeles County, Board of Supervisors, Annual Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1970. Los Angeles. 187 Los Angeles County, Chief Engineer, Los Angeles County Flood Control District I967-I969 Biennial Report . Los Angeles, 1969. Los Angeles County, County Tax Collector, Tax Rates by Code Area for the Fiscal Year I969-I97O . Los Angeles. Los Angeles County, Department of Auditor-Controller, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Annual Audit 1969-70 » Los Angeles, 1971- Los Angeles County Flood Control District, District Final Budgets Fiscal Year Ending June 30) 1970 » Los Angeles. Los Angeles County, Office of the County Superintendent of Schools, Board of Education 1972 Facts Figures Services . Los Angeles. 1971-1972 A Guidebook of General Information . Los Angeles. Los Angeles County West Mosquito Abatement District, Board of Trustees, Annual Audit I969-I97O . Culver City, California, 1971. Los Angeles County West Mosquito Abatement District, Manager, Proposed Budget Fiscal Year I969-I97O . Culver City, California, 1969. Los Angeles Unified School District, Accounting Section, Controlling Division, Controller's Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1970 . Los Angeles, 1970. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, General Manager, Report for the Fiscal Year July 1, 1969, to June 30, 1970 - Los Angeles, 1970. Southeast Mosquito Abatement District, Board of Trustees, Report of Examination Year Ended June 30, 1970 . South Gate, California, 1970. Southeast Mosquito Abatement District, Chairman, 1969-1970 Budget Committee, Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 1969-1970 » South Gate, California, 1969. Southern California Rapid Transit District, Proposed Budget for Calendar Year 1970 . Los Angeles, 1969. Report on Examination of Financial Statements for the Years Ended December 31, 1970 and 1969~ Los Angeles, 1971. Willowbrook Unified School District, Annual Financial and Budget Report- Adopted Budget for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 1969 and Ending June 30; 1970- Compton, California. 188 Philadelphia - Chester Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Community Affairs, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Financial Report of the City of Chester, Delaware County, for the Year 1970 - Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Chester Housing Authority, Financial Statements for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1970 - Chester, 1970. Chester Water Authority, Board of Directors, Annual Report 1970 - Chester, 1971. Community College of Delaware County, Board of Trustees, Introductory Budgetary Comparison 1968-69 and 1969-70 . Media, Pennsylvania. Community College of Delaware County Report on Examination of Financial Statements and Supplemental Data for the Year Ended June 30, 1970 ■ Media, Pennsylvania, 1970. Community College of Delaware County Authority, Board of Trustees, Monthly Budget Report of Short Term Loan as of 12/31/70 . Media, Pennsylvania. Report on Examination of Financial Statements for the Year 1970 « Media, Pennsylvania, 1971. Community College of Philadelphia, Financial Statements Year Ended June 30, 1970 . Philadelphia. Fiscal Year Budget July 1, 1969-June 30, 1970 . Philadelphia. Delaware County, Controller, Fifty-Sixth Annual Report for Year Ending December 31, 1970 . Media, Pennsylvania. Delaware County Housing Authority, Financial Statements for Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 1970 . Woodlyn, Pennsylvania, Operating Budget for Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 1970 * Woodlyn, Pennsylvania . Delaware River Port Authority, Commissioners, 1970 Annual Report . Camden, N.J. Parking Authority of the City of Chester, Financial Statements 1970 . Chester. Philadelphia Transportation Company, Board of Trustees, Annual Report 1971 . Philadelphia, 1971- Philadelphia, The Bulletin Almanac and Year Book for 1971 . Philadelphia. Philadelphia, Director of Finance, Financial Report Fiscal Year 1970 * Philadelphia, 1970. Philadelphia, Fairmount Park Commission, The One Hundred and Fourth Annual Report of the Commissioners of Fairmount Park . Philadelphia, 1973. Philadelphia Housing Authority, Biennial Report 1969-1970 . Philadelphia, 1971. Philadelphia Parking Authority, Audit Report Year Ended December 31, 1970 - Philadelphia, 1971. "~ School District of the City of Chester, Board of School Directors, Financial Statements and Supplemental Schedules for the School Year Ended June 30, I969 . Chester, I969. Financial Statements and Supplemental Schedules for the Year Ended June 30, 1971 - Chester, 1971. General Fund Budget 1971-1972 . Chester. School District of Philadelphia, Board of Education, 1969-1970 Annual Financial Report . Philadelphia, 1970. 189 The Proposed Operating Budget Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 1969 . Philadelphia. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Annual Report 1970 . Philadelphia, 1971. Budget 1970 . Philadelphia, I969. mot ■ H * M • r PENN ♦ I H^fv I | S | T | A .[f UN,V ERSIT mum LIBRARIES UjOQOTOVtsLsB rt, '* ■ ■ ■ I ■ 1* ■ I ■ ■ 1 1 1 ■ i ■ ■ nflfiHB JHF HI ■ I I