UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The impact of population size and population growth rates on Alberta municipal finance Ali, Syeda Mahmuda 1983

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1983_A8 A45.pdf [ 6.93MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095750.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095750-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095750-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095750-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095750-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095750-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095750-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095750-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095750.ris

Full Text

THE IMPACT OF POPULATION SIZE AND POPULATION GROWTH RATES ON ALBERTA MUNICIPAL FINANCE by SYEDA MAHMUDA ALI M.A., The Un i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1983 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School of Community and Regional Planning We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA fiay J . 5 0 J . Syeda Mahmuda A l i , 1983 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I further agree that permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 ( i i ) ABSTRACT This thesis was prompted by the concern over the A l b e r t a P r o v i n c i a l Government's responsiveness to the f i s c a l needs of d i f f e r e n t sized m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . These needs are r e f l e c t e d by per capita d i f f e r e n c e s i n municipal revenues and expenditures f o r these d i f f e r e n t sized m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . The f i s c a l impact of population s i z e and population growth rates i s relevant to the Alber t a s i t u a t i o n as the promotion of large scale p r o j e c t s , which r e s u l t s i n rapid population increases f o r many A l b e r t a m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , i s the basic modus operandi for economic development i n the Province. In t h i s study of municipal finance, disaggregated per capita expenditure and revenue data of 35 Alberta m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i s regressed on population s i z e and population growth rates for 1975 through to 1979. In add i t i o n , revenue r e l i a n c e and debt l e v e l s are examined to determine the f i s c a l c a p a b i l i t i e s of A l b e r t a m u n i c i p a l i t i e s as too much r e l i a n c e on grants or borrowing leads to f i s c a l and p o l i t i c a l v u l n e r a b i l i t y . The r e s u l t s of the empirical a n a l y s i s reveal a few s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between per c a p i t a municipal revenues and expenditures and population s i z e . Population growth rates; however, do not appear to be a s i g n i f i c a n t determinant i n explaining v a r i a t i o n s i n municipal finances. O v e r a l l , the revenue e f f o r t and expenditure needs of Alberta m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are found to increase with population s i z e . However, the p r o v i n c i a l granting formula i s not responsive to these varying needs and the findings of t h i s study i n d i c a t e that residents i n larger m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have a greater f i s c a l burden than t h e i r counterparts i n smaller m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . This study i d e n t i f i e s the need to a l t e r p r o v i n c i a l . f u n d i n g formulas to make them more responsive to d i f f e r i n g f i s c a l needs and f i s c a l e f f o r t s . ( i i i ) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION Study Objectives 2 Study Area D e s c r i p t i o n 3 Study Format 3 I I . REVIEW OF MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURE STUDIES Comparability of U.S. and A l b e r t a Municipal Functions 6 The Impact of Growth Rates on Muncipal Expenditures 8 The Impact of Population Size on Municipal Expenditures 12 Other Causal Factors i n determining Municipal Expenditures 14 Conclusion 16 I I I . REVIEW OF MUNICIPAL REVENUE STUDIES Sources of Municipal Revenue 18 A p p l i c a b i l i t y of U.S. Studies to Canada 19 The Impact of Population Growth Rates on Municipal Revenues 21 The Impact of Population Size on Municipal Revenues 23 Conclusion 28 IV. METHODOLOGY Data 30 Independent Variables 32 Dependent Var i a b l e s 33 F i s c a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Under Examination 36 Expenditure Functions 37 Revenue Functions 38 Revenue Reliance and Debt Levels 42 Conclusion 43 V. RESULTS OF THE EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS Population Growth Rates and Municipal Expenditures 44 Population Growth Rates and Municipal Revnues 46 Population Size and Municipal Expenditures 47 Population Size and Municipal Revenues 51 Income and Municipal Expenditures 56 Income and Municipal Revenues 57 Revenue Reliance and Debt Levels 57 Summary of Results 59 Conclusion 66 VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS P o l i c y Recommendations 70 Lim i t a t i o n s of t h i s Study 72 Areas for Further Research 78 Bibliography 80 Appendix A 85 Appendix B 133 LIST OF TABLES L i s t of A l b e r t a M u n i c i p a l i t i e s w i t h 1974 Populations of 3,000 and Over D e f i n i t i o n of the Dependent V a r i a b l e s Revenue R e l i a n c e as a Percentage of Co n s o l i d a t e d Revenue LIST OF FIGURES Per Capita C a p i t a l Costs and Population Sizes Per Capita P r o t e c t i o n Expenditures and Population Size Per Capita T o t a l Expenditure and Population Size Per Capita Sales of Goods and Services and Population Size Per Capita T o t a l Revenue and Population Size Actual Per Capita P r o t e c t i o n Expenditure and Population Size Actual Per Capita T o t a l Revenue and Population Size CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 The costs of economic growth as r e f l e c t e d by population increases have been analyzed from many perspectives. Studies on the cost of urban growth include s o c i a l , environmental, f i s c a l and economic impact analyses. Results from these studies have led to a questioning of the premise that "bigger i s b e t t e r " . Advocates of the no growth, "small i s b e a u t i f u l " doctrine argue that rapid growth and increased population s i z e r e s u l t i n increased p o l l u t i o n , crime, congestion and f i s c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s , causing a decline i n the q u a l i t y of l i f e for a l l r e s i d e n t s . Conversely, growth advocates argue that economic growth and increased population si z e lead to increases i n income and i n employment and c u l t u r a l opportunities thereby negating other e x t e r n a l i t i e s that may have an adverse impact on a resident's q u a l i t y of l i f e . In s p i t e of the contradictory evidence regarding the r e a l costs and benefits of urban growth, there has been a leaning, i n North America, towards the managing, c o n t r o l l i n g and dispersing of urban growth. In 1971, the P r o v i n c i a l Government of Alberta expressed the promotion of economic development on a balanced basis throughout the province as part of t h e i r r e g i o n a l economic p o l i c y . This p o l i c y of balanced growth i n A l b e r t a i s r e f l e c t e d i n a number of p r o v i n c i a l programs i n i t i a t e d since 1971. Among these are programs that: 1) d e c e n t r a l i z e p r o v i n c i a l employment by r e l o c a t i n g sections of c e r t a i n departments, e.g. Environment, Transportation and A g r i c u l t u r e , to urban centres other than Edmonton and Calgary; 2) help small and medium sized urban centres (population of 75,000 or l e s s ) a t t r a c t new i n d u s t r i a l and commercial a c t i v i t i e s by providing aid i n planning and financing the a c q u i s i t i o n and s e r v i c i n g of i n d u s t r i a l s i t e s . (Administered by the Department of Small Business and Tourism); 3) provide loans to small businesses which are unable to obtain f i n a n c i n g elsewhere. (Administered by the Alberta Opportunity Fund); and 2 4) a l t e r what was previously higher telephone and e l e c t r i c i t y rates f o r smaller m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to a standard cost across the province. (Administered by the Department of U t i l i t i e s and Telephones). As of 1980, the Department of Economic Development has been attempting to co-ordinate a p o l i c y of d i r e c t e d and decentralized growth with respect to the a n t i c i p a t e d economic impact of major energy developments and r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s i n A l b e r t a . If a government a c t i v e l y pursues a p o l i c y of promoting more balanced growth across the province at the "expense" of larger centres, one of the many issues that would be of considerable i n t e r e s t to p o l i c y makers, planners, and municipal residents i s the f i s c a l consequences of t h i s p o l i c y on the a f f e c t e d m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . This t h e s i s w i l l address the f i s c a l i mplications of promoting balanced growth throughout the province by examining the impact of population s i z e and population growth rates on municipal revenues and expenditures. Study Objectives The o v e r a l l objective of t h i s thesis i s to evaluate the impact of d i f f e r i n g population sizes and population growth rates on municipal finances. The s p e c i f i c objectives of t h i s study are; (1) to review the l i t e r a t u r e that has dealt with the f i s c a l impact of population s i z e and population growth rates on municpal revenues and expenditures, (2) d e t a i l the methodology that i s to be used i n t h i s f i s c a l impact study, (3) determine i f Alberta m u n i c i p a l i t i e s display the same f i s c a l tendencies displayed by other m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , (4) consider the p o l i c y implications a r i s i n g from the findings of t h i s study. 3 Study Area D e s c r i p t i o n The 35 m u n i c i p a l i t i e s under examination are i n the province of A l b e r t a . As of December, 1979, which i s the f i n a l study year for this t h e s i s , there were 330 incorporated m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , and 23 p r o v i n c i a l l y administered government units i n A l b e r t a . These incorporated m u n i c i p a l i t i e s consist of 11 c i t i e s , 105 towns, 166 v i l l a g e s , 30 counties and 18 municipal d i s t r i c t s . P r o v i n c i a l l y administered areas c o n s i s t of 20 improvement d i s t r i c t s and 3 s p e c i a l areas. Population s i z e i s a c r i t e r i o n for changing municipal status, i . e . v i l l a g e to town, town to c i t y ; however, once the required population s i z e i s reached, i t i s s t i l l the municipality's perogative to a l t e r i t s status. Consequently, some v i l l a g e s are larger than towns, and some towns larger than c i t i e s . The c r i t e r i o n f or i n c l u d i n g A l b e r t a m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n this study i s population s i z e ; any incorporated municipality with a 1974 population of 3,000 or more i s included i n t h i s a n a l y s i s . In A l b e r t a , 35 m u n i c i p a l i t i e s f i t t h i s c r i t e r i o n and these range from population s i z e of 3,000 to 440,000 i n 1974. Study Format The study period for t h i s thesis includes municipal expenditure and revenue years between 1975 and 1979 i n c l u s i v e . The examination of municipal expenditures and revenues over 5 years i s intended to eliminate or lessen the p r o b a b i l i t y of accepting a chance occurence as a c o r r e l a t i o n among v a r i a b l e s . The s t a t i s t i c a l technique for t h i s research i s regression a n a l y s i s . The data for this research i s obtained from p r o v i n c i a l l y compiled s t a t i s t i c s from a l l Alberta m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and since a standardized accounting procedure i s followed, comparability i s ensured. The rest of t h i s study i s divided into f i v e chapters. Chapters 2 and 3 contain a review of the empirical r e s u l t s of other f i s c a l impact studies chapter 4 o u t l i n e s the d e f i n i t i o n s f or the v a r i a b l e s to be used i n t h i s study; chapter 5 c o n s i s t s of the r e s u l t s of the regression a n a l y s i s , and chapter 6 includes p o l i c y i m p l i c a t i o n s of these r e s u l t s . 5 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURE STUDIES A survey of the l i t e r a t u r e shows no paucity of municipal expenditure determinant studies. Hawley, 1957; Brazer, 1959; Adams, 1967; Bahl, 1969; Weichner, 1970; Wilensky, 1970; Bradley, 1973; Lucas, 1974; Appelbaum, 1978; and B u r c h e l l et a l . 1978 represent just a small percent of the t o t a l . Most of the work i n t h i s area pertains to the U.S. experience and since there are s i g n i f i c a n t s o c i a l , economic, and p o l i t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s between the U.S. and Canada, the d i r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n of these studies to the Canadian scene i s questionable. Notwithstanding t h i s , i t would s t i l l be of i n t e r e s t to discuss, i n some d e t a i l , the findings of these studies to determine what might be expected from an analysis of the expenditure experience of Alberta m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . The f i s c a l costs of urban growth rate and s i z e have been analyzed by the use of more than one type of a n a l y t i c a l technique; the most common being regression and c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s . The number of independent v a r i a b l e s i n these studies v a r i e d from as l i t t l e as two to as many as eighteen. The number of dependent v a r i a b l e s , i . e . municipal expenditure functions, also v a r i e d from study to study; however, since most of the studies examined some, i f not a l l , of the common functions* using data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, they are comparable. 1 The common function consists of operating expenditures for s a n i t a t i o n , highways, and general c o n t r o l ; and operating and c a p i t a l outlays for p o l i c e , f i r e and parks and r e c r e a t i o n . 6 C o m p a r a b i l i t y of U.S. and A l b e r t a M u n i c i p a l Functions A review of the American and A l b e r t a f u n c t i o n s shows some s i m i l a r i t y among f u n c t i o n s , i n p a r t i c u l a r , highways and s a n i t a t i o n . In t h i s study a l l of A l b e r t a ' s l o c a l government f u n c t i o n s w i l l be expressed i n terms of o p e r a t i n g expenditures, w h i l e , due to U.S. m u n i c i p a l accounting p r a c t i c e s , some of the U.S. m u n i c i p a l f u n c t i o n s i n c l u d e c a p i t a l o u t l a y s . L i s t e d below i s a comparison of U.S. and A l b e r t a * l o c a l government general expenditures i n 1974. A l b e r t a F u n c t i o n Per C a p i t a ($ Canadian) U.S. F u n c t i o n Per C a p i t a ($ U.S.) T o t a l General Exp. P r o t e c t i o n Environmental Health T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P u b l i c H e a l t h and Welfare R e c r e a t i o n , C u l t u r e and Education Debt Charges 233.25 58.50 21.40 28.00 14.60 32.35 53.71 100.0 25.0 9.1 12.0 6.3 13.9 23.0 T o t a l General Exp. 358.65 P o l i c e 38.91 F i r e 21.37 General C o n t r o l 10.61 Sewage 25.16 S a n i t a t i o n other than Sewage 12.99 Highways 28.45 P u b l i c H e a l t h 28.34 H o s p i t a l s 20.15 Parks & R e c r e a t i o n 16.75 I n t e r e s t on General Debt 16.90 100.0 10.8 5.9 2.9 7.0 3.6 7.9 7.9 5.6 4.7 4.7 1 Per c a p i t a expenditures of towns and c i t i e s o nly. 7 A l b e r t a Function Per Capita ($ Canadian) U.S. Function Per Capita ($ U.S.) % Environmental Development General Government 22.64 22.72 Housing & Urban 1.1 Renewal 12.91 3.6 9.8 F i n a n c i a l Admin-i s t r a t i o n 6.03 1.7 General P u b l i c Bid. 6.20 1.7 A l l other Functions 61.17 17.0 Education 52.7 14.7 Sources: A l b e r t a Municipal A f f a i r s , Municipal S t a t i s t i c s , 1974 (Edmonton, A l b e r t a ) , p.42, 182. U.S. Bureau of the Census, C i t y Government Finances i n 1974-75, i n Lineberry & Sharkansky, 1978, p.234. There i s a $125 d i f f e r e n c e between U.S. and A l b e r t a per capita l o c a l government expenditures. There are a number of reasons for t h i s d i f f e r e n c e . F i r s t , some of the American functions contain both c a p i t a l and operating expenditures, whereas the Alberta functions l i s t c a p i t a l and operation expenses separately. Second, i n the U.S., Education i s l i s t e d i n the general account while i n A l b e r t a Education expenditures are l i s t e d i n a separate account. (The "Education" i n the Recreation, Culture & Education represents education of municipal employees, and support for p r i v a t e education f a c i l i t i e s ) . T h ird, there are differences i n the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s adopted by l o c a l governments i n the U.S. and i n A l b e r t a . In t h i s p a r t i c u l a r comparison of l o c a l government expenditures, some of the U.S. functions are more disaggregated than the Alberta functions. Thus, f o r instance, P r o t e c t i o n Expenditures In Alberta encompasses the P o l i c e , F i r e and General Control aspects of U.S. municipal expenses. S i m i l a r l y , P u b l i c Health and Welfare i n A l b e r t a i s the "equivalent" of the U.S. H o s p i t a l and Public Welfare expenses. The above comparison provides some i n s i g h t i n t o the accounting and service r e s p o n s i b i l i t y d i f f e r e n c e s between the l o c a l 8 governments of the U.S. and A l b e r t a . Impact of Growth Rates on M u n i c i p a l Expenditures Studies on the e f f e c t of p o p u l a t i o n growth r a t e s on m u n i c i p a l expenditures have y i e l d e d c o n t r a d i c t o r y r e s u l t s . A n a l y s t s who have found a negative r e l a t i o n s h i p between growth ra t e s and per c a p i t a m u n i c i p a l expenditure suggest that a time l a g between an i n c r e a s e d demand f o r a s e r v i c e and the p r o v i s i o n of that s e r v i c e i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r these f i n d i n g s . Conversely, an o b s e r v a t i o n of a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between growth rat e and per c a p i t a expenditure i s s a i d to be caused by o v e r b u i l d i n g i n e x p e c t a t i o n of new a r r i v a l s ; o r, by the e x i s t e n c e of c e r t a i n t h r e s h o l d costs i n f r o n t - e n d i n g a d d i t i o n a l s e r v i c e s . Spangler(1963), i n a nationwide a n a l y s i s of 1960 s t a t e and l o c a l expenditures, found a p o s i t i v e and s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between r a t e of growth and per c a p i t a expenditures f o r p o l i c e , debt s e r v i c i n g , g e n e r a l c o n t r o l , h e a l t h and h o s p i t a l s and c a p i t a l o u t l a y s . Spangler's r e s u l t s are i n d i r e c t c o n t r a d i c t i o n w i t h other s t u d i e s undertaken i n the same p e r i o d . Brazer(1959), i n a study of 462 U.S. c i t i e s , found an i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between r a t e of growth and per c a p i t a t o t a l * , per c a p i t a o p e r a t i n g , and per c a p i t a f i r e p r o t e c t i o n expenditures. This r e l a t i o n s h i p was found to be most s i g n i f i c a n t i n C a l i f o r n i a m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . Expenditure determinant s t u d i e s of C a l i f o r n i a c i t i e s by Scott and Feder(1957), and E i s n e r and Sosnick(1964) support Brazer's f i n d i n g s of a negative r e l a t i o n s h i p between per c a p i t a m u n i c i p a l expenditure and r a t e of growth. This c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n f i n d i n g s between Spanger and the r e s t c o u l d be caused by v a r i a t i o n s i n the sampling techniques employed i n the s t u d i e s . Spangler examined c i t i e s w i t h d i f f e r i n g economic and demographic s t r u c t u r e s , w h i l e the others chose to examine c i t i e s w i t h s i m i l a r s o c i o -economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . * t o t a l expenditures i n c l u d e s o p e r a t i n g and c a p i t a l o u t l a y s . 9 Other nation wide studies, (Hawley,1957; Bahl,1969) have, for the most part, found an inverse, though non s i g n i f i c a n t , r e l a t i o n s h i p between municipal growth rate and per capita expenditures. More recent municipal determinant studies have not been any l e s s c o n t r a d i c t o r y . Bradley (1973), employing a two v a r i a b l e c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s , examined 1970 per c a p i t a municipal expenditures i n Colorado and found that the f a s t e r growing communities cost more per c a p i t a to operate than the slower growing ones. Lucas (1974), using a s i m i l a r methodolgy, examined the impact of county growth rate on per capita expenditures of county governments, municipal governments, school d i s t r i c t s , and s p e c i a l d i s t r i c t s . Lucas examined 1960 and 1970 public sector expenditures and concluded that per c a p i t a expenditures by m u n i c i p a l i t i e s were lowest i n the d e c l i n i n g counties and highest i n the stable, no growth counties. Although Lucas' f i n d i n g s varied from one l e v e l of l o c a l government to another, the o v e r a l l findings lead her to conclude that l o c a l governments i n growth s i t u a t i o n s do not spend more per person than those i n stable and d e c l i n i n g communities. The assumption that they do, therefore, can no longer be used as an argument against growth. (Lucas,1974, p.11) S t e r n l i e b et a l . (1973) used analysis of variance to examine the determinants of per c a p i t a municipal expenditures of 557 New Jersey m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . In t h e i r analyses, c i t i e s with a population of up to 5,000 displayed a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p with growth r a t e ; however, a p r o g r e s s i v e l y negative c o r r e l a t i o n emerged as the population of the m u n i c i p a l i t y increased. The findings of t h i s study i n d i c a t e the existence of a threshold l e v e l where communities smaller than this threshold l e v e l experience low excess capacity and high s t a r t up costs for a d d i t i o n a l s e r v i c e s . 10 B u r c h e l l et a l . (1978) advanced the fin d i n g s of other determinant studies and developed a public expenditure m u l t i p l i e r which i s intended for the purposes of estimating future per c a p i t a municipal expenditure as a r e s u l t of both population growth and urban s i z e . D i f f e r e n t urban sizes and growth rates are represented by expenditure m u l t i p l i e r s which are expressed i n r a t i o s so that they do not become dated by i n f l a t i o n . M u l t i p l i e r s e x i s t f o r s i x categories of municipal functions; general government, public safety, p u b l i c works, health and welfare, r e c r e a t i o n and c u l t u r e , and education. For most of the functions, the l a r g e r the rate of growth, the lower the expenditure r a t i o s , r e s u l t i n g i n lower per capita expenditures. The B u r c h e l l et a l . m u l t i p l i e r cannot be accepted without question as these r a t i o s ignore s o c i a l , economic and demographic factors that may a l t e r municipal expenditure patterns. Appelbaum's (1978) study of 115 c i t i e s with population l e v e l s over 25,000 showed that the two v a r i a b l e s , growth rate and s i z e , used by B u r c h e l l et a l . to determine municipal expenditure, accounted f o r only a small percentage, between 6 to 12 percent, of the explained v a r i a t i o n i n municipal expenditures. Applebaum, i n an analysis of three municipal function expenditures - f i r e , p o l i c e and common function personnel - found a minor but p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between growth rate and per c a p i t a municipal expenditures. The v a r i a t i o n i n fi n d i n g s i n d i c a t e that g e n e r a l i t i e s cannot be assumed regarding growth rates and municipal expenditures. In the studies that have been reviewed i t has been shown that as s o c i a l , economic and demographic fa c t o r s are held constant, the unexplained variance i n municipal expenditure decline and the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the r e s u l t s increase. For the purpose of t h i s study i t appears that S t e r n l i e b et a l . (1973) and C a r r o l l and Sacks (1962) are the most relevant as these two studies included smaller urban centres i n t h e i r analyses. Most of the other major studies examined the impact of growth rates on a nationwide urban population of l a r g e r than 20,000. In addition, S t e r n l i e b et a l . and C a r r o l l and Sacks confined t h e i r a n a l y s i s to one state, thereby e l i m i n a t i n g s u b s t a n t i a l p h y s i c a l , s o c i a l 11 economic v a r i a t i o n s and accounting p r a c t i c e s among m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . S t e r n l i e b et a l . s t r a t i f i e d New Jersey m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n t o s i x urban s i z e categories and found that f o r urban areas with populations of less than 5,000, the growth rate had a p o s i t i v e impact on per capita municipal expenditures. In a s i m i l a r fashion, C a r r o l l and Sacks s t r a t i f i e d New York m u n i c i p a l i t i e s into three groups; c i t i e s , towns and v i l l a g e s . This study revealed a p o s i t i v e and s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between growth rates and per capita v i l l a g e t o t a l , p o l i c e and s a n i t a t i o n expenditures. The only expenditure function that was negatively r e l a t e d to growth rates was f i r e , and the r e l a t i o n s h i p was not s i g n i f i c a n t . Unlike the v i l l a g e s , the towns displayed a negative and s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between rate of growth and many of the municipal functions. These functions were t o t a l , general government, and highway expenditures. Two town functions that maintained a p o s i t i v e and s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p with growth rates were s a n i t a t i o n and p o l i c e . In c i t i e s , t o t a l , general government, highways and p o l i c e expenditures were p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to growth rate; while s a n i t a t i o n and f i r e were negatively r e l a t e d . However, none of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s was s i g n i f i c a n t . I m p l i c i t i n these fin d i n g s i s the existence of expenditure threshold l e v e l s for the p r o v i s i o n of c e r t a i n functions that occur before a mun i c i p a l i t y reaches a c e r t a i n l e v e l , and quite p o s s i b l e again, a f t e r i t surpasses another population l e v e l . For example, highway expenditures would involve the b u i l d i n g of a c e r t a i n amount of excess capacity, thus the per c a p i t a costs are p o s i t i v e with population growth for v i l l a g e s which are probably faced with b u i l d i n g or upgrading t h e i r highway capacity; negative for towns because of the existence of excess capacity; and p o s i t i v e again for c i t i e s as the larger populations make improvements to the roadway capacity necessary. A function that does not show signs of t h i s threshold phenomenon i s po l i c e expenditures. In the C a r r o l l and Sacks study, a l l three types of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s displayed a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between population growth and p o l i c e expenditures, which i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to a cause other than thresholding as the p o l i c e function i s a labour intensive and need responsive municipal function; 12 therefore, there i s no need to accumulate c o s t l y excess capacity i n t h i s area. Thresholds e x i s t only i n c e r t a i n functions and these functions do not n e c e s s a r i l y have a common population l e v e l at which the threshold phenomenon i s observable. In support of the threshold hypothesis for A l b e r t a m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , a Canadian study by Parkinson (1979), which examined the municipal costs of growth f o r small urban centres i n A l b e r t a , e s t a b l i s h e d the existence of c e r t a i n thresholds that are faced by these communities when they reach a c e r t a i n s i z e . Thus, the evidence would suggest that the impact of growth rates on municipal expenditures cannot be completeley d i s a s s o c i a t e d from the expenditure impacts of population s i z e . The Impact of Population Size on Municipal Expenditures It i s commonly believed that the impact of population s i z e on per c a p i t a municipal expenditures can be depicted by a U shaped curve. This U shaped curve represents economies of scale i n the p r o v i s i o n of public goods and s e r v i c e s . According to t h i s hypothesis, as population expands, the per c a p i t a costs of providing a public service declines; however, a f t e r a c e r t a i n population l e v e l i s attained, diseconomies are introduced into the p r o v i s i o n process increasing per c a p i t a municipal expenditures. Diseconomies from population increases can be caused by increased congestion, density, p o l l u t i o n and s o c i a l problems. S o l e l y from the view of municipal per c a p i t a expenditures, the l i t e r a t u r e has used the U shaped municipal expenditure hypothesis to form the basis of the optimal c i t y s i z e concept where a l l public and p r i v a t e costs and benefits of the c i t y s i z e are, i n theory, aggregated to a r r i v e at the most desirable population s i z e . Studies to determine the most e f f i c i e n t c i t y s i z e for the p r o v i s i o n of public goods have yi e l d e d some c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s . While some studies have not i d e n t i f i e d any trough-like expenditure phenomenon to occur, the ones that have, d i f f e r as to the population s i z e that i s represented by the minimum point i n the trough. The seminal studies i n this area were undertaken i n England (Baker, 1910, London County Council, 1915), and these revealed that per capita municipal expenditures were the lowest i n c i t i e s 13 that ranged i n population from 100,000 to 250,000. Some l a t e r studies have agreed with these conclusions. For instance, Gabler (1971), i n an ana l y s i s 1960 expenditures of c i t i e s over 25,000 population i n eight s t a t e s , i d e n t i f i e d populations of 250,000 and more as having higher per capita expenditures than those with populations of less than 250,000. Gabler found that urban s i z e had v i r t u a l l y no impact on the municipal expenditure of c i t i e s within the 25,000 to 250,000 population range. Conversely, S t e r n l i e b et a l . (1973) examined 567 New Jersey m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and concluded that m u n i c i p a l i t i e s with, a population of between 5,000 to 10,000 experience the lowest per capita municipal expenditures. Muller (1975), i n an across the country a n a l y s i s of growing and d e c l i n i n g urban areas concluded that any economies of scale i n the pro v i s i o n of public services would be eliminated when the j u r i s d i c t i o n became larger than about 50,000 to 100,000. Although a majority of municipal expenditure studies have not i d e n t i f i e d the existence of a public expenditure trough associated with population s i z e , they have discovered a p o s i t i v e , though not n e c e s s a r i l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between population s i z e and most per capita municipal expenditure functions. Brazer's (1953) a n a l y s i s of 1960 expenditures for 206 c e n t r a l c i t i e s found that population si z e was p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to p o l i c e p r o t ection, highways, and s a n i t a t i o n expenditures, and negatively r e l a t e d to f i r e p r o t e c t i o n . Bahl (1969) found that population si z e was p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to t o t a l , operating, and common function expenditures. In t o t a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n with the findings of the majority, the C a r r o l l and Sacks (1962) analysis of the impact of the property tax base-and municipal expenditures i n New York, m u n i c i p a l i t i e s revealed some negative c o r r e l a t i o n between population s i z e and municipal expenditures functions. Although none of the c o r r e l a t i o n s was s i g n i f i c a n t , c i t y s i z e was negatively related to c i t y per ca p i t a operating, s a n i t a t i o n , p o l i c e and f i r e expenditures. C i t y per capita general control and t o t a l expenditures were p o s i t i v e l y , though non s i g n i f i c a n t l y , r e l a t e d to population s i z e . 14 Bradley (1973) i n an analysis of Colorado communities, found that as the s i z e of the community increased, per c a p i t a municipal expenditures rose, while at the same time the q u a l i t y and quantity of public service d e c l i n e d . Bradley's measure of q u a l i t y was achieved by a comparison of the number of r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s per acre, crime per c a p i t a , teacher student r a t i o s , l i b r a r y books per c a p i t a , and h o s p i t a l beds per capita between d i f f e r e n t s i z e d communities. These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that where q u a l i t y of service i s concerned the smaller communities f a i r better than the l a r g e r . There i s a substantal v a r i a t i o n i n the studies reviewed regarding the impact of population s i z e and municipal expenditures. Most studies disagree over the population s i z e where per c a p i t a municipal expenditures s t a r t to climb; however, most do agree that population i s p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to municipal expenditures. Unfortunately i t i s d i f f i c u l t to determine i f t h i s p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p i s r e l a t e d to deseconomies of scale i n the p r o v i s i o n of services or to the increase i n the l e v e l or q u a l i t y of s e r v i c e . In the determinant studies reviewed, a l l municipal functions are assumed to be equal i n terms of the q u a l i t y of the service which i s quite a tenuous assumption. Other Causal Factors i n Determining Municipal Expenditures Although municipal determinant studies are not i n agreement with one another as to the s i g n i f i c a n c e of urban s i z e and growth rates on municipal expenditures, they do a r r i v e at some consensus as to the s i g n i f i c a n c e of some other v a r i a b l e s . A review of the major municipal expenditure determinant studies show that the two categories of v a r i a b l e which are c o n s i s t e n t l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h e i r impact on municipal expenditures are; p o l i t i c a l fragmentation and f i s c a l c a p a b i l i t i e s . Studies on 1940, 1950, 1960 and 1970 municipal expenditures by Hawley (1957), Brazer (1959), Bahl (1969), Kasarda (1974), Woo S i k Kee (1965), C a r r o l l and Sacks (1962), Weichner (1970), Appelbaum (1978) have a l l 15 observed that population i n the surrounding area has a s i g n i f i c a n t and p o s i t i v e impact on municipal expenditures. Hawley (1959), i n an a n a l y s i s of 76 c e n t r a l c i t i e s of populations of 100,000 or more, was the f i r s t to a r r i v e at the conclusion that the population i n the surrounding j u r i s d i c t i o n has a greater impact than the resident population on municipal expenditures. Subsequent studies have confirmed Hawley's f i n d i n g s . For instance, Kasarda (1974), i n an an a l y s i s of 1950, 1960 and 1970 expenditures f o r 168 c i t i e s , found that for 1950 to 1960 expenditures, per capita municipal expenditures f o r f i r e , highway, r e c r e a t i o n and general government were negatively, though non s i g n i f i c a n t l y , r e l a t e d to c e n t r a l c i t y population. However, these same functions for the c i t y were p o s i t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to suburban population. In a d d i t i o n , income of the surrounding population was found to p o s i t i v e l y impact per capita municipal expenditures. Other recent studies which support these findings are Wilensky (1970), Weichner (1970) and Appelbaum (1978). Although these studies do not provide any explanation f o r these observations, i t i s quite possible that the commuting population, generally a higher income population than the resident population, places greater demands on the transportation system, on the r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s , and on the c e n t r a l c i t y l i b r a i r i e s . Many workers take advantage of municipal services such as recreaton and culture during a lunch break. Personal wealth or income i s another s i g n i f i c a n t municipal expenditure determinant. The f i s c a l c a p a b i l i t y of a m u n i c i p a l i t y can be measured by the income of i t s residents, property values and grants from other l e v e l s of government. Studies that have used one or more of these " a b i l i t y to finance" v a r i a b l e s have found them to be a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n determining municipal expenditures. Bahl's (1969) a n a l y s i s showed that median income and intergovernmental grants were p o s i t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to most of the expenditure functions. Bahl's findings are c o n s i s t e n t l y supported by other studies. Woo Sik Kee (1965), i n a study of 1953 expenditure l e v e l s of 36 c e n t r a l c i t i e s found personal income l e v e l and intergovernmental revenue to be a s i g n i f i c a n t factor i n the l e v e l of municipal expenditures. Brazer's (1979) e a r l i e r study of municipal expenditures i n 40 c i t i e s reached s i m i l a r conclusions to those of Bahl's and Woo Sik Kee's concerning these two v a r i a b l e s . The Scott and Feder (1957) 16 study revealed that of the f i v e s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s which accounted for a majority of the explained v a r i a t i o n i n municipal expenditures - population, s i z e , r e t a i l sales, crowding, rate of growth, and property value - per c a p i t a property value accounted for f o u r - f i f t h s of that explanation. The C a r r o l l and Sacks (1962) study of the e f f e c t of the tax on New York m u n i c i p a l i t i e s showed property value to be the s i n g l e most important v a r i a b l e i n a f f e c t i n g municipal expenditures. More recent studies agree with these findings (Wilensky, 1970; Appelbaum, 1978). It should be noted that the s i g n i f i c a n c e of income as an expenditure determinant could be i n f l u e n c i n g the analysis of urban siz e as an expenditure determinant by causing urban siz e to act as an intervening v a r i a b l e . Studies have shown a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between income and urban s i z e ; thus, the p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between urban s i z e and municipal expenditure may, i n f a c t , be caused by an income fa c t o r not a population s i z e f a c t o r . The capacity-to-finance v a r i a b l e s can impact expenditures i n two ways. One, a higher income population may a l t e r the q u a l i t y or composition of services demanded; and two, they enhance a m u n i c i p a l i t i e s a b i l i t y to tax and spend. The use of intergovernmental revenue as an exenditure poses d i f f i c u l t i e s with respect to c i r c u l a r i t y between the dependent and independent v a r i a b l e s . It i s f a i r l y obvious that grants i n a i d w i l l be spent, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f they are earmarked for c e r t a i n p r o j e c t s . Conclusions From the municipal expenditure studies reviewed, there appears to be some c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s concerning the impact of population s i z e and population growth rates on municipal expenditures. Population growth rates have been observed to have both p o s i t i v e and negative r e l a t i o n s h i p s with municipal expenditures. O v e r a l l , the studies that examined medium and larger sized m u n i c i p a l i t i e s (population l e v e l s of 17 20,000 and over) revealed mostly negative r e l a t i o n s h i p s between population growth rates and municipal expenditure functions. However; studies that included smaller m u n i c i p a l i t i e s ( l e s s than 20,000) such as those by S t e n l i e b (1974) and C a r r o l l and Sacks (1962), showed that the per capita r e l a t i o n s h i p between population growth rates and some expenditure functions changed with a change i n population s i z e . These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e the existence of thresholds f o r c e r t a i n expenditure functions; thus, depending on the si z e of the m u n i c i p a l i t y and the p a r t i c u l a r function, these r e s u l t s could be p o s i t i v e or negative. It should be expected that where the f u n c t i o n requires s u b s t a n t i a l front ending or i s c a p i t a l i n t e n s i v e there w i l l be thresholds for expenditures, p a r t i c u l a r l y for the smaller m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . Where the function i s more labour oriented and time responsive to needs, the r e a c t i o n to population growth should be negative or non s i g n i f i c a n t . In the area of population si z e and municipal expenditures, most of the studies reviewed found that per c a p i t a municipal expenditure was p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to population s i z e . Many observed the existence of a U shaped expenditure r e a c t i o n of. population s i z e . However, there was no general concensus as to the population s i z e that i s represented by the minimum point of the U shape. The optimal population s i z e for o v e r a l l municipal expenditures ranged from 5,000 to 250,000. In the review of municipal determinant studies, personal income and population i n surrounding p o l i t i c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s appeared to be s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r s i n determining municipal expenditures. Both income and a commuting population i s thought to increase the demand for municipal s e r v i c e s . 18 CHAPTER III REVIEW OF MUNICIPAL REVENUE STUDIES The previous chapter examined how population si z e and population growth rates a l t e r municipal expenditures whereas t h i s chaper examines how these same fa c t o r s a l t e r revenue patterns. The examination of both municipal revenue and expenditure responses to independent variablesrepresents the composite picture of f i s c a l stress or f i s c a l w e ll being. Unfortunately most analysts have chosen to examine only one aspect of municipal finance, or expenditures, and more often than not, a t t e n t i o n has been focused on municipal expenditure determinants only. In the instances when the revenue aspects of municipal finance were addressed, a t t e n t i o n has been focused p r i m a r i l y on property tax determinants despite the increased s i g n i f i c a n c e of other forms of revenue f o r municipal governments i n both Canada and the U.S. This study recognizes the importance of both revenues and expenditures as i t i s obvious that the upper l i m i t of revenue i s the f a c t o r that i n the f i n a l a n a l y s i s determines expenditures. As with municipal expenditure studies, the Canadian l i t e r a t u r e o f f e r s few e m p i r i c a l analyses; therefore, once again most of the empirical studies used to examine the municipal revenue implications of population growth rates and urban siz e w i l l be from the U.S. Sources of Municipal Revenue Municipal revenue can be disaggregated into three basic categories; intergovernmental, tax and non tax revenues. Intergovernmental a i d consists of f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l grants to l o c a l governments, a major portion of which i s earmarked for c e r t a i n uses. Tax revenue can be broken down into property taxes and non property taxes. Property tax consists of tax l e v i e s on r e s i d e n t i a l , commercial, i n d u s t r i a l and farm land and improvements. Nonproperty tax consists of taxes such as u t i l i t y , sales, personal property, and income tax. Non tax revenues consists of charges for public 19 s e r v i c e s , and miscellaneous income from permits and f i n e s . H i s t o r i c a l l y , the most s i g n i f i c a n t source of revenue f o r l o c a l governments has been the property tax and although other sources of revenues have become more s i g n i f i c a n t , the property tax remains the s i n g l e most important revenue source f o r these governments. L o c a l governments d i f f e r i n t h e i r use of the v a r i o u s revenue sources. Many m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are r e s t r i c t e d by s t a t u t e as to the l e v e l and type of tax they can implement. In A l b e r t a , u n l i k e the r e s t of the country, the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s do not o b t a i n any revenues from s a l e s t a x . A l b e r t a m u n i c i p a l i t i e s r e l y on property tax, u t i l i t y t a x , s p e c i a l improvements tax, user charges and revenues from permit fees and f i n e s . A p p l i c a b i l i t y of U.S. Studies to Canada The d i f f e r e n c e s between the U.S. and Canada have already been s t r e s s e d elsewhere i n t h i s study (see chapter I I ) . Nonetheless, U.S. s t u d i e s have been used to o b t a i n an i n s i g h t i n t o m u n i c i p a l revenue and expenditure p a t t e r n s . A m a j o r i t y of the m u n i c i p a l f i n a n c e s t u d i e s were p r e c i p i t a t e d by the f i n a n c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s of the l a r g e r , o l d e r i n d u s t r i a l c i t i e s of n o r t h e a s t e r n U.S.; consequently, a s u b s t a n t i a l body of the U.S. l i t e r a t u r e deals w i t h the f i s c a l problems of these m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . The r e g i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s between northeast U.S. and A l b e r t a are v a s t , and a d d i t i o n a l l y , A l b e r t a ' s l a r g e s t m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are, by American standards, medium s i z e d . E m p i r i c i a l analyses (MacManus, 1978; P e t t e n g i e l l & Ugpal, 1974) have discovered that r e g i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s do a f f e c t revenue p a t t e r n s ; however, i t was a l s o revealed that the determinants of m u n i c i p a l f i s c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s are constant throughout the country as the r e g i o n a l v a r i a t i o n s were prompted, p a r t l y by socio-economic d i f f e r e n c e s among the r e g i o n s , and p a r t l y by a c t i o n s adopted by the younger m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to avoid the mistakes of the o l d e r ones. 20 Despite the d i f f e r e n c e s between Canada and the U.S., t h e i r l o c a l governments di s p l a y s t r i k i n g l y s i m i l a r trends i n t h e i r revenue r e l i a n c e patterns. An examination of Canadian and American revenue trends over the l a s t few decades (Wagdin, 1971; Jack & Reuss, 1970) revealed that i n 1950, on average, Canadian and American municipal government revenues from intergovernmental grants constituted 12 percent and 17 percent of t o t a l municipal revenue r e s p e c t i v e l y . By 1969, t h i s source of revenue increased to 43 percent of t o t a l municipal revenues i n Canada and 31 percent of t o t a l municipal revenues i n the U.S. In both countries, the importance of taxes i n l o c a l government revenues displayed s i m i l a r l e v e l s of decline as w e l l . In 1950, Canadian municipal government revenues from property taxes contributed to approximately 76 percent of t o t a l municipal revenues; by 1969, t h i s f i g u r e dropped to 47 percent. In 1950, American l o c a l governments received 53 percent of revenues from own sources through taxes; by 1969, revenues from taxes contributed to only 42 percent of t o t a l revenues. An examination of revenue from own sources shows that a s h i f t i n g away from taxes and towards user charges has also been evident i n l o c a l governments i n both c o u n t r i e s . The change i n revenue r e l i a n c e patterns i n both countries has been prompted by s i m i l a r circumstances. Increase i n r e l i a n c e on revenues from l o c a l government's own sources other than property taxes has been motivated by the already high l e v e l s of property tax which i n many m u n i c i p a l i t i e s has had adverse e f f e c t s on the t o t a l tax base by causing residents and business to move to other taxing j u r i s d i c t i o n s . Increases i n intergovernmental aid have resu l t e d from an awareness by senior governments of the expansion i n municipal r e s p o n s i b l i t i e s and the ensuing f i s c a l squeeze. Although Canadian m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have not experienced f i s c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s i n the same proportions by some of the l a r g e r U.S. c i t i e s , they are faced with numerous f i s c a l problems. A f t e r examining municipal expenditure and revenue patterns i n Canada, George Waldin (1971) was prompted to conclude that "there i s no doubt that the revenue-expenditure gap experienced by municipal, governments i n Canada has 21 reached s e r i o u s p r o p o r t i o n s " (p.122). The Impact of P o p u l a t i o n Growth Rates on Revenue P a t t e r n s A s u b s t a n t i a l numer of s t u d i e s have examined the impact of p o p u l a t i o n growth r a t e s on m u n i c i p a l expenditures (see chapter I I ) ; however, the same cannot be s a i d regarding s t u d i e s on the impact of growth ra t e s on revenues. I n t h i s chapter, the impact of growth r a t e s i s analyzed by reviewing the f i n d i n g s of other e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s , and a l s o by examining how growth r a t e s a l t e r f a c t o r s that d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y a f f e c t revenue l e v e l s and revenue r e l i a n c e . Revenue L e v e l s P o p u l a t i o n growth i s g e n e r a l l y p r e c i p i t a t e d by economic growth which takes the form of i n c r e a s e d i n d u s t r i a l and commercial a c t i v i t y . F e i b e r g (1964), i n an a n a l y s i s of 1950 revenue and expenditure patterns i n the 10 l a r g e s t U.S. c i t i e s , found that the more r a p i d p o p u l a t i o n growth rates were p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h an expanded tax base by i n c r e a s i n g v a r i a b l e s such as employment, f a m i l y income and value added by manufacturing and r e t a i l s a l e s . Feinberg's study shows that growth rates a l t e r revenue p o t e n t i a l by a l t e r i n g the socio-economic environment of a m u n i c i p a l i t y . Although t h i s expanded tax base provides a d d i t i o n a l revenue f o r the m u n i c i p a l i t y , accompanying t h i s i n c r e a s e i s a need f o r more m u n i c i p a l s e r v i c e s . A p e r u s a l of f i s c a l impact s t u d i e s (Groves, 1963; H i r s c h , 1964; B r i d g e s , 1969; and I s a r d & C o u g h l i n , 1957) shows a consensus of o p i n i o n as to the necessary set of c o n d i t i o n s a r i s i n g from economic and p o p u l a t i o n growth to produuce a net f i s c a l b e n e f i t f o r the m u n i c i p a l i t y . As i n d i c a t e d p r e v i o u s l y , economic and p o p u l a t i o n growth r e s u l t s i n : 1) an expanded tax base; and 2) an expansion i n expenditure requirements. Where a r e g i o n experiences a p o p u l a t i o n i n c r e a s e , the c o n d i t i o n s which r e s u l t i n the maximum f i s c a l b e n e f i t s f o r a given m u n i c i p a l i t y occurs when the i n d u s t r i a l / c o m m e r c i a l a c t i v i t y i s l o c a t e d i n the m u n i c i p a l i t y w i t h the supporting labour f o r c e r e s i d i n g i n another j u r i s d i c t i o n . I t appears 22 that although the s e r v i c i n g of i n d u s t r i a l and commercial a c t i v i t i e s i s h i g h , the revenue r e t u r n s from in c r e a s e d taxes more than compensate f o r the expenditure i n c r e a s e . The same cannot be s a i d of s e r v i c e s r e q u i r e d f o r a d d i t i o n a l r e s i d e n t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r those w i t h a high dependent to labour r a t i o . P r o v i s i o n of education and s o c i a l s e r v i c e s are c o s t l y , and are not compensated f o r unless the new labour f o r c e i s comprised of h i g h wage earners. Groves (1963), found that i t i s the type of r e s i d e n t and not the type of economic a c t i v i t y that has the g r e a t e s t impact on m u n i c i p a l expenditures. From t h i s , i t can be concluded that where economic (and p o p u l a t i o n ) growth occurs, the l e a s t d e s i r a b l e f i s c a l s i t u a t i o n i s the f l i p s i d e of the most d e s i r e d , that i s , economic a c t i v i t y i s located" o u t s i d e m u n i c i p a l boundries, but the accompanying p o p u l a t i o n increase r e s i d e s w i t h i n m u n i c i p a l boundries. This phenomenon of the s e p a r a t i o n of work place and r e s i d e n t i a l l o c a t i o n i n d i f f e r e n t m u n i c i p a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s i s commonplace i n the U.S. and i s one of the major causes of f i s c a l s t r e s s and f i s c a l imbalance among American c i t i e s . In A l b e r t a , since t h i s type of s e p a r a t i o n occurs r a r e l y , the d r a s t i c f i s c a l imbalances that are observed i n the U.S. are not expected to occur here. Revenue R e l i a n c e The p a t t e r n of revenue r e l i a n c e provides an i n s i g h t i n t o the present and f u t u r e f i s c a l c onditon of a m u n i c i p a l i t y . I t i s evident that too much r e l i a n c e on e x t e r n a l sources of revenue places a m u n i c i p a l i t y i n a v u l n e r a b l e p o s i t i o n as cutbacks i n grants or changes i n p r o v i n c i a l or f e d e r a l p o l i c i e s w i l l a f f e c t these m u n i c i p a l i t i e s d r a s t i c a l l y . Another i n d i c a t o r of f u t u r e f i s c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s i s a high l e v e l of borrowing as i t w i l l commit a s u b s t a n t i a l amount of f u t u r e revenues to paying o f f present spending. The r e s u l t s of a comprehensive revenue patte r n s study by Susan MacManus (1978), of 583 m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , show that those m u n i c i p a l i t i e s that are i n the most d i r e f i s c a l c o n d i t i o n are c h a r a c t e r i s e d by greater r e l i a n c e on intergovernmental a i d and property tax revenues r e l a t i v e to other forms of revenues from own sources. MacManus contends that t h i s l a c k of d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n makes c i t i e s v u l n e r a b l e as many U.S. m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have 23 reached the p o l i t i c a l l i m i t i n property tax but have not explored other sources of revenues (e.g. user charges for municipal s e r v i c e s ) ; therefore, these a l t e r n a t i v e forms of revenue may not be p o l i t i c a l l y implementable i n a short period of time. Reliance on say, intergovernmental revenues also makes the l o c a l governement susceptible to changes i n government p o l i c y . the r e l i a n c e on one source of revenue i s not n e c e s s a r i l y the cause of the f i s c a l c r i s e s experience by many U.S. c i t i e s ; however, i t could very e a s i l y be the reason these m u n i c i p a l i t i e s cannot cope with many of t h e i r f i n a n c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s . Thomas Stinson (1970) analyzed 1950 to 1960 expenditure and revenue patterns for growing and d e c l i n i n g m u n i c i p a l i t i e s with populations between 25,000 to 50,000. His study revealed that growing m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have more revenues than d e c l i n i n g ones to devote to non basic services such as recr e a t i o n and c u l t u r e . D e c l i n i n g c i t i e s spent a greater proportion of t h e i r budget on f i r e p r o t e c t i o n and highways. Stinson observed that with the exception of c a p i t a l expenditures there were few noticeable s h i f t s i n expenditure patterns between the growing and d e c l i n i n g c i t i e s ; however, revenues d i d d i f f e r markedly between the two groups. Growing c i t i e s r e l i e d less on tax revenues - property and non property. This decrease i n tax r e l i a n c e was due to the increased importance of charges and miscellaneous sources of revenues. In the area of debt, the growing c i t i e s u t i l i z e d more of t h e i r long term bonding capacity (as measured by t o t a l revenues); while, the d e c l i n i n g c i t i e s r e l i e d more on financing t h e i r expenditures through short term debt. The Impact of Population Size on Municipal Revenues The l i t e r a t u r e has focused more on the impact of urban s i z e , rather than the impact of growth rates on municipal revenues. This emphasis was prompted by the f i s c a l c r i s e s displayed by the older, l a r g e r U.S. c i t i e s . These c i t i e s were examined i n d e t a i l to as c e r t a i n whether urban si z e per se creates the f i s c a l problems faced by these c i t i e s . The impact of urban size on municipal revenue l e v e l s and r e l i a n c e patterns i s examined i n th i s s e c t i o n . 24 Revenue Levels One of the f i r s t revenue pattern studies was undertaken by Stephans and Schmandt (1962). They used 3 independent v a r i a b l e s i n t h e i r a n a l y s i s ; median family income, population s i z e and density. The study which incorporated m u n i c i p a l i t i e s ranging i n population from f i v e thousand to one m i l l i o n plus showed that revenue l e v e l s followed a U shaped pattern with the lowest revenue l e v e l s f or the medium sized c i t i e s . Property tax revenues was the source of revenues that was predominantly responsible for the U shape i n the revenue l e v e l s . Since the amount of revenue i s a f u n c t i o n of expenditure needs, and not n e c e s s a r i l y r e l a t e d to f i s c a l a b i l i t y , the U shaped revenue pattern could be explained by the existence of a U shaped expenditure for d i f f e r e n t sized m u n i c i p a l i t i e s (see chapter I I ) . A b i l i t y to finance i s generally measured by l e v e l of personal income and wealth, and property values. The two most commonly used indices are income and property values as there are numerous em p i r i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s i n the measurement of wealth. Often both income and property values are used; however, since income l e v e l s a l t e r property value, the e l a s t i c i t y of the response of property value to income being around one (Hirsch, 1964; Bridges, 1969), property value changes can be used as a proxy for income changes and vi c e versa. American and Canadian studies (Alonso, 1979; Richardson, 1973; Applebaum et a l . , 1978; Boaz, 1973) of urban siz e and income have concluded that income i s p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to urban s i z e , the moot issue being whether cost of l i v i n g , which i s also p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to urban s i z e , increases by the same porportions e l i m i n a t i n g any r e a l income gains. Although there w i l l always be some dissenters, the general consensus i s that personal incomes r i s e f a s t e r than the cost of l i v i n g as urban s i z e increases. In accordance with the majority, a Canadian study (Boaz, 1973) revealed that increased income i n the larger B r i t i s h Columbia m u n i c i p a l i t i e s more than compensated for the increased economic cost of l i v i n g i n these areas. 25 Susan MacManus (1978), who examined U.S. m u n i c i p a l i t i e s with populations ranging between one thousand to one m i l l i o n plus, found that revenue l e v e l s from own sources increased with s i z e . She did not, however, confirm the existence of a U shaped revenue curve f o r the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s she examined. She also found that tax burdens were p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to population s i z e . As c e n t r a l c i t y s i z e increased, the property and non property tax burden increased. The magnitude of the di f f e r e n c e for m u n i c i p a l i t i e s over one m i l l i o n persons compared to m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of less than one hundred thousand was f i v e times the non property tax burden, and twice the property tax burden. MacManus found that larger m u n i c i p a l i t i e s depend more than the smaller ones on intergovernmental funds. Part of the higher per capita intergovernmental revenue for larger U.S. m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i s a r e s u l t of a greater number of low income f a m i l i e s concentrated i n these areas, making these m u n i c i p a l i t i e s more e l i g i b l e than t h e i r smaller counterparts for senior government grants. William Griggs (1967), who studied municipal service e f f i c i e n c i e s of B r i t i s h Columbia m u n i c i p a l i t i e s with population l e v e l s between 1,000 and 15,000, found that larger m u n i c i p a l i t i e s generated greater sums of money per ca p i t a ; however, they also provide higher l e v e l s of municipal s e r v i c e s . By equating cost with l e v e l of s e r v i c e s , Griggs found that the larger m u n i c i p a l i t i e s attained the highest score. A l b e r t a m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , l i k e B r i t i s h Columbia m u n i c i p a l i t i e s provide a geater number of municipal services as t h e i r s i z e incrases - an obvious example i s that of public transportaion - therefore, these larger m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are expected to generate a higher per ca p i t a revenue. Revenue Reliance As i n d i c a t e d e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter, r e l i a n c e on one p a r t i c u l a r type of revenue, say intergovernmental a i d can provide useful i n s i g h t s into the municipality's f i s c a l v u l n e r a b i l i t y . Studies by MacManus (1978) and 26 P e t t e n g i l l & Uppal (1974) show that r e l i a n c e on intergovernmental revenue i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to population s i z e . In a d d i t i o n they found that as the population of a m u n i c i p a l i t y increased, r e l i a n c e on non property tax increased. Thus, i n general, as population si z e becomes l a r g e r , non property tax i s a more s i g n i f i c a n t source of o v e r a l l revenues. Both studies discovered that while r e l i a n c e on non property tax increases with increased population l e v e l s , r e l i a n c e on user charges diminished with increased population s i z e . MacManus and P e t t e n g i l l and Uppal revealed that northeastern U.S m u n i c i p a l i t i e s r e l y more on property taxes and intergovernmental a i d than m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n other areas. In t h e i r a n a l y s i s , P e t t e n g i l l and Uppal i n d i c a t e that the older c i t i e s r e l i e d more on property tax, while the younger m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , aware of the v u l n e r a b i l i t y of r e l y i n g heavily on one source of revenue, achieved a greater balance among the various sources of municipal revenues. When larger m u n i c i p a l i t i e s provide a d d i t i o n a l public s e r v i c e s , they are faced with heavy c a p i t a l costs to front end many of these s e r v i c e s . These c a p i t a l costs are generally funded through debt financing and though the "reasonable" l e v e l of debt for a municipality i s debatable i t i s c l e a r that lower l e v e l s of debt are preferable. The c i t y of New York i s a c l a s s i c i l l u s t r a t i o n of a m u n i c i p a l i t y that overextended i t s e l f ; often t h i s c i t y borrowed money just to meet i t s p a y r o l l . An Alberta study (Peat, Marwick & Partners, 1980) i n d i c a t e d that debt s e r v i c i n g costs of between 20% to 25% general operating expenditures i s considered reasonable for a mature c i t y * . This 20% to 25% r a t i o represents one of the key base rates used by bond companies and brokers i n e s t a b l i s h i n g c r e d i t r a t i n g for m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . 1 According to t h i s study Edmonton and Calgary can be c l a s s i f i e d as "mature c i t i e s " as they have i n place the necessary i n f r a s t r u c t u r e to service a large resident and non resident population. 27 For a l l the increased r e s p o n s i b i l i t e s larger urban centres have a greater a b i l i t y than smaller ones to generate revenues from own sources. For instance, c e r t a i n u t i l i t y services are a source of tax and non tax revenues for the m u n i c i p a l i t y . In Canada, unlike the U.S., u t i l i t i e s such as garbage c o l l e c t i o n , water supply, e l e c t r i c i t y and telephones are more often than not p u l b i c l y owned and can be a valuable source of revenues for the mu n i c i p a l i t y . I t should be noted that the fac t that many u t i l i t i e s i n the U.S. are p r i v a t e l y owned a t t e s t to the revenue generating p o t e n t i a l of these e n t e r p r i s e s . In Alberta, not a l l public u t i l i t i e s are revenue generating; some r e s u l t i n s u b s t a n t i a l d e f i c i t s . In general, of the more common u t i l i t i e s , gas, e l e c t r i c i t y , water and garbage c o l l e c t i o n generate surplus, while public transportation can unequivocally be c l a s s i f i e d as a d e f i c i t producing e n t e r p r i s e . The revenue-expenditure experience of these m u n i c i p a l i t i e s w i l l vary from place to place as many of these u t i l i t i e s are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of na t u r a l monopolies where s u b s t a n t i a l p r o f i t s can be earned, or excessive i n e f f i c i e n c e s can occur. O'Connor (1974) regards the public ownership of u t i l i t i e s as being f i s c a l l y b e n e f i c i a l to l o c a l governments. He states that " l o c a l governments could free themselves f i s c a l l y by taking over hundreds of u t i l i t i e s . . . . F o r example G a i n e s v i l l e , F l o r i d a , derived over 23 percent of i t s general revenue from surpluses generated by i t s e l e c t r i c i t y u t i l i t y operations i n 1965" (p.182). P u b l i c l y owned u t i l i t i e s generate revenues for the municipality by c o l l e c t i n g a fee for the service as well as levying a u t i l i t y tax against the users. Thus, when m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are serving non residents as i s often the case, they are exporting part of the municipal tax burden. Since there are c e r t a i n economies of scale involved i n the pro v i s i o n of these u t i l i t e s , small areas do not have the c a p i t a l nor the market to operate such f a c i l i t i e s . Many of the medium sized c i t i e s (15,000 to 50,000 persons) i n Alberta are i n the f i s c a l l y enviable p o s i t i o n of being large enough to support a revenue producing u t i l i t y such as e l e c t r i c i t y but not 28 large enough to be faced with the prospect of having to support an extensive d e f i c i t i n c u r r i n g public transportaion system. Although the evidence might warrant a separate analysis of the impact of u t i l i t i e s on the muicipal revenue-expenditure gap t h i s study w i l l only examine t h e i r impact within the ana l y s i s of t o t a l municpal revenues and expenditures. Conclusion This review of the municipal revenue studies revealed that both population growth rates and population s i z e have an impact on revenue l e v e l s and revenue r e l i a n c e patterns. Where population growth rates are concerned, f i s c a l studies found that population growth r e s u l t s i n an expanded tax base, the major issue being i f the increase i n expenditure required by the population change matches or exceeds the revenue increase. Whether a municipality benefits or s u f f e r s f i s c a l l y as a r e s u l t of a population change depends on the responsiveness ( e l a s t i c i t y ) of revenue and expenditures to t h i s change. In turn, responsiveness of revenues and expenditures to population change depends on the type of economic growth that p r e c i p i t a t e d t h i s change. Thus, the responsiveness of municipal expenditures and revenues can a l t e r from s i t u a t i o n to s i t u a t i o n . Gerald Boyle (1968), captures the essence of f i s c a l imbalance by s t a t i n g that t h i s w i l l occur when "the income e l a s t i c i t y of the revenue structure i s less than that of the expenditure st r u c t u r e " (p.412). Most of the studies reviewed concurred that where new i n d u s t r i a l or commercial a c t i v i t y occur with or without the accompanying labour force, the net r e s u l t , i n the long run, i s b e n e f i c i a l . However; when an increase i n population i s unaccompanied by an increase i n the i n d u s t r i a l and commercial base i n the affe c t e d m unicipality, the a d d i t i o n a l revenue i s exceeded by expenditure needs. 29 Most of the municipal revenue studies found that revenue l e v e l s were a l t e r e d by population s i z e ; however, there was some disagreement whether the r e a l t i o n s h i p i s l i n e a r or U shaped. The tax burden upon m u n i c i p a l i t i e s were also observed to increase with population s i z e . Revenue r e l i a n c e patterns displayed some c o r r e l a t i o n with population s i z e and population growth ra t e s . As m u n i c i p a l i t i e s increased i n s i z e , r e l i a n c e on one form of revenue, i . e . property tax, declined. Also, l a r g e r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s depended more on intergovernmental revenues. Studies on the impact of population growth rates on municipal revenues revealed that growing c i t i e s r e l i e d less on tax revenues and more on user charges. 30 CHAPTER IV METHODS AND HYPOTHESIS The previous chapters reviewed the r e s u l t s of other municipal f i s c a l s tudies, the majority of which employed regression techniques i n t h e i r analyses. As t h i s a n a l y s i s uses regression techniques as w e l l , t h i s chapter d e t a i l s the data used i n the regression equations, provides, d e f i n i t i o n s for the v a r i a b l e s and, reviews the expected r e s u l t s from the analyses. Data In t h i s review of municipal revenues and expenditure patterns, 35 A l b e r t a mu n i c i p a l i t e s are examined. These m u n i c i p a l i t i e s (see Table 1) consist of a l l A l b e r t a towns and c i t i e s with a 1974 population of 3,000 and over. The revenue and expenditures data for t h i s study i s obtained from A l b e r t a Municipal A f f a i r s which annually records population, assessment, area, revenue, and expenditure s t a t i s t i c s f o r municipalites and improvement d i s t r i c t s . The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n format of these municipal s t a t i s t i c s was a l t e r e d i n 1974; consequently, the more recent data are not comparable to those c o l l e c t e d p r i o r to 1974. This research concentrates on revenues and expenditure trends between 1974 and 1979. The 35 m u n i c i p a l i t i e s consist of 28 municipalites with a 1974 population of between 3,000 and 10,000; f i v e municipalites with populations between 10,000 and 50,000; and only two with populations over 400,000. Unfortunately there i s no representation of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s with population between 50,000 and 400,000. This lack of representation causes some s t a t i s t i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s as there i s no empirical evidence to support the regression equation that i s derived for m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n this s i z e category. The lack of empirical date for c i t i e s between the si z e of 50,000 and 500,000 presents some problems as extreme values for the l a r g e s t c i t i e s can r e s u l t i n high c o r r e l a t i o n s where none e x i s t . By the same token, i f only a l i m i t e d range of c i t i e s i s analysed, the findings could reveal no c o r r e l a t i o n where as i n ac t u a l f a c t a r e l a t i o n s h i p does e x i s t over the t o t a l range. By providing scattergrams of some of the v a r i a b l e s that display c o r r e l a t i o n s , i t i s possible to obtain a better understanding of the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . It should be noted that since the objective of t h i s thesis i s to compare the impact of population si z e and population growth rates on a l l A l b e r t a m u n i c i p a l i t i e s over 3,000, the larger municipalites were included in the a n a l y s i s . TABLE I List of Alberta Municipalities with 1974 Populations of 3,000 and Over. Municipality Brooks Calgary Camrose Claresholm Drayton Valley Drumheller Edmonton Edson Fort McMurray Fort Saskatchewan Grande Cache Grande Prairie High River Hinton Lacombe Leduc Lethbridge Medicine Hat Olds Peace River Pincher Creek Ponoka Red Deer Rocky Mountain House Slave Lake Spruce Grove St.Albert Stettler St.Paul Taber Vegreville Wainwright Westlock Wetaskiwin Whitecourt 1974 Population 4 802 433, 389 9 ,248 3, 200 4 ,041 5, 888 442 ,365 4, 079 9 ,542 7, 312 2 906 15 359 3 ,024 5 626 3 436 6, 513 43 612 27 430 3 ,569 5 071 3 ,421 4 414 28 079 3j 141 3 ,240 5 380 18 ,395 4 168 4 ,225 4 765 3 ,807 3, 872 3 ,603 6 605 3 ,306 32 Independent Var i a b l e s Independent variables are termed such because i t i s assumed that these are unaffected by v a r i a t i o n s i n the other v a r i a b l e s i n the equation. I n i t i a l l y , municipal revenue and expenditures were to be regressed on two va r i a b l e s only. However, the r e s u l t s from the review of the l i t e r a t u r e has prompted the use of a t h i r d v a r i a b l e - average income. This v a r i a b l e figured prominently as a revenue and expenditure determinant i n many of the studies reviewed. Average income s t a t i s t i c s , obtained from the Alberta Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , do not represent a true per capita f i g u r e but are the c l o s e s t s u b s t i t u t e as, per capita income figures are only a v a i l a b l e at a p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l . The Albe r t a Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s bases average income figures on taxable returns f i l e d with the Revenue Canada Taxation O f f i c e and are compliled by way of mailing addresses. Therefore, i t i s possible for a non resident to be included i n the c a l c u l a t i o n of average income for a municipality because his mailing address i s i n that p a r t i c u l a r m u n i c i p a l i t y . These v a r i a t i o n s are minor enough to j u s t i f y the use of th i s data. The income v a r i a b l e , along with the o r i g i n a l v a r i a b l e s , population s i z e and population growth rate w i l l be used i n a regression analysis to determine t h e i r impact on municipal revenues and expenditures. The impact of population s i z e upon municipal revenues and expenditures w i l l be examined for each year from 1975 to 1979. This type of analysis w i l l determine i f an observation of a c o r r e l a t i o n between variables i s , i n f a c t , i n d i c a t i v e of a general r e l a t i o n s h i p between the v a r i a b l e s and not just a chance occurrence. The impact of population growth cannot be examined i n the same fashion as population s i z e because growth rates vary from year to year, and with the unknown time lag between rate of population growth and municipal revenues and expenditures, the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s d i f f i c u l t to define and test e m p i r i c a l l y . In ad d i t i o n , municipal f i s c a l r e a c t i o n to population growth rates involves p o l i c y changes on the part of dec i s i o n makers, and often i t takes successive years of population growth change before d e c i s i o n makers 33 respond to a changing need. To circumvent the f i r s t problem and incorporate the second into a regression a n a l y s i s , most studies obtain an average growth rate over a number of years just p r i o r to the p a r t i c u l a r year for which expenditure or revenue data i s c o l l e c t e d . In t h i s study, population growth rate, averaged over a f i v e year period just p r i o r to the study year, i s used to test f or the existence of a r e l a t i o n s h i p between population change and municipal expenditure, and between population change and municipal revenues experience of 1975 and 1979. This f i v e year average for population growth should incorporate some lag into the r e l a t i o n s h i p . The average income v a r i a b l e i s tested on municipal revenue and expenditure figures for the years 1977 and 1978. The lack of income data for some of the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s precludes a n a l y s i s f or the revenue and expenditure years of 1975, 1976 and 1979. Average income i s lagged one year; thus f o r example, 1978 revenue and expenditure figures w i l l be regressed on 1977 income data. Dependent V a r i a b l e s The dependent v a r i a b l e s consist of municipal revenues and expenditures disaggregated into various functions. Table 2 provides a l i s t of each dependent v a r i a b l e with an accompanying d e f i n i t i o n as to the a c t i v i t i e s each f u n c t i o n encompasses. In Table 2, the d e f i n i t i o n s for municipal revenues can apply to both the General and the Consolidated Operating Funds; however, the d e f i n i t i o n s f or municipal expenditures apply to the General Operating fund only. The General Operating Fund consists of a l l operating revenues and expenditures incurred in the p r o v i s i o n of public goods and services with the exception of revenues and expenditures r e s u l t i n g from municipal ownership of u t i l i t i e s . As the name suggests, Consolidated Operating Fund includes the c o n s o l i d a t i o n of both the General and the U t i l i t y funds. The number of p u b l i c l y owned u t i l i t i e s vary among m u n i c i p a l i t i e s ; however, these operations consist of the municipal operation of telephones, gas, e l e c t r i c i t y , water, a i r p o r t s , garbage c o l l e c t i o n and public t r a n s i t . 34 TABLE II - D e f i n i t i o n s of the Dependent Var i a b l e s Dependent V a r i a b l e D e f i n i t i o n Municipal Revenues Real Propety Taxes Other Taxes Grants i n Lieu of Taxes Revenues from the Sale of Goods and Services Other Revenue from Own Sources Transfers from Other Governments Municipal Expenditures General Government P r o t e c t i v e Services Transportation Environmental Health Taxes on r e s i d e n t i a l and non r e s i d e n t i a l land, b u i l d i n g s and improvements. Business, p i p e l i n e and s p e c i a l frontage assessment, and s p e c i a l l o c a l b e n e f i t assessment taxes. Revenue from f e d e r a l , p r o v i n c i a l or municipal agencies who are exempt from taxation but nevertheless make some payments i n l i e u of taxation. Revenues generated by charging i n d i v i d u a l s , corporations, or government agencies for the consumption of municipal goods and s e r v i c e s . Revenues generated from i s s u i n g l i c e n c e s , f i n e s , r e n t a l , franchises and making investments. Revenue obtained from other governments f o r rendering municipal services i n these areas. Expenditures for l e g i s l a t i o n , general administration, planning, tax c o l l e c t i o n and aud i t i n g and any a d d i t i o n a l costs i n c i d e n t a l to the general administration of the mu n i c i p a l i t y . Expenditure f o r the operation of p o l i c e , f i r e and i n some m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , ambulance s e r v i c e s . Expenditure on the maintenance of roads, str e e t s and re l a t e d transportaion f a c i l i t i e s such as l i g h t i n g , and t r a f f i c c o n t r o l devices. Expenditures for the treatment and dis p o s a l of sewage, and, the c o l l e c t i o n and d i s p o s a l of garbage. This category can include expenditures for the supply of water, however, most m u n i c i p a l i t i e s l i s t expenditures for the p r o v i s i o n of water under a separate fund. 35 TABLE II (continued) Dependent V a r i a b l e D e f i n i t i o n Municipal Expenditures (continued) Environmental Health P u b l i c Health and Welfare Environmental Development Recreation and Culture and Education Debt Charges Expenditures for the treatment and disposal of sewage, and, the c o l l e c t i o n and d i s p o s a l of garbage. This category can include expenditures for the supply of water, however, most m u n i c i p a l i t i e s l i s t expenditures for the p r o v i s i o n of water under a separate fund. Expenditures for the operation of municipal h o s p i t a l s , health c l i n i c s , day care services and family c o u n s e l l i n g . Also included are expenditures for the assistance of the disadvantaged or needy. This s e r v i c e supplements f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l health and welfare programs. Expenditure for programs r e l a t e d to the p h y s i c a l enhancement of the m u n i c i p a l i t y through the p r o v i s i o n of s o i l , pest, weed co n t r o l and the operation of a g r i c u l t u r a l s e r v i c e boards i n r u r a l areas, and the promotion of t o u r i s t camps and conventions. Expenditures for the opertion of municipal r e c r e a t i o n a l and c u l t u r a l f a c i l i t i e s and programs. Also included are expenditures for the education of municipal employees and support for p r i v a t e educational f a c i l i t i e s . Expenditures to service the municipal General Fund debt load. C a p i t a l Applied Expenditures for the a c q u i s i t i o n of p h y s i c a l assets such as b u i l d i n g s and roads. 36 A comparison of the General and Consolidated Operating Funds shows that only c e r t a i n revenue and expenditure categories a l t e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y when a mun i c i p a l i t y operates one or more u t i l i t i e s . On the revenue s i d e , "Sale of Goods and Services" can show a marked divergence between funds as sale of u t i l i t y services increase revenues s u b s t a n t i a l l y . Less often, the "Other Revenues" and "Services to Other Government" categories show di f f e r e n c e s between the General and Consolidated Funds, but these are minor and only occur when a municipal u t i l i t y provides a service to another government or generates revenues other than those associated with user fees. On the expenditure side, the categories that vary from one fund to the other are: "Transportation" because the cost of providing public t r a n s i t i s c l a s s i f i e d under a u t i l i t y fund; "Environmental Health" due to the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of water supply or e l e c t r i c i t y i n a separate fund, and; "Debt Charges" as u t i l i t i e s incur financing charges i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of u t i l i t y c a p i t a l . F i s c a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Under Examination In t h i s study, revenue figures were obtained from the Consolidated Fund while expenditure f i g u r e s are from the General Operating Fund. The only expenditure f i g u r e from the Consolidated fund i s T o t a l Expenditure and t h i s v a r i a b l e i s used to determine i f a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between an aggregated expenditure f i g u r e and the independent v a r i a b l e s . The Consolidated operating revenues are used to obtain a greater i n s i g h t i n t o the revenue impact of u t i l i t y ownership, and although the expenditure side of u t i l i t y ownership i s not analysed i n the same disaggregated manner, the T o t a l Expenditure category does incorporate the operating cost of u t i l i t i e s into the a n a l y s i s . Since the scope of the thesis r e s t r i c t s the number of v a r i a b l e s that could be examined, the option of examining expenditures from the General Fund was chosen as i t pertains to the type of an a l y s i s that has been performed i n other studies i . e . the use of comparable data. In f a c t , some of the expenditure studies (Weichner, 1970; C a r r o l l & Sacks, 1962) chose to use only a few expenditure categories which they f e l t were the most comparable i n f u c t i o n a l type. 37 Expenditure Functions Although the r e s u l t s from the studies of municipal expenditures have been somewhat con t r a d i c t o r y , most studies have concluded that population s i z e has a p o s i t i v e impact on municipal expenditures. Most of the disagreements concerning population s i z e and municipal expenditures revolve around the population numbers at which per capita municipal expenditures r i s e . Some of these studies ( S t e r n l i e b , 1973; Gabler, 1971; Muller, 1975; Baker, 1910), provided evidence to substantiate the theory that per capita municipal expenditures remain constant within a wide population range and only r i s e at c e r t a i n threshold l e v e l s . These threshold l e v e l s have been i d e n t i f i e d to occur at population l e v e l s of 10,000 (Sternlieb)50,000, 100,000(Muller,1975) and 250,000(Gabler, 1971). These population l e v e l s are assumed to r e s u l t i n c e r t a i n diseconomies of scale i n the p r o v i s i o n of municipal s e r v i c e s , or i n the l e v e l or number of municipal services which are required. Anna Parkinson's (1978) study of small urban centers i n Alberta confirms the existence of municipal expenditures thresholds. For the A l b e r t a m u n i c i p a l i t i e s reviewed i n t h i s study, p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s are expected to emerge between some of the expenditure functions and population s i z e . From the experience of previous municipal expenditure studies the impact of population growth rates i s ambiguous. The expenditure e f f e c t s of rapid growth rates are twofold, and contravene each other, the f i n a l r e s u l t depending on which force i s the more dominant. In the f i r s t instance, rapid population growth rates over a number of years often induce a d d i t i o n a l expenditures to provide enough excess capacity to accommodate future growth. This phenomenon would most l i k e l y be observed with municipal c a p i t a l expenditures. With operating expenditures, because of the nature of t h i s function ( i . e . being more responsive than c a p i t a l to changing demand thereby decreasing the need to front-end expenditures to accommodate growth), increases i n per c a p i t a municipal expenditures i n response to rapid growth rates would be less s i g n i f i c a n t . In f a c t , where operating expenditures are concerned, the second e f f e c t would l i k e l y be the more dominant. This second e f f e c t of growth rates i s the expansion of the population base which spreads 38 t o t a l municipal expenditures over a larger population base reducing per c a p i t a expenditures. In t h i s study c a p i t a l expenditures are expected to be p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with population growth rates, while operating expenditures are expected to display l i t t l e response to growth r a t e s . Of the three independent v a r i a b l e s under review i n t h i s study, personal income has been the only one that has been c o n s i s t e n t l y observed i n other studies to be a s i g n i f i c a n t factor i n a f f e c t i n g municipal expenditures. This p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between l e v e l of personal income and municipal expenditures i s explained by the increase i n demand for municipal s e r v i c e s and for a b i l i t y to pay for these services as incomes increase. This p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p i s expected to be observed i n t h i s study as w e l l . Revenue Functions Municipal revenue studies have been much less numerous than municipal expenditure studies. From these studies, where revenue and urban siz e are concerned, per c a p i t a revenues increase with urban s i z e . This i s found to occur i n both Canadian (Griggs, 1967) and U.S. studies (MacManus, 1978; and P e t t e n g i l l and Uppal, 1974). MacManus discovered that revenue trends displayed a U shaped r e a l t i o n s h i p with urban s i z e . This observation could be explained by the existence of a U shaped expenditure curve for urban si z e s as w e l l . O v e r a l l revenue tendencies are expected to display a somewhat s i m i l a r pattern as t o t a l expenditure. The disaggregation of revenue i n t h i s study w i l l d i splay which revenue functions are s e n s i t i v e to changes i n urban s i z e . In the U.S. i t i s the property tax which i s l a r g e l y responsible for the U shaped phenomenon. Very few of the municipal revenue studies examined the impact of growth rates on revenue; however, the few that did concluded that an increase i n population growth r e s u l t s i n an expanded tax base through the o v e r a l l increase i n affluence of the community (Feinberg, 1964 and Stinson, 1970). Generally, i n i n d u s t r i a l countries, population growth, over and above the natural increase, i s associated with increases i n economic a c t i v i t y 39 and l e v e l of affluence. Many Alberta m u n i c i p a l i t i e s can c e r t a i n l y be included i n t h i s category. Therefore, rapid growth rates are expected to have a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on municipal revenues. Municipal revenue studies (Groves, 1963; Hirsch, 1964; Bridges, 1960) have shown that an increase i n income increases tax revenues by expanding the tax base through higher property values. Increases i n municipal revenues as a re s u l t of increases i n property values w i l l depend upon the taxing method i n place i n a given municipality. Assessment practices and m i l l rates vary from municipality to municpality; consequently, the response i n revenues w i l l depend on how s e n s i t i v e the assessment process i s to e x i s t i n g market values. In Alberta, the P r o v i n c i a l Government does not e s t a b l i s h the funding formula for the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , but provides them with a sub s t a n t i a l amount of autonomy i n t h i s area. Only when assessments are updated do the increases i n property value t r a n s l a t e into increased municipal revenue. Since Alberta m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have d i f f e r e n t assessment practices, revenue response to increased income w i l l vary, and the c o r r e l a t i o n i s not expected to be high. One of the f i s c a l trends under examination i s the discrepancy between t o t a l operating expenditures and t o t a l operating revenue from own sources. The review of municipal expenditure studies showed that municipal expenditures increases with increases i n population size and income l e v e l s . I t was also noted that increases i n income, which r e s u l t i n an expansion of the municipal tax base, were associated with increased population size as w e l l . By including income into this a n l y s i s , t h i s study w i l l determine i f income i s an intervening factor between population size and municipal expenditures and revenues. I t i s hypothesized that population growth rates r e s u l t i n a time lag i n both the municipal expenditure and revenue process; however, the time lag for the revenue response to population growth i s generally greater than the time lag for the expenditure response. A U.S. Department of Commerce study (1978) of rapid population growth i n Colorado towns revealed that for m u n i c i p a l i t i e s 40 with rapid growth rates, the expenditure requirements a r i s i n g from t h i s growth outstripped the immediate revenue response. By examining the c o r r e l a t i o n and the d o l l a r response of municipal revenues and expenditures to population changes, t h i s study w i l l determine i f Alberta m u n i c i p a l i t i e s experience s i m i l a r f i s c a l tendencies. Although t h i s study deals p r i m a r i l y with aspects of operating expenditures and revenues, the impact of population s i z e , population growth rate and income on municipal c a p i t a l expenditures w i l l not be ignored. According to threshold theory, m u n i c i p a l i t i e s w i l l experience surges i n c a p i t a l costs at c e r t a i n population l e v e l s . Small urban centres are said to experience a s u b s t a n t i a l number of thresholds for various public functions. Anna Parkinson (1978), i n a study of small urban centres i n A l b e r t a , found the per c a p i t a expenditures for c e r t a i n functions, e.g. c a p i t a l and operating needs for f i r e and s a n i t a t i o n , increased when population l e v e l s exceed 6,000 persons. Other studies ( S t e r n l i e b (1973), B u r c h e l l (1978), discovered some U shaped tendencies between municipal expenditure thresholds. With aggregated data, l i k e o v e r a l l c a p i t a l expenditures the problem with i d e n t i f y i n g the existence of thresholds a r i s e s when they occur at d i f f e r e n t population l e v e l s for d i f f e r e n t functions. Thus, instead of a U shaped c o r r e l a t i o n between municipal expenditures and population s i z e , a l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p , representing d i f f e r e n t thresholds for the various funct i o n , could occur. In any case, population s i z e i s expected to have an impact on municipal c a p i t a l expenditures. In the matter of growth rates, a c o n s i s t e n t l y high growth rate might a l t e r a municipality's choice i n the amount of excess capacity i t i s w i l l i n g to acquire. Kozlowski & Hughes (1977), provide following i l l u s t r a t i o n of such a phenomenon i n t h e i r study of threshold a n a l y s i s . For example, a m u n i c i p a l i t y with 5,000 persons might be faced with the following cost scenarios depicted i n f i g u r e 1. According to f i g u r e 1, for a m u n i c i p a l i t y with a population l e v e l between 5,000 to 7,000 (b) i s the preferred option, as per capita c a p i t a l costs are lower than i n option (a). However, once the 7,000 person mark i s surpassed, (a) becomes the preferred option. 41 Council of a f a s t e r growing municipality would be i n c l i n e d to choose (a) as they would a n t i c i p a t e a r r i v i n g at the 7,000 plus mark f a i r l y r a p i d l y and w i l l quickly reap the benefits of option ( a ) . Per Capita C a p i t a l Costs (b) (a) 5,000 7,000 12,000 Population Size Figure 1. An empirical example of t h i s type of over b u i l d i n g i s observable i n the towns that are expecting to be impacted by o i l sands development i n the province. In 1981, the P r o v i n c i a l Government gave the towns of Cold Lake, Grande Centre and Bonnyville $242,000 by s p e c i a l warrants to pay the i n t e r e s t on c a p i t a l f or water and sewer debts because of overbuilding i n preparation of growth. This type of overbuilding i n r e a c t i o n to growth rates w i l l be examined by performing a regression analysis on m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of constant s i z e ; i n t h i s case, the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s with populations ranging between 3,000 and 10,000. In a d d i t i o n , Finances Applied, which represents municipal c a p i t a l expenditures, w i l l be regressed for expenditures changes fo r a l l urban s i z e s . 42 Just as an increase i n income l e v e l s i s hypothesized to increase operating expenditures i t i s expected to increase c a p i t a l expenditures as w e l l . A l l the disaggregated revenue and expenditure v a r i a b l e s w i l l be regressed on each independent v a r i a b l e - population s i z e , population growth rate, and income - separately f o r 5 years while an a n a l y s i s of the combined impact of the independent v a r i a b l e s w i l l be performed (1979) data only. Revenue Reliance and Debt Levels In a d d i t i o n to the use of regression analysis on per capita revenue and expenditure functions, revenue and debt s e r v i c i n g as a percentage of t o t a l revenues and t o t a l expenditures are examined. Revenue r e l i a n c e w i l l be examined to determine the importance of d i f f e r e n t sources of revenues f o r A l b e r t a m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . A high l e v e l of revenue from own sources as a percentage of t o t a l revenue i s an i n d i c a t o r of f i s c a l autonomy; conversely, a high l e v e l of external source of revenues i s an i n d i c a t o r of f i s c a l v u l n e r a b i l i t y . Revenue r e l i a n c e patterns i n both Canada and the U.S have a l t e r e d d r a s t i c a l l y i n the l a s t few decades away from r e l i a n c e on property taxes and toward intergovernmental t r a n s f e r s , and to a l e s s e r degree user charges. The changes i n revenue r e l i a n c e tendencies for A l b e r t a m u n i c i p a l i t i e s w i l l be reviewed for the f i v e year period between 1975 and 1979 i n c l u s i v e . This examination of revenue r e l i a n c e trends w i l l provide an o v e r a l l view of the f i s c a l autonomy of Alberta m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . Debt s e r v i c i n g charges as a percentage of operating expenditures i s a major i n d i c a t o r of municipal f i s c a l s t r e s s . When high l e v e l s of municipal revenues are committed to this municipal expenditure function, l e s s revenues are a v a i l a b l e for the operation of municipal s e r v i c e s . Debt as a percentage of operating expenditures w i l l be examined to determine i f many of the 35 Alberta m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are exceeding the 20 - 25% mark of a reasonable l e v e l of debt (Peat, Marwick & Partners, 1981). 43 Conclusion With the use of regression analysis, this study will examine the impact of population size, population growth rates and income on municipal revenues and expenditures on 35 Alberta municipalities. The review of the theoretical assumptions and empiricial evidence leads to the expectation of positive correlations between the three independent variables - population size, population growth rate, income - and both municipal revenue and expenditure. The short term effect of rapid growth on revenues lagging behind the necessary capital and operating expenditures will be addressed in this research by examining the discrepancy between revenues from own sources and total expenditures. In addition to the regression analysis, the revenue reliance patterns and debt level changes over the 5 year study period is examined to provide an insight into the fiscal status of Alberta municipalities. 44 CHAPTER V RESULTS OF THE EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS In t h i s chapter the r e s u l t s of the regression analyses are d e t a i l e d as to the e f f e c t of population growth rates, population si z e and personal income on municipal expenditures and revenues. In a d d i t i o n , revenue r e l i a n c e changes and debt l e v e l s for the years 1975 to 1979 are discussed. The r e s u l t s of the analysis reveal few s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between the dependent va r i a b l e s and the independent v a r i a b l e s . In t h i s chapter, s t a t i s t i c s for s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s are d e t a i l e d ; however, a l l the s t a t i s t i c s of the analysis are l i s t e d i n Appendix A to t h i s study. A l b e r t a municipal expenditures i n 1975 are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d by population growth rates of the previous years. The same could be stated regarding 1979 expenditure functions. Any hint of c o r r e l a t i o n i n both 1979 and 1975 expenditure years comes from d i f f e r e n t expenditure functions. In 1975, the discrepancy between T o t a l Expenditure and Revenue from Own Sources display a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p with population growth rates. With an R-square of 0.12, the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s just s i g n i f i c a n t at the 5% l e v e l . This r e l a t i o n s h i p t ranslates into a $3.17 increase i n per capita municipal " d e f i c i t " with each percentage increase i n population growth. This occurrence i s not observable i n 1979 where the R-square i s 0.0. Population Growth Rates and Municipal Expenditures ( s t d . e r r o r ) ( t - r a t i o ) (14.3) (1.19) ( 2.4) (2.16) per capita " d e f i c i t " = 589.27 (std. error) (36.9) ( t - r a t i o ) (16.0) 0.06 pop. growth rate (5.53) (-0.01) 45 The vast d i f f e r e n c e i n the intercepts between 1975 and 1979 i s caused by a 1 b i l l i o n d o l l a r P r o v i n c i a l Government tr a n s f e r program which was aimed at reducing Municipal debt. This Program had the e f f e c t of i n c r e a s i n g municipal revenues from government transfers thereby increasing municipal revenues from government transfers thereby increasing municipal expenditues and the " d e f i c i t " between municipal expenditures and revenue from own sources. In the 1979 expenditure year, the only v a r i a b l e that displays any s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l of c o r r e l a t i o n with growth rate i s the General Government fun c t i o n . This r e l a t i o n s h i p i s p o s i t i v e , and with an R-square of 0.11 i s also just s i g n i f i c a n t at the 5% l e v e l . per c a p i t a general govt. exp. = 48.5 + 1.15 pop. growth rate ( s t d . error) (3.6) (0.55) ( t - r a t i o ) (13.3) (2.1) The d o l l a r i m p l i c a t i o n s i s a $1.15 change i n per c a p i t a General Government expenditure percentage i n population growth rate. There i s always the p o s s i b i l i t y that although population growth does a f f e c t municipal expenditures i n A l b e r t a , these e f f e c t s vary with s i z e ; therefore, population growth rates are also tested holding population s i z e constant at les s than 10,000 for 1975 and 1979 expenditure years. Although the r e s u l t s f o r 1975 and 1979 vary, there are a few s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s among v a r i a b l e s . In 1979, per capita p rotection expenditure i s just s i g n i f i c a n t at the 10 percent l e v e l ; the equation reveals a $1.20 increase i n per capita expenditure for each 1 percent increase i n growth rate. In 1975, per c a p i t a Sales of Goods and Service i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the 5 percent l e v e l with per capita revenue increasing by $0.50 f o r each percent increase i n population growth rates. 46 Per capita municipal d e f i c i t i n 1975 and 1979 i s unaffected by population s i z e i n the category of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s with 1975 populations of 10,000 and l e s s . I n t e r e s t i n g l y enough, when population i s held at 10,000 and l e s s , i n 1979 the per c a p i t a General Government previously noted marginally s i g n i f i c a n t R-square of 0.11 drops to a non s i g n i f i c a n t 0.02. However pr o t e c t i o n expenses for 1979 shows a minor increase with the R-square increasing from a s i g n i f i c a n t 0.9 to 0.13. From the r e s u l t s , which show weak c o r r e l a t i o n s , i t can be concluded that there Is not enough evidence to support the hypothesis that population growth a l t e r s per c a p i t a municipal expenditures. Population Growth Rates and Municipal Revenues There i s no l i n e a r c o r r e l a t i o n between municipal revenues and population growth rates i n both 1975 and 1979. This lack of any s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n also appears with one minor exception when population i s held constant at less than 10,000. In 1975, with population si z e constant, there i s one revenue function, Other Revenue, which i s just s i g n i f i c a n t at the 5% l e v e l . The R-squared i s only 0.15, and the d o l l a r i m p l i c a t i o n s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s minor at $0.41 increase i n per c a p i t a revenue for each percent increase i n growth r a t e . As with municipal expenditures, municipal revenues d i s p l a y l i t t l e evidence to j u s t i f y accepting the hypothesis that population growth rates a f f e c t municipal revenues. Tests for the existence of c u r v i l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the dependent and independent v a r i a b l e s were attempted. These non l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p s revealed r e s u l t s that were less s i g n i f i c a n t than those from l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 47 Population Size and Municipal Expenditures Of the municipal expenditure functions — general government, p r o t e c t i o n , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , environment health, public health, environmental development, r e c r e a t i o n , c u l t u r e , education and debt charges - only p r o t e c t i o n displays a high s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n with population s i z e . The R-squared ranges between 0.45 to 0.60 f o r the 5 year period with the highest R-square (0.60) i n 1975 and the lowest i n 1979. The regression equations i n d i c a t e that for each 1000 person increase i n population, per 1979 pro t e c t i o n exp. = 54.2 + 0.167E-03 population s i z e ( s t d . e r r o r ) ( t - r a t i o ) (3.9) (0.313E-04) (14.1) (5.35) 1978 pro t e c t i o n exp. = 45.7 + 0.166E-03 population s i z e ( s t d . error) (3.2) (0.269E-04) ( t - r a t i o ) (14.3) (6.17) 1977 pro t e c t i o n exp. = 40.6 + 0.151E-03 population s i z e ( s t d . e r r o r ) (2.9) (0.251E-04) ( t - r a t i o ) (14.0) (6.01) 1976 pro t e c t i o n exp. = 35.5 + 0.151E-03 population s i z e ( s t d . error) (2.4) (0.212E-04) ( t - r a t i o ) (14.9) (7.11) 1975 p r o t e c t i o n exp. = 31.6 + 0.128E-03 population s i z e ( s t d . error) (2.0) (0.182E-04) ( t - r a t i o ) (15.9) (7.054) 48 c a p i t a p r o t e c t i o n expenditure increases by $0.17 i n 1979; $0.17 i n 1978; $0.15 i n both 1977 and 1976; and $0.13 i n 1975. 1 This p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between population s i z e and P r o t e c t i o n expenditures i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the 1% l e v e l i n a l l f i v e instances. According to the regression a n a l y s i s , the 1978 per c a p i t a p r o t e c t i o n expenditures for say, m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of 5,000 persons, 50,000 persons and 500,000 persons were about $46, $54 and $128 r e s p e c t i v e l y . 2 Per Capita P r o t e c t i o n Expenditure 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Figure 2 Population Size (000's) 1 These are nominal d o l l a r s 2 1978 data i s used for examples as the 1 b i l l i o n d o l l a r P r o v i n c i a l Government "one-shot" program r e s u l t e d i n u n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i n t e r c e p t s for some of the functions 49 The other expenditure function which displays a correlation with population size is Environmental Development. However, this relationship is not constant over the five year study period. The highest correlation appears in 1979 where the R-squared of 0.20 is significant at the 5% level. The dollar impact is minimal as each 1000 person increase in population increases per capita expenditures by only $0.01 on a level of $3.40 per capita in the smallest towns. Actually the minor dollar impact is understandable as this expenditure function represents only a miniscule portion of the municipal budget. 1979 per capita environmental dev. exp. = 3.4 + 0.15E-04 population size (std. error) (0.65) (0.530E-05) (t-ratio) (5.2) (2.79) Total expenditures, which includes u t i l i t i e s , shows a positive correlation with population size. This should be expected as larger municipalities own more utilities than the smaller. For a l l the years under analysis the R-square is in the order of 0.20. The dollar relationship between Total Expenditure and 1979 per capita total expenditure = 1169.2 + 0.900E-03 population size (std. error) (38.5) (0.312E-03) (t-ratio) (30.4) (2.88) 1978 per capita total expenditure (std. error) (t-ratio) 595.6 + 0.875E-03 population size (35.9) (0.302E-03) (16.6) (2.9) 1977 per capita total expenditure (std. error) (t-ratio) 489.6 + 0.874E-03 population size (31.3) (0.271E-03) (15.7) (3.23) 1976 per capita total expenditure = 440.0 + 0.649E-03 population size (std. error) (26.0) (0.231E-03) (t-ratio) (17.0) (2.81) 1975 per capita total expenditure = 324.3 + 0.627E-03 population size (std. error) (13.2) (0.121E-03) (t-ratio) (24.6) (5.17) 50 po p u l a t i o n s i z e per 1000 person i n c r e a s e i n po p u l a t i o n i s an in c r e a s e of about $0.90 per c a p i t a i n 1979, 1978 and 1977; and about $0.60 per c a p i t a i n 1976 and 1975. When h y p o t h e t i c a l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of 5,000, 50,000 and 500,000 persons are compared, the per c a p i t a t o t a l m u n i c i p a l expenditures i n 1978 were $599, $639 and $1033 r e s p e c t i v e l y . When a m u n i c i p a l i t y of 500,000 i s compared to a m u n i c i p a l i t y of 5,000, t o t a l expenditures are $433 more per c a p i t a f o r the former. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Figu r e 3 P o p u l a t i o n S i z e (000*s) 51 It is interesting to note that General Expenditures which is an aggregate of the ten expenditure functions used in this study shows a lower correlation than Total Expenditures with population size. In 1976 and 1977 General Expenditures display R-squares of 0.11 and 0.18 respectively. The dollar increases per each 1000 increase in population is $0.22 for 1977 and $0.16 for 1976. These coefficients are signficant at the 5% level. 1979 and 1977 per capita general expenditure = 287.4 + 0.223E-03 population size (std. error) (9.4) (0.817E-04) (t-ratio) (30.5) (2.05) 1976 per capita expenditures = 254.6 + 0.164E-03 population size (std. error) (8.9) (0.798E-04) (t-ratio) (28.5) (2.05) 1978 general expenditures reveal a lack of any correlation between this dependent variable and population size. From these results it can be concluded that i t is mostly the utility aspect of municipal expenditure that is consistently responding to the variations in population size. As previously noted most of the municipal expenditure categories are uncorrelated with population size. This lack of correlation in the case of Capital expenditure and Debt charges is of particular interest as it leads to one of the following conclusions that either larger municipalities in Alberta do not provide additional capital intensive services, or that they provide them more effectively than smaller municipalities. It should be remembered that the Capital and Debt servicing outlays exclude expenditure for municipal u t i l i t i e s . Population Size and Municipal Revnues A number of municipal revenue functions are related to population size. The revenue functions, Sale of Goods and Services, display the highest correlation with population size. Despite being in the leading position, the correlation is low, only in the 0.30 range over the five year period. In dollar terms this relationship has varied over the study period. In 1975, a 1000 person increase in population would result in an increase in per capita revenue of $0.39, increasing in each successive year to $0.48 in 52 1976; $0.55 i n 1977; $0.62 i n 1978 and f i n a l l y $0.69 i n 1979. The most d r a s t i c increase takes place between 1975 and 1976 where the response of revenues from Sales of Goods and Services to population s i z e increases by 25%. (per capita) 1979 sale of goods and services = 125.5 + 0.691E-03 population s i z e ( s t d . error) (20.9) (0.169E-03) ( t - r a t i o ) (6.0) (4.08) 1978 sale of goods and s e r v i c e s = 114.5 + 0.621E-03 population s i z e ( s t d . e r r o r ) (20.6) (0.173E-03) ( t - r a t i o ) 1977 sale of goods and services ( s t d . error) ( t - r a t i o ) (5.6) (3.57) 101.1 + 0.548E-03 population s i z e (16.6) (0.143E-03) (6.1) (3.82) 1976 sale of goods and serv i c e s ( s t d . e r r o r ) ( t - r a t i o ) 88.1 + 0.478E-03 population s i z e (13.3) (0.118E-03) ( 6.5) (3.73) 1975 sale of goods and services ( s t d . error) ( t - r a t i o ) 73.6 + 0.388E-03 population s i z e (11.3) (0.104E-03) ( 6.5) (3.73) According to the 1978 regression equation, m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of 5,000 persons, 50,000 persons and 500,000 persons would generate per capita sale of goods and services revenue of $147, $175 and $458 r e s p e c t i v e l y . As can be seen from these f i g u r e s the d i f f e r e n c e between the small and large m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i s quite s u b s t a n t i a l . 53 Per Capita Sales of Goods & Services 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 s i z e 1978 Per Carpita Sales of Goods & Services = 114.5 + 0.621E-03 x pop. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Figure 4 Population Size (000's) Another revenue function which displays an increase with population s i z e i s Other Tax. The R-square i s i n the 0.15 to 0.30 range for the f i v e years, with the highest c o r r e l a t i o n occuring i n 1979 and the lowest i n 1975. This s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the 1% l e v e l ; however, the d o l l a r i m p l i c a t i o n of t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s quite minimal. For 1979, a 1000 person increase i n population would r e s u l t i n a per c a p i t a increase of $0.08, i n 1975 the change i s $0.04. The d i f f e r e n c e i n per capita other tax revenue for municipality of 5,000 persons and 500,000 persons i s $40. i n 1979, more than double the small town l e v e l . 1979 per capita other tax ( s t d . error) ( t - r a t i o ) 30.54 + 0.818E-04 population si z e (2.8) (0.225E-04) (11.0) (3.64) 1975 per c a p i t a other tax ( s t d . error) ( t - r t i o ) 23.4 + 0.364E-04 population s i z e (1.7) (0.156E-04) (13.8) (2.33) 54 Property Tax also responds p o s i t i v e l y to population s i z e ; however, t h i s c o r r e l a t i o n has declined over the years from an R-square of 0.21 i n 1975 to 0.09 i n 1979 without any s t a t i s t i c a l signficance attached to the l a t t e r c o e f f i c i e n t . The d o l l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p s for 1975 and 1979 i s i n the order of $0.14 and $0.13 r e s p e c t i v e l y per each 1000 person increase i n population. Since these f i g u r e s are not i n constant d o l l a r s , Property Tax revenue responses to population s i z e has declined i n d o l l a r s i g n i f i c a n c e as w e l l . I t appears that A l b e r t a M u n i c i p a l i t i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y the l a r g e r ones, are d i v e r s i f y i n g t h e i r revenue base by s h i f t i n g some of the emphasis from property tax to user fees. 1979 per capita property tax = 264.1 + 0.127E-03 population s i z e ( s t d . error) (8.5) (0.692E-04) ( t - r a t i o ) (31.0) (1.84) 1975 per c a p i t a property tax = 156.3 + 0.138E-03 population s i z e ( s t d . e r r o r ) (5.0) (0.459E-04) ( t - r a t i o ) (31.3) (5.0) T o t a l Revenue, the sum of a l l revenues from i n t e r n a l sources reacts p o s i t i v e l y to urban s i z e ; however, the strength of t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p has diminshed over the years as w e l l . In 1975 the R-squared i s close 1979 t o t a l revenue own sources = 577.9 + 0.959E-03 population s i z e ( s t d . e r r o r ) (33.4) (0.271E-03) ( t - r a t i o ) (17.3) (3.54) 1979 t o t a l revenue own sources = 512.5 + 0.897E-03 population s i z e ( s t d . error) (32.3) (0.272E-03) ( t - r a t i o ) (15.9) (3.30) 1977 t o t a l revenue own ( s t d . e r r o r ) ( t - r a t i o ) sources = 427.56 + 0.882E-03 population s i z e (25.5) (0.221E-03) (16.8) (3.99) 55 1976 total revenue own sources = 390.8 + 0.670E-03 population size (std. error) (23.7) (0.211E-03) (t-ratio) (16.5) (3.17) 1975 total revenue own sources = 324.24 + 0.626E-03 population size (std. error) (13.194) (0.121E-03) (t-ratio) (24.58) (5.17) to 0.40; by 1979 this declines to 0.27. The relationship translates into $0.63 per capita increase for each 1000 increase in population size for 1975, and a $0.96 per capita increase for each 1000 increase in population size for 1979. As is the case with per capita Total Expenditures, per capita Total Revenues varies substantially with different sized municipalities. For instance, in 1978 a municipality of 5,000 persons generates $516 per capita; a municipality of 50,000 persons generates $557; and a municipality of 500,000 generates $961. Per Capita Total Revenue 1000 950 900 850 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 er Capita Total Revenue = 512.5 + 0.897E-03 x pop. size 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Figure 5 Population Size (000's) 56 When the responsiveness of per c a p i t a T o t a l Revenues from Own Sources to population s i z e i s compared with the responsiveness of per c a p i t a T o t a l Expenditures to population s i z e , i t can be seen that over the f i v e year study period municipal revenues are more responsive to population s i z e . Using the 1978 regression analyses, m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of 5,000 persons, 50,000 persons and 500,000 persons would have a per c a p i t a municipal d e f i c i t , which i s covered by government transfers of $83, $82 and $72 r e s p e c t i v e l y . This municipal ' d e f i c i t ' i s covered by c o n d i t i o n a l and unconditional grants. It has been hypothesized i n chapter II that personal income i s an intervening f a c t o r between population s i z e and municipal expenditures. A test f o r c o r r e l a t i o n between population s i z e and average income reveals that i n A l b e r t a m u n i c i p a l i t i e s these are unrelated. Income and municipal expenditures are regressed f or the 1977 and 1978 expenditure years only since there are some missing income data for the other years. The r e s u l t s of t e s t i n g 1978 and 1977 expenditure years on 1977 and 1976 income data show weak and inconsistant r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the independent and dependent v a r i a b l e s . For instance, i n the 1977 expenditure year there i s no c o r r e l a t i o n between General Government and average personal income; however, i n the 1978 expenditure year, the R-square between these two va r i a b l e s i s 0.25 and i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the 1% l e v e l . According to the regression equation a $1000 increase i n average personal income r e s u l t s i n a $4.90 per c a p i t a increase i n General Government expenditures i n 1978. 1978 per c a p i t a general govt. exp. = 8.664 + 0.49E-02 income Income and Municipal Expenditures ( s t d . e r r o r ) ( t - r a t i o ) (17.6) (0.149E-02) (-0.49) (3.32) 57 Other i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n c l u d e ; a minor c o r r e l a t i o n between Income and Environmental Development (R-square of 0.10) i n 1977 but no c o r r e l a t i o n whatsoever i n 1978 expenditure year; a minor c o r r e l a t i o n (R-square) of 0.10 between T r a n s p o r t a t i o n expenditures and income i n 1977, but not i n 1978. From the above noted r e s u l t i t can be seen that the hypothesis that income would generate gre a t e r demand f o r s e r v i c e such as R e c r e a t i o n and Environmental Development i s unfounded i n the A l b e r t a s i t u a t i o n . Income and M u n i c i p a l Revenues M u n i c i p a l revenues a l s o d i s p l a y s weak and i n c o n s i s t e n t c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h average income l e v e l s . The c o r r e l a t i o n s are i n the R-square range of 0.10 to 0.15 and occur i n 1978 between U n c o n d i t i o n a l Grants and income; and i n 1977 between Grants i n L i e u of Taxes and Income. I t appears that these c o r r e l a t i o n s are occuring by chance and f o r a l l p r a c t i c a l purposes, i t can be concluded that personal income l e v e l s do not a l t e r m u n i c i p a l revenues. A m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n of p o p u l a t i o n s i z e and p o p u l a t i o n growth r a t e on per c a p i t a revenues and expenditures was completed f o r 1979 o n l y . With the exception of per c a p i t a general government expenditures, the r e s u l t s do not show any s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n the e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e f o r per c a p i t a expenditures and revenues. The r e s u l t s of t h i s m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s i s l i s t e d i n Appendix A of t h i s t h e s i s . Revenue R e l i a n c e and Debt L e v e l s Revenue r e l i a n c e f i g u r e s f o r A l b e r t a m u n i c i p a l i t e s are based on the average of the 35 m u n i c i p a l i t i e s examined i n t h i s study (See Table 1 ) . These r e l i a n c e f i g u r e s represent each f u n c t i o n as a percentage of t o t a l revenues i n c l u d i n g t r a n s f e r s from other governments. Revenue r e l i a n c e f i g u r e s are examined f o r c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h p o p u l a t i o n s i z e as w e l l as f o r changes over the study p e r i o d . 58 For Alberta M u n i c i p a l i t i e s only one revenue function, Sale of Goods and Service, shows any c o r r e l a t i o n with population s i z e . According to the regression equation, t h i s revenue function, which displays and R-squared of 0.22 i n 1978, shows that for a 1000 person increase i n population, r e l i a n c e on Sales of Goods and Services increases by less than 1%. Revenue Reliance patterns of Alberta m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have not changed between 1975 and 1978. The 1979 r e l i a n c e f i g u r e s ; however, have changed d r a s t i c a l l y when compared to the previous years (see Table 5.1). In 1978, as i n the other years previous, revenue r e l i a n c e i s at 41% f o r Property Tax, - the most important s i n g l e source of municipal revenue. 20% f o r Sale of Goods and Services, 15% f o r Government Transfers, 9% f o r Other Revenues, 5% for Other Tax, 3% f o r Grants i n L i e u of Taxation and le s s than 1% f o r Services to Other Governments. This r e l i a n c e pattern i s based on an average so i t i s po s s i b l e that a number of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have experienced changes but that these are l o s t i n the averaging process. The d r a s t i c change i n 1979 revenue r e l i a n c e year i s caused by a 1 b i l l i o n d o l l a r P r o v i n c i a l Debt Reduction Programme i n 1979. This one year programme enabled A l b e r t a m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to r e t i r e a s u b s t a n t i a l portion of t h e i r municipal debt. Consequently, p r o v i n c i a l t r a n s f e r s as a percentage of revenues, as well as debt s e r v i c i n g as a percentage of municipal expenditures have increased i n the 1979 revenue and expenditure year. Post 1979 revenue r e l i a n c e and debt l e v e l s are expected to a l t e r to l e v e l s more i n keeping with the pre 1979 experience. The revenue r e l i a n c e figures for the 35 Alberta m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n d i c a t e that, i n general, these m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are f i s c a l l y s t a b l e . Alberta m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have more than one s i g n i f i c a n t form of revenue. These sources are Property Tax, Sale of Goods and Services, and Intergovernmental Transfers. Closer examination of the revenue r e l i a n c e patterns shows that of a l l 35 A l b e r t a m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , only 7 have property tax r e l i a n c e of over 50% i n 1975, 1977 and 1978. In the area of debt s e r v i c i n g as a percentage of operating expenditures, a 20% to 25% was established as reasonable; between 1975 and 1977, only 6 to 10 m u n i c i p a l i t i e s exceeds the 25% mark and i n 1976 and 1977 none of these m u n i c i p a l i t i e s exceeds 40%. Couple t h i s information with the f a c t that municipal residents i n Alberta pay one of the 59 lowest l e v e l s of taxes i n the country, Alberta 'municipalities appear to be i n a p o s i t i o n of f i s c a l strength Summary of Results The r e s u l t s of the empirical analysis show that, i n general, Alberta per c a p i t a municipal revenues and expenditures are unaltered by population growth rates and income. In a d d i t i o n , though a few expenditure functions -T o t a l Expenditures, P r o t e c t i o n expenditures, and Environmental Development expenditures - responded p o s i t i v e l y to population s i z e , many of the other functions such as Recreation and Culture, Transportation, Environmental Health were unaffected. Compared to expenditure functions, more revenue functions responded to population s i z e on a per capita b a s i s . The function which displays the highest c o r r e l a t i o n between the independent and dependent v a r i a b l e s i s per c a p i t a P r o t e c t i o n Expenditure and population siz e f or 1978 supports t h i s f i n d i n g of a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between the two v a r i a b l e s . The scattergram of per capita T o t a l Revenue from Own Sources and population s i z e shows more extreme values and unexplained deviations from a l i n e a r c o r r e l a t i o n but t h i s i s to be expected from an R-square of 0.25 for 1978. The c o r r e l a t i o n for per c a p i t a T o t a l Revenue Own Sources to population size i s lower than the c o r r e l a t i o n for per capita P r o t e c t i o n Expenditure and population s i z e , but the scattergram does not dispute the f i n d i n g s of the regression a n a l y s i s , which i s that the e f f e c t of population siz e on these two functions should not be disregarded. Per Capita T o t a l General Expenditures, which i s the aggregate of a l l the expenditure functions examined i n t h i s study, does not show a consistent or a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n with population s i z e . This i s expected as only the per c a p i t a P r o t e c t i o n and Evnironmental Development expenditure function are s i g n i f i c a n t l y related" to population s i z e . Per Capita T o t a l Expenditure, which shows a consistent p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n with population s i z e , includes the expenditure functions reviewed i n t h i s study as well as some expenditure functions that were not analysed i n this study. The 60 1978 A c t u a l Per Capita P r o t e c t i o n Expenditure 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Figure 6 Population Size COOO's) 1978 A c t u a l Per Capita T o t a l Revenues x 10 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Figure 7 Population Size (000's) 62 expenditure functions which were examined as an aggregate under the Total Expenditure category are the municipal expenses for the operation of municipal u t i l i t i e s . Not a l l municipalities operate the same number of ut i l i t i e s . As a rule, most municipalities operate water and electrical ut i l i t i e s , however, i t is only the larger municipalities which operate transit, airport and telephone u t i l i t i e s . From the results of this study, it can be concluded that i t is mostly the utility aspect of Total Expenditure per capita that is responding to population size difference. Per capita Capital and per capita Debt levels were revealed to be unaffected by income levels, population growth rates and population size. It should be remembered that these two variables do not include expenditures for u t i l i t i e s , s t i l l , i t is surprising that per capita debt levels and capital expenditures are not affected by at least population size as larger municipalities generally provide more services than the smaller. Some of the results of this analysis have been contrary to the experience in other municipal studies. In particular, the response, or more appropriately the non response of a number of municipal expenditure function to changes in population growth rate and population size. Also, since i t appears that i t is the utility aspect of per capita municipal expenditures which is responding to size and on occasion population growth rates, the fiscal picture in Alberta appears quite different from the one observed in U.S. studies. The difference observed in this study and the others (i.e. U.S. studies) could be caused by a number of factors. For instance, there are numerous differences in accounting practices between Alberta and the U.S. American municipalities often combine capital and operating expenses into one expenditure category and it could be the capital aspect of U.S. municipal expenditures which is reacting to population size and population growth rate. However, this does not appear to be a significant explanation as capital expenditures in Alberta municipalities are not responsive to population 63 sizes or population growth rates. Another possible contributor to the di f f e r e n c e s observed between American studies and t h i s one, i s the v a r i a t i o n i n the s i z e of mun i c i p a l i t y studied. Most of the studies reviewed included a wide range of population sizes i n t h e i r a n a l y s i s ; population l e v e l s from 6,000 to 1,000,000 plus, while the l a r g e s t municipality i n t h i s study, at 500,000 persons i s only h a l f the s i z e of many of the U.S. m u n i c i p a l i t i e s examined. In Alberta there are only two m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n the 500,000 category; none i n the 60,000 to 400,000 category; ten i n the 10,000 to 60,000 category, and twenty three i n the 3,000 to 10,000 category. This uneven representation i n the various s i z e categories, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the la r g e r categories may have d i s t o r t e d the r e s u l t s of t h i s study. In pursuing the argument regarding U.S. studies incorporating more extreme population sizes into t h e i r analyses, another f a c t o r , age of mu n i c i p a l i t y , i s introduced into the U.S. equation. In the anal y s i s of a wide range of population sizes i n the U.S., the very large m u n i c i p a l i t i e s would tend to be older than the smaller ones and would therefore be more c o s t l y to operate. In A l b e r t a , m u n i c i p a l i t i e s which are large are considered medium sized by American standards and younger as w e l l . P e t t e n g i l l and Uppal (1974) point out that older m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have older i n f r a s t r u c t u r e and equipment which are more c o s t l y to operate and maintain as they are more prone to f a i l u r e . Although there are d i f f e r e n c e s i n age among A l b e r t a m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , these di f f e r e n c e s are not tra n s l a t e d into the vast age di f f e r e n c e s with respect to f a c i l i t i e s and equipment. Of a l l the possible factors to influence data r e s u l t s , the most important i s l i k e l y the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the service r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and service q u a l i t i e s among the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s compared. Many U.S. studies examined the impact of independent v a r i a b l e s such as density, personal income, population s i z e , economic base and population growth rates on the expenditure of municipal governments across the U.S. (Appelbaum, 1978; Spangler, 1963; Brazer, 1957; Kasarda, 1974); unfortunately these studies did not address the issue of varying service r e s p o n s i b i l i t y or q u a l i t y among the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s examined. The reason for t h i s l i e s with the complexity of unraveling the differences amoung state and l o c a l service r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , as well as 64 measuring the level or quality of service provided by the municipalities. In the U.S. there is no conformity as to the division of government service between the state and local governments. For instance, some states assume responsibility for the provision of education and welfare, while others leave the provision of such services to the local governments. Centralized states such as Kentucky, West Virginia and Delaware account for 61, 55 and 59% of total state and municipal expenses, while decentralized states such as New York and Minnesota account for only 23 and 29% of total state and municipal expenditures (Linberry and Sharkansky, 1978). Most of the service responsibility variations occur in the education, health and welfare categories. In the U.S., unlike Canada, there is a substantial amount of direct federal involvement in local expenditure funding. For instance, the American Federal Government helps in the financing of local hospitals; in urban renewal programs; and in the training of policemen. If these grants are conditional or matching grants they would induce greater expenditures in that particular category (McMillan, Gillen and Chaudry, 1980). Another cost-influencing factor in municipal expenditures is in the variation in the quality of service provided by the municipalities. Some municipalities may have a higher level of services than others and therefore, their cost may be higher due to level of service, and not to diseconomies with respect of population size. Analyses which have confined their study area to one state or province, have eliminated the state (and possible provincial) variations that would otherwise enter into other studies. However, within state or province studies are s t i l l unable to eliminate quality of service differences among municipalities. There is always the possibility that although variations among level of service exist, among municipalities, Alberta communities may have less variations than U.S. communities. 65 Detailed above was a discussion of the possible causes of the differences between the results of the studies reviewed and the results of this study. The next section deals more specifically with the causes of the empirical results of this study. One of the most surprising results observed in this study is the lack of correlation between municipal capital and debt expenditures and population growth rates. Although i t is possible that rapidly growing medium and large sized municipalities have the necessary infrastructure in place to accomodate the immediate population increase, the smaller municipalities do not (Sternlieb, 1973). Yet in this study even when municipal size is held constant at less than 10,000 population, there is no correlation between capital and debt expenditures and growth rates. There are two possible explanations for this lack of correlation. The first explanation is that rapidly growing municipalities do experience additional capital expenditures, but only in the area of utility capital and since the capital used in this analysis excludes utility capital the correlations do not show up in this study. (In small municipalities utility capital generally consists of capital for water supply and sewage treatment). The second explanation could rest with the Provincial New Towns Act which qualifies municipalities that are impacted by resource development for aid in the construction of infrastructure. The required infrastructure is financed by way of promisory note so that the municipality can avoid paying interest on the capital. The municipality is obliged to pay this money back when the specially created municipal board (with provincial representation) agrees that the town is financially able to do so. A few of the rapidly growing Alberta towns have taken advantage of the program, among these are Ft.McMurray, Hinton, Grande Cache, Drayton Valley, Whitecourt and St.Albert. This New Towns act distorts the occurance of the capital and debt costs In the municipal accounts as the municipality is not required to even pay the interest charges on this loan until i t is financially able to do so. 66 Contrary to previous expectations the per c a p i t a Recreation, Culture and Education functions was not p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to population s i z e . A s u p e r f i c i a l examination of r e c r e a t i o n a l and c u l t u r a l f a c i l i t i e s among d i f f e r e n t s i z e d m u n i c i p a l i t i e s show the smaller m u n i c i p a l i t i e s provide a higher l e v e l of service i n one p a r t i c u l a r service area but they do not provide the d i v e r s i t y i n services that the larger m u n i c i p a l i t i e s provide. For example a m u n i c i p a l i t y l i k e High P r a i r i e , population 4,632 provides one sports arena and one swimming pool for every 4,632 persons while a m u n i c i p a l i t y l i k e Edmonton, population 521,000 provides one sports arena and one swimming pool per each 26,000 and each 28,000 persons r e s p e c t i v e l y . However, the C i t y of Edmonton provides an a r t g a l l e r y , a zoo, campgrounds, g o l f courses while the town of High P r a i r i e does not provide any of these f a c i l i t i e s . The e f f e c t of the higher service i n one area for the smaller m u n i c i p a l i t i e s vs. the lower l e v e l of service but greater d i v e r s i t y i n the l a r g e r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s has the e f f e c t of e q u a l i z i n g per c a p i t a expenditures for t h i s p a r t i c u l a r function. Unfortunately; the one issue t h i s regression analysis has been unable to address i s the existence of a U shaped expenditure function to population s i z e . Thus, where there i s no c o r r e l a t i o n , i t i s possible that the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s U shaped. Therefore, when transp o r t a t i o n expenditures are not l i n e a r l y r e l a t e d to population s i z e , i t i s possible that small and large m u n i c i p a l i t i e s experience higher per c a p i t a expenditures than the medium sized m u n i c i p a l i t y . This U shaped reaction could be occuring with other expenditure functions besides t r a n s p o r t a t i o n - i t could, for instance, be occuring with the Recreation, Culture and Education f u n c t i o n . Conclusion The r e s u l t s of the empirical test reveal c o r r e l a t i o n s among a few of the per c a p i t a municipal expenditure and revenue functions and population size and population growth ra t e s . Per capita T o t a l Expenditures and T o t a l Revenues are p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to 67 TABLE III REVENUE RELIANCE AS A PERCENTAGE OF CONSOLIDATED REVENUES AND DEBT LEVELS Property Tax Sale of Goods and Services % Senlor-Govt. Transfers Otner Other Revenue Tax Grants i n Lieu of Taxes % Services to Other Govts. Debt Percentage of General Operating Expenditures 1979 Minimum/ Maximum 22.0 11.0 50.0 6.0 3.0 2.0 0.1 10.0/30.0 3.0/32.0 22.0/65.0 3.0/12.0 0.0/6.0 0.0/4.0 0.0/1.0 47.0 14.0/80.0 1978 Minimum/ Maximum 41.0 20.0 14.0 9.0 5.0 3.0 0.4 23.0 10.0/65.0 4.0/45.0 6.0/41.0 4.0/18.0 6.0/13.0 0.5/15.0 0.0/2.0 10.0/65.0 1977 Minimum/ Maximum 41.0 20.0 15.0 9.0 5.0 3.0 0.5 21.0 14.0/60.0 2.0/48.0 7.0/25.0 4.0/20.0 0.6/14 0.0/14.0 0.0/2.0 10.0/39.0 1976 Minimum/ Maximum 42.0 19.0 14.0 9.0 5.0 3.0 0.5 20.0 14.0/63.0 6.0/45.0 7.0/25.0 3.0/19.0 1.0/10.0 0.0/11.0 0.0/3.0 10.0/28.0 1975 Minimum/ Maximum 41.0 20.0 16.0 7.0 6.0 3.0 0.3 14.0/58.0 7.0/57.0 7.0/65.0 2.0/15.0 i.0/13.0 0.0/18.0 0.0/2.0. 21.0 10.0/55.0 68 population s i z e . This r e s u l t r a i s e s the issue of f i s c a l burden among residents of d i f f e r e n t s i z e d m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . The findings of t h i s study i n d i c a t e that, c e t e r i s paribus, residents i n larger m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have a greater f i s c a l burden than t h e i r counterparts i n smaller m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . However, there are a number of m i t i g a t i n g factors for the residents i n l a r g e r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s ; 1) they have a larger i n d u s t r i a l and commercial property base which r e s u l t s In some exportation of the municipal tax to non residents, and 2) i t i s generally assumed from the r e s u l t s of other studies that personal wealth and income increases with population s i z e . To the extent that these f a c t o r s occur i n larger m u n i c i p a l i t i e s then the f i s c a l burden on the resident i s lessened. However, t h i s study shows that the per capita d i f f e r e n c e s between the smallest m u n i c i p a l i t i e s examined and the l a r g e s t , i s quite s u b s t a n t i a l . In a d d i t i o n to per capita T o t a l Expenditures and T o t a l Revenues, per capita P r o t e c t i o n expenditures, per c a p i t a Sales of Goods and Services, and per c a p i t a Other Tax show s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s with population s i z e over the 5 year study period. Per c a p i t a Property Tax, s i g n i f i c a n t i n 4 of the study years has shown a steady decline i n c o r r e l a t i o n , where i n 1979 the p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . The diminishing s i g n i f i c a n c e of a p o s i t i v e r e a l t i o n s h i p between property tax and populaiton s i z e i n d i c a t e s that eigher the l a r g e r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are r e l y i n g less on property tax, as a source of revenue, or the smaller m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are r e l y i n g more on property tax. The Revenue Reliance f i g u r e s support the former hypothesis as o v e r a l l r e l i a n c e on property tax by a l l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s has decreased by 1%. Of the two years examined, per capita municipal d e f i c i t i s p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to population growth rates i n 1975 only. In the same year the d e f i c i t does not occur for m u n i c i p a l i t i e s with less than 10,000 persons. Couple t h i s with the f a c t that i n 1975 per capita c a p i t a l expenditures are negatively r e l a t e d to population growth rates for m u n i c i p a l i t i e s with populations of less than 10,000 and i t appears that the smaller m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are better off than the larger when population growth rates are r a p i d . 69 In this study, per capita municipal expenditures and revenue functions are unaltered by income levels. In addition there is no correlation between income and population size in Alberta in 1976 or 1977. The revenue reliance patterns reveal that Alberta municipalities are fiscally stable and only a few municipalities are in a fiscally vulnerable position due to high debt servicing levels. The Provincial Debt Reduction Program should have reduced debt levels for Alberta municipalities, but that requires examining 1980 municipal statistics which will be unavailable until mid 1982. Notwithstanding the fact that fiscal inequalities appear to exist among municpalities of different size, Alberta residents pay lower taxes than their counterparts in British Columbia or Ontario. In addition, local taxation as a percentage of income has declined in the last decade from 5.3% in 1968 to 4.4% in 1978 (Chaudry, 1980). 70 :een CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure ninete nineteen s i x , r e s u l t happines. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditures twenty pounds ought and s i x , r e s u l t misery. - Charles Dickens, David C o p p e r f i e l d Chapter 12 This thesis was prompted by the concern over the A l b e r t a P r o v i n c i a l Government's responsiveness to the f i s c a l needs of d i f f e r e n t s i z e d m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . The f i s c a l impact of population s i z e and population growth rates i s t o p i c a l to the Alberta s i t u a t i o n as large scale p r o j e c t s , which r e s u l t s i n rapid population increases for many Alberta m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are the basic modus operandi for economic development i n the Province. Across the border i n U.S., many m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are being caught i n the f i s c a l squeeze of revenues lagging behind expenditures. Both population and population growth rates have some impact on per ca p i t a municipal revneues and expenditures. Although there are some contradictory fin d i n g s among the U.S. municipal revenue and expenditure determinant studies, the disagreement can be broken down into two main categories. One, per capita municipal expenditures and revenues are p o s i t i v e l y and l i n e a r l y r e l a t e d to population growth rate and population s i z e , and the other, that per capita municipal expenditures and revenues has a U shaped r e l a t i o n s h i p with population growth rate and population s i z e . Unfortunately, none of the studies reviewed examined the impact of the independent v a r i a b l e s on both municipal reveneues and municipal expenditures; therefore, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to determine whether the e l a s t i c i t y of per ca p i t a Revenues From Own Sources i s geater than the e l a s t i c i t y of expenditures to these same v a r i a b l e s . 71 In the American studies, although population growth rates and population s i z e do have some impact on municipal finances, i t appears that other f a c t o r s such as personal income and p o l i t i c a l fragmentation have a geater impact on per capita municipal revenues and expenditures. In A l b e r t a , since there i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s p o l i t i c a l fragmentation of the r e s i d e n t i a l and the work areas, t h i s v a r i a b l e was not included i n th i s a n a l y s i s . Income, however, i s included and the r e s u l t s proved to be i n s i g n i f i c a n t . Other f i s c a l studies contain the impact of independent v a r i a b l e s on eit h e r per c a p i t a municipal revenues or expenditures, but not both, thus these studies did not present a composite picture as to the f i s c a l response of any given independent v a r i a b l e . This study does address both the per c a p i t a revenue and expenditure responses to the independent v a r i a b l e s , and therefore, an o v e r a l l conclusion can be reached regarding the f i s c a l needs and f i s c a l burdens of d i f f e r e n t sized m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . The r e s u l t s of th i s emprical study show few highly c o r r e l a t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s between v a r i a b l e s . The only r e l a t i o n s h i p which displays a consistent R-square of over 0.50 i s per capita protection expenditure and population s i z e . Of the other expenditure functions, only per c a p i t a T o t a l Expenditures and per Capita Environmental Development show signs of a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n with population s i z e . From the re a c t i o n of the per c a p i t a l expenditures to the independent v a r i a b l e s , i t appears that most of the r e a c t i o n i s due to the expenditures for u t i l i t i e s such as t r a n s i t , e l e c t r i c i t y and water. The impact of population growth rates on per capita municipal expenditures i s not consistent for the two years examined. I f 1975 i s taken as the average revenue/expenditure year then i t can be concluded that the per capita municipal d e f i c i t increase with population growth rate. This r e l a t i o n s h i p , however, i s not repeated i n 1979, and i n 1975 i t i s just barely s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t with a c o r r e l a t i o n of 0.12. The i n t e r e s t i n g point of note here i s that when population s i z e i s held constant at l e s s than 10,000 persons, any hint of a c o r r e l a t i o n between per ca p i t a municipal d e f i c i t and population growth rates i n 1975 disappears. Although there i s no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between e i t h e r per c a p i t a 72 t o t a l revenues or expenditures and population growth rate, the r e g r e s s i o n equations for both show a negative r e l a t i o n s h i p with the per capita revenue function decreasing by more than the per c a p i t a expenditure f u n c t i o n . In 1975 per capita c a p i t a l expenditure i s negatively associated with population growth rates only when the population s i z e of the m u n i c i p a l i t y i s l e s s than 10,000. These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that i f anything, i t i s the larger m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , not the smaller ones, which are adversely a f f e c t e d by population growth. In 1975 of the 35 m u n i c i p a l i t i e s examined, only 8 have populations of more than 10,000. The revenue functions that show a c o r r e l a t i o n with population s i z e are per c a p i t a Sale of Goods and Service, per c a p i t a Other Tax, and per c a p i t a T o t a l Revenues. However, these and other per capita revenue functions are not a f f e c t e d by population growth ra t e s . From the f i n d i n g s of the a n a l y s i s , i t can be seen that the l a r g e r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have higher per capita t o t a l expenditures and since intergovernmental grants are not p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to population s i z e , the d i f f e r e n c e has to be made from revenues from own sources. In the previous chapter per c a p i t a d i f f e r e n c e s were i l l u s t r a t e d f or m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of 5,000, 50,000 and 500,000 persons. These figures are representative of the population s i z e s of A l b e r t a m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . Of the 35 m u n i c i p a l i t i e s examined i n this study, most of the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are in the 3,000 to 10,000 population range, a few are i n the 10,000 to 50,000 range, and only two m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are around the 500,000 mark. In 1978 the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the T o t a l Expenditure required and Revenues generated by m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of 5,000 and 50,000 persons i s about $40 per c a p i t a ; but the big d i f f e r e n c e occurs when a mu n i c i p a l i t y of 500,000 i s compared to the previous two as the expenditure needs and the revenue generated i s approximately $400 more per c a p i t a for the l a t t e r for a t o t a l expenditure of $ 1 , 6 1 9 by the large municipality compared with $1,174 by the small m u n i c i p a l i t y . There i s the argument that larger m u n i c i p a l i t i e s have a more d i v e r s i f i e d economic base, increasing resident income and o v e r a l l municipal a b i l i t y to finance. However, income was not found to be 73 s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t among d i f f e r e n t sized m u n i c i p a l i t i e s while a $400 more per capita "taxation" for municipal services between d i f f e r e n t sized m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i s . The f i n d i n g s of t h i s study supports another study of the municipal expenditures of l o c a l governments i n A l b e r t a . Although Parkinson examined small urban m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , ranging from population s i z e s of about 1,000 to 10,000 she concludes that the smaller towns and v i l l a g e s are in the more advantageous p o s i t i o n than the l a r g e r ones. Taxes are lower, r e q u i s i t i o n s are lower and unconditional grants are no lower. As a town grows i t s d i s c r e t i o n a r y income improves only marginally, but the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for more and better s e r v i c e s expands considerably. (Parkinson, 1978, p. 190) P o l i c y Recommendations The f i n d i n g s of t h i s study show that the P r o v i n c i a l grants system i s not responsive to the varying f i s c a l needs of d i f f e r e n t s i z e m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . At present, some P r o v i n c i a l funding i s based on a m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s a b i l i t y - t o - f i n a n c e (Administered by Alberta Municipal A f f a i r s ) ; however, since the most widely used p r o v i n c i a l formula i s based on population, the o v e r a l l r e s u l t of p r o v i n c i a l c o n d i t i o n a l and unconditional funding i s an equivalent per capita grant for a l l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . In a d d i t i o n the r e s u l t of some of the P r o v i n c i a l programs to promote balanced growth r e s u l t s i n s u b s i d i z i n g the residents of the smaller by the residents of the l a r g e r . Standardization of u t i l i t y rates for e l e c t r i c i t y i s one example. In order to respond to the varying needs of d i f f e r e n t sized m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , each government agency should attempt to obtain a better understanding of the f a c t o r s which a f f e c t the municipal functions under that departments j u r i s d i c t i o n . This study has shown that population s i z e a f f e c t s some functions to a greater or lesser degree, and others, not at a l l . 74 All these municipal functions could be affected by other independent variables such as industrial base or demographics of the community. The studies undertaken by government agencies to identify these factors will require updating as these factors can change; and hence, municipal needs. Allowance has to be made for the unequal needs of municipalities. This study provides the evidence to support a granting system different from a per capita system for at least a few municipal functions. More in-depth study is required to make any statements about the appropriate type of granting formula for most of the municipal function examined in this study. In this study i t has been shown that Alberta Municipalities are in a fiscally stable position. However; these municipalities, like many others in North America depend on an "inelastic" revenue service (i.e. property tax) as their primary source of revenue. One of the major concerns of local governments is the inability of the property tax to respond to changes in economic growth. Where other forms of government revenues such as income or resource revenue, often generate adequate increases without a need to change the tax rate, the same cannot be said regarding revenues from property tax. A study by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities (1976) shows that since 1950, the provincial and federal government budgets have shown alternating surpluses and deficits so that the overall budget result for these governments have been favourable. The same cannot be said for local governments which have consistently had deficit budgets. In their analysis, the Federation indicates that when the revenues of a l l three governments are aggregated, the amount collected is adequate for expenditure needs. However, when the revenue collecting ability to disaggregated, the municipalities are left 75 with the short end of the stick. Local governments have to depend on Provincial funding or borrowing to cover their municipal deficits. A major portion of provincial funding is conditional and earmarked for capital expenditures. This type of funding encourages municipalities to overbuild and does not aid in the operation of the facility; further, i t erodes local government autonomy. The solution to this problem is some form of provincial - municipal revenue sharing program. There are many formulas which could be used. For instance a portion of the provincial revenues could be earmared for unconditional funding based on the formula discussed previously, or other factors could be added to the formula. These might include population density, income tax collection, and population increases. Unfortunately i t is very difficult to persuade more senior government levels to let loose of the purse strings and hand over what constitutes part of their power base. But until some form of revenue sharing is instituted, local municipalities will remain, in part, "puppets on a string". Limitations of This Study In this research, some of the per capita municipal revenues and expenditures have shown a positive and significant correlation with population size. The cause of this increase could be due to the diseconomies in providing services to larger population sizes, to the increase in the quality of municipal services or to the increased needs in larger municipalities for certain services e.g. more crime, fire, theft. One of the major limitations of this research is that this "quality of service" issue is not resolved. This research does not contain an examination of the level of service variation among municipalities. Quality of service does not necessarily depend on the size of a municipality; local economic and social conditions, coupled with local decision making results in communities having different service levels for similar services. An observation of a high quality transit service or garbage collection service in one community is not a guarantee of high quality recreation facilities in that community. Trade-offs of quality among municipal services are caused by local budgetary constraints. As with other studies which have examined per capita revenues and expenditure differences among municipalities, this study has the inherent assumption that overall quality of services among different sized municipalities is constant. 76 The nature of the e m p i r i c a l data i n t h i s study i s a cause of another l i m i t a t i o n i n t h i s r e search. As discussed i n the Methodology chapter, i n A l b e r t a , there i s no a c t u a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n the 100,000 and 500,000 p o p u l a t i o n range. However, sin c e i t i s the o b j e c t i v e of t h i s t h e s i s to examine the per c a p i t a revenue and expenditure patt e r n s of a l l A l b e r t a m u n i c i p a l i t i e s over 3,000, the l a r g e r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s such as Edmonton and Calgary are i n c l u d e d w i t h the r e s t of the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s - most of which are i n the 3,000 to 15,000 p o p u l a t i o n range. I t i s the o b j e c t i v e of t h i s t h e s i s to examine the per c a p i t a revenue and expenditure patt e r n s of a l l A l b e r t a m u n i c i p a l i t i e s over 3,000; however, i t i s p o s s i b l e that the two l a r g e s t m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , r e p r e s e n t i n g extreme va l v e s i n p o p u l a t i o n s i z e are producing c o r r e l a t i o n s which would otherwise not e x i s t i n the remaining cases. Although time l i m i t a t i o n s precluded the indepth comparison of r e s u l t s of a r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s w i t h and without the two l a r g e s t m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , a r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s without the two major c i t i e s was undertaken to determine i f s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between v a r i a b l e s were the r e s u l t of observations i n these two major c i t i e s . This a n a l y s i s examined the impact of p o p u l a t i o n s i z e on per c a p i t a m u n i c i p a l revenue and expenditures f o r the years 1977, 1978 and 1979. The r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s revealed that w i t h the exception of per c a p i t a Other Tax, and T o t a l Expenditures f o r the year 1979, a l l the v a r i a b l e s which d i s p l a y e d s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h the i n c l u s i o n of the two major c i t i e s i n the r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s , were a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t when these two c i t i e s were excluded. Some of the v a r i a b l e s such as Per C a p i t a P r o t e c t i o n expenditures, per c a p i t a T o t a l Revenue From Own Sources, per c a p i t a Sales of Goods and Se r v i c e s d i s p l a y e d higher c o r r e l a t i o n s without the two major c i t i e s . Although the r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s does not a l t e r the c o n c l u s i o n of t h i s study, that some m u n i c i p a l revenue and expenditure f u n c t i o n s are r e l a t e d to p o p u l a t i o n s i z e , the equations r e s u l t i n g from the a n a l y s i s which excludes the two major c i t i e s are d i f f e r e n t from the equations from the r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s which i n c l u d e s the two major c i t i e s . For i n s t a n c e , the 1978 equation f o r per c a p i t a P r o t e c t i o n expenditure with a l l 35 m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i s per c a p i t a p r o t e c t i o n exp. = 54.2 + 0.167E-03 pop. s i z e , w h i le the equation f o r the 33 m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i s per c a p i t a p r o t e c t i o n = 33.45 + .139E-02 pop. s i z e . 77 The former equation t r a n s l a t e s i n t o a 1978 per c a p i t a p r o t e c t i o n expenditure of $46 f o r a m u n i c i p a l i t y of 5,000 persons and $54 f o r a m u n i c i p a l i t y of 50,000 persons. The l a t e r equation t r a n s l a t e s i n t o a per c a p i t a p r o t e c t i o n expenditure of $39 f o r a m u n i c i p a l i t y of 5,000 persons and $103 f o r a m u n i c i p a l i t y of 50,000 persons. In the case of T o t a l Revenue From Own Sources, the equation w i t h the two major centres f o r 1978 revenues i s per c a p i t a t o t a l revenue = 512.5 + 0.897-03 pop. s i z e ; w h i l e , the equation w i t h the two major c i t i e s i s per c a p i t a t o t a l revenue = 434.76 + .860E-02 pop s i z e . When the two major c i t i e s are i n c l u d e d , the r e g r e s s i o n equations t r a n s l a t e s i n t o 1978 per c a p i t a revenues of $516 f o r a m u n i c i p a l i t y of 5,000 persons and $557 f o r a m u n i c i p a l i t y of 50,000 persons. When the two major c i t i e s are excluded the equation t r a n s l a t e s i n t o per c a p i t a revenues of $478, f o r a m u n i c i p a l i t y of 5,000 and $865 per c a p i t a f o r a m u n i c i p a l i t y of 50,000 persons. The d i f f e r e n c e s between the two equations, when t r a n s l a t e d i n t o the d o l l a r i m p l i c a t i o n s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p , are q u i t e s u b s t a n t i a l . The c o r r e l a t i o n s between po p u l a t i o n s i z e and m u n i c i p a l per c a p i t a p r o t e c t i o n expenditures and per c a p i t a revenue i s higher and s t a t i s t i c a l l y more s i g n i f i c a n t when the two major c i t i e s are excluded. The a n a l y s i s without the two c i t i e s has shown that the two major c i t i e s have s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d the c o e f f i c i e n t s of the r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s . I n c l u d i n g the two major c i t i e s has had the e f f e c t of s u b s t a n t i a l l y u n d e r s t a t i n g the per c a p i t a expenditures of the medium s i z e d m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . The r e s u l t s of the r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s without the two major c i t i e s are in c l u d e d i n Appendix B. Graphs of per c a p i t a P r o t e c t i o n Expenditure and popul a t i o n s i z e , and per c a p i t a T o t a l Revenue and p o p u l a t i o n s i z e are a l s o included i n Appendix B. In any e m p i r i c a l a n a l y s i s , l i m i t a t i o n s are introduced by the choice of the independent v a r i a b l e s , the number of these v a r i a b l e s and, the l e v e l of aggregation that i s used f o r the a n a l y s i s . In t h i s a n a l y s i s the f a c t that only 3 independent v a r i a b l e s were used can be considered a l i m i t a t i o n a s , from the r e s u l t s , i t i s obvious that other v a r i a b l e s , e x t e r n a l to t h i s study, impact per c a p i t a m u n i c i p a l revenues and expenditures. In a d d i t i o n , while per c a p i t a expenditure and revenue f u n c t i o n s were examined i n an aggregate form r e s u l t i n g i n 8 c a t e g o r i e s of mu n i c i p a l expenditures, on the expenditure s i d e the u t i l i t y expenditure was represented by only one category - T o t a l Expenditures. 78 The l i m i t a t i o n caused by researching one p a r t i c u l a r hypothesis or problem area can be a l l e v i a t e d by a d d i t i o n a l study. However, some of the l i m i t a t i o n s would be more worthwhile to address than others. L i s t e d below are some of the issues which would be worthwhile i n v e s t i g a t i n g i n f u r t h e r research. Areas f o r Further Research This study has revealed that population si z e does a f f e c t per c apita municipal revenue and expenditures. Because the a n a l y s i s of u t i l i t y expenditures and revenues were completed i n an aggregated form, i t i s not c l e a r , which of the municipal u t i l i t i e s (e.g. water, t r a n s i t ) are responsible for the c o r r e l a t i o n s . A more c a r e f u l examination of the impact of c e r t a i n independent v a r i a b l e s on various municipal u t i l i t y revenues and expenditures would e s t a b l i s h which u t i l i t i e s are a f i s c a l asset or l i a b i l i t y to the m u n i c i p a l i t y . This information would be of i n t e r e s t to l o c a l d e c i s i o n makers as often they are confronted with the choice of operating or i n i t i a t i n g municipal u t i l i t i e s . In t h i s study, c e r t a i n per capita revenue categories increased with population s i z e . Per Capita Sales of Goods and Services revealed s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s with population s i z e . Per c a p i t a property tax, though less s i g n i f i c a n t , displayed increases with population si z e as w e l l . The increased per c a p i t a expenditure and therefore l o c a l revenue needs i s of concern as v a r i a t i o n s i n per capita revenue e f f o r t r e s u l t s i n f i s c a l i n e q u a l i t i e s which should be adjusted for at the p r o v i n c i a l funding l e v e l . To obtain a better understanding of the f i s c a l i n e q u a l i t i e s among m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , a more thorough examination of the di f f e r e n c e s in f i s c a l c a p a b i l i t i e s i s required. When per c a p i t a Property Tax and per c a p i t a Sales of Goods and Services increases as a r e s u l t of increased population s i z e , the incidence of this increased per c a p i t a revenue need should be addressed. Where increases i n per c a p i t a revenue needs are accompanied by increases in per capita income (or per c a p i t a property value), the f i s c a l i n e q u a l i t i e s can be negated. 79 F i n a l l y , a d d i t i o n a l studies which attempt to examine how independent v a r i a b l e s such as population s i z e and income a l t e r municipal revenue and expenditure patterns might be well advised to incorporate service l e v e l v a r i a t i o n s among m u n i c i p a l i t i e s by examining fewer revenue and expenditure categories and to compare how per c a p i t a service l e v e l d i f f e r e n c e s r e l a t e to per c a p i t a expenditure and revenue d i f f e r e n c e s . B i b l i o g r a p h y 80 Adams, Robert F. "On the V a r i a t i o n i n the Consumption of P u b l i c S e r v i c e s , "Review of Economics and S t a t i s t i c s " , XLVII, Nov. 1965 A l b e r t a M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s , A l b e r t a T r i - L e v e l Conference, S p e c i a l P r o j e c t s and P o l i c y Branch, Edmonton, A l b e r t a A l b e r t a M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s , Inventory of P r o v i n c i a l Grants and Cost Sharing  Programs, Edmonton, A l b e r t a , 1980 A l b e r t a M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s , The Park. Town of Banff: An Option f o r L o c a l  Government, Urban A d v i s o r y Groups and S p e c i a l P r o j e c t s Branch, Edmonton, A l b e r t a , 1980 A l b e r t a M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s , M u n i c i p a l S t a t i s t i c s , 1974 - 1979, Edmonton, A l b e r t a A k i n , John S, and Auten, Gerald " C i t y Schools and Suburban Schools: A F i s c a l Comparison". Land Economics, November 1976: 452-465 Alonso, W i l l i a m "Urban Zero P o p u l a t i o n Growth", D a l d a l u s , 1973, F a l l Appelbaum, Richard P., Bigelow, J . , Kramer, H.P., Molotch, H.L., R e l i s , P.M., The E f f e c t s of Urban Growth: A P o p u l a t i o n Impact A n a l y s i s , New York: Praeger, 1976 Appelbaum, Richard P. S i z e , Growth and U.S. C i t i e s , Prager P u b l i s h e r s , 1978 B a h l , Roy W., M e t r o p o l i t a n C i t y Expenditures, U n i v e r s i t y of Kentucky P r e s s , Lexington, 1969 Bahl, Roy, Campbell A., Greytak, D., Jump B., Puryear, D. The Impact of  Economic Base E r o s i o n , I n f l a t i o n and Employee Compensation Costs on L o c a l  Governments, Occasional Paper No. 23, Syracuse, New York: Maxwell School of C i t i z e n s h i p and P u b l i c A f f a i r s , September, 1975 Bahl, Roy W., J r . , and Saunders, Robert, J . , "Determinants of Changes i n State and L o c a l Government Expenditures", N a t i o n a l Tax J o u r n a l , V o l . 18 Baker, C. Ashmore "Po p u l a t i o n and Cost i n R e l a t i o n to C i t y Management: The J o u r n a l of the Royal S t a t i s t i c a l S o c i e t y , December, 1910 Beaton W. P a t r i c k , "Environmental S t r u c t u r e and M u n i c i p a l Costs" i n M u n i c i p a l Needs, S e r v i c e s and F i n a n c i n g (ed.) W. P a t r i c k Beaton, Center f o r Urban P o l i c y Research, Rutgers U n i v e r s i t y , 1974 Black, Hubert M., S o c i a l S t a t i s t i c s , McGraw H i l l , Second E d i t i o n , 1972. Blake, D a n i e l "Property Tax Incidence: An A l t e r n a t i v e View". Land  Economics, V o l . 55, November, 1979: 522-531 Boaz, Amran, Income and C i t y S i z e , Master's T h e s i s , School of Community and Regional P l a n n i n g , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1973 81 B o e l a r t , Remi, " P o l i t i c a l Fragmentation and Ineq u i t y of F i s c a l Capacity i n the Mileaukee SMSA". N a t i o n a l Tax J o u r n a l , V o l . 23, March 1970:33-87 B o i s v e r t , M i c h a e l , The Correspondence Between the Urban System and The  Economic Base of Canada's Regions, Economic C o u n c i l of Canada, 1978 Bowen, E a r l K. S t a t i s t i c s , Homewood, I l l i n o i s : R i c h a r d D. I r w i n I n c . , 1960 Bowman, John H. "Tax E x p o r t a b i l i t y , Intergovernmental A i d , and School Finance Reform". N a t i o n a l Tax J o u r n a l , V o l . 27, 1974:163-173 Boyle, Gerald J . , "The Anatomy of F i s c a l Imbalance". N a t i o n a l Tax J o u r n a l , V o l . 21, December 1968: 412-424 Bradley, Richard C. The Costs of Urban Growth: Observations and  Judgements, P i k e s Pead Area C o u n c i l of Governments, Colorado s p r i n g s , Colorado, J u l y , 1973 Bra z e r , Harvey, C i t y Expenditures i n the Un i t e d S t a t e s , O c c a s i o n a l Paper 66., New York: N a t i o n a l Bureau of Economic Reasearch, 1959 Bri d g e s , Benjamin, "Income E l a s t i c i t y of the Pr o p e r t y Tax Base". N a t i o n a l  Tax J o u r n a l , V o l . 27, September 1969:253-264 B u r c h e l l , Robert W., and L i s t o k e n , David, et a l . The F i s c a l Impact Handbook, The Center f o r Urban P o l i c y Research, Rutgers, The S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y of New Je r s e y , 1978 C a l i f o r n i a B u i l d e r s C o u n c i l , "The F i s c a l Impact of Urban Growth: i n Management and C o n t r o l of Growth (ed.) R a n d a l l W. S c o t t , The Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , Washington, D.C, 1975 Campbell, Alan K. and Sacks, Seymour M e t r o p o l i t a n America, New York: The Free P r e s s , 1969 Canadian F e d e r a t i o n of Mayors and M u n i c i p a l i t i e s , Puppets on a S h o e s t r i n g , paper presented at the meeting of the Second A l b e r t T r i - L e v e l Conference Edmonton, A l b e r t a , December 9, 1976 C a r r o l l , John J . , and Sacks, Seymour "The Property Tax Base and the P a t t e r n of L o c a l Government Expenditures: The Influence of I n d u s t r y , Papers and  Proceedings of the Reg i o n a l Science A s s o c i a t i o n , V o l . 9, 1962 Chaudry, Anwar L o c a l P u b l i c Sector Finances i n A l b e r t a , Unpublished manuscript f o r A l b e r t a M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s , 1980 Davis Otto, A and Haines, George H. J r . "A P o l i t i c a l Approach to a Theory of P u b l i c Expenditures: the Case of M u n i c i p a l i t i e s " , N a t i o n a l Tax J o u r n a l , Bol 19, No. 3, 1966 D a j a n i , J a r i r S., "Cost Studies of Urban P u b l i c S e r v i c e s , Land Economics, 49, Nov. 1973:4479-483 82 Eisner, Gary H. and Sosnick, Stephen H., Municipal Expenditures i n  C a l i f o r n i a ; S t a t i s t i c a l C o r r e l a t e s , Occasional Paper No. 2, U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a I n s t i t u t e of Government A f f a i r s , 1964 Feinberg, Mordecai S., "The Implications of Core C i t y Decline for the F i s c a l Structure of the Core C i t y " . National Tax Journal, V o l . 17, June 1964 Gabler, L.R. "Population Size as a Determinant of C i t y Expenditures - some further evidence", Land Economics, 47, 1971 Carrison, Charles "New Industry i n Small Towns: The Impact on L o c a l Governemnt". National Tax Journal, V o l . 24, December 1971: 493-500 Griggs, William B., Optimum c i t y Size and Municipal Services E f f i c i e n c y :  B r i t i s h Columbia as a Case Study, Unpublished Master's Thesis School of Community and Regional Planning, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1967 Groves, Harold M., and Reiw, John, "The Impact of Industry on L o c a l Taxes -A Simple Model". National Tax Journal, V o l . 16, June 1963:137-146 Gruen, Gruen and Associates "The Impacts of Growth: An A n a l y t i c a l Framework and F i s c a l Example: i n Management and Control of Growth, V o l . 2 (ed.) Randall W. Scott, The Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , Washington, D.C. 1974 Hawley, Amos, "Metropolitan Population and Municipal Government Expenditures i n C entral C i t i e s : i n C i t i e s and Society, (ed.) Paul K. H a l l and A l b e r t Reiss, The Free Press of Glencoe, 1957 Hirsch, Werner 2., " F i s c a l Impact of I n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n on L o c a l Schools:. Review of Economics and S t a t i s t i c s , V o l . 46, May 1964:191-199 Isard, Walter and Coughlin, Robert, Municipal costs and Revenues Resulting  From Community Growth, Wellesley, Mass.: Chandler-Davis, 1957 Johnson, G.R. and Junk, Paul E. "Sources of Tax Revenues and Expenditures i n Large U.S. C i t i e s " . Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, V o l . 10, Winter 1970:7-15 Jack, John W. and Reuss, Paul D., "Financing Municipal Government: F i s c h a l Challenge of the Seventies". Municipal Finance, V o l . XLII, No. 2, 1970:141-148 Johnson, W i l l a r d R. "Should the Poor Buy No Growth?", Daedalus, F a l l , 1973 Jacobs, Jane, The Economy of C i t i e s , Random House, 1969 Kasarda, John, "The Impact of Suburban Population Growth on Central C i t y Service Functions: i n Municipal Needs, Services and Financing, (ed.) W. P a t r i c k Beaton, Center for Urban P o l i c y Research, Rutgers U n i v e r s i t y , 1974 Kee, Sik woo, " I n d u s t r i a l Development and i t s Impact on Lo c a l Finance". The  Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, V o l . 8, summer 1968:19-24 83 Ladd, Helen F., "Local Education Expenditures, F i s c a l Capacity, and the Composition of the Property Tax Base". National Tax Journal, V o l . 28, June 1975:145-158 Legler, John B. and Shapiro, Perry, "The Responsiveness of State Tax Revenue to Economic Growth". National Tax Journal, V o l . 21, March 1968:46-56 Lineberry, Robert L. and Sharkansky, Ira , Urban P o l i t i c s and P u b l i c P o l i c y , 3rd ed., New York: Harper and Row, 1978 Lucas, Therese C. The D i r e c t Costs of Growth; A Comparison of Changes i n  Lo c a l Government Expenditure i n Growth and Non Growth Counties i n Colorado London County Council, Comparative Municipal S t a t i s t i c s , London. The London County Council, 1915 MacManus, Susan A., Revenue Patterns i n U.S. C i t i e s and Suburbs: A  Comparative A n a l y s i s , New York: Praeger, 1978 Masson, Jack Do M u n i c i p a l i t i e s Really have a F i n a n c i a l Problem?, Paper presented at L o c a l Government Forum Series, Department of Extension, U n i v e r s i t y of Alberta, Jasper, Alberta Oct. 19-21, 1976 McMillian, M e l v i l l e , Chaudry, Anwar and G i l l e n David The Impact of  P r o v i n c i a l - Municipal Transportation Subsidies, Unpublished manuscript for Alberta Transportation, Edmonton, Alb e r t a , June 1980 Morss, E l l i o t , "Some Thoughts on the Determinants of State and L o c a l Expenditure", National Tax Journal, V o l . 19, March 1966 Muller, Thomas, Growing and D e c l i n i n g Urban Areas; A F i s c a l Comparison, The Urban I n s t i t u t e , Washington, D.C. 1975 Neenan, William, "Suburban-Central C i t y E x p o l o i t a t i o n Thesis: One C i t y ' s Tale". National Tax Journal, V o l . 23, June 1970:117-139 Netzer, Dick, "The Incidence of the Property Tax R e v i s i t e d " . National Tax  Journal, V o l . 26, 1973:515 O'Connor, James, The F i s c a l C r i s i s of the State, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1973 Oregon State U n i v e r s i t y Extension Service, Impact of Urban Growth on L o c a l  Government Costs and Revenues, S p e c i a l Report 423, November 1974 Parkinson, A., Growth of Small Urban Centres i n A l b e r t a , 1971-1976, Thesis, U n i v e r s i t y of Calgary, 1978 Peat, Marwick and Partners, C i t y of Edmonton F i n a n c i a l Capacity Study, Unpublished report, March 1981 P e t t e n g i l l , Robert B. and Uppal, Jogindar S., Can C i t i e s Survive? The F i s c a l  P l i g h t of American C i t i e s , New York: St.Martin's Press, 1974 Pidot, George B., "A P r i n c i p l e Components Analysis of the Determinants of Local Governemnt F i s c a l Patterns". The Review of Economics and S t a t i s t i c s , V o l . 4, May 1969:176-188 Richardson, Harry W., The Economics of Urban Siz e , Saxon House/Lexington Books, 1973 Sharkansky, Ira The P o l i t i c s of Taxing and Spending, New York: The Bobbs M e r r i l l Company, 1969 Stephens G. Ross and Schmadt, Henry J . , "Revenue Patterns of Local Governments". National Tax Journal, V o l . 15, December 1962:432-437 Stinson, Thomas, "Population Changes and S h i f t s i n L o c a l Government Finance Municipal Finance, V o l . XLII, No. 3, February, 1970:134-139 Tiebout, Charles M. "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures". J o u r n a l of  Publi c Economy, Vol., LXIV, 1956 Sacks, Seymour, " F i s c a l D i s p a r i t i e s and Metropolitan Development" (excerpts), i n Municipal Needs, Services and Financing (ed.) W. P a t r i c k Beaton, Center for Urban P o l i c y Research, Rutgers U n i v e r s i t y , 1974 Scott, Stanley and Feder, Edward, Factors Associated with V a r i a t i o n s i n Municipal Expenditure Levels, Berkely, C a l i f o r n i a : Bureau of P u b l i c Administration, February 1957 S i n g e l l , Larry D. "Optimum C i t y Size: Some Thoughts on Theory and P o l i c y , Land Economics, 50, August 1974 Spangler, Richard "The E f f e c t of Population Growth upon State and Lo c a l Government Expenditures" National Tax Journal, V o l . 16, June 1963 Sten l i e b , George et a l Housing Developments and Municipal Costs, Center for Urban P o l i c y Research, Rutgers U n i v e r s i t y , 1973 Wagdin, George, "The Municipal Revnue-Expenditure Gap i n Canada". Municipal  Finance, V o l . XLIII, No. 3, February 1971:122-126 Weichner, John Co., "Determinants of Central C i t y Expenditures: Some Overlooked Facts and Problems: National Tax Journal, 1970 Wilensky, G a i l "Determinants of Local Government Expenditures, i n Financing  the Metropolis (ed.) John P. Crecine, Urban A f f a i r s Annual Review, V o l . 4, Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1970 Wood, Robert C l , 1400 Governments, Cambridge: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1961 Hunstberger, David and B i l l i n g s l e y , P a t r i c k Elements of S t a t i s t i c a l  Inference, Boston Mass: A l l y n and Bacon, 1977 Woo Sik Kee "Central C i t y Expenditures and Metropolitan Areas" National Tax  Journal, V o l . 18, December, 1965 APPENDIX A 85 Per C a p i t a Sale of Goods and Services P o p u l a t i o n S i z e 1979 OR-Square = 0.3364 Variance of the Estimate = 13690 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 117.01 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.69116E-03 0.16938E-03 4.0805 I n t e r c e p t 125.51 20.877 6.0119 1978 OR-Square = 0.2797 Variance of the Estimate = 13365 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 115.61 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.62071E-03 0.17339E-03 3.5799 In t e r c e p t 114.49 20.617 5.5530 1977 OR-Square = 0.3059 Variance of the Estimate = 8643.3 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 92.969 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.54836E-03 0.14345E-03 3.8226 In t e r c e p t 101.09 16.568 6.1012 1976 OR-Square = 0.3312 Variance of the Estimate = 5543.9 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 74.457 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.45801E-03 0.11824E-03 4.0427 I n t e r c e p t 88.082 13.260 6.6428 1975 OR-Square = 0.2963 Variance of the Estimate = 4041.3 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 43.571 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.38751E-03 0.10391E-03 3.727 In t e r c e p t 73.565 11.292 6.5031 APPENDIX A 86 Per C a p i t a Other Revenue P o p u l a t i o n S i z e 1979 OR-Square = 0.1164 Variance of the Estimate = 680.09 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 26.078 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.78732E-04 0.37752E-04 2.0855 I n t e r c e p t 70.875 4.6531 15.232 1978 OR-Square = 0.2248 Va r i a n c e of the Estimate - 290.12 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 17.033 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.79027E-04 0.25546E-04 3.0835 I n t e r c e p t 52.381 3.0376 17.238 1977 OR-Square = 0.0058 Variance of the Estimate = 332.29 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 18.229 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.12390E-04 0.28127E-04 0.44045 I n t e r c e p t 45.866 3.2486 14.119 1976 OR-Square = 0.0123 Variance of the Estimate = 1014.8 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 31.856 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.32478E-04 0.50589E-04 0.64200 In t e r c e p t 44.174 5.6731 7.7866 1975 OR-Square = 0.0116 Variance of the Estim a t e = 171.53 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 13.097 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.13338E-04 0.21408E-04 0.62304 I n t e r c e p t 28.263 2.3306 12.127 APPENDIX A 87 Per C a p i t a C a p i t a l Expenditures P o p u l a t i o n S i z e 1979 Dependent V a r i a b l e = OR-Square = 0.0116 Variance of the Estimate = 0.10814E+08 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 325.80 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 1-0.29412E-03 0.47164E-03 -0.62363 I n t e r c e p t 808.81 58.131 10.473 1978 OR-Square = 0.0104 Variance of the Estimate = 76510 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 274.97 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop -0.24278E-03 0.41240E-03 -0.58870 I n t e r c e p t 449.11 49.038 9.0768 1977 OR-Square = 0.0467 Variance of the Estimate = 46490 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 215.82 V a r i a b l e Estimated Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop -0.42301E-03 In t e r c e p t 326.87 Standard T-Ratio E r r o r 33 DF 0.33270E-03 -1.2714 38.426 8.5067 1976 OR-Square = 0.0093 Variance of the Estimate = 49515. Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 222.52 V a r i a b l e Estimated Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop -0.19617E-03 I n t e r c e p t 292.25 Standard T-Ratio E r r o r 33 DF 0.35337E-03 -0.55513 39.628 7.3749 1975 OR-Square = 0.0295 Variance of the Estimate = 19687. Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 140.31 Variable Estimated Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop -0.22991E-03 Intercept 245.50 Standard T-Ratio E r r o r 33 DF 0.22936E-03 -1.0024 24.968 9.8324 APPENDIX A 88 Per C a p i t a T o t a l Revenue P o p u l a t i o n S i z e 1979 Dependent V a r i a b l e = 2 Trev OR-Square = 0.2750 Variance of the Estimate = 35049. Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 187.21 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.95880E-03 0.27102E-03 3.5378 I n t e r c e p t 577.92 33.404 17.301 1978 OR-Square = 0.2481 Variance of the Estimate = 32872 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 181.31 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop -0.29734E-03 0.27193E-03 3.3000 I n t e r c e p t 512.48 32.334 15.849 1977 OR-Square = 0.3257 Variance of the Estimate = 20492. Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 143.15 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.88188E-03 0.22088E-03 3.9926 I n t e r c e p t 427.56 25.511 16.760 1976 OR-Square = 0.2331 Variance of the Estimate = 17730. Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 133.15 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.66964E-03 0.21145E-03 3.1668 I n t e r c e p t 390.82 23.713 16.481 1975 OR-Square • 0.4477 Variance of the Estimate = 5997.5 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 74.145 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.62685E-03 .12120E-03 5.172 In t e r c e p t 324.29 13.194 24.571 APPENDIX A 8 9 Per C a p i t a Property Tax P o p u l a t i o n S i z e 1979 OR-Square = 0.0929 Variance of the Estimate = 2281.9 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 47.769 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.12710E-03 0.69152E-04 1.8380 I n t e r c e p t 264.14 8.5233 30.990 1978 OR-Square = 0.1568 Variance of the Estimate = 1757.8 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 41.924 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.15578E-03 0.62877E-04 2.4775 I n t e r c e p t 237.19 7.4765 31.725 1977 OR-Square =• 0.2321 Variance of the Estimate = 1069.2 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 32.698 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.15935E-03 0.50453E-04 3.1583 I n t e r c e p t 203.25 5.8272 34.880 1976 OR-Square = 0.1918 Variance of the Estimate = 978 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 31.2741 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop .13902E-03 .496E-04 2.790 I n t e r c e p t 180.2 5.569 32.35 1975 OR-Square = 0.2158 Variance of the Estimate = 788.98 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 28.089 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.13828E-03 0.45914E-04 3.0177 I n t e r c e p t 156.24 4.9984 31.259 APPENDIX A 90 Per C a p i t a Other Tax P o p u l a t i o n S i z e 1979 OR-Square = .2851 Variance of the Estimate = 221.15 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 15.542 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.81781E-04 0.26275E-04 1.0320 I n t e r c e p t 31.178 3.2385 8.6271 1978 OR-Square = 0.2667 Variance of the Estimate = 228.34 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 15.111 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.78517E-04 0.22633E-04 3.4645 I n t e r c e p t 28.317 2.6948 10.508 1977 OR-Square = 0.2283 Variance of the Estimate = 162.87 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 12.754 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.81493E-04 0.19680E-04 3.1247 I n t e r c e p t 24.034 2.2730 11.014 1976 OR-Square = 0.2543 Variance of the Estimate = 83.692 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 9.6794 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.51569E-04 0.15371E-04 3.3549 I n t e r c e p t 22.281 1.7238 12.914 1975 OR-Square = 0.1416 Variance of the Estimate = 90.969 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 9.5378 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.36369E-04 0.15591E-04 2.3327 I n t e r c e p t 23.428 1.6972 13.803 APPENDIX A 91 Per C a p i t a T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P o p u l a t i o n S i z e 1979 Dependent V a r i a b l e = 6 Transp OR-Square = 0.0028 Variance of the Estimate = 500.94 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 22.382 V a r i a b l e Estimated Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop -0.98287E-05 I n t e r c e p t 73.409 Standard T-Ratio E r r o r 33 DF 0.32400E-04 -0.30335 3.9935 18.382 1978 OR-Square = 0.0002 Variance of the Estimate = 471.97 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 21.725 V a r i a b l e Estimated Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop -0.24483E-05 I n t e r c e p t 65.809 Standard E r r o r 0.32583E-04 3.8743 T-Ratio 33 DF -0.75140E-01 16.986 1977 OR-Square - 0.0973 Variance of the Estimate = 228.98 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 15.132 V a r i a b l e Estimated Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop -0.44045E-04 I n t e r c e p t 57.192 Standard T-Ratio E r r o r 33 DF 0.23349E-04 -1.8864 2.6967 21.208 1976 OR-Square = 0.1316 Variance of the Estimate = 260.41 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 18.137 V a r i a b l e Estimated Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop -0.57307E-04 I n t e r c e p t 53.292 Standard T-Ratio E r r o r 33 DF 0.25626E-04 -2.2362 2.8738 18.544 1975 OR-Square = 0.0822 Variance of the Estimate = 260.41 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 18.137 V a r i a b l e Estimated Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop -0.34693E-04 In t e r c e p t 44.983 Standard T-Ratio E r r o r 33 DF 0.20174E-04 -1.7197 2.1962 20.482 APPENDIX A 92 Per C a p i t a P r o t e c t i o n P o p u l a t i o n S i z e 1979 OR-Square = 0.45 Variance of the Estimate = Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.167E-03 0.313E-04 3.9 In t e r c e p t 54.2 3.9 14.1 1978 OR-Square = 0.5356 Variance of the Estima t e = 323.61 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 17.989 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.1664E-03 0.26980E-04 6.1691 In t e r c e p t 45.715 3.2081 14.250 1977 OR-Square = 0.5227 Variance of the Estimate = 264.43 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 16.261 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.15083E-03 0.25091E-04 8.0112 I n t e r c e p t 40.628 2.8980 14.019 1976 OR-Square = 0.6055 Variance of the Estimate = 178.55 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 13.362 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.15101E-03 0.21220E-04 7.1168 I n t e r c e p t 35.450 2.3798 14.897 1975 OR-Square = 0.6013 Variance of the Estimate = 124.75 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 11.169 V a r i a b l e Est imated Standard T—Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.12880E-03 0.18257E-04 7.0546 I n t e r c e p t 31.603 1.9875 15.901 APPENDIX A Per C a p i t a R e c r e a t i o n , C u l t u r e and Education Exp. 1978 1977 Income OR-Square = 0.0275 Variance of the Estimate = 143.30 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 11.971 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 30 0.13506E-02 0.13966E-02 0.96701 In t e r c e p t 39.359 16.618 2.3685 1977 1976 Income OR-Square = 0.0039 Variance of the Estimate = 143.49 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate.= 11.979 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 29 0.55508E-03 0.15381E-02 0.36089 Int e r c e p t 41.294 16.807 2.4570 Per C a p i t a E n v i r o n m e n t a l Development Expense 1978 1977 Income OR-Square - 0.0247 Variance of the Estim a t e = 19.131 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 4.3739 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 30 0.46582E-03 0.51031E-03 0.91437 In t e r c e p t -1.7542 6.0720 -0.28890 1977 1976 Income OR-Square = 0.1302 Variance of the Estimate = 7.6698 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 2.7894 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 29 0.79835E-030 0.35580E-03 2.2226 I n t e r c e p t -6.1645 3.8856 -1.5865 APPENDIX A Per C a p i t a Environmental H e a l t h Expense 1978 1977 Income OR-Square = 0.0004 Variance of the Estimate = 67.685 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 8.2271 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 30 -0.11023E-03 0.95987E-03 -0.11484 I n t e r c e p t 26.224 11.421 2.2951 1977 1976 Income OR-Square = 0.0084 Variance of the Estimate = 37.673 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 6.1338 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 29 0.41638E-03 0.78810E-03 0.52834 I n t e r c e p t 17.509 8.6116 2.0332 Per C a p i t a Debt S e r v i c i n g 1978 1977 Income OR-Square = 0.0121 Variance of the Estimate = 9101.4 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 95.401 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 30 0.70781E-02 0.1131E-013 0.63591 I n t e r c e p t 10.1452 132.44 0.76607E-01 1977 1976 Income OR-Square = 0.0178 Variance of the Estimate = 850.65 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 25.508 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 29 -0.25312E-02 0.32752E-02 -0.77283 I n t e r c e p t 91.104 35.789 2.5455 APPENDIX A Per C a p i t a T o t a l Expense 1978 1977 Income OR-Square = 0.0094 V a r i a n c e of the E s t i m a t e = 50326 Standard E r r o r of the E s t i m a t e = 224.33 V a r i a b l e Es t imated Standard T - R a t i o Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 30 0 .14629E-01 0 .26173R-01 0.55594 I n t e r c e p t 458.01 311.42 1.4647 1977 1976 Income OR-Square = 0 .0012 V a r i a n c e of the E s t i m a t e = 40482 Standard E r r o r of the E s t i m a t e = 201.20 V a r i a b l e E s t i m a t e d Standard T - R a t i o Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 29 0 .52221E-02 0 .25834E-01 0.20214 I n t e r c e p t 464.95 282.29 1.6471 Per C a p i t a G e n e r a l Government Expense 1978 1977 Income OR-Square = 0.2501 Var iance of the E s t i m a t e = 161.23 Standard E r r o r of the E s t i m a t e = 12.698 V a r i a b l e E s t i m a t e d Standard T - R a t i o Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 30 0 .49153E-02 0 .14815E-02 3.3179 I n t e r c e p t - 8 . 8 6 4 4 17.627 - 0 . 4 9 1 5 4 1977 • 1976 Income OR-Square = 0.0273 V a r i a n c e of the E s t i m a t e = 285.57 Standard E r r o r of the E s t i m a t e = 16.899 V a r i a b l e E s t i m a t e d Standard T - R a t i o Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 29 0 .20889E-02 0 .21698E-02 0.96272 I n t e r c e p t 23.999 23.710 1.0122 APPENDIX A Per C a p i t a T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Expense 1 9 7 8 1977 Income OR-Square = 0.0077 Variance of the Estimate = 468.41 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 21.643 V a r i a b l e Estimated Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop 30 0.12794E-02 In t e r c e p t 50.807 Standard T-Ratio E r r o r 33 DF 0.25251E-02 0.50666 30.045 1.6844 1976 Income 1977 OR-Square - 0.1032 Variance of the Estimate = 227.49 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 15.083 V a r i a b l e Estimated Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop 29 -0.37741E-02 I n t e r c e p t 96.520 Standard T-Ratio E r r o r 33 DF 0.19366E-02 -1.9488 21.162 4.5511 Per C a p i t a P r o t e c t i o n Expense 1978 1977 Income OR-Square = 0.0480 Variance of the Estimate = 563.35 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 25.756 V a r i a b l e Estimated Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop 30 0.38772E-02 I n t e r c e p t 5.2345 Standard E r r o r 0.30050E-02 35.754 T-Ratio 33 DF 1.2903 0.17437 1976 Income 1977 OR-Square = 0.1403 Variance of the Estimate = 436.23 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 21.823 V a r i a b l e Estimated Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop 29 0.65039E-02 I n t e r c e p t -24.404 Standard T-Ratio E r r o r 33 DF 0.28020E-02 2.3211 30.618 -0.79703 APPENDIX A Per Capita P u b l i c Health Expense 1978 1977 income OR-Square = 0.0185 Variance of the Estimate = 2743.5 Standard Error of the Estimate = 52.378 Variable Estimated Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop 30 -0.48320E-02 Intercept 78.777 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.61110E-02 -0.79059 72.712 1.0834 1976 Income 1977 OR-Square = 0.0100 Variance of the Estimate = 85.725 Standard Error of the Estimate = 9.2588 Variable Estimated Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop 29 -0.68493E-03 Intercept 19.227 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.1188E0-02 -0.57614 12.990 1.4801 Per Capita C a p i t a l Expenditures 1978 1977 Income OR-Square = 0.0395 Variance of the Estimate = 73388. Standard Er r o r of the Estimate = 270.90 Variable Estimated Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop 30 -0.36809E-01 Intercept 870.62 Standard Error 0.31607E-01 376.07 T-Ratio 33 DF -1.16466 2.3150 1977 1976 Income OR-Square = 0.0794 Variance o f the Estimate = 44898. Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 211.89 Variable Estimated Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop 29 -0.45885E-01 Intercept 809.13 Standard Error 0.27201E-01 297.29 T-Ratio 33 DF -1.6865 2.7217 APPENDIX A Per Capita Total Revenue 1978 1977 Income OR-Square = 0.0053 Variance of the Estimate = 43490. Standard Error of the Estimate = 208.54 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop 30 0.01072E-01 0.24331E-01 0.41809 Intercept 428.34 289.50 1.4727 1977 1976 Income OR-Square = 0.0071 Variance of the Estimate = 30175. Standard Error of the Estimate = 173.71 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop 29 0.10823E-01 0.22304E-01 0.48524 Intercept 342.43 243.72 1.4050 Per Capita Property Tax 1978 1977 Income OR-Square = 0.0075 Variance of the Estimate = 2069.0 Standard Error of the Estimate = 45.486 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop 30 0.26437E-02 0.53069E-02 0.49816 Intercept 211.87 63.145 3.3554 1977 1976 Income OR-Square = 0.0013 Variance of the Estimate = 1390.6 Standard Error of the Estimate = 37.290 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop 29 0.97432E-03 0.47881E-02 0.20349 Intercept 198.52 52.320 3.7943 APPENDIX A Per Capita Other Tax 1978 1977 Income OR-Square = 0.0155 Variance of the Estimate = 306.56 Standard Error of the Estimate = 17.509 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 30 -0.14730E-02 Intercept 48.689 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 30 -0.25375E-04 Intercept 21.580 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.20428E-02 -0.72107 24.306 2.0032 tio DF 6025 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.20745E-02 -0.12232E-01 24.684 0.87424 1977 1976 Income OR-Square = 0.0722 Variance of the Estimate = 195.58 Standard Error of the Estimate = 13.985 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ra Name No. Coefficient Error 33 Pop 29 -0.28776E-02 0.17957E-02 -1. Intercept 58.499 19.621 2.98 Per Capita Grants in Lieu 1978 1977 Income OR-Square = 0.0000 Variance of the Estimate = 316.16 Standard Error of the Estimate = 17.781 1977 1976 Income OR-Square = 0.1058 Variance of the Estimate = 276.23 Standard Error of the Estimate = 16.620 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop 29 0.4217E-02 0.21340E-02 1.9763 Intercept -27.867 23.319 -1.1950 APPENDIX A 100 Per Capita Services to Other Governments 1978 1977 Income OR-Square = 0.0090 Variance of the Estimate = 17.850 Standard Error of the Estimate = 4.2259 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 30 0.26985E-03 Intercept -0.36575 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.49304E-03 0.54731 5.8664 -0.62347E-01 1977 1976 Income OR-Square = 0.0042 Variance of the Estimate = 14.409 Standard Error of the Estimate = 3.7959 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 29 0.18141E-03 Intercept 0.58445 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.48740E-03 0.37220 5.3258 0.10974 Per Capita Sale of Goods & Services 1978 1977 Income OR-Square = 0.0014 Variance of the Estimate = 18529. Standard Error of the Estimate = 136.12 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop 30 -0.34228E-02 0.15882E-01 -0.21552 Intercept 178.44 188.97 0.94428 1977 1976 Income OR-Square = 0.0002 Variance of the Estimate = 12467. Standard Error of the Estimate = 111.86 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop 29 -0.12744E-02 0.14337E-01 -0.88893E Intercept 134.98 156.66 0.86150 APPENDIX A 101 Per Capita Other Revenue 1978 1977 Income OR-Square = 0.0434 Variance of the Estimate = 358.03 Standard Error of the Estimate = 18.922 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 30 0.26995E-02 Intercept 23.474 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.22076E-02 1.2229 26.268 0.89365 1976 Income 1977 OR-Square = 0.0413 Variance of the Estimate = 320.43 Standard Error of the Estimate = 17.900 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 29 0.27419E-02 Intercept 16.578 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.22944E-02 1.1929 25.115 0.66007 Per Capita Conditional Grants 1978 1977 Income OR-Square = 0.0232 Variance of the Estimate = 1686.1 Standard Error of the Estimate = 41.062 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 30 -0.42430E-02 Intercept 94.115 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.47908-02 -0.88565 57.003 1.6510 1977 1976 Income OR-Square = 0.0095 Variance of the Estimate = 731.17 Standard Error of the Estimate = 27.040 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop 29 -0.19528E-02 0.34720E-01 -0.56245 Intercept 56.320 37.836 1.4845 APPENDIX A 102 Per Capita Unconditional Grants 1978 1977 Income OR-Square = 0.1477 Variance of the Estimate = 596.34 Standard Error of the Estimate = 24.420 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 30 0.58134E-02 Intercept -36.271 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.28491E-02 2.3914 33.900 -1.0699 1977 1976 Income OR-Square = 0.0228 Variance of the Estimate = 331.08 Standard E rror of the Estimate — 18.195 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 29 0.2495E-02 Intercept 18.991 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.23383E-02 0.87725 25.528 0.74391 1977 Income 1977 Population Size OR-Square = 0.0235 Variance of the Estimate = 0.21739E+07 Standard Error of the Estimate = 1474.4 V a r i a b l e Estimated Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop 1 0.19539E-02 Intercept 11735. Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.22113E-02 0.89082 262.94 44.631 1977 1976 Income OR-Square = 0.0356 Variance of the Estimate = 0.17726E+07 Standard Error of the Estimate = 1331.04 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 1 0.22672E-02 Intercept 10764. Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.20543E-02 1.1036 237.27 45.368 APPENDIX A 103 Per Capita Total Expenditure Population Size 1979 Dependent Variable 3 Texp OR-Square = 0.2014 Variance of the Estimate = 45452 Standard Error of the Estimate = 215.62 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 1 0.90048E-03 Intercept 1169.2 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.31214E-03 2.8849 38.472 30.390 1978 OR-Square = 0.2032 Variance of the Estimate = 40479. Standard Error of the Estimate = 201.19 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop 0.87538E-03 0.30175E-03 3.9010 Intercept 599.60 35.880 16.600 1977 OR-Square = 0.2397 Variance of the Estimate = 30817. Standard Error of the Estimate = 175.55 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop 0.87370E-03 0.27087E-03 3.22555 Intercept 489.64 31.285 15.651 1976 OR-Square = 0.1926 Variance of the Estimate = 21233. Standard Error of the Estimate = 145.72 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.64915E-03 Intercept 440.83 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.23140E-03 2.8053 25.950 16.982 1975 OR-Square = .3129 Variance of the Estimate = 9036.2 Standard Error of the Estimate = 95.059 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.62685E-03 Intercept 324.29 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.12120E-03 5.1721 13.194 24.579 APPENDIX A 104 Per Capita General Government Population Size 1979 OR-Square = 0.0920 Variance of the Estimate = 196.92 Standard Error of the Estimate = 14.033 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop 0.37146E-04 0.20314E-04 -1.8285 Intercept 55.824 2.5038 22.296 1978 OR-Square = 0.0155 Variance of the Estimate = 211.61 Standard Error of the Estimate = 14.547 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop -0.15911E-04 0.21817E-09 -0.72928 Intercept 499.88 2.5942 19.269 1977 OR-Square = 0.0001 Variance of the Estimate = 293.57 Standard Error of the Estimate = 17.134 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop -0.11825E-05 0.36438E-04 -0.44727E-1 Intercept 46.702 3.0535 15.295 1976 OR-Square = 0.0482 Variance of the Estimate = 227.20 Standard Error of the Estimate = 15.073 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop -0.30253E-04 0.23936E-04 -1.2639 Intercept 41.815 2.6843 15.503 1975 OR-Square = 0.0716 Variance of the Estimate = 62.139 Standard Error of the Estimate = 7.8829 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop -0.20552E-04 0.12885E-04 -1.5950 Intercept 32.321 1.4027 23.041 APPENDIX A 105 Per Capita Environmental Development 1979 Dependent Variable 9 Envo OR-Square =0.1905 Variance of the Estimate = 13.379 Standard Error of the Estimate = 3.6577 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 10.14755E-04 Intercept 3.3836 Standard Error 0.52950E-05 0.85263 T-Ratio 33 DF 2.7886 5.1845 1978 OR-Square = 0.1769 Variance of the Estimate = 18.145 Standard Error of the Estimate = 4.0181 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.16051E-04 Intercept 3.1481 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.60264E-05 2.6635 0.71657 4.3932 1977 OR-Square = 0.4024 Variance of the Estimate = 5.2695 Standard Error of the Estimate = 2.2955 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.16697E-04 Intercept 1.7977 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.35420E-05 4.7140 0.40909 4.3944 1976 OR-Square = 0.1656 Variance of the Estimate = 11.036 Standard Error of the Estimate = 3.3221 V a r i a b l e Estimated Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop 0.13502E-04 Intercept 2.4949 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.52755E-05 2.5593 0.59181 4.2171 1975 OR-Square = 0.0003 Variance of the Estimate = 1404.0 Standard Error of the Estimate = 37.470 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.57149E-05 Intercept 8.8036 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.81248E-04 -0.93308E-01 5.6676 1.3204 APPENDIX A 106 Per Capita Environmental Health Population Size 1979 Dependent Variable 7 Envh OR-Square = 0.0434 Variance of the Estimate = 83.486 Standard Error of the Estimate = 9.1371 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.16191E-04 Intercept 27.955 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.13227E-04 1.2241 1.6303 17.147 1978 OR-Square = 0.0885 Variance of the Estimate = 61.721 Standard Error of the Estimate = 7.8563 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.21088E-04 Intercept 24.123 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.11783E-04 1.7897 1.4011 17.217 1977 OR-Square = 0.2397 Variance of the Estimate = 38.886 Standard Error of the Estimate = 5.3746 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.26747E-04 Intercept 21.047 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.82931E-05 3.2252 0.95782 21.974 1976 OR-Square = 0.0271 Variance of the Estimate = 425.68 Standard Error of the Estimate = 20.632 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.31413E-04 Intercept 22.361 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.32764E-04 0.95874 3.6743 6.0857 1975 OR-Square = 0.0030 Variance of the Estimate = 28.549 Standard Error of the Estimate = 5.3432 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.27580E-05 Intercept 15.721 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.87340E-05 -0.31578 0.95081 16.534 APPENDIX A 1 0 7 Per C a p i t a P u b l i c H ealth P o p u l a t i o n S i z e 1979 Dependent Variable 2 PubH OR-Square = 0.0547 Variance of the Estimate = 120.94 Standard Error of the Estimate = 10.997 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.34052E-04 Intercept 14.783 Standard Error 0.15920E-04 1.9622 T-Ratio 33 DF 1.5108 7.5337 1978 OR-Square = 0.0000 Variance of the Estimate = 2795.3 Standard Error of the Estimate = 52.871 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.26031E-05 Intercept 21.810 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.79296E-04 -0.32827E-01 9.4288 2.3131 1977 OR-Square = 0.0426 Variance of the Estimate = 82.903 Standard Error of the Estimate = 9.1051 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.17014E-04 Intercept 11.175 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.14049E-04 1.2110 1.6226 6.8867 1976 OR-Square = 0.0451 Variance of the Estimate = 30.532 Standard Error of the Estimate = 8.9740 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.17797E-04 Intercept 10.568 Standard Error 0.14251E-04 1.5981 T-Ratio 33 DF 1.2488 6.6125 1975 OR-Square = 0.2338 Variance of the Estimate = 54.056 Standard Error of the Estimate = 7.3522 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.38234E-04 Intercept 7.0283 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.12018E-04 3.1731 1.3083 5.3729 APPENDIX A 108 Per Capita Recrations, Culture and Education Population Size 1979 Dependent Variable 10 RCE OR-Square = 0.0370 Variance of the Estimate = 283.19 Standard Error of the Estimate = 16.828 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.2743E-04 Intercept 57.085 Standard Error 0.24361E-04 3.0026 T-Ratio 33 DF 1.1261 19.012 1978 OR-Square = 0.0084 Variance of the Estimate = 146.12 Standard Error of the Estimate = 12.088 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.95892E-05 Intercept 54.945 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.18129E-04 0.52893 2.1557 25.489 1977 OR-Square = 0.0044 Variance of the Estimate = 143.43 Standard Error of the Estimate = 11.976 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.70385E-05 Intercept 47.057 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.19479E-04 0.38089 2.1343 22.048 1976 OR-Square = 0.0224 Variance of the Estimate = 69.350 Standard Error of the Estimate = 8.3277 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.11510E-04 Intercept 38.965 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.13225E-04 0.87031 1.4830 26.274 1975 OR-Square = .0389 Variance of the Estimate = 72.555 Standard Error of the Estimate = 8.5296 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.16114E-04 Intercept 34.707 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.13943E-04 1.557 1.5178 22.866 APPENDIX A 109 Per Capita Debt Servicing Population Size 1979 Dependent Variable 11 Debt OR-Square = 0.0188 Variance of the Estimate = 40085. Standard Error of the Estimate = 200.21 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 10.23028E-03 Intercept 304.67 Standard Error 0.2893E-03 35.723 T-Ratio 33 DF 0.79452 8.5287 1978 OR-Square = 0.0001 Variance of the Estimate = 9212.1 Standard Error of the Estimate = 95.980 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.77147E-05 Intercept 93.645 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.143955-03 0.53593E-01 17.117 5.4593 1977 OR-Square = 0.0472 Variance of the Estimate = 631.13 Standard Error of the Estimate = 25.122 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 1 0.49590E-04 Intercept 61.832 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.38764E-04 1.2793 4.4771 13.811 1976 OR-Square = 0.0254 Variance of the Estimate = 311.19 Standard Error of the Estimate = 17.841 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 1 0.25989E-04 Intercept 49.893 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.18014E-04 0.92772 3.1415 15.882 1975 OR-Square = .0410 Variance of the Estimate = 590.48 Standard Error of the Estimate = 24.300 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 1 0.47206E-04 Intercept 45.810 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.39721E-04 1.1885 4.3261 10.594 APPENDIX A 110 Per Capita Grants in Lieu of Taxes Population Growth 1979 OR-Square - 0.0931 Variance of the Estimate = 261.10 Standard Error of the Estimate = 16.159 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.43058E-04 Intercept 19.881 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.23392E-04 1.8406 2.8831 6.8955 1978 OR-Square = 0.0652 Variance of the Estimate = 295.53 Standard Error of the Estimate = 17.191 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.39132E-04 Intercept 19.799 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.25783E-04 1.5177 3.0658 6.4572 1977 OR-Square = 0.0626 Variance of the Estimate = 289.58 Standard Error of the Estimate = 17.017 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.38979E-04 Intercept 16.456 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.26258E-04 1.4845 3.0327 5.4263 1976 OR-Square = 0.0422 Variance of the Estimate = 130.25 Standard Error of the Estimate = 11.413 V a r i a b l e Estimated Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop 0.31881E-04 Intercept 13.038 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.18124E-04 1.2062 2.0325 6.4148 1975 OR-Square = .0006 Variance of the Estimate = 95.724 Standard Error of the Estimate = 9.7839 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.33985E-05 Intercept 11.358 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF .15993E-04 0.14372 1.7410 6.5237 APPENDIX A 111 Per Capita Service to Other Governments Population Growth 1979 OR-Square = 0.1195 Variance of the Estimate = 17.512 Standard Error of the Estimate = 4.1847 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.12821E-04 Intercept 2.2667 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.60579E-05 2.1164 0.74565 3.0357 1978 OR-Square = 0.1327 Variance of the Estimate = 15.629 Standard Error of the Estimate = 3.9534 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.13322E-04 Intercept 2.3161 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.59293E-05 2.2467 0.70504 3.2851 1977 OR-Square = 0.0885 Variance of the Estimate = 13.190 Standard Error of the Estimate = 3.6317 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.10029E-04 Intercept 2.1853 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.56038E-05 1.7896 0.64722 3.3764 1976 OR-Square = 0.0083 Variance of the Estimate = 8.3434 Standard Error of the Estimate = 2.8885 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.2419E-05 Intercept 1.4814 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.45870E-05 0.52645 0.51440 2.8799 1975 OR-Square = 0.0101 Variance of the Estimate = 3.2475 Standard Error of the Estimate = 1.8021 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.17120E-05 Intercept 0.95212 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.29458E-05 0.58118 0.32068 2.9690 APPENDIX A 112 Per Capita Condition Grants Population Growth 1979 OR-Square = 0.0156 Variance of the Estimate = 53243. Standard Error of the Estimate = 230.74 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.24174E-03 Intercept 361.77 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.33403E-03 0.72370 41.171 8.7870 1978 OR-Square = 0.0073 Variance of the Estimate = 1713.8 Standard Error of the Estimate = 41.395 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.00585-04 Intercept 42.846 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.62084E-04 0.49264 7.3823 5.8039 1977 OR-Square = 0.0154 Variance of the Estimate = 726.85 Standard Error of the Estimate = 26.960 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.29846E-04 Intercept 34.045 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.41600E-04 0.71745 4.8046 7.0858 1976 OR-Square = 0.0054 Variance of the Estimate = 747.35 Standard Error of the Estimate = 27.338 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.18324E-04 Intercept 31.794 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.43413E-04 0.42208 4.8685 6.5306 1975 OR-Square = 0.0678 Variance of the Estimate = 167.73 Standard Error of the Estimate = 12.951 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.32797E-04 Intercept 22.671 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.21170E-04 1.54512 2.3046 9.8372 APPENDIX A 113 Per Capita Unconditional Grants Population Growth 1979 OR-Square = 0.0552 Variance of the Estimate - 19909. Standard Error of the Estimate = 141.10 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.28360E-03 Intercept 250.02 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.20426E-03 -1.3884 25.176 9.9311 1978 OR-Square = 0.0374 Variance of the Estimate = 673.49 Standard Error of the Estimate = 25.952 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.44095E-04 Intercept 45.868 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.38922E-04 -1.1329 4.6281 9.9104 1977 OR-Square = 0.0660 Variance of the Estimate = 316.42 Standard Error of the Estimate = 17.788 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.41915E-04 Intercept 42.756 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.27447E-04 -1.5271 3.1701 13.487 1976 OR-Square = 0.0856 Variance of the Estimate = 201.94 Standard Error of the Estimate = 14.211 Variable Estimated Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop -0.39637E-09 Intercept 35.821 Standard T-Ratio Err o r 33 DF 0.22567E-04 -1.7578 2.5307 14.154 1975 OR-Square = 0.0108 Variance of the Estimate = 4715.7 Standard Error of the Estimate = 68.671 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.67464E-04 Intercept 44.775 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.11224E-03 -0.60101 12.220 3.6608 APPENDIX A 114 Per Capita Total Expenditures Population Growth Rate 1979 it-Square = .0033 Variance of the Estimate = 58023. Standard Error of the Estimate = 240.88 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -3.1588 Intercept 1220.9 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 9.5886 -0.33256 63.347 19.273 Population Less Than 10,000 1979 R-Square = .0201 Variance of the Estimate = 44933 Standard Error of the Estimate = 221.97 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -10.052 Intercept 1199.3 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 14.955 -0.6721 72.284 16.591 1975 R-Square = .0002 Variance of the Estimate = 13149 Standard Error of the Estimate = 114.78 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop -0.18722 2.3389 -0.800E-01 Intercept 398.08 22.198 17.933 Population Less Than 10,000 1975 R-Square = .0183 Variance of the Estimate = 9005.9 Standard Error of the Estimate = 94.900 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 1.3572 Intercept 364.59 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 1.9898 0.68207 20.553 17.739 APPENDIX A 115 Per Capita General Government Expenditure Population Growth Rate 1979 R-Square = 0.1164 Variance of the Estimate = 191.62 Standard Error of the Estimate = 13.843 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop 1.1490 0.55104 2.0851 Intercept 48.543 3.6404 13.335 Population Less Than 10,000 1979 R-Square = 0.2242 Variance of the Estimate = 176.94 Standard Error of the Estimate = 13.302 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.69310 Intercept 53.865 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.93844 0.73857 4.5360 11.875 1975 R-Square = .0007 Variance of the Estimate = 66.99 Standard Error of the Estimate = 8.1847 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.24564E-02 Intercept 31.748 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.16694 -0.14768 1.5894 20.038 Population Less Than 10,000 1975 R-Square = .0064 Variance of the Estimate = 57.2233 Standard Error of the Estimate = 7.5653 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop -0.63820E-01 0.15862 -0.4025 Intercept 32.790 1.6384 20.013 APPENDIX A 116 Per Capita Conditional Grants Population Growth Rate 1979 R-Square = 0.0013 Variance of the Estimate = 54015 Standard Error of the Estimate = 21005 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -1.8461 Intercept 248.17 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 5.7694 -0.31998 38.115 8.5111 Population Less Than 10,000 1979 R-Square =» 0.0132 Variance of the Estimate = 66893 Standard Error of the Estimate = 258.64 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 9.8967 Intercept 345.98 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 18.247 0.54238 88.196 3.9229 1975 R-Square = 0.0336 Variance of the Estimate = 173.88 Standard Error of the Estimate = 13.186 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.28821 Intercept 22.454 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.26896 1.0715 2.5526 8.7964 Population Less Than 10,000 1975 R-Square - 0.0692 Variance of the Estimate = 181.68 Standard Error of the Estimate = 13.479 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop 0.38515 0.28262 1.3628 Intercept 22.022 2.9192 7.5448 APPENDIX A 117 Per Capita Grants in Lieu of Taxes Population Growth Rate 1979 R-Square = 0.0072 Variance of the Estimate = 285.84 Standard Error of the Estimate = 16.907 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.32933 Intercept 19.913 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.6730 0.48934 4.4981 4.4788 Population Less Than 10,000 1979 R-Square = 0.0354 Variance of the Estimate = 252.55 Standard Error of the Estimate = 15.892 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -1.0079 Intercept 24.738 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 1.1212 -0.89887 5.4191 4.5650 1975 R-Square = 0.0086 Variance of the Estimate = 94.964 Standard Error of the Estimate = 9.7450 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.10609 Intercept 11.927 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.19877 -0.53372 1.8864 6.3224 Population Less Than 10,000 1975 R-Square = 0.0124 Variance of the Estimate = 106.35 Standard Error of the Estimate = 10.313 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop -0.12129 0.21623 -0.56093 Intercept 11.901 2.2335 5.3284 APPENDIX A 118 Per Capita Transportation Expenditure Population Growth Rate 1979 R-Square = .0002 Variance of the Estimate = 502.21 Standard Error of the Estimate = 22.410 Variable Estimated Standard Name No. Coefficient Error Pop -0.79995E-01 .89207 Intercept 73.42E 5.8934 T-Ratio 33 DF -0.89673E-01 12.459 Population Less Than 10,000 1979 R-Square = 0.0812 Variance of the Estimate = 475.84 Standard Error of the Estimate = 21.814 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -2.1452 Intercept 82.420 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 1.5390 -1.3939 7.4386 11.080 1975 R-Square = 0.0413 Variance of the Estimate = 159.45 Standard Error of the Estimate = 12.614 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.38708 Intercept 37.783 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.35424 -1.0927 3.3619 11.238 Population Less Than 10,000 1975 R-Square = 0.0696 Variance of the Estimate = 167.96 Standard Error of the Estimate = 12.960 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.37162 Intercept 47.139 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.27173 -1.3676 2.8068 16.795 APPENDIX A 119 Per Capita Debt Charges 1979 R-Square = .0069 Variance of the Estimate = 40571 Standard Error of the Estimate = 201.42 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 3.8304 Intercept 294.37 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 8.0180 0.4772 52.970 5.5573 Population Less Than 10,000 1979 R-Square = 0.0118 Variance of the Estimate = 51276 Standard Error of the Estimate = 226.44 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 8.1753 Intercept 297.56 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 15.975 0.51174 77.218 3.8536 1975 R-Square = .0329 Variance of the Estimate = 595.03 Standard Error of the Estimate = 24.393 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.52745 Intercept 49.864 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.49755 -1.0601 '4.7221 10.560 Population Less Than 10,000 1975 R-Square = .0205 Variance of the Estimate = 704.77 Standard Error of the Estimate = 26.548 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop -0.40240 .55664 -0.72294 Intercept 50.112 5.7495 8.7159 APPENDIX A 120 Per Capita Debt Charges Population Growth Rate 1979 R-Square = .0069 Variance of the Estimate = 40571 Standard Er r o r of the Estimate = 201.42 Va r i a b l e Estimated Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop 3.8304 Intercept 294.37 Standard T-Ratio Err o r 33 DF 8.0180 0.4772 52.970 5.5573 Population Less Than 10,000 1979 R-Square = 0.0118 Variance of the Estimate = 51276 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 226.44 Variable Estimated Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop 8.1753 Intercept 297.56 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 15.975 0.51174 77.218 3.8536 1975 R-Square = .0329 Variance of the Estimate = 595.03 Standard Error of the Estimate = 24.393 Var i a b l e Estimated Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop -0.52745 Intercept 49.864 Standard T-Ratio Err o r 33 DF 0.49755 -1.0601 4.7221 10.560 Population Less Than 10,000 1975 R-Square = .0205 Variance of the Estimate = 704.77 Standard Er r o r of the Estimate = 26.548 Va r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Error 33 DF Pop -0.40240 .55664 -0.72294 Intercept 50.112 5.7495 8.7159 APPENDIX A 121 Per C a p i t a Environmental Development P o p u l a t i o n Growth Rate 1979 R-Square = 0.0495 Variance of the Estimate = 15.708 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 3.9634 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop 0.20589 0.15777 1.3113 I n t e r c e p t 2.9189 1.0423 2.8004 P o p u l a t i o n Less Than 10,000 1979 R-Square = 0.0001 Var i a n c e of the Estimate = 14.164 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 3.7635 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r Pop 0.11439E-01 0.26551 I n t e r c e p t 2.8560 1.2834 T-Ratio 33 DF 0.43084E-01 2.2254 1975 R-Square = Vari a n c e of the Estimate = Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = V a r i a b l e Estimated Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop -0.23922 I n t e r c e p t 9.7157 Standard T-Ratio E r r o r 33 DF 0.76233 -0.31343 7.2436 1.3413 P o p u l a t i o n Less Than 10,000 1975 R-Square = .0033 Var i a n c e of the Estimate = 1837.4 Standard E r r o r of the Estimate = 42.865 V a r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop -0.25968 0.89876 -0.28893 I n t e r c e p t 11.024 9.2834 1.1875 APPENDIX A 122 Per C a p i t a E n v i r o n m e n t a l H e a l t h P o p u l a t i o n Growth Rate 1979 R-Square = .0022 V a r i a n c e of the E s t i m a t e = 87.088 Standard E r r o r of the E s t i m a t e = 9.3321 V a r i a b l e E s t i m a t e d Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop 0 .99211E-01 I n t e r c e p t 28.092 Standard T - R a t i o E r r o r 33 DF 0.37148 0.28707 2.4542 11.447 P o p u l a t i o n Less Than 10,000 1979 R-Square = 0.0078 V a r i a n c e of the E s t i m a t e = 91.849 Standard E r r o r of the E s t i m a t e = 9.5838 V a r i a b l e E s t i m a t e d Standard T - R a t i o Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop - 0 . 2 8 1 5 0 0.67613 - 0 . 4 1 6 3 3 I n t e r c e p t 29.784 3.2681 9.1135 1975 R-Square = .0024 V a r i a n c e of the E s t i m a t e = 28.511 Standard E r r o r of the E s t i m a t e = 5.3448 V a r i a b l e E s t i m a t e d Standard T - R a t i o Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t E r r o r 33 DF Pop - 0 . 3 0 8 6 2 E - 0 1 0.10891 -02837 I n t e r c e p t 15.772 1.0336 15.251 P o p u l a t i o n L e s s Than 10,000 1975 R-Square = .0024 V a r i a n c e of the E s t i m a t e = 14.648 Standard E r r o r of the E s t i m a t e = 3.8272 V a r i a b l e E s t i m a t e d Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop - 0 . 1 9 6 0 4 E - 0 1 I n t e r c e p t 15.328 Standard T - R a t i o E r r o r 33 DF 0 .80247E-01 - 0 . 2 4 4 3 0,8288 18.493 APPENDIX A 123 Per Capita Protection Expenditures Population Growth Rate 1979 R-Square = 0.0934 Variance of the Estimate = 793.69 Standard Error of the Estimate = 28.172 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 2.0680 Intercept 50.385 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 1.1215 1.84407 7.4088 6.8007 Population Less Than 10,000 1979 R-Square = 0.1314 Variance of the Estimate = 8.910 Standard Error of the Estimate = 9.4821 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop 1.2205 0.66898 1.8245 Intercept 42.795 3.2334 13.235 1975 R-Square = .0349 Variance of the Estimate = 301.61 Standard Error of the Estimate = 17.367 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop 0.38708 0.35424 -1.0927 Intercept 37.783 3.3619 11.238 Population Less Than 10,000 1975 R-Square = 0.0636 Variance of the Estimate = 33.525 Standard Error of the Estimate = 5.7901 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.15817 Intercept 29.191 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.12146 -1.3028 1.2540 23.279 APPENDIX A Per Capita Public Health Expenditures Population Growth Rate 1979 R-Square = 0.0000 Variance of the Estimate = 128.31 Standard Error of the Estimate = 11.371 Variable Estimated Standard Name No. Coefficient Error Pop -0.13439E-01 0.45265 Intercept 15.800 2.9904 T-Ratio 33 DF -0.29689E-01 5.2838 Population Less Than 10,000 1979 R-Square = 0028 Variance of the Estimate = 117.34 Standard Error of the Estimate = 10.832 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.18946 Intercept 12.777 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.76421 0.24792 3.6938 3.4590 1975 R-Square = 0.0158 Variance of the Estimate = 59.194 Standard Error of the Estimate = 8.332 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.12414 Intercept 8.9002 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.16995 -0.7043 1.6130 5.5179 Population Less Than 10,000 1975 R-Square = 0038 Variance of the Estimate = 58.506 Standard Error of the Estimate = 7.6489 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop -0.49917E-01 0.16039 -0.30875 Intercept 7.0058 1.6566 4.2291 APPENDIX A Per Capita Recreation, Culture and Education Population Growth Rat« 1979 R-Square = 0.0090 Variance of the Estimate = 291.43 Standard Error of the Estimate = 17.071 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop -0.37147 0.67955 -054654 Intercept 60.049 4.4894 13.376 Population Less Than 10,000 1979 R-Square = 0.0347 Variance of the Estimate = 223.32 Standard Error of the Estimate = 14.944 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.93812 Intercept 62.214 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 1.0543 -0.88982 5.0959 12.209 1975 R-Square = 0.0478 Variance of the Estimate = 72.078 Standard Error of the Estimate = 8.4899 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.2229 Intercept 34.224 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.17317 1.2877 1.6435 20.824 Population Less Than 10,000 1975 R-Square = 0.0986 Variance of the Estimate = 55.200 Standard Error of the Estimate = 7.4297 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop 0.25757 0.15579 1.6534 Intercept 32.398 1.6091 20.135 APPENDIX A Per Capita Capital Expenditures Population Growth Rate 1979 R-Square = .0036 Variance of the Estimate = .10760E+06 Standard Error of the Estimate = 32712 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop -4.5158 13.021 -0.34678 Intercept 620.05 86.025 7.2078 Population Less Than 10,000 1979 R-Square = 0.0011 Variance of the Estimate = .12845E+06 Standard Error of the Estimate = Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 4.0118 Intercept 593.54 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 25.285 0.15866 122.21 4.8565 1975 R-Square = .0076 Variance of the Estimate = 0.20122E+10 Standard Error of the Estimate = 141.89 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop 1.4537 28941 0.50229 Intercept 230.95 27.467 8.4081 Population Less Than 10,000 1975 R-Square = .0031 Variance of the Estimate = 16705 Standard Error of the Estimate = 129.25 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop 0.75606 2.7100 0.2789E Intercept 223.37 27.992 7.9797 APPENDIX A 127 Per Capita Total Revenues Population Growth Rate 1979 R-Square = 0.0039 Variance of the Estimate = 48155 Standard Error of the Estimate = 219.44 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop -3.1275 8.7353 -0.35803 Intercept 631.59 57.709 10.944 Population Less Than 10,000 1979 R-Square = 0.0853 Variance of the Estimate = 21683 Standard Error of the Estimate = 147.25 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop -14.878 10.389 -1.4322 Intercept 606.03 50.214 12.069 1975 R-Square = 0.0824 Variance of the Estimate = 91340 Standard Error of the Estimate = 95.572 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop -3.3552 1.9494 -1.7212 Intercept 361.14 18.501 19.520 Population Less Than 10,000 1975 R-Square = 0.0865 Variance of the Estimate = 3763.7 Standard Error of the Estimate = 61.349 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop -1.9787 1.2863 -1.5383 Intercept 326.95 13.287 24.608 APPENDIX A 128 Per Capita Property Tax Population Growth Rate 1979 R-Square = 0.0120 Variance of the Estimate = 2485.3 Standard Error of the Estimate = 49.852 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop 1.2574 1.9845 0.63364 Intercept 262.79 13.110 20.045 Population Less Than 10,000 1979 R-Square = 0.0541 Variance of the Estimate = 2186.2 Standard Error of the Estimate = 46.757 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -3.7015 Intercept 270.71 1975 R-Square = 0.0601 Variance of the Estimate = 942.63 Standard Error of the Estimate = 30.702 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 3.2987 -1.1221 15.944 16.978 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.91003 Intercept 165.21 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.62623 -1.4532 5.9434 27.797 Population Less Than 10,000 1975 R-Square = 0.085 Variance of the Estimate = 823.58 Standard Error of the Estimate = 28.698 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.93745 Intercept 160.44 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.60173 -15579 6.2153 25.816 Per Capita Other Tax APPENDIX A Population Growth Rate 1979 R-Square = 0.0720 Variance of the Estimate = 313.91 Standard Error of the Estimate = 17.718 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -1.1287 Intercept 39.477 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.70528 -1.6003 4.5594 8.4726 Population Less Than 10,000 1979 R-Square = 0.0096 Variance of the Estimate = 254.33 Standard Error of the Estimate = 15.948 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.51831 Intercept 35.206 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 1.1251 -0.46068 5.4383 6.4737 1975 R-Square =» 0.0616 Variance of the Estimate = 99.314 Standard Error of the Estimate = 9.9657 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.29914 Intercept 26.053 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.20327 -1.4717 1.9292 13.505 Population Less Than 10,000 1975 R-Square = 0.0395 Variance of the Estimate = 83.952 Standard Error of the Estimate = 9.1625 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop -0.19485 0.19211 -1.0142 Intercept 25.044 1.9844 12.621 APPENDIX A 130 Per Capita Unconditional Grants Population Growth Rate 1979 R-Square = 0.0031 Variance of the Estimate = 21006 Standard Error of the Estimate = 144.94 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop -1.48461 5.7694 -0.31998 Intercept 248.17 38.115 8.5111 Population Less Than 10,000 1979 R-Square = 0.0093 Variance of the Estimate = 24272 Standard Error of the Estimate = 155.80 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop -4.9898 10.991 -0.45397 Intercept 258.62 53.127 4.8680 1975 R-Square = 0.1093 Variance of the Estimate = 4245.1 Standard Error of the Estimate = 65.162 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop 2.674 1.329 2.0128 Intercept 30.065 12.614 2.3835 Population Less Than 10,000 1975 R-Square = .1100 Variance of the Estimate = 5430 Standard Error of the Estimate = 73.68 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop 2.7154 1.6451 1.7575 Intercept 34.808 15.959 2.1811 APPENDIX A 131 Per Capita Sale of Goods & Services Population Growth Rate 1979 R-Square - 0.0286 Variance of the Estimate = 20089 Standard Error of the Estimate = 141.45 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop -5.5499 5.6308 -0.98564 Intercept 180.88 37.199 4.8624 Population Less Than 10,000 1979 R-Square = 0.1043 Variance of the Estimate = 6666.1 Standard Error of the Estimate = 81.646 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -9.2215 Intercept 148.79 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 5.7601 -1.6009 27.842 5.3441 1975 R-Square = 0.0384 Variance of the Estimate = 5522.3 Standard Error of the Estimate = 74.312 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop -1.7389 1.5157 -1.1472 Intercept 94.789 14.385 6.5892 Population Less Than 10,000 1975 R-Square = 0.0151 Variance of the Estimate = 1895.9 Standard Error of the Estimate = 43.542 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop -0.56540 0.91296 -0.61931 Intercept 65.020 9.4300 6.8950 APPENDIX A 132 Per Capita Other Revenue Population Growth Rate 1979 R-Square = 0.0032 Variance of the Estimate = 767.24 Standard Error of the Estimate = 24.699 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop -0.3599 1.1026 -0.32649 Intercept 75.804 7.2843 10.406 Population Less Than 10,000 1979 R-Square = 0.0000 Variance of the Estimate = 563.90 Standard Error of the Estimate = 23.746 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 33 DF Pop -0.40300E-01 1.6753 -0.2405E-01 Intercept 67.247 8.0977 8.3046 1975 R-Square = 0.0768 Variance of the Estimate = 160.22 Standard Error of the Estimate = 12.658 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.42766 Intercept 26.738 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.25818 1.6564 2.4503 10.912 Population Less Than 10,000 1975 R-Square = 0.1548 Variance of the Estimate = 127.46 Standard Error of the Estimate = Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.50650 Intercept 24.758 Standard T-Ratio Error 33 DF 0.23672 2.1392 2.4451 10.125 APPENDIX B 133 Per Capita Property Tax Population Size (without the two large cities) 1979 R-Square = 0.0410 Variance of the Estimate = 2319.7 Standard Error of the Estimate = 48.164 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 31 DF Pop 0.81769E-03 0.71065E-03 1.1506 Intercept 256.76 11.408 22.507 1978 R-Square = 0.0781 Variance of the Estimate = 1747.4 Standard Error of the Estimate = 41.802 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.10587E-02 Intercept 228.09 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.65320E-03 1.6208 9.9128 23.009 1977 R-Square = 0.0444 Variance of the Estimate = 1107.8 Standard Error of the Estimate = 33.283 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.65347E-03 Intercept 198.55 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.54452E-03 1.2001 7.8583 25.266 APPENDIX B 134 Per Capita Other Tax Population Size (without the two large cities) 1979 R-Square = 0.0090 Variance of the Estimate = 233.34 Standard Error of the Estimate = 15.275 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 31 DF Pop -0.11934E 0.22539E-03 -0.52950 Intercept 32.631 3.6180 9.0189 1978 R-Square = 0.0118 Variance of the Estimate = 225.03 Standard Error of the Estimate = 15.01 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.14244E-02 Intercept 30.511 Standard T-Ratio . Error 31 DF 0.23440E-03 -0.60765 2.5573 8.5772 1977 R-Square = 0.0017 Variance of the Estimate = 165.67 Standard Error of the Estimate = 12.871 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.48420E-04 Intercept 26.069 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.21058E-03 -0.22994 3.0390 8.5782 APPENDIX B 135 Per Capita Grant in Lieu of Taxes Population Size (without the two large cities) 1 9 7 9 R-Square = 0.0004 Variance of the Estimate = 246.23 Standard Error of the Estimate = 15.692 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 31 DF Pop -0.25620E-04 0.23153E-03 -0.11065 Intercept 20.662 3.7167 5.5592 1978 R-Square - 0.0016 Variance of the Estimate = 287.86 Standard Error of the Estimate = 16.966 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.59456E-04 Intercept 20.825 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.26512E-03 -0.22427 4.0233 5.1761 1977 R-Square • 0.0012 Variance of the Estimate = 290.18 Standard Error of the Estimate = 17.035 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.54561E-04 Intercept 16.325 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.27869E-03 0.19578 4.0220 4.0590 APPENDIX B 136 Per Capita Services to Other Governments Population Size (without the two large cities) 1979 R-Square = 0.0035 Variance of the Estimate =15.187 Standard Error of the Estimate = 3.8970 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.19065E-04 Intercept ' 2.1830 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.57501E-04 0.33156 0.92303 2.3650 1978 R-Square = 0.0024 Variance of the Estimate = 13.393 Standard Error of the Estimate = 3.6597 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.15480E-04 Intercept 2.2809 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.57186E-04 0.27069 0.86784 2.6282 1977 R-Square = 0.0043 Variance of the Estimate = 12.155 Standard Error of the Estimate = 3.864 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.20945E-04 Intercept 2.4744 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.57039E-04 -0.36721 0.82317 3.0059 APPENDIX B 137 Per Capita Sales of Goods and Services Population Size (without the two large cities) 1979 R-Square = 0.3171 Variance of the Estimate = 9983.8 Standard Error of the Estimate = 99.919 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.55938-02 Intercept 73.207 Standard Error 0.14743E-02 23.666 T-Ratio 31 DF 3.7942 3.0933 1978 R-Square = 0.3114 Variance of the Estimate = 9788.9 Standard Error of the Estimate = 98.939 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.57879E-02 Intercept 62.339 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.15460E-02 3.7437 23.462 2.6570 1977 R-Square = O.3258 Variance of the Estimate = 6290.0 Standard Error of the Estimate = 79-309 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 31 DF Pop 0.50219E-02 0.12975E-02 3.8704 Intercept 58.459 18.725 3.1218 APPENDIX B 138 Per Capita Other Revenue Own Sources Population Size (without the two large cities) 1979 R-Square = 0.1582 Variance of the Estimate = 619.02 Standard Error of the Estimate = 24.880 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 31 DF Pop 0.88597E-03 0.36710E-03 2.4134 Intercept 62.337 5.8930 10.578 1978 R-Square = 0.2004 Variance of the Estimate = 255.28 Standard Error of the Estimate = 15.978 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.69583E-03 Intercept 46.176 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.24966E-03 2.7871 3.7889 12.187 1977 R-Square = 0.1189 Variance of the Estimate = 296.23 Standard Error of the Estimate = 17.211 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.57589E-03 Intercept 40.490 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.28158E-03 2.0452 4.0637 9.9639 APPENDIX B 139 Per Capita Unconditional Grants Population Size (without the two large cities) 1979 R-Square = 0.0045 Variance of the Estimate = 209.58 Standard Error of the Estimate = 144.77 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.79896E-03 Intercept 255.36 Standard Error 0.21360E-02 34.289 T-Ratio 31 DF -0.37404 7.4472 1978 R-Square = 0.0186 Variance of the Estimate = 706.06 Standard Error of the Estimate = 26.572 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.31839E-03 Intercept 48.630 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.41521E-03 -0.76682 6.3011 7.7176 1977 R-Square = 0.0551 Variance of the Estimate = 320.98 Standard Error of the Estimate = 17.916 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.39414E-03 Intercept 46.109 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.29311E-03 -1.3447 4.2301 10.900 APPENDIX B 140 Per Capita Conditional Grants Population Size (without the two large cities) 1979 R-Square = 0.001 Variance of the Estimate = 564.72 Standard Error of the Estimate = 237.64 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.16369E-03 Intercept 366.19 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.35064E-02 -0.46685E-01 56.286 6.5060 1978 R-Square = 0.0154 Variance of the Estimate = 1797.1 Standard Error of the Estimate =» 42.392 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.46113E-03 Intercept 38.508 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.66242E-03 0.69614 10.053 3.8306 1977 R-Square = 0.0534 Variance of the Estimate = 735.42 Standard Error of the Estimate = 27.119 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 31 DF Pop 0.58647E-03 0.44367E-03 1.3219 Intercept 28.749 6.4029 4.4899 APPENDIX B 141 Per Capita Total Expenditure Population Size (without the two large cities) 1979 R-Square = 0.1303 Variance of the Estimate = 436.65 Standard Error of the Estimate = 208.96 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.66452E-02 Intercept 1108.0 Standard Error 0.30832E-02 49.494 T-Ratio 31 DF 2.1553 22.386 1978 R-Square = 0.2177 Variance of the Estimate = 342.47 Standard Error of the Estimate = 185.06 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.84926E-02 Intercept 518.80 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.28917-02 2.9369 43.884 11.822 1977 R-Square = 0.2957 Variance of the Estimate = 240.84 Standard Error of the Estimate = 155.19 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 31 DF Pop 0.91595E-02 0.25339E-02 3.6076 Intercept 410.77 36.641 11.211 APPENDIX B 142 Per Capita Public Health Population Size (without the two large cities) 1979 R-Square = 0.0484 Variance of the Estimate = 123.78 Standard Error of the Estimate = 11.126 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 31 DF Pop 0.20617E-03 0.16416E-03 1.2559 Intercept 12.852 2.6352 4.8770 1978 R-Square = 0.0030 Variance of the Estimate = 2966.4 Standard Error of the Estimate = 54.465 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.26046E-03 Intercept 24.397 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.85107E-03 -0.30604 12.916 1.8889 1977 R-Square = 0.0227 Variance of the Estimate = 86.710 Standard Error of the Estimate = 9.3118 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 31 DF Pop 0.12920E-03 0.15234E-03 0.84806 Intercept 10.107 2.1986 4.5973 APPENDIX B 143 Per Capita Total Revenue Own Sources Population Size (without the two large cities) 1979 R-Square = 0.3178 Variance of the Estimate = 263.65 Standard Error of the Estimate = 162.37 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.91046E-02 Intercept 491.21 Standard Error 0.23958E-02 38.459 T-Ratio 31 DF 3.8002 12.772 1978 R-Square = 0.2733 Variance of the Estimate = 260.12 Standard Error of the Estimate = 161.28 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.86047E-02 Intercept 434.76 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.25202E-02 3.4143 38.246 11.368 1977 R-Square = 0.4483 Variance of the Estimate = 127.82 Standard Error of the Estimate = 113.06 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 31 DF Pop 0.92838E-02 O.18497E-02 5.0192 Intercept 347.58 26.694 13.021 APPENDIX B 144 Per Capita Transportation Expenditures Population Size (without the two large cities) 1979 R-Square = 0.0000 Variance of the Estimate = 489.57 Standard Error of the Estimate = 22.128 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.53048E-05 Intercept 73.310 Standard Error 0.32647E-03 5.2407 T-Ratio 31 DF 0.16249E-01 13.989 1978 R-Square = 0.0474 Variance of the Estimate = 440.89 Standard Error of the Estimate = 20.997 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.40739E-03 Intercept 61.738 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.32810E-03 1.2416 4.9792 12.399 1977 R-Square = 0.0524 Variance of the Estimate = 233.44 Standard Error of the Estimate = 15.279 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.32731E-03 Intercept 59.889 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.24996E-03 -1.3094 3.6074 16.602 APPENDIX B 145 Per Capita Protection Expenditure Population Size (without the two large cities) 1979 R-Square = 0.7023 Variance of the Estimate = 170.23 Standard Error of the Estimate = 13.047 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 31 DF Pop 0.16462E-02 0.19251E-03 8.5509 Intercept 38.535 3.0903 12.469 1978 R-Square = 0.6375 Variance of the Estimate = 144.42 Standard Error of the Estimate = 12.017 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.13865E-02 Intercept 33.446 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.18778E-03 7.3834 2.8498 11.736 1977 R-Square = 0.7381 Variance of the Estimate = 86.039 Standard Error of the Estimate = 9.2757 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 31 DF Pop 0.14185E-02 0.15175E-03 9.3476 Intercept 28.574 2.1901 13.047 APPENDIX B 146 Per Capita Capital Expenditures Population Size (without the two large cities) 1979. R-Square = 0.0021 Variance of the Estimate = 0.11254E+06 Standard Error of the Estimate = 335.47 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 31 DF Pop 0.12660E-02 0.49499E-02 0.25576 Intercept 592.17 79.459 7.4526 1978 R-Square = 0.0053 Variance of the Estimate = 797.77 Standard Error of the Estimate = 282.45 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 31 DF Pop -0.17951E-02 0.44135E-02 -0.40672 Intercept 460.56 66.979 6.8761 1977 R-Square = 0.0088 Variance of the Estimate = 479.76 Standard Error of the Estimate = 219.03 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.18806E-02 Intercept 305.09 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.35834E-02 0.52479 51.715 5.8994 APPENDIX B 147 Per Capita General Government Expenditures Population Size (without the two large cities) 1979 R-Square = 0.0149 Variance of the Estimate = 206.39 Standard Error of the Estimate = 14.366 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 31 DF Pop -0.14521E-03 0.21197E-03 -0.68505 Intercept 56.959 3.4027 16.739 1978 R-Square = 0.0010 Variance of the Estimate = 221.98 Standard Error of the Estimate = 14.899 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.41605E-04 Intercept 50.233 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.23281E-03 -0.17871 3.5331 14.218 1977 R-Square = 0.0794 Variance of the Estimate = 284.04 Standard Error of the Estimate = 16.853 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 31 DF Pop 0.45074E-03 0.27573E-03 1.6347 Intercept 42.412 3.9792 10.658 APPENDIX B 148 Per Capita Debt Charges Population Size (without the two large cities) 1979 R-Square = 0.0036 Variance of the Estimate = 422.80 Standard Error of the Estimate = 205.62 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 31 DF Pop -0.10187E-02 0.30339E-02 -0.33577 Intercept 318.04 48.702 6.5302 1978 R-Square = 0.0139 Variance of the Estimate = 9658.1 Standard Error of the Estimate = 98.276 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop -0.10144E-02 Intercept 103.69 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.15356E-02 -0.66058 23.305 4.4495 1977 R-Square = 0.0010 Variance of the Estimate = 669.93 Standard Error of the Estimate = 25.883 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 31 DF Pop -0.73692E-04 0.42345E-03 -0.17403 Intercept 63.003 6.111 10.310 APPENDIX B 149 Per Capita Environmental Health Population Size (without the two large cities) 1979 R-Square = 0.0484 Variance of the Estimate = 123.78 Standard Error of the Estimate = 11.126 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 31 DF Pop 0.20617E-03 0.16416E-03 1.2559 Intercept 12.852 2.6352 4.8770 1978 R-Square = 0.0406 Variance of the Estimate = 62.567 Standard Error of the Estimate = 7.9099 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.14164E-03 Intercept 22.920 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.12360E-03 1.1459 1.8757 12.219 1977 R-Square = 0.1347 Variance of the Estimate = 26.641 Standard Error of the Estimate = 5.1615 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.18547-03 Intercept 19.542 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.84442E-04 2.1964 1.2187 16.035 APPENDIX B 150 Per Capita Environmental Development Population Size (without the two large cities) 1979 R-Square = 0.1300 Variance of the Estimate = 12.495 Standard Error of the Estimate = 3.5348 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.11224E-03 Intercept 2.3549 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.52156E-04 2.1520 0.83723 2.8127 1978 R-Square = 0.0182 Variance of the Estimate = 16.744 Standard Error of the Estimate = 4.0919 Variable Estimated Name No. Coefficient Pop 0.48517E-04 Intercept 2.8260 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.63941E-04 0.75078 0.97035 2.9123 1977 R-Square = 0.0982 Variance of the Estimate = 4.9020 Standard Error of the Estimate = 2.2140 Variable Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. Coefficient Error 31 DF Pop 0.66564E-04 0.36222E-04 1.8376 Intercept 1.3262 0.52275 2.5369 APPENDIX B 151 Per Capita Recreation, Culture & Education Population Size (without the two large c i t i e s ) 1979 R-Square = 0.0298 Variance of the Estimate = 294.23 Standard Error of the Estimate = 17.153 Var i a b l e Estimated Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop 0.24693E-03 Intercept 54.759 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.25309E-03 0.97566 4.0628 13.478 1978 R-Square = 0.0067 Variance of the Estimate = 145.79 Standard Error of the Estimate = 12.074 Var i a b l e Estimated Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Pop 0.86173E-04 Intercept 54.154 Standard T-Ratio Error 31 DF 0.18867E-03 0.45673 2.8633 18.913 1977 R-Square = 0.0843 Variance of the Estimate = 138.96 Standard Error of the Estimate = 11.788 Va r i a b l e Estimated Standard T-Ratio Name No. C o e f f i c i e n t Error 31 DF Pop 0.32571E-03 0.19285E-03 1.6889 Intercept 44.022 2.7832 15.817 152 850 800 j 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 Per Capita Revenue From Own Sources 1978 per capita total revenue = 434.76 + .860E-02 pop. size 250 200 150 100 50 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 Population Size 153 Per Capita P r o t e c t i o n Expenditures 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 1978 per capi ta protect ion exp.= 33-45 +.139E-02 pop. s i ze . 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 Population Size 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095750/manifest

Comment

Related Items