Municipal Finance: Conditions, Local Responses, and Outlook for the Future Chris Hoene, Director, Policy & Research, National League of Cities Michael A. Pagano, Dean, College of Urban Planning & Public Affairs, University of Illinois at Chicago Strengthening Neighborhoods in Weak Markets Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis September 24, 2008
Topics to cover City fiscal conditions Housing finance and foreclosures local impacts and responses Revenue structure and spatialization The outlook for the future
Percentage of Cities Better Able/Less Able to meet needs next year than in current year
Factors Negatively Impacting City Budgets (% of city finance officers listing factor) Prices/Inflation 91% Employee wages 89% Employee health benefits 84% Infrastructure needs 78% Public safety needs 78% Employee pension costs 77%
Revenue & Expenditure Actions FY08 (% of city finance officers listing factor) Revenue Actions Increase fees 49% Increase # of fees 28% Increase property tax rate 24% Decrease property tax rate 24% Increase level of impact fees 23% Expenditure Actions Increase pub. safety 73% Increase infrastructure & capital 52% Increase operations 42% Increase productivity 37% Increase human serv 35% Increase workforce 33% Decrease operations 23% Decrease workforce 22%
Own -Source Revenue Composition, 1972 2002 100% 100% 10.92% 12.33% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 90% 18.46% 26.43% 80% 43.21% 40.13% 2.86% 70% 2.63% 1.40% 5.37% 6.56% 60% 3.44% 9.11% 5.74% 50% 2.09% 7.56% 12.49% 40% 17.72% 30% 62.98% 20% 39.27% 46.60% 29.09% 10% 17.52% 20.61% 3.00% 0.84% 0.31% 0.61% 0.77% 2.00% 0.77% 0.64% 1.75% 4.08% 2.19% 0.51% 79.32% 83.22% 72.74% 85.97% 76.23% 74.12% 0.00% 1.25% 5.91% 1.33% 0.00% 16.61% Charges and Misc. Revenue Charges and Misc. Other Revenue Other Income Taxes Income Taxes Sales and Gross Sales and Gross Receipts Property Receipts Property 10% 0% 24.54% Counties Municipalities Townships School Districts Special Districts 0% Counties Municipalities Townships School districts Special districts Source: U.S. Census Bureau
45% 40% State Aid to Municipalities and to Other Local Governments $350,000 $327B $300,000 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% $250,000 Even as Total State $200,000 Aid Increases $150,000 $100,000 Millions of Current Dollars 10% 5% $50,000 State aid as Percentage of General Municipal Revenue 0% State aid as Percentage of General Local Government Revenue, Excluding Municipalities 1971-1972 1976-1977 1981-1982 1986-1987 1991-1992 1996-1997 2001-02 24.1% 23.2% 20.8% 20.2% 21.3% 20.7% 21.9% Impact of state 38.0% 39.0% 40.2% 39.3% 39.7% 40.5% 39.9% fiscal crisis, FY04, $57B State Aid to Municipalities ($Millions) $8,434 $14,093 $19,003 $26,420 $37,380 $45,932 $62,405 State Aid to Local Governments, Excluding $26,709 $46,184 $76,360 $110,449 $160,510 $212,303 $293,137 Municipalities ($Millions) $0
State Budget Gaps & Housing Price Declines Seattle -7.1% Portland -5.8% Boston -5.2% Minneapolis -13.9% Detroit -16.3% San Francisco -23.7% Chicago -9.5% Cleveland -7.3% New York -7.3% Las Vegas -28.6% Denver -4.7% Washington, D.C. -15.7% Los Angeles -25.3% Phoenix -27.9% Charlotte -1.0%% San Diego -24.2% Atlanta -8.1% Dallas -3.2% Tampa -20.1% Miami -28.3% Projected state budget gap in FYs 2009-10 Metropolitan Area Housing Price Decline 6/07 6/08 Source, State Budget Gaps: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, September 2008 Source, Metropolitan Area Housing Prices: Standard and Poor s/case-shiller Home Price Index, June 2008
16.0% Federal Aid to Municipalities and to Other Local Governments $30,000 14.0% 12.0% $25,000 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 Millions of Current Dollars 4.0% 2.0% $5,000 0.0% 1971-1972 1976-1977 1981-1982 1986-1987 1991-1992 1996-1997 2001-02 $0 Fed aid as Percentage of General 7.3% 14.7% 12.0% 6.4% 4.6% 5.3% 5.3% Municipal Revenue Fed aid as Percentage of General Local 2.9% 6.5% 5.4% 3.9% 3.0% 3.3% 3.8% Government Revenue, Excluding Municipalities Federal Aid to Municipalities ($Millions) $2,538 $8,910 $10,996 $8,390 $8,103 $11,699 $15,201 Federal Aid to Local Governments, Excluding Municipalities ($Millions) $2,013 $7,644 $10,260 $11,005 $12,004 $17,069 $27,750
Topics to cover City fiscal conditions Housing finance and foreclosures local impacts and responses Revenue structure and spatialization The outlook for the future
NLC Survey of Local Officials Impact of Housing Finance & Foreclosures 70% 60% 50% 62% 53% 40% 33% 33% 30% 22% 20% 10% 0% >Foreclosures <Revenues >Vac Prop >Temp Housing >Temp Asst. Source: Housing Finance and Foreclosure Crisis: Local Impacts and Responses, by Christiana McFarland, NLC, March, 2008.
Local Response & Collaboration (% of city officials) Local Response Adjust budget/decrease spending 18% Increase temp. assistance 17% Increase property oversight/code enf. 11% Build internal capacity 6% Collaboration Non-profit/civic 59% State government 35% Other local govt 34% Banks/mortgage comp. 32% Churches 29% Neighborhood assoc. 26% Federal govt 26% Other private 18% Source: Housing Finance and Foreclosure Crisis: Local Impacts and Responses, by Christiana McFarland, NLC, March, 2008.
City Practices Steps to help families on brink of foreclosure Counseling on pre- and post-loan programs Coalitions and partnerships (Louisville, Seattle, many others) City help lines (Baltimore & Chicago) Emergency (trust) fund/stabilization loan programs (Seattle, Louisville, Chicago, New Bedford, San Antonio, Boston) Foreclosures & vacant properties Mapping foreclosure and at-risk properties/borrowers Upkeep, maintenance, and revitalization (Boston, Sacramento, many others) Foreclosures to workforce housing (Charlotte, Cleveland, Denver, Montgomery County, MD, Fairfax County, VA, many others) Purchase (or seized) & resale, land banks (Flint, Syracuse) Mortgage industry Education and collaboration Requiring lenders to register foreclosed properties with city and retain property management company (Chula Vista) Lawsuits (Baltimore, Cleveland, Buffalo, Worcester)
Gap areas where cities need help Funding for loan/stabilizations programs Mapping & tracking foreclosure activity Establish programs to help lower-capacity jurisdictions Coordinate and facilitate cross-jurisdictional responses
Topics to cover City fiscal conditions Housing finance and foreclosures local impacts and responses Revenue structure and spatialization The outlook for the future
Municipal Tax Authority by State WA e MT f ND ME OR ID f SD MN f WI NY a VT NH MA CA NV UT WY CO NE KS IA MO a IL MI a OH IN c KY WV VA PA a DE a MD a RI CT NJ f AZ NM OK d AR b TN SC NC MS AL a GA AK TX LA FL HI a Income or sales tax for selected cities. b Cities can levy a local income tax, but no locality currently does so. c A local income tax under certain circumstances. d Sales tax only; cities can levy a property tax for debt-retirement purposes only. e Cities can impose the equivalent of a business income tax. f Sales taxes for selected cities and/or restricted use only. Property + sales + income Property + sales OR ncome Property or sales only
Municipal Revenue Reliance by State WA MT ND ME OR ID SD MN WI NY VT NH MA CA NV UT WY CO NE KS IA MO IL MI OH IN KY WV VA PA DE MD NJ RI CT AZ NM OK AR TN SC NC MS AL GA AK TX LA FL HI Three tax sources Two tax sources One source + low 2 nd source One tax source
Cities strategic behavior to maximize individual and community well-being derives from three principal imperatives of municipalities in a federal system: First, because cities must pursue policies that augment or, at a minimum, maintain the economic vitality of the community, policy officials are induced to use land to its highest and best use.
Incorporated Places in Maricopa County Peoria s Progressive Annexation Phoenix Tempe
Second, because cities must pursue policies that minimize social disruption and protect property values, policy officials are encouraged to assemble, zone, and dedicate land for the purpose of simulating natural barriers and protecting property values.
Fences and Canals in Tempe
Third, because cities must pursue policies that enhance their fiscal condition, policy officials are motivated to consider development options that either maximize revenues or minimize costs.
A 3-Dimensional Model of Strategic Behavior Source: Ann O M. Bowman and Michael A. Pagano Terra Incognita: Vacant Land and Urban Strategies (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2004)
Red Cube Land
Vacant Land and Cities General Taxing Authority Vacant Land as a Percentage of Total Land Area Number of Abandoned Structures per 1000 Population General Tax Authority N Mean Diversified (Sales or Income or Sales and Income) 106 0.175 Property Tax Only 38 0.142 Diversified (Sales or income or Sales and Income) 98 2.227 Property Tax Only 32 0.895
Spatialization of Revenue Structures Why promote development or a certain type of development at a particular location? Given a choice, parcels will be identified for development that maximize revenues or minimize costs. The mini-max incentive embedded within the context of a city s revenue structure manifests itself spatially in the design, land-use designations and development patterns of the city, or the spatialization of revenue structure.
Figure 1: Idealized Urban Form of Property Tax Cities STRATEGIC BEHAVIOR OF PROPERTY-TAX CITIES Property-tax cities think strategically about development based on the market value of the development and on the possibility of shifting service-delivery costs to other jurisdictions (fiscal externalities).
Figure 2a: Idealized Urban Form of Sales Tax Cities STRATEGIC BEHAVIOR OF SALES-TAX CITIES Sales-tax cities think strategically about development based on their mental constructs of shopping sheds and on which market transactions are taxable.
The Growth in Tempe s Sales Tax Revenues (1992, 1995, 1999 [estimated] by location.
Land Use in Chandler
Figure 2b: Idealized Urban Form of Sales Tax Cities (with expansion capacity)
Figure 3: Idealized Urban Form of Income Tax Cities STRATEGIC BEHAVIOR OF INCOME-TAX CITIES Income-tax cities think strategically about development based on their assessment of the income growth potential of the individual or firm.
City A Figure 4: Idealized Urban Form of Site-Value Tax Cities Commercial STRATEGIC BEHAVIOR OF SITE-VALUE TAX CITIES Site-value-tax cities think strategically Density about determined development by market based on the possibility of shifting service-delivery costs to other jurisdictions forces (fiscal externalities). High Density Industrial City B City C
Policy Questions? 1. Sprawl and transportation. Low density growth is caused by numerous factors (e.g., transportation and land costs), but might sprawl also be encouraged because of cities pursuit of revenues. For example, if sprawl is an outgrowth of sales-tax cities demand for resources, would a different revenue mix curb or diminish sprawl?
2. Regional cooperation. Do revenue structures influence cooperative behavior among local governments? What immediate gains to a municipality with undeveloped land near it would cooperation with a neighboring municipality generate? Unless forced by the state to adopt a cooperative face, the revenue logic of cities, especially sales-tax cities, might discourage cooperation.
3. Revenue Structures and Land Use. If land use/zoning follows the logic of spatialization of revenue structures, how could zoning and land use change with the introduction of a different revenue system?
Topics to cover City fiscal conditions Housing finance and foreclosures local impacts and responses Revenue structure and spatialization The outlook for the future
Outlook for the Future City tax bases and revenue will continue to decline through 2011 Real estate market will be slow to recover Consumer spending and wages also down Inflationary/cost pressures will continue Energy-related and employee costs Unlikely aid from federal and state levels Cities will tap into ending balances/reserves Public concern will limit options
For more information Chris Hoene Director, Policy and Research National League of Cities 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 (202) 626-3172 ph. (202) 626-3043 fax Hoene@NLC.org Michael A. Pagano Dean, College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs University of Illinois at Chicago 412 South Peoria St. (MC 350) Chicago, IL 60607-7064 (312) 413-3375 ph. (312) 413-8095 fax MAPagano@uic.edu