Conclusions or opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of staff or others affiliated with the Institute for Policy Studies, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore Efficiency and Economy Foundation, the City of Baltimore, The France-Merrick Foundation, or T. Rowe Price Associates Foundation.
Contents
Page
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................... 5
I. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 9
II. Revenue Structure in Other U.S. Cities and Maryland Counties....................................... 12
III. Current Charges............................................................................................................. 19
IV. Public Utility Taxation..................................................................................................... 27
V. Regional Sales Tax and Other Sales Tax Options............................................................ 38
VI. Earnings Tax................................................................................................................... 44
VII. Split Property Tax.......................................................................................................... 50
VIII. Conclusions.................................................................................................................... 70
Appendix A................................................................................................................................ 77
Appendix B................................................................................................................................ 78
Alternative Revenue Sources and Structures for Baltimore City
Marsha R. B. Schachtel, Aaron M. Glazer, and Michael E. Bell
August 2002
Executive Summary
The goals of this project were to explore revenue-raising options for Baltimore City that: 1) reduce disparities between city and suburban property tax rates, 2) maintain or enhance equity, and 3) increase revenue to Baltimore City government. While the scale of the City’s fiscal stress and inter-local disparities will require a mixture of solutions that include intergovernmental aid, the parameters of this paper are limited to own-source revenue possibilities. It is exploratory in nature and limited in scope, seeking to highlight options that warrant deeper analysis. In each case, however, even an overview quickly focuses on the tradeoffs between the city’s human development, community development, and economic development goals on the one hand, and the need to generate more revenue on the other.
To select options that are worth exploring in greater detail, the project team was guided by the following general principles:
· Ease of implementation - can be done within existing law if possible
· Productivity – generates the largest revenue increases
· Relief – has the potential to reduce property tax rates
· Burden shifting – avoids or mitigates the effects on those negatively affected by a change in existing revenue structure
As pointed out in a recent fiscal overview prepared by the Maryland Department of Legislative Services,[1] despite the recent redevelopment successes, declining crime rates, and rising school test scores, Baltimore City’s high poverty rate has translated into tax base growth that is inadequate to meet demands for public service expenditures. Growth in property and income tax revenues in the last four years is less than half the rate of growth in the state’s major metropolitan counties, even though the City has taxed its anemic bases heavily. Local tax burdens[2] in Baltimore are well above the four largest counties, and the City appears to rely on user fees to a greater extent than do other Maryland counties. To fill the gap between its needs and its resources, the City has become more reliant on state and federal funding as primary sources of funding for services targeted to its neediest citizens.
Like other cities experiencing fiscal stress, Baltimore has sought to reduce the size of its workforce and to increase the efficiency of its operations. Also like them, it has found that containing expenditures is not enough, and so continues to be interested in making incremental progress by getting more productivity out of its own current and potential resource bases. Initial exploration of several options revealed three promising avenues for further investigation.
Taxation of utilities
Public utility taxes have the potential for generating significant revenues with relatively low rates, in large part because they are broad-based taxes. Cities tax utilities in a wide variety of ways. The Census Bureau enables us to compare cities’ selective sales taxes on public utilities, gross receipts taxes, gross and net income taxes, and franchise taxes applied directly, and solely, to public utilities. But it does not give us insight into the role of this source of revenue in those cities that include utilities in their general taxation of business property, sales, gross receipts, or income. Using just the Census Bureau data as a pointer, however, it is clear that California cities have used “utilities user taxes” since the late 1960s to reduce reliance on property taxes. While they vary from city to city, theses taxes on natural gas, electric power, telephone (including cellular), and cable television services generate a substantial portion of locally-generated revenues. Chicago has also significantly increased the role of utility tax revenues in the Corporate Fund (its general fund). If Baltimore’s public utility taxes generated only the narrowly-defined (by Census) big-city average of 4.9 percent of revenues generated from its own sources, it would have increased its revenues from this source by 69 percent, from $25.3 million in FY2002 to $42.7 million.
Currently, Baltimore City taxes electricity, natural gas, and steam based on units of energy delivered. It does not tax cellular telephone service. The City can change the way it levies these taxes and broaden their base by city ordinance, which is an implementation advantage. A bill introduced last year in the Baltimore City Council[3] would repeal the City’s telecommunications and energy taxes and replace them with a five percent gross receipts tax on the producers of these services.
The City should explore all the approaches described here and develop an appropriate combination of franchise agreements for independent entries into the public right of way, and taxes on sales and/or deliveries of utility service to all users in the city by all suppliers. The preferred approach should seek to minimize volatility through unit-based rather than ad valorem levies; keep rates as low as possible by broadening the base, including wireless telephony; take into account deregulation impacts; and make appropriate tradeoffs with economic development objectives.
Regional sales tax for culture and leisure
A regional sales tax to fund regional cultural and leisure assets in the Baltimore metropolitan area would bring Baltimore City significant benefits if structured on the Allegheny[4] Regional Assets Districts model. The approach holds the possibility of not only stanching the bleeding of City-supported cultural institutions and recreation venues, but also the possibility of enhancements to them and relief for taxpayers.
In the Pittsburgh area, half the revenues from a one percent sales and use tax and one percent hotel excise tax are allocated to the regional asset district to fund regional cultural and recreational assets. The other half of the revenues provide modest tax relief to localities in the region, based on a distribution formula that is weighted by tax capacity and effort.
A similarly structured one percent sales tax in the Baltimore metropolitan area (without the hotel tax) would save Baltimore City over $25 million in funds currently devoted to cultural and recreational assets, and bring it almost $50 million in shared revenues. Even if a substantial portion of the funds were used to restore City support of cultural institutions and recreation that has been eroded over the years as budget woes have intensified, tax relief could also be pursued. The new revenues might also enable the City and other jurisdictions to expand recreation-related after-school activities. Other localities in the region would also experience cost savings and enhanced revenues. State legislation would be required to implement this option.
Statewide earnings tax
A mobile tax base of over $6 billion annually leaves the City as commuters return home each night. Taxing earnings where they are earned and at the residence of the worker recognizes the benefits and costs that commuters carry from home to workplace. Safety of their persons and their property must be protected in both places. Their travel imposes infrastructure maintenance and solid waste costs on the destination jurisdiction. On the other hand, ready availability of an expanded regional labor pool is attractive to businesses in each “receiving” locale. A metropolitan job market provides wider economic opportunity for the region’s citizens.
If an earnings tax of one percent combined with local income tax credits for earnings taxes paid were adopted, Baltimore City would be among the seven jurisdictions that would experience a net increase in revenues. It is estimated that earnings tax revenues would be $32 million, an addition of 22 percent to current income tax revenues. Maryland residents would experience no change in tax liability, and non-residents would not be taxed unless their states (including the District of Columbia) imposed taxes on Maryland residents. Maryland residents working out of state would be taxed on their income as they are today. State legislation would be required to implement this option.
Split-rate property tax
The tax shifting implications of a graded or “split” property tax were explored. But since it does not generate new revenue for the city and would dramatically depart from the history and culture of the State of Maryland, it is unlikely that this approach would be worth the significant educational effort that would be required to pass legislation to implement it.
In sum, the most difficult-to-implement sales and wage tax options hold promise for significantly enhancing revenues and offering a chance of tax relief for Baltimore citizens. However, several unilateral options, most notably utility-related fees and taxes (including cellular telephone taxes), may hold the potential for appreciable revenue gains. Alternative approaches to utility taxation, including gross receipts-based levies as well as charges for usage of public right-of-ways, meet the tests that have guided this investigation, and warrant further analysis. Though more difficult to implement, regional sales tax and general or selected local sales taxes, particularly those dedicated to a specific purpose, also hold promise.
Table ExSum-1. Estimates of Revenue Implications
|
Type of Revenue |
Application |
Revenue Enhancement for Baltimore City |
User Fees/Charges |
Increase use of user fees and charges for city services |
Projections unavailable |
Utility Taxation |
Sales price-based tax of 8% on energy
Sales price-based tax of 12% on telecommunications |
$60 million
$30 million |
Sales tax: Regional Asset District |
Additional 1% sales tax, with ½% allotted for cultural assets and ½% allotted for tax relief |
$28.1 million in savings, from cultural assets removed from city budget; $47.6 million in tax relief; $107.6 million available for cultural funding in the region |
Selective Sales Tax |
1% sales tax on food & beverages sold in restaurants (not hotels) |
At least $558,000 |
Earnings Tax |
1% on earnings by workers in Baltimore City
Maryland Residents taxed 1% of earnings by the county in which they work, receive credits against income tax in county of residence. |
$67 million
$32 million |
Split-Rate Property Tax |
Taxation of land and improvements at different rates. Land taxed at 5x the rate of improvements. |
Revenue neutral for the City |
Alternative Revenue Sources and Structures for Baltimore City
Marsha R. B. Schachtel, Aaron M. Glazer, and Michael E. Bell
August 2002
A Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies consulting team was asked by the Baltimore Efficiency and Economy Foundation[5] to explore revenue-raising options for Baltimore City that: 1) reduce disparities between city and suburban property tax rates, 2) maintain or enhance equity, and 3) increase revenue to Baltimore City government.
To select options that are worth exploring in greater detail, the project team was guided by the following general principles:
· Ease of implementation - can be done within existing law if possible
· Productivity – generates the largest revenue increases
· Relief – has the potential to reduce property tax rates
· Burden shifting – avoids or mitigates the effects on those negatively affected by a change in revenue structure
I. Introduction
“The city does not expect to be able to balance its FY92 budget without significant disruptions to normal operations.” (1991)
“The city’s limited revenue is exhausted and by itself [the city] can no longer preserve the basic public services needed to stabilize our community and support its economic growth.” (1999)
“…the City has narrow operating margins and a structurally insufficient revenue base (p.27)…The sluggish revenue growth [2.9 percent] that is forecast for the City cannot keep pace with the 15.9 percent increase in appropriations that was requested by City agencies for operations in Fiscal 2002. Available resources will continue to fall short of the demands for funding of services.” (2002)
In good economic times and in bad, the structural mismatch between Baltimore’s revenue-raising capacity and expenditure need makes balancing the budget very difficult. As these excerpts from its budget messages reflect, Baltimore City government enters the 21st century in the throes of “retrenchment.” This word is relatively new to the public lexicon, but has become an increasingly apt description of widespread local government responses to fiscal stress, which has lingered in older cities despite the economic expansion of the 1990s. Now with the economy souring, cities across the country are having increased trouble balancing their budgets. The National League of Cities’ 2001 survey found that “the percentage of cities that say they are better off financially is the lowest since 1994” (56 percent) and “less than half of the cities (46%) expect to be in a better financial situation in 2002 than in 2001.”[6]
Expenditures
The National League of Cities survey describes the actions taken by cities to adjust to straitened fiscal conditions. On the expenditure side, 44.4 percent of the largest (over 300,000 population) U.S. cities had taken steps in 2001 to increase productivity, a trend echoed in Baltimore in the CitiStat-driven efforts to reduce overtime and increase efficiency. More than 23 percent of the largest cities, like Baltimore, contracted out public services. Over 18 percent of the largest cities entered into interlocal agreements to share costs, almost 18 percent reduced city employment, and 14.5 percent reduced the growth rate of the operating budget. Other expenditure tactics employed by less than five percent of the largest cities included reductions in capital spending, and service levels.
Baltimore has reduced employment supported by the General Fund from 12,220 in 1990 to 8,844 in 2002. The population has been decreasing dramatically at the same time, so General Fund positions per 1,000 population have decreased more modestly, from 16.6 to 14.1. It should be noted, however, that households requiring public services have not decreased as dramatically as population (because average household size is shrinking) and even with fewer people, vacant properties still require city services, as do non-residential establishments and commuters.
Revenues
Many cities, Baltimore included, are finding that containing expenditures is not enough. With regard to revenues, the National League of Cities survey found that almost 40 percent of the largest cities increased the level of fees or charges, by far the most popular own-source revenue action taken in FY 2001. Over 11 percent instituted new fees and charges. Almost 18 percent increased the number or level of impact or development fees. While 21.4 percent lowered property tax rates, 10.7 percent raised them.
In order to meet its extraordinary expenditure needs[7] Baltimore City has consistently more heavily taxed its relatively meager revenue bases than other counties in Maryland. (For most purposes, Baltimore City is considered a county in Maryland law.) Periodically, the Maryland Department of Legislative Services[8] performs an analysis of the tax capacity and tax effort of Maryland’s jurisdictions. The results, shown in Table I-1 below, measure the potential of a county to raise revenues from its own sources relative to that of other counties (tax capacity[9]) and the degree to which a county exploits its capacity, again relative to other counties (tax effort[10]). The department’s analysis shows Baltimore City’s tax capacity to be less than 60 percent of the state average, worsening over time, and continuing to lag its neighbors.
Clearly, fully addressing this magnitude of disparity in capacity calls for dramatic changes in expenditure responsibility, government structure, and/or intergovernmental aid, which are all strategies that have been pursued in the past and will be in the future. However, the City continues to be interested in making incremental progress by getting more productivity out of its own current and potential resource bases. This study looks at possibilities for achieving this goal, the issues that surround their implementation, and the implications of their adoption. The study is exploratory in nature. Estimates of revenue impacts are necessarily rough given our limited scope – no detailed analysis of the effects of exemptions has been undertaken, for example. The options identified by our sponsors have been investigated with an eye toward highlighting opportunities, but in some cases cited here, corrective actions or initiatives can be undertaken based on the limited data now available. More complete analysis, like that done by the District of Columbia Tax Revision Commission in 1998[11] under the direction of Philip M. Dearborn, would require an intensive multi-year effort.
II. Revenue Structure in Other U.S. Cities and Maryland Counties
Like other cities, Baltimore City exists in law as a creature of its state. The State of Maryland makes the rules about how the City can raise money and what responsibilities it has for spending. Maryland permits localities to levy taxes on property (both real and personal) and requires that they tax the income of their residents. State laws govern the definition of bases and application of rates. The State has reserved general sales taxes and most business taxes for itself. The most profound state impact on city revenue-raising capacity resulted from a 1948 constitutional change that limited the City’s ability to annex the suburban areas that its growth had spawned. The State also decides which functions it will perform and which will be left to the localities. Maryland is a fairly progressive state in this regard, having assumed responsibility for welfare, public transit, and sharing the cost of many health functions.
Because all Maryland localities are subject to Maryland law, which at least provides a common framework, the first analysis compares Baltimore to selected counties in the state. It should be noted, however, that individual counties[12] have been authorized to levy selected sales or excise taxes on hotel occupancy, other transient rentals, utilities, etc. Also, Maryland counties vary in their expenditure responsibilities, most notably in the area of public safety. The comparative per capita tax yields shown in Table II-1 reveal the pressure put on the property tax base and other sources of revenue by the very weak base of the income tax in Baltimore City.
Table II-1. Property and Income Tax Bases
|
County |
Total assessed valuation ($B) |
Per capita property tax base ($) |
Net taxable income ($B) |
Per capita income tax base* ($) |
||||||
|
|
FY1989 |
FY1999 |
FY1989 |
FY1999 |
CY1989 |
CY1997 |
CY1989 |
CY1997 |
||
|
Anne Arundel |
7.6 |
14.1 |
18,080 |
29,351 |
5.1 |
7.6 |
11,937 |
16,177 |
||
|
Balt. City |
7.1 |
8.3 |
9,430 |
13,137 |
4.8 |
5.3 |
6,522 |
8,060 |
||
|
Balt. Co. |
11.5 |
17.9 |
16,841 |
24,772 |
8.9 |
12.1 |
12,859 |
16,805 |
||
|
Carroll |
1.8 |
3.6 |
14,899 |
23,575 |
1.3 |
2.1 |
10,537 |
14,294 |
||
|
Harford |
2.3 |
5.0 |
14,213 |
23,075 |
1.9 |
3.1 |
10,432 |
14,596 |
||
|
Howard |
4.1 |
7.8 |
25,191 |
32,262 |
2.8 |
4.8 |
14,947 |
20,967 |
||
|
Montgomery |
19.4 |
31.7 |
27,682 |
37,157 |
12.6 |
18.8 |
16,516 |
22,688 |
||
|
Prince George’s |
11.1 |
17.5 |
16,091 |
22,418 |
7.3 |
8.9 |
10,101 |
11,561 |
||
|
All MD counties** |
80.0 |
133.9 |
16,724 |
26,291 |
53.7 |
76.8 |
11,233 |
15,080 |
||
*Using 1990 census and 1997 estimates of population
**And non-resident income tax filers
Sources: Maryland Department of Legislative Services, Local Government Finances in Maryland; Comptroller of the Treasury, Income Tax Summary Report; U.S. Bureau of the Census
Property taxes in Maryland
Trends over the past 25 years were examined to look at what other Maryland jurisdictions have done to diversify their revenue sources, particularly those that adopted property tax assessment or revenue caps in the late 1970s and thereafter. Nationally, waves of efforts to roll back property taxes peaked in the late 1970s[13] and again in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Prince George’s County’s Tax Reform Initiative by Marylanders (TRIM) resulted from a petition drive to amend the county charter in 1978, and placed a ceiling of $2.40 on the county real property tax rate ($.962 in full value assessment). As recently as 1996, Prince George’s County voters rejected efforts to repeal the tax cap. Anne Arundel County adopted a charter amendment in 1972 limiting total annual increases in property tax revenues to the lesser of 4.5 percent or the increase in the Consumer Price Index. A similar petition effort in Baltimore County failed in 1990.
Effective 1992, Maryland law (the Homestead Property Tax Credit) required that residential owner-occupied property assessment increases be limited to 10 percent annually. Local governments (counties and municipalities) were permitted to adopt a lower cap annually, which could be as low as 0 percent. Table II-2 shows county assessment caps for localities in the Baltimore region and other metropolitan counties, as well as the average annual increases in 1999, 2000, and 2001 before the cap was applied. The caps are applied on a property-by-property basis.
Table II-2. Average Annual Reassessments and County Assessment Caps
|
County |
Assessment Cap |
Average Annual Increase Before Cap |
||
|
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
||
|
Anne Arundel |
4% |
1.9% |
2.9 |
4.9 |
|
Baltimore City |
4% |
.9 |
2.4 |
3.4 |
|
Baltimore County |
4% |
1.7 |
1.4 |
2.1 |
|
Carroll County |
10% |
2.1 |
2.0 |
2.6 |
|
Harford County |
10% |
1.9 |
1.4 |
3.2 |
|
Howard County |
5% |
1.7 |
2.2 |
3.5 |
|
Montgomery County |
10% |
.9 |
2.1 |
4.5 |
|
Prince George’s County |
2% |
.2 |
.6 |
1.6 |
Source: Maryland Dept. of Assessments and Taxation
The numbers shown above are average annual increases, which include properties that experienced larger and smaller assessments. The good and bad news of Baltimore City’s recent growth in property values means that its increases are once again raising the level of “tax expenditures,” or taxes foregone through the assessment caps. Properties are reassessed every three years and Group I in Baltimore City, which was reevaluated in 2001, includes the City’s largest and most valuable downtown properties and northern tier neighborhoods. Increases in this group exceeded the state average, but the increases in Group II, reassessed in 2002, were less than half the state average. Because the cap is applied on a property-by-property basis, on properties where assessment increases exceeded the cap, the city gave up an estimated $5.2 million in tax revenues this past year. However, while the city’s real property tax base is at last increasing, it has yet to regain its 1994 level.
Good comparative data about the finances of Maryland localities over time is available through FY1999, but is still challenging to interpret. The Maryland Department of Legislative Services (DLS) includes revenues from enterprise operations like water and wastewater in “service charges,” which are then aggregated into total revenues. In Baltimore City, revenues from water and wastewater (largely from other suburban jurisdictions to which it supplies these services) account for 80 percent of the revenues included in this category. Prince George’s County shares in revenues (and expenditures) from the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission. These two situations (along with Montgomery County, which is not examined here) are completely incomparable to other Maryland jurisdictions and significantly skew the revenue totals in these localities.
Another factor in comparing total revenues as compiled by DLS that must be considered when looking longitudinally is that proceeds from debt, also included in total revenues, is highly variable from year to year in each jurisdiction.
Therefore, to get an idea of how important a role the property tax plays in the portion of the localities’ revenue structure that they generate themselves, we subtracted service charges and debt proceeds as well as intergovernmental revenues. With these adjustments, Table II-3 shows 25-year trends in property tax reliance, which has been declining in most jurisdictions as this source of revenue has been capped. The largest decline was, as expected, in Prince George’s County. Only Baltimore City raised a larger share of its (adjusted) own-source revenues from property taxes at the end of the century than it did in 1974.
Table II-3. Property Tax Revenues as a Percentage of Own Source Revenues*
|
County |
1974 |
1984 |
1994 |
1999 |
|
Anne Arundel |
47.3 |
45.6 |
49.2 |
46.6 |
|
Baltimore City |
47.7 |
47.0 |
50.4 |
58.2 |
|
Baltimore County |
53.3 |
45.9 |
49.7 |
47.9 |
|
Montgomery County |
50.5 |
42.9 |
49.5 |
42.3 |
|
Prince George’s County |
58.4 |
48.6 |
51.7 |
49.6 |
|
All Maryland counties |
51.1 |
46.3 |
50.6 |
48.7 |
*Adjusted: total revenue less intergovernmental, debt proceeds, and current services
Source: Maryland Department of Legislative Services, Local Government Finances in MD
Current charges in Maryland
One hypothesis about how localities have made up the reductions in property taxes is that they have increased the fees for services they have charged users, both their citizens and others. Because of the inclusion of utility revenues in the current services data compiled by the Department of Legislative Services, it is not possible to rigorously compare all Maryland localities. Current services/charges are explored in greater depth in Chapter III.
Other large cities
For a number of reasons, it is very difficult to make and interpret fiscal comparisons between Baltimore City and other municipalities across the country:
First, as pointed out in the introduction, there are fifty different frameworks for local finance in the U.S. – each state has a different allocation of revenue-raising and service-delivery responsibilities between the state and local governments. Within each state, there is a dizzying array of variations, from the simple case of Maryland counties’ different taxing powers to the situation in Pennsylvania, which has several classes of counties, of cities, and of townships.
Second, Baltimore, like many cities in the Northeast, has a high concentration of low-income residents and a skewed distribution of income. Since fiscal systems develop in a manner reflecting local circumstances, fiscal comparisons between Baltimore and cities with a more balanced composition of population and less skewed income distribution are difficult to make and interpret.
Third, data on actual revenues from annual budgets or financial reports for different jurisdictions cannot be compared easily in the aggregate because each government has its own budget definitions, classifications, and reporting requirements.
Fourth, cities vary dramatically in the culture that informs public policymaking. Social, political, geographic, and historical factors have shaped the systems in place and determine what are acceptable alternatives and what are not.
To make any comparisons between Baltimore and other cities, at a minimum we need data on actual revenues collected that utilize the same definitions and reporting conventions across jurisdictions. The Governments Division of the U.S. Census Bureau constructs and reports such data in its annual report Government Finances and in the census of governments conducted every five years. In this paper, we use data from the 1997 Census of Governments to compare Baltimore with other large cities.
Since we are using data from the Census Bureau, we must use their definitions. The Census Bureau starts by defining general revenue as all revenue of a local government except those from liquor stores, utilities run by the local government, or insurance trust funds. A jurisdiction’s total revenue equals general revenue plus liquor store, utility, and insurance trust revenues.
A jurisdiction’s general revenues are divided into four major categories: 1) taxes; 2) intergovernmental revenues; 3) current charges; and 4) miscellaneous general revenues. A jurisdiction’s general own-source revenues are the sum of taxes, current charges, and miscellaneous general revenues.
We have chosen to compare Baltimore City to other cities that generally fit the following profile: population greater than 300,000; not growing through annexation; and with similar demographic characteristics. We added cities that may not precisely fit the profile but had adopted revenue-raising approaches that we are exploring elsewhere in this paper.
The major differences in cities’ budgets arise from education expenditure responsibility – do they have dependent or independent schools? In most localities, school districts are separate units of government with their own revenue-raising, borrowing, and spending powers. Because only a few big cities have responsibility for schools (Baltimore,[14] Boston, and New York on this list), we have added the relevant school district revenues (and their sources) to the data for each of the other cities to facilitate comparison. Memphis is an anomaly because the county of which it is a part has primary responsibility for funding the schools (which it does through property and sales taxes). Other expenditure responsibility differences (hospitals, ports, airports) that we have not corrected for in this overview will be explored in subsequent chapters.
Table II-4 reveals the great variability among cities even when selection and adjustments are made to enhance comparability. The first cut, between intergovernmental and own-source revenues, puts Memphis, Detroit, Baltimore, Boston, Philadelphia, Cleveland, New York, and San Francisco above the average dependence on intergovernmental revenues, Chicago at the average for these 17 cities, and the remainder below. Baltimore is one of three cities that receives more than 50 percent of its revenue from intergovernmental grants.
Table II-4. Revenue Structure 1997 |
||
|
% of total general revenue (city and school district)
|
||
|
|
Intergovtal total |
Own source total |
|
Baltimore (de facto city/county)* |
53.4 |
46.4 |
|
Boston* |
46.4 |
53.6 |
|
Chicago^ |
37.5 |
62.5 |
|
Cleveland |
41.5 |
58.5 |
|
Columbus |
26.5 |
73.5 |
|
Dallas^ |
18.2 |
81.8 |
|
Denver City/County^ |
26.0 |
74.0 |
|
Detroit |
63.0 |
37.0 |
|
Houston^ |
21.9 |
78.1 |
|
Kansas City^ |
29.5 |
70.5 |
|
Memphis** |
66.5 |
33.5 |
|
New York*^ ^^ |
38.3 |
|