HJ 9289.N45 Ad O) I b ' 599180 ho~ ' i'm 11..i. III14 Alvaf 1ir ~ST TE OF N WYOR0 Yq1k REPORT OF THE Joint Legislative Committee FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF THE FINANk1CES OF THE CITY OF N*EWV YORK TRANSMITTED TO THE LEGISLATURE FEBRUARY 7, 1916. 3, R LYON COMPAY FIWf I D. of D. JUN 18 1917 445 H3 CA % I 14 UiVEIslTY b6 CHICACE LIBRARIf 266892 MARCH 1930 STATE OF NEW YORK No. 25 IN SENATE February 7, 1916. Report of the Joint Legislative Committee for the Investigation of the Finances of the City of New York 7To the Senate and Assembly: The Joint Committee appointed to inquire into the finances of the city of New York, respectfully submits its first report: The city's budget for 1916 appropriates $212,956,177.54, of which $13,975,021.73 is a tax for the support of the State government. The serious objection by some of the leading city officials to a direct State tax amounting to less than 6 per cent. of the city's budget, called the attention of the Legislature sharply to the city's financial condition. It was urged that the city was not in a condition to bear the burden in addition to the local expense; that it would bear harshly on the taxpayers and would unduly restrict necessary municipal undertakings and administration. Quite apart from the controversy as to the necessity of the levy by the State, the Legislature was impelled to inquire into the grounds of these objections as affecting the future policy of the State in restricting expenditures for State purposes and in placing its greatest municipality on a sound financial basis. It is of the first importance to the State that all civil divisions be in a financial condition to respond to proper and necessary State taxation, and it is the first responsibility of the State to see that its greatest,Jt [3]. t 4 [SENATE municipality, containing half its inhabitants and 68 per cent. of its taxable real property, maintain its solvency and economic freedom. Every citizen of the State within or without the city is entitled to be guaranteed by the State against excessive or confiscatory taxation. Bearing in mind these obvious truths, the Committee has proceeded with its investigation far enough to be convinced that it should now make its first report with a view to securing the passage during the present session of the Legislature of several measures of relief. DEBT LIMIT The'population of the city in 1900 or two years after consolidation was 3,337,000. By the State enumeration of 1915, there is a population of 5,047,000, an increase of 50 per cent. The debt of the city is classified as exempt and non-exempt. The exempt debt has been incurred for water supply and other revenue-producing improvements, and is not restricted by the constitutional debt limit of 10 per cent. of the assessed valuation of real property. Other debts, with certain exceptions, which will be later referred to, are restricted by this limitation, and are known as non-exempt debt. The non-exempt debt has increased with astonishing rapidity and on December 31, 1915, amounted to $800,000,000. Table A, showing the debt limit as of October 1, 1915, is herewith submitted. Table B showing the net funded debt from consolidation to date is herewith submitted. Long term bonds have been issued for current charges to the amount of $78,000,000. Non-income producing improvements like parks, roadways, bridges and public buildings, account for the greater part. It includes $111,000,000, incurred for subways, but of this only three and a half millions will become exempt for many years. Meantime this investment will do no more to carry the debt incurred for construction than a public park to carry the cost of its purchase. The budget in 1900 was $92,397,446.46, and the budget for 1916 is $212,956,177.54, an increase of more than 130 per cent. Table C, showing the annual growth of the budget is herewith submitted, No. 25] The assessed valuation of real estate in 1900 amounted to $3,168,557,700; in 1915 to $8,108,000,000. The evidence shows that the rate of assessment in 1900 was 66 2-3 per cent. of the real value, and in 1915, 100 per cent. of the real value. If the assessment in 1900 had been upon the basis of 1915, it would have amounted to $4,752,000,000, showing an increase in real estate value between 1900 and 1915 of 70 per cent. The tax rate for Manhattan in 1900 was approximately 2.25; in 1915, 1.87. If the assessment of 1900 had been upon the basis of 1915, the tax rate of 1900 would have been 1.50. While there has been an apparent decrease in the tax rate of.38, there has been an actual increase in the tax rate of.37. The basis of assessment was changed to full value in 1903, and the rate of taxation has been increasing steadily from that date to the present. Table D, showing the rate of taxation and the assessments in the various boroughs, is herewith submitted. The real potential borrowing capacity in 1900 was greater than the apparent by more than $150,000,000 or 10 per cent. of the difference between the actual and assessed valuation. On December 31, 1915, the city was within eight million dollars of the constitutional limit on a full assessment. For several years the city has been in debt substantially to the debt limit and is now only constructively within that limit. The city is always in debt from fifty to one hundred million for revenue bonds and bills issued in anticipation of the semiannual tax levy. The tax collections never overtake and discharge the debt, and the securities are always in the hands of the public. The amount so outstanding on November 30, 1915, was $63,547,306.51. Table E, showing this indebtedness for each month of the last two years, is herewith submitted. There is an annual deficiency from uncollectible taxes of approximately four million dollars which is carried by revenue bonds issued against the tax levy until provided for in the next levy. There is now outstanding $8,700,000 of uncollectible taxes and assessments inherited from the past which are not computed as a part of the city debt. Appropriations for payment on the non-exempt debt incorporated in the budget in October to be paid from taxes collected 6 [SENATE in May and November of the following year are constructively applied to the bonded debt as of the following first of January, or months before the taxes are payable. The amount so applied upon the funded debt as of January 1, 1916, was $12,000,000. The city issues annually $6,000,000 of special revenue bonds for current expenses which is paid by a charge to " debt service" in the succeeding budget. It is apparent that the city has availed itself of its debt incurring capacity to the utmost limit, and that the debt has been increased through various devices, partly statutory and partly judicial, in actual excess of the prescribed limit. This policy has served the purpose of getting more money to spend, while keeping down the tax rate. The inevitable has happened, and the tax rate is mounting so fast as to lead the city officials and taxpayers' associations to protest that the last budget creates a tax crisis. In this view the Committee coincides. It is true that the tax rate may go higher, and that it is in fact higher in some American cities, but with every increase the condition must become more critical. As appears from published statistics the present debt of Boston is $84,000,0100; of Philadelphia, $100,000,000; of Chicago, $26,000,000; of St. Louis, $22,000,000; of Baltimore, $60,000,000. The debt of New York is three times the combined debt of these five cities, although its population is less than their combined population. On the basis of the city's present municipal activities, there is no prospect of a reduction in taxes. The Comptroller has made estimates for the committee showing that the budget of 1916 will exceed $215,000,000; the budget of 1917, $216,000,000; the budget of 1918, $225,000,000; and the budget of 1919, $238,000,000. These estimates in detail are herewith submitted (Table F.). This critical condition may be partially and temporarily relieved by an improved real estate market, by new sources of revenue, or the absence of a direct State tax, but there is no promise of permanent or reliable relief unless methods are changed; otherwise the crisis will continue under more aggravated conditions. No. 25] 7 PAY-As-You-Go POLICY Great embarrassment and loss in the city's finances have arisen from the custom of keeping a large amount of short time commercial paper on the market. In August, 1914, the city had outstanding of such paper $25,000,000 in corporate stock notes, issuedin anticipation of bond issues, and $73,000,000 of short time paper chargeable to current revenues issued in anticipation of taxes. Of this paper $77,000,000 was held in Europe. The crisis resulting from the war compelled the city to borrow of the New York banks $100,000,000 to meet this paper and current expenses and to charge off a loss of more than $4,000,000 in expenses, commissions and interest. The city was caught in the same way in 1907 and the city administration in each case regarded itself as fortunate in escaping a worse predicament from a default on the city's commercial paper. The issuing of short-term paper in anticipation of taxes is unavoidable under the present system of collecting taxes for each calendar (fiscal) year, in May and November. The city always spends borrowed money for its current expenses. Such issues could be avoided if taxes were collected in January and July. The Committee favors making this change. To avoid the shock that would otherwise be felt by real estate, it should be provided that taxpayers may in 1917 have until April 30 instead of May 31 in which to pay taxes, and a sliding scale adopted for three years, so that January 31 and July 31 will be the last days for the payment of taxes in 1920. The annual interest charge for these loans has averaged three and a half million dollars. The total amount paid in the last ten years is $36,470,837, or substantially $5,000,000 more than the city has paid during the same period in direct State taxes. To this amount, lost to the city through a system of discounting substantially all of the taxes before they reach the city treasury, must be added the $4,000,000 lost on the hundred million loan in 1914, and upwards of $1,000,000 lost in 1907. The $100,000,000 loan of 1914 was as embarrassing to the commercial world as to the city. Credit was greatly restricted, the Stock Exchange closed, and a panic feared. The financial institutions of the city were confronted without warning with 8 [SENATE the necessity of loaning the city this large sum, of which more than $77,000,000 had to be paid abroad in gold or exchange. Issued without any of the restraints incident to the issue of business paper, without available assets of the city to retire any part of it when due, without the usual obligation on the part of banking houses to care for a customer, and with little, if any public knowledge of its existence, it had to be met to save the credit of the city and the country. The city might hope to be rescued by its citizens from even greater disasters than would have resulted from default on its paper in 1914 if such disasters were threatened or suffered from unavoidable causes, but it is intolerable that the city habitually transact its business in a way that exposes it to such humiliation and loss. If the city had defaulted, its credit would have suffered for an indefinite period. The loss in value of its securities in the market would have added seriously to the burdens of the taxpayer. Two escapes in seven years, attended by a loss of millions of dollars, is warning enough to the city to place her finances upon an independent basis. The syndicate which financed this loan imposed as a condition of its negotiation the adoption of the pay-as-you-go policy, and the Board of Estimate on the eleventh day of September, 1914, adopted the following resolution: Resolved, That the Board of Estimate and Apportionment hereby declares that it will pursue the following plan in financing public improvements: (1) The cost of all improvements of the revenue-producing class, such as rapid transit, docks, railway and water terminals and water supply, shall be defrayed by the issue of fifty-year corporate stock as heretofore; 2. The cost of all permanent improvements, other than those of the revenue-producing class, hereafter authorized by this board, shall be financed as follows: (a) Those authorized subsequent to the passage of this resolution and during the year 1915 shall be paid for, threequarters by the issue of fifteen-year corporate stock. The corporate stock so issued shall mature either in not more than fifteen years, amortized as provided by law, or in equal annual installments, during a period of not more than fifteen years. The remaining onequarter of the cost of such improvements shall be paid through the medium of a one-year bond payable from the next annual tax budget. No. 25] 9 (b) Those authorized in the year 1916 shall be paid for, onehalf by the issue of corporate stock maturing as aforesaid. The remaining one-half of the cost of such improvements shall be paid through the medium of a one-year bond payable from the next annual tax budget. (c) Those authorized in the year 1917 shall be paid for, onequarter by the issue of corporate stock as aforesaid. The remaining three-quarters of the cost of such improvements shall be paid through the medium of a one-year bond payable from the next annual tax budget. (d) The foregoing statements of policy contemplate the financing of improvements authorized during the year 1918 and subsequent years through the inclusion of the entire cost thereof in the annual budget of the city, excepting the revenue-producing improvements hereinbefore mentioned. (3) In so far as corporate stock notes issued by the City of New York as a part of the proposed loan of $100,000,000 shall be retired by issues of corporate stock, the corporate stock so issued shall mature as provided in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 of these resolutions. (4) The cost of public works already authorized, whether under contract or not, but in respect of which new bonds are to be issued, is to be financed in the same manner as above provided, with the exception of the cost of revenue-producing improvements hereinbefore mentioned. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to affect either corporate stock or assessment bonds issued to replenish the street improvement fund or the fund for street and park openings. This resolution sets forth a sound policy and will unquestionably be adhered to by the present administration. It was adopted, however, not as a pledge by this administration, but as a pledge by the city, in part consideration of the loan. In no other way could the city's credit be saved. The resolution should be incorporated in the city charter. If as some have argued, this may tie the hands of the city when the public interest requires it to incur a liability too great to be paid as a current charge, a special bill can be had if it meets administrative and popular approval. In any event, such a crisis will be negligible in comparison with the crisis that is sure to follow a breach of faith, and the greater crisis that will follow a return to past financial policies. If these reforms are instituted, they are sure to have a marked effect in enforcing economy on administration, offer a beneficial 10 [SENATE restraint on new ventures, and eventually give the city a reasonable and safe margin of borrowing capacity. The city cannot afford permanently to do business with an exhausted credit. To meet the ordinary expenses of its daily life is not enough. Prudence requires a reasonable preparation for emergencies, to which it is exposed equally with individuals. Some evidence has been given before the Committee as to a reasonable margin of borrowing capacity. No one has placed it at less than $50,000,000, and that modest figure, which is less than a quarter of the annual budget, has apparently been suggested with reference more to the city's present financial condition than to possible emergencies. THE SINKING FUN1)s Before closing this branch of this report, it is proper to refer to the various sinking funds of the city. They are eight in number, and contain in the aggregate $368,716,855.21. The amounts in the several funds represent a proper amortization of the debts they are created to secure, and are punctiliously maintained. But they consist almost wholly of bonds and securities issued by the city. They therefore amount to nothing more than a retirement pro tanto of such bonds and securities. Contributions from the budget are regularly made to them, and interest upon the securities in the funds paid by the city. As soon, however, as there are any considerable funds on hand they are used for investment in new issues of city securities. Sinking Fund No. 1, being for the security of $86,000,000 of bonds issued by the city before consolidation, is supported by various revenues pledged to its maintenance. The fund is substantially complete and the revenues continue to flow in at the rate of $25,000,000 annually. The fund consists, however, under the investments made, of other bonds of the city, and under legislation subsequently had the city deposits in this fund bonds known as general fund bonds, now amounting to $200,000,000, and receives the moneys paid to the fund for general purposes. It is therefore nothing more than a conduit for the receipt by the city of its revenues, and the two hundred million of general fund bonds are a form to effect the transfer only. If the city were to No. 25 ] 11 purchase the outstanding securities or pay them when due, it would have to sell its own securities in or out of the sinking fund, and there would be the same liability to the public that now exists. This anomalous condition cannot be corrected until the $86,000,000 falls due in 1929. The same process is had in the other funds, except that they are supported by direct appropriation. These facts are correctly shown in the statement of the debt limit, where the securities of the city issued by the city and deposited in the sinking funds, are deducted from the debt. There is no security for the bonds in the hands of the public, except the debt-paying capacity of the city. So far as consistent with the terms under which existing bonds were issued, this system should be changed and sinking funds for future issues abolished. The maintenance of the sinking fund involves many transactions which cannot be carried on without considerable expense. They are misleading because they involve the idea of security. If all of them could be abolished, it would be without the loss of any security to bond holders, and simplify the statement of the city's finances. So far as practicable, future issues of bonds should be made upon the serial bond plan, and the fullest opportunity for popular subscriptions consistent with the public interest afforded. If existing laws are inadequate to effect these changes, the Committee will, in consultation with the financial authorities of the city, frame amendments foT the purpose. DIVERSIONS OF REVENUE Various receipts of revenue for city purposes, amounting to more than $500,000 annually, are diverted to special service by law. These include appropriations to the Fire Department Relief Fund, the Police Pension Fund, the Health Department Pensions, and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The only case in which the funds so diverted are adequate for the charge borne by the city is that of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. While these appropriations for specific purposes reduce the annual budget to the amount of the payments made, the practice is wrong in principle. The funds should be paid into the treasury of the city and the appropriations made 12 [SENATE in the city's sound discretion for all purposes. Singularly enough, this policy has obtained through the device described in relation to the funds pledged by the city to the sinking fund, but continues as a vice in the cases mentioned. It cannot but confuse the public mind in relation to the cost of service and complicate the city's financial statement. These diversions of indirect revenue from the city treasury are closely interwoven with an inquiry as to the possibility of increasing the city's indirect revenue, the results of which must be reserved for a future report. MIANDATORY LEGISLATION Nothing presents so much difficulty as the subject of so-called mandatory legislation. This is in part due to lack of definition and consequently of understanding. The city owes its existence to mandatory legislation, and its greatest safeguards to constitutional mandatory legislation. Every local officer must be elected by the city or appointed by local authority, and not by the State. No city bill can become a law until submitted to the mayor, and no such bill has become a law over the mayor's veto since 1907. It cannot be of such mandatory legislation that complaint is made. All agree that the form of city government must be shaped by law, its principal offices created by law, and its municipal activities regulated to some extent by law. All legislation is in a broad sense mandatory even though permissive. On the other hand, it has been the custom in this and other states and nations to give to municipalities, and especially cities, liberal charters for the management of local affairs. It is the all but universal rule to permit cities, subject to State-wide labor regulations, to control the employment and fix the compensation of its servants, other than elective and judicial officers. In no other way can a city regulate its expenditures or be held responsible by its citizens or by the State for the result of its financial administration. This rule has been violated to some extent in the case of the city of New York, and the city now seeks mandatory legislation to correct, among other things, this condition. It is therefore apparent that mandatory legislation is not only tolerable, but indispensable. The Committee will confine the expression of its No. 25] 13 views and recommendations in this report to specific questions of local control without entering upon the consideration of home rule. It is apparent that the course of legislation during the present session may have an important and possibly a controlling influence on the final settlement of that issue. The question is, therefore, narrowed to the proper limits and scope of such legislation, and the Committee in this report will confine itself to a consideration of the control of its budget and expenses by the city. The charges upon the city of New York, fixed by law, are shown in the valuable report of the commissioner of accounts for the year 1915 to amount to $49,500,000. The details of this summary are contained in the table herewith submitted (Table G). Of the whole mandatory charges, thirty-two and a half million or 66 per cent. is for the department of education; $25,170,000 is the three-mill tax required by the State to be levied on the city for educational purposes under the settled policy of the State to insure the maintenance of common schools. That this requirement in itself is not burdensome is apparent from the fact that the city appropriates seven and a half million annually in excess of the required tax for this purpose. Complaint is made, however, by the city that it does not have sufficient control over the expenditure of the twenty-five million by the board of education, that the total expenditures for education are increased by legislation fixing the salaries of teachers, and that through lack of control by the board of estimate there has been an improper increase in the expenses of school administration. The table showing such increase presented by the comptroller is herewith submitted (Table H). While the daily attendance has increased from 358,000 in 1899, to 666,000 in 1914, or 85 per cent., the expenditures for teachers and other personal service has increased from $9,300,000 in 1899, to $30,000,000 in 1914, or 222 per cent. The two largest items of increase during this period are due to the Davis Law of 1900, extending uniform salaries to all the boroughs - $3,700,000; and the increase of $5,000,000 due to the Equal Pay Law of 1911, and the Silverstein Law of 1912, which increased the pay of men 14 [ SENATE teachers in the elementary grades. It is also urged by the city administration that the provisions of these laws operate to interfere with the efficient and economical administration and control of the teaching force. The blunt issue is presented whether the city shall be permitted through its duly constituted authorities to fix the salaries of teachers employed in the schools in accordance with the universal custom in other cities of the State, or the present law shall remain undisturbed; and this raises the broad issue as to whether the rule or custom of permitting local control of all salaries of employees by cities shall be restored in the city of New York or permanently abandoned. The Equal Pay Law was passed in 1907 by a vote of 45 for and 1 against in the Senate, all of the twenty-two Senators from the city voting aye, and by a vote of 105 for and 15 against in the Assembly, all of the sixty-two Assemblymen from the city voting aye. The bill was vetoed by Mayor McClellan, and passed over his veto, but vetoed by Governor Hughes. The bill was again passed in 1911 by an overwhelming vote in the Senate, 42 for and 3 against, all of the twenty-two Senators and all of the sixty-two Assemblymen from the city voting aye. The bill was approved by Mayor Gaynor and became a law by the signature of Governor Dix. All subsequent attempts to repeal the law have disclosed the opposition of a large majority of the members of the Legislature from the city. The bill was initiated by the city and its passage in the Legislature and retention as a law is wholly due to the attitude of the representatives of the city. It is both usual and proper in local legislation that the wishes of the representatives from the locality affected shall, in the absence of State interests, be controlling. Members of the Legislature are chosen from every other city and county with reference to this fact, and from New York city with full knowledge of the fact. With the different opinions upon this issue held by the administration upon the one hand and the majority of the local representatives of the city in the Legislature upon the other, the State is unable to determine which represents the popular demand. The Committee, therefore, proposes that the question be decided by a referendum in the city. The result of this refendum will indicate No. 25] 15 whether the city desires to fix the salaries of its public servants or insists upon the performance of that duty by the State. If adopted, it will operate to repeal all statutes fixing the compensation of city officers and to firmly establish the principle of local control. If defeated, it will silence controversy as to existing statutory salaries and warn the State that it must institute a system by special committees in the Legislature, by commission or otherwise, for the discharge of a responsibility hitherto but indifferently performed. COUNTY EXPENDITURES The only other large item of mandatory charges in the budget is county expenses which have increased from $2,848,000 in 1898, to $7,101,000 in 1916, about $5,000,000 being mandatory. A table showing the annual increase is herewith submitted, marked Table I. In every county of the State, except the counties in the city, control of salaries and expenses is confided to a local elective board. In the absence of a county board in the counties within the city, control of county expenses has been mostly had through legislation at Albany on the initiative of local representatives without the check of either a local elective county board or the board of estimate. Numerous statutes have been passed creating offices and fixing salaries. Salaries fixed by statute in one county are fixed by the board of estimate in another county. Statutory salaries in the counties are fixed upon no ascertainable basis and frequently in obvious disregard of the value of service. There cannot be said to be any county administration as such. Every office is a separate administration unto itself. As bills affecting the counties are not city bills, there is no official local check upon the legislation. This question should also be decided by referendum. While the Committee has not as yet inquired into the expenses of the several county officers with a view to making specific recommendations, it has no hesitation in declaring that the system is wrong and should be corrected by placing the administration under an elective board. If a reasonable concurrence of legislators from the city cannot be obtained upon such a measure, a bill should be passed putting the board of estimate in full control of all county expenses, other than the salaries of elective and 16 [SENATE judicial officers, subject to approval by a referendum. The Constitution should be amended so that bills relating to a county wholly within a city shall be city bills. Several bills have been presented by the administration for the abolition or consolidation of county offices, all of which are involved in the relief as to county government recommended by the Committee. DIVIDED RESPONSIBILITY There is an important class of mandatory legislation which is not reflected in the budget, but is very expensive, like the water supply board and the court house board. Both of these acts were passed upon the initiative of the city and approved of by the city, but are vicious in form in that the city does not possess the power at will to discontinue or supersede them or to control their expenses. The city administration should be in complete control of the city's expenditures, whether they are met by current revenues or by the issue of corporate stock. It is intolerable that the city should be struggling with a problem of constructing a court house at an expense so great that it cannot make a single contract for its construction within the debt limit on a divided responsibility between the board of estimate and the court house board. If special legislation of this character cannot be entirely avoided, the rule of undivided authority should be observed, and the Committee recommends legislation conferring full power upon the administration in relation to the water supply board and the court house board. UNFAIR TAXES While the committee has not completed its inquiry as to taxes alleged to be unfairly levied upon the city by the State, it has made sufficient progress to report upon several matters. It appears from the evidence that for a period of five years the city has contained 68 per cent. in value of the real estate of the entire State, and has accordingly paid 68 per cent. of the direct taxes. It also appears that of the indirect taxes from excise, inheritance, corporations, and other sources, the city has paid an average of 72 per cent. A table, showing the indirect taxes paid by the State and city, is herewith submitted, marked Table J. While there is a slight discrepancy in the percentages between direct and No. 25] 17 indirect taxes, they approximate equality, a wholesome contrast to the Federal income tax, one-quarter of which in the entire nation is levied upon the city of New York. An injustice is done to the city in levying upon its taxpayers the cost of the regulative charges of the Public Service Commission of the First District, amounting to about $500,000 annually. The Public Service Commission of the Second District is maintained by the State and has jurisdiction without the city. The Public Service Commission of the First District, having jurisdiction within the city, should be equally maintained by the State. In this respect, each perform State and not local functions; and this relief should not be postponed by reason of any proposed reorganization of the Public Service Commissions of the State. If the commissions are reorganized it will furnish an opportunity to do away with the anomalous condition arising from the expenditure by State officers of city moneys for the construction of subways. Whether this change of administration be made or not, the constructive bills of the Public Service Commission of the First District should be at once placed under the control of the board of estimate. Without prejudice to the consideration by the Committee or the Legislature of the claim presented to the Committee in relation to the construction of roads, the Committee recommends the immediate enactment of laws prohibiting the further construction by the State of roads in cities unless upon a just apportionment between all the cities of the State, and prohibition of the expenditure of State moneys for the maintenance of county roads, including the repeal of any existing statutes providing for the care of particular county roads. Objection has also been made to the Committee that normal schools in the State without the city are maintained at State expense, while such instruction is given in the city at the city's expense. If the city desires the State to take over its normal college or other educational institutions doing work within the city which the State supports without the city, the request should be granted. The Committee will give a special hearing at Albany at which all interested in this legislation may be heard. 18 [ SENATE NEW REVENUES The pressure for necessary improvements to keep pace with its growth and opportunities, and the heavy burdens by taxation upon its real property imperatively require new revenues from indirect sources, as well as the greatest economy. There are but two sources from which such revenues can be derived, viz.: Revenues levied by the State and divided by the State with its municipalities including the City of New York, and, second, an increase of revenues from sources under the city's control. The Committee is prepared now to recommend that the additional excise tax temporarily levied in 1915, if made permanent, be equally divided between the State and its municipalities. It also recommends that the automobile tax be equally divided between the State and the counties of the State, but to remain available for road construction or maintenance only. There are exceptional reasons why these revenues should be divided. Further relief of this nature may be possible, but a comprehensive survey must first be taken of its effect upon the revenues of the State. The Committee will take up the revenues of the city from sources under its control, but has made no sufficient investigation upon this subject to warrant a report. All of the fees of the sheriff's office of the county of New York should be paid into the city treasury. Such a change of law could not under the Constitution affect the present incumbent of the office. This will effect a saving of something over $46,000 annually. The evidence shows that the civil jail is maintained at an annual expense of $40,000, that it contains on the average 14 prisoners, showing an annual cost for maintenance of prisoners of $2,857 per capita. The civil jail should be abolished and provision made in the Department of Corrections for the confinement of civil prisoners, as in other counties of the State. FURTHER ECONOMIES The Committee has in its investigation thus far only approached the consideration of specific economies in the reduction of the number of departments, in cutting out over-lapping service, in restricting departmental activities, and in weeding out extravagance in administration. While this is peculiarly the work :No. 25 ] 19 of the local authorities, it cannot in some cases be done without legislative aid. Large powers should be conferred on the Board of Estimate to abolish and consolidate departments. One hundred and twenty-four such departments now exist. The financial situation requires some drastic action in seeking better government by having less government. Departmental activities should not increase several times faster than population. There were in June, 1910, 72,572 employes on the city's payroll, and in June, 1915, 81,849, an increase of 9,277, or 13 per cent. The salaries in 1910 amounted to $84,442,138, and in 1915 to $102,106,430, an increase of $17,664,292, or 20 per cent. It is but just to say that $9,000,000 of this increase is in the Department of Education. The following tables are herewith submitted: First, table K, showing a list of 24 departments in which there has been an increase in employes between 1910 and 1915; second, table L, showing the increase in mandatory departments between 1910 and 1915; and, third, table M, showing the departments in which the expenses have been substantially stationary during that period. The population from 1910 to 1915 increased at the rate of 1.16 per cent. per year, or less than six per cent. in five years. The Committee is satisfied that the administrative expenses of the city can be materially reduced without injury to the public service and that measures of relief are by no means limited to the recommendations of the Committee. It is a hard saying, but New York City will remain for many years in cramped financial circumstances unless an economy obtains which not only checks increase of administrative expenses, but actually reduces them. The Committee regrets its inability to present a more comprehensive report at this time. The wide range of topics, intricacy of relations, and a proper deference to public sentiment, in many cases not authoritatively expressed, have combined to retard the work. Of the subjects undisposed of, pensions is perhaps the most important upon the financial side. Much work has been done on this topic but it is yet incomplete. The Comptroller testified that under existing law the police force now or heretofore in service will according to actuarial computation draw more than $275,000,000 from the city treasury, while teachers, firemen and other branches of service will be entitled to amounts 20 [SENATE only less staggering. If the policy of pensions is not to fall of its own weight it must be revised on a uniform basis within the limits of the city's resources. The important question of city or State control confronts us here also. It is evident that the people of the city do not realize or will not acknowledge the city's true financial condition. The demand for new and greater expenditures is almost universal. Three schemes involving the expenditure of $45,000,000 are on the verge of execution: Ten million dollars for the court house; $10,000,000 for the Marginal railway, and $25,000,000 for the Schoharie reservoir. If these are completed for less than $60,000,000 they will stand as isolated monuments of economy. Their utility and desirability have not as yet been considered by the committee, but the city must choose between public inconvenience for want of new utilities and public and private inconvenience from hopeless financial burdens. It must reject all plans for expenditure except the absolutely essential. PROPOSED LEGISLATION The Committee will undertake to introduce and support for passage at this session of the Legislature bills to carry out the recommendations in its first report, and will specifically introduce the following measures: Bill changing time for collection of taxes from May and November to January and July. Bill enacting the "pay-as-you-go policy " into law. Bill conferring on the city power subject to referendum to fix the salaries of its officers and employes other than judicial officers. Bill placing county expenses, including salaries, subject to referendum, under control of the city. Constitutional amendment making county bills in the City of New York, city bills. Bill or bills giving control of all expenditures by the water supply board, court house board and First District Public Service Commission to the city government. Bill charging the State with the regulative expenses of the Public Service Commission of the first district. NSo. 25] 21 Bill prohibiting further construction by the State of roads in cities and prohibiting the maintenance of county roads by the State. Bill to take over the city's normal schools and maintain them at State expense. Bill to divide the automobile tax with the counties, subject to the restriction that it be expended on roads. Bill providing that any additional excise tax be divided between State and city. Bill to turn sheriff's fees of New York county into the city treasury. Bill abolishing the civil jail. Bill giving the city government power to consolidate departments. PROBABLE SAVING TO THE CITY If this program is realized, the city may expect a reduction in its tax levy as compared with the levy of 1916 from added income and from economies as follows: City's share of automobile tax................. $400,000 City's share additional excise tax.............. 1,000,000 Saving in interest on revenue bonds complete in 1920................................... 3,500,000 Regulative cost of Public Service Commission assumed by State.......................... 500,000 City normal schools supported by State......... 500,000 Saving in cost of administration through abolition and consolidation of departments............. 2,000,000 Saving in bringing county government under city control................................. 2,500,000 Saving by conferring on city power to fix salaries.. 2,500,000 Total................................ $12,900,000 It is evident that the direct State tax of $14,000,000, included in the city levy this year, is an exceptional one. It is hoped that no such tax will need to be levied next year. The Committee ap preciates that the finances of the State must be so managed as to keep the direct tax levy upon real property as low as possible by 23 [SENATE No. 25] economy and by increasing the revenue from other sources. A direct State tax is as unwelcome in Albany with a rate of $2.46; Buffalo with a rate of $2.61; Rochester with a rate of $1.99 and Utica with a rate of $2.22 as New York with a rate of $1.87. But the primal right of the State to look to real estate for the expenses of government cannot be abandoned by reason of excessive municipal indebtedness or expenditure. The Committee acknowledges its obligati9n for the uniform courtesy and co-operation of the city's leading public officials in this inquiry, including the suggestion of a number of measures which have been adopted in the form presented; for the helpful assistance of taxpayers' associations and many citizens and the courtesy of the press. It is hoped that the results of the investigation will tend to remove misapprehension, to discover a standard of just distribution of tax burdens and to strengthen a sense of mutual interdependence between State and city. If it is thought the Committee should complete its investigation, the time of the Committee should be extended until January 15, 1917, with an appropriation for expenses. ELON R. BROWN, GEORGE CROMWELL, CHARLES W. WICKS, CHARLES C. LOCKWOOD, ROBERT F. WAGNER, (Except the enactment of pay-as-you-go policy into law. This should be left to local authorities.) THOS. H. CULLEN, (I agree to the report except as to putting counties under the board of estimate. I favor putting them under the elective county officials.) WILLIAM J. MAIER, WALTER W. LAW, JR., H. E. H. BRERETON, NATHAN D. PERLMAN, NATHAN D. SHAPIRO. TABLES [23] TABLE A THE CITY OF NEW YORK - DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE - DIVISION OF CHIEF ACCOUNTANT Statement setting forth the constitutional debt-incurring power, " debt limit," of the city of New York as of October 1, 1915 (A. M.) b I. The total debt-incurring power of the city within the debt limit, is ten (10) per cent. of the assessed valuation of taxable real estate, which, ' j per the assessment of 1915, is........................................................... $810,876,423 70 II. Gross funded debt as of October 1, 1915 (A. M.) (vide pp. 11 and 15)............................................. $1,328,660,946 82 From which are exempted funded debts outside the debt limit - in accordance with the State Constitution as determined by decisions of the Court of Appeals - county bonds and certain water bonds- the latter for debt incurred subsequent to January 1, 1904, viz.: III. County bonds........................................................................... $18,497,641 52 Water bonds issued since January 1, 1904............................... $191,377,428 10 Less amount of cash from proceeds of above water bonds to liquidate indebtIV. edness incurred prior to January 1, 1904.............................. 9,252,327 72 $182,125,100 38 Corporate stock notes for water purposes (outstanding Oct. 1, 1915)...... 2,484,876 71 184,609,977 09 $203,107,618 61 Rapid Transit bonds - Manhattan-Bronx. Exempted by Appellate Division of Supreme Court, July 5, 1910.................................. $43,868,325 18 Rapid Transit bonds- Brooklyn-Manhattan. Exempted by Appellate V. Division of Supreme Court, April 5, 1911............................. 3,614,400 00 $47,482,725 18 Dock bonds - Exempted by Appellate Division of Supreme Court, January 31, 1913.......................................................... 69,943,053 55 117,425,778 73 Funded debt, exempt - outside the debt limit.................................... $320,533,397 34 320,533,397 34 Funded debt, non-exempt - within the debt limit.............................................. $1,008,127,549 48 TABLE A - Concluded Deductions from funded debt within the debt limit: Total sinking fund holdings for the redemption of funded debt: New York City securities (bonds and corporate stock notes)............... $359,336,873 36 M ortgages........................................................... 46,431 00 Cash.............................................................. 9,333,550 85 Total securities and cash held in sinking funds..................... $368,716,855 21 Less charges against such, consisting of - amount of accrued amortization VI. on exempted bonds, viz.: New York county bonds.......................... $7,722,965 77 W ater bonds.................................... 7,241,368 23 Rapid Transit bonds.............................. 4,548,876 16 Dock bonds..................................... 6,872,541 66 26,385,751 82 Net sinking fund holdings for redemption of funded debt within the debt limit, viz.: Non-exempt debt....................................... $342,331,103 39 VIII. Plus balance of 1915 budget appropriations for amortization of funded debt................................. VII. Balance of 1915 budget appropriations for direct redemption of funded debt................................ $36,645 24 36,645 24.............. $342,367,748 63 Total constitutional funded debt, within the debt limit........................................................ $665,759,800 85 To which are to be added debts other than funded debt: XIII. Land liability (estimated) including interest to October 1, 1915 (A. M.).................... $16,806,269 56 Contract liability - various municipal purposes.......................... $9,778,014 93 Contract liability - street improvement fund............................ 3,874,271 29 XII. Contract liability - rapid transit: Account Contract No. 3.......................... $21,543,341 87 Account Contract No. 4.......................... 45,111,443 35 $66,654,785 22 Account rapid transit contracts registered prior to March 18, 1913.................................... 10,466,979 59 77,121,764 81 90,774,051 03 $107,580,320 59 2 Open m arket orders................................................................. 117,027 59 $107,697,348 18 Less cash available therefor: XIV. For account of various municipal purposes......................... $3,120,246 13 XVI. For account of rapid transit...................................... 2,153,346 79 For account of local improvemants................................ 280,471 25 $5,554,064 17 $102,143,284 01 Total indebtedness within the debt limit........................................................................... $767,903,084 86 Constitutional debt-incurring power of the City of New York, within the debt limit, as of October 1, 1915 (A. M.).................. $42,973,338 84 The legal " Debt Limit " thus established is available for: R apid transit only................................................................................... $3,486,994 88 Dock, port and terminal improvement................................................................. 12,284,259 16 Various other municipal purposes...................................................................... 15,860,506 32 Unreserved margin for any purposes which the Board of Estimate and Apportionment may determine......... 11,341,578 48 $42,973,338 84 Addendum - Correlating the debt limit with margin for additional authorizations, setting forth (1) the city debt limit, and (2) the additional margin to authorize further outlays for improvements, based on debt limit, as of October 1, 1915 (A. M.) Part I. City's legal debt-incurring power or " Debt Limit " as of October 1, 1915 (A. M.)................................................ $42,973,338 84 Balance of specific authorizations and reserves against which no contracts were registered....................................... 31,631,760 36 Part II. Authorizations specifically applied, and margin for additional specific authorizations predicated on unused balances of previous author- izations and reserves, correlated with debt limit. -, "Debt Limit " for rapid transit purposes only, against which there are commitments but no registered contracts..... $3,486,994 88 Reserve for port and terminal improvement, subject to specific authorizations (Schedule A): Balance of amount reserved by resolution of Board of Estimate and Apportionment July 2, 1914, for port and terminal improvements, approximated as $12,668,835, adjusted on basis of authorization as $12,497,963.27......................................................... $9,751,101 05 Balance of dock improvement authorizations available for specific contracts.................. 2,533,158 11 12,284,259 16 Specific authorizations for various municipal purposes against which no contracts or other liabilities were registered... 15,860,506 32 $31,631,760 36 Total margin - within debt limit - for additional specific authorizations for any purpose.................................................. $11,341,578 48 TABLE B THE CITY OF NEW YORK - DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE - DIVISION OF CHIEF ACCOUNTANT Table showing the total junded debt of the city of New York outstanding at the close of each year, from December 31, 1898, to December 31, 1915, inclusive, classified according to revenue and non-revenue purposes for which issued As at year RI ended Dec. 31 Water supply 1898...... $73,892,549 76 1899...... 71,969,145 81 1900...... 70,368,045 81 1901...... 73,729,245 81 1902...... 73,651,545 81 1903...... 76,139,847 55 1904...... 75,478,145 81 1905...... 72,442,945 81 1906...... 78,094,192 76 1907...... 77,576,712 76 1908...... 88,695,792 76 1909...... 108,358,092 76 1910...... 128,770,817 76 1911...... 148,661,617 76 1912...... 160,326,617 76 1913...... 183,494,917 76 1914...... 7 203,519,422 60 1915...... 10220,237,099 31 General fund bonds.......... evenue-producing purposes Assessment Non-revenue Rapid transit Docks and fer bonds various municipal j1 Rapid transit I Docks and ferries purposes *.................. $1,000,000 00 12,000,000 00 24,500,000 00 33,666,000 00 43,616,000 00 46,116,000 00 46,866,000 00 50,394,000 00 53,856,825 18 58,439,325 18 64,652,337 28 73,162,337 28 93,162,337 28 94,135,416 77 8105,307,888 77 11158,607,981 92 $35,249,294 00 38,249,294 00 42,124,000 00 43,085,000 00 44,424,000 00 50,924,000 00 55,099,200 00 63,283,700 00 72,753,500 00 79,670,840 00 92,570,922 00 103,468,500 00 108,263,190 00 109,064,410 00 109,435,736 29 111,274,683 29 118,737,736 38 12 120,944,838 39 $19,904,656 54 18,388,025 90 18,592,493 88 18,772,781 33 18,639,630 83 20,608,084 28 23,153,357 75 26,204,245 73 28,670,848 11 31,199,162 65 34,390,162 55 34,156,333 45 30,291,333 45 30,199,833 45 30,158,833 45 32,711,833 45 32,938,583 45 31,836,603 96 $212,797,725 56 231,014,520 69 253,710,057 94 264,460,689 86 273,124,429 30 287,785,267 64 337,607,428 06 357,009,621 21 391,100,351 19 1433,556,249 64 461,178,291 60 490 508,037 49 2 511 526,119 65 3 532,927,941 60 4556,715,422 62 5581,321,218 56 9604,907,612 64 13 623,852,633 11 Gross funded debt As a ye December 31 Dec 3 Dec. 31 $341,844,225 86......1898 359,620,986 40......1899 384,794,597 63......1900 412,047,717 00......1901 434,339,605 94......1902 469,123,199 47......1903 534,954,131 62......1904 565,056,512 75......1905 617,484,892 06......1906 672,396,965 05......1907 730,691,994 09......1908 794,930,288 88......1909 843,503,798 14......1910 to 894,016,140 19......1911 0 949,798,947 40......1912 1,002,938,069 83......1913 1,065,411,243 84......1914 1,155,479,156 69......1915 t206,003,000 00 1 Includes $3,000,000 for deficiencies in taxes. 4 Includes $18,000,000 for deficiencies in taxes. 2 Includes 6,000,000 for deficiencies in taxes. 5 Includes 23,000,000 for deficiencies in taxes. 3 Includes 11,000,000 for deficiencies in taxes. 6 Includes 27,3)0,000 for deficiencies in taxes. 7 Exclusive of $12,313,977.41 of corporate stock notes taken up in 1915. 8 Exclusive of 25,002,090.00 of corporate stook notes taken up in 1915. t General fund bonds issued in: 9 Exclusive of 21,293,009.00 of corporate stock notes taken up in 1915. 1903............. $8,500,000 1904............. 9,500,000 1910................ $17,000,000 $58,608,977.41 1905............. 11,000,000 1911................ 17,500,000 1906............. 11,750,000 1912................ 17,500,000 l~ Includes $4,484,876.71 of corporate stock notes to be taken up in 1916. 1907............. 13,500,000 1913................ 22,000,000 n Includes 23,300,093.15 of corporate stock notes to be taken up in 1916. 1908............. 14,500,000 1914................ 23,500,000 "2Includes 1,000,000.03 of corporate stock notes to be taken up in 1916. 1909............. 16,750,000 1915................ 23,000,000 13 Includes 5,027,315.07 of corporate stock ntes to be taken up in 1916. Total............................................$206,000,000 $33,812,284.93 * The column indicated thus *- Non-revenue-producing debt - is composed of the amount of the outstanding bonds as at the close of each year stated which were issued to provide funds for the construction of school, and libraries; public buildings other than schools and libraries; bridges and approaches thereto; streets and highways; city parks, parkwaye and driveways; deficiencies in taxes, and sundry other miscellaneous purposes. r-" H 3 No. 25] 29 TABLE C ANNUAL GROWTH OF BUDGETS SINCE CONSOLIDATION 1899.................................... $95,209,959 84 1900...................................... 1901...................................... 19 0 2..................................... 1903...................................... 1904...................................... 1905...................................... 1906...................................... 1907...................................... 1908...................................... 1909...................................... 1910...................................... 1911..................................... 1912...................................... 1913...................................... 19 14...................................... 1915...................................... 1916...................................... 92,397,446 46 99,826,552 67 100,349,619 30 98,641,240 17 108,362,622 29 111,562,409 59 118,650,552 08 130,421,505 66 143,572,266 17 156,545,148 14 163,128,270 37 173,967,835 16 181,090,256 51 192,711,441 16 192,995,551 62 198,989,786 52 212,956,177 54 TABLE D TAX RATES IN THE BOROUGHS OF GREATER NEW YORK FROM 1899 TO DATE YEAR 1899.. 1900.. 1901.. 1902.. 1903.. 1904.. 1905.. 1906.. 1907.. 1908.. 1909.. 1910.............................. Manhattan and the Bronx Brooklyn 2.48040 2.36424 2.24771 2.32113 2.31733 2.38853 2.27344 2.35553 1.41367 1.48945 1.51342 1.57296 1.49051 1.56264 1.47890 1.53769 1.48499 1.55408 1.61407 1.67021 1.67804 1.73780 1.75790 1.81499 Queens 3.27445 2.34216 2.35702 2.31873 1.47508 1.57228 1.55523 1.55484 1.53393 1.66031 1.72536 1.81079 Richmond 2.42373 2.22073 2.35191 2.33653 1.49675 1.59281 1.55821 1.55422 1.56884 1.71115 1.77522 1.87591 30 [SENATE YEAR a 1911................ 1912................ 1913................ 1914................ 1915................ 'ABLE D - Concluded Manhattan mnd the Bronx Brooklyn 1.72248 1.75502 1.83 1.87 1.84 1.85 1.78 1.84 1.87 1.92 Queens 1.73645 1.84 1.85 1.80 1.95 Richmond 1.81657 1.92 1.92 1.90 2.24 ASSESSED VALUATIONS OF REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK FROM 1899 TO DATE YEAR 1899........................................ 1900........................................ 1901........................................ 1902........................................ 1903........................................ 1904........................................ 1905........................................ 1906........................................ 1907........................................ 1908........................................ 1909........................................ 1910....................................... 1911....................................... 1912........................................ 1913........................................ 1914........................................ 1915........................................ Real estate $2,932,445,464 3,168,557,700 3,237,778,261 3,330,647,579 4,751,550,826 5,015,463,779 5,221,582,301 5,738,487,245 6,240,480,602 6,722,415,789 6,807,179,704 7,044,192,674 7,858,840,164 7,861,898,890 8,006,647,861 8,049,859,912 8,108,760,787 NOTE.- Rates in Bronx county 1904 1.77, 1915 1.94. No. 25] 31 TABLE E (1) THE CITY OF NEW YORK - DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE Statement showing the amounts of uncollected taxes and revenue bonds and revenue bills outstanding at the close of each month from December, 1913, to November, 1915, inclusive Uncollected Uncollected Total Revenue bonds real estate personal uncollected and bills taxes taxes taxes outstanding 1913 December 31........ $46,683,347 75 $47,034,428 24 $93,717,775 99 $33,694,415 73 1914 January 31........ 43,942,336 66 46,982,436 19 90,924,772 85 58,082,103 57 February 28........ 40,285,022 16 46,969,152 53 87,254,174 69 66,809,120 58 March 31........ 37,743,675 12 46,909,656 56 84,653,331 68 87,663,244 05 April 30........ 35,457,357 16 46,860,515 56 82,317,872 72 77,243,845 59 May 31........ 126,669,475 56 50,427,281 22 177,096,756 78 75,160,005 04 June 30........ 103,916,319 91 49,133,715 71 153,050,035 62 82,943,780 86 July 31........ 100,913,029 14 49,065,327 40 149,978,356 54 74,961,687 97 August 31........ 98,757,613 33 49,050,161 38 147,807,774 71 73,197,631 22 September 30........ 96,731,721 96 49,027,541 95 145,759,263 91 1110,862,163 26 October 31........ 91,745,481 87 49,009,717 54 140,755,199 41 1109,553,830 39 November 30........ 65,534,923 79 48,424,684 38 113,959,608 17 186,212,597 00 December 31........ 49,787,648 61 48,403,497 59 98,191,146 20 48,536,947 10 1915 January 31........ 46,808,915 97 48,345,472 27 95,154,388 24 68,618,373 46 February 28........ 43,307,188 65 47,911,347 11 91,218,535 76 83,881,349 97 March 31........ 40,195,500 85 47,815,208 80 88,010,709 65 91,783,534 90 April 30........ 37,927,284 76 47,611,931 87 85,539,216 63 99,778,790 04 May 31........ 133,160,347 88 51,463,913 50 184,624,261 38 81,998,035 38 June 30........ 108,847,651 49 50,081,967 71 158,929,619 20 48,151,000 00 July 31........ 104,084,400 82 50,007,031 61 154,091,432 43 53,101,000 00 August 31........ 101,605,375 53 49,982,672 61 151,588,048 14 71,041,452 05 September 30........ 98,774,307 18 49,978,832 55 148,753,139 73 71,038,981 16 October 31........ 93,592,192 22 49,815,012 86 143,407,205 08 69,388,981 16 November 30....... 66,595,038 78 49,756,339 54 116,351,378 32 63,547,306 51 1 These relatively large amounts were due to the necessity of issuing $43,000,000 of revenue bonds in September, 1914, to obtain gold for shipment to London and Paris, wherewith to redeem revenue bills payable there. NOTE.- The tax levy for the current year does not become a lien or collectible until the 1st day of May, although the borrowings on revenue bonds and bills in anticipation of collections on account of the current levy begin early in January. 32 [SENATE TABLE E (2) THE CITY OF NEW YORK - DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE Table covering the ten-year period, from January 1, 1906, to December, 1915, showing: (a) The total tax levy, and (b) the total budget of each year. (c) The total amount of revenue bonds and bills issued each year in anticipation of the collection of the annual tax levies. (d) The total amount of interest paid on such each year. (e) The average rate of interest thereon each year. The totals of tax levy and budget and amount of revenue bonds issued are stated in even dollars. Annual interest Amount of Total equalled (a) Total tax levy revenue YEAR (b) Total budget bonds on cent of Average interest rate isisued revenue tax levy bonds (b) per cent of budget 1906....... (a) 894,098,147 $138,519,744 $2,898,562 (a) 3.08 4.68 (b)118,650,552...................... (b) 2.44 1907....... (a)101,950,253 123,958,287 3,322,961 (a) 3.26 4.929 (b)130,421,505...................... (b) 2.55 1908....... (a) 116,542,896 127,911,000 4,118,282 (a) 3.53 4.154 (b)143,572,266...................... (b) 2.87 1909....... (a)122,745,210 122,352,790 5,194,241 (a) 4.23 4.069 (b) 156,545,148...................... (b) 3.32 1910....... (a) 131,478,283 206,682,653 4,029,850 (a) 3.06 3.843 (b) 163,128,270...................... (b)2.47 1911....... (a)142,240,654 170,424,528 3,763,031 (a)2.65 13 1/8, 3 1/4, 3 1/2, (b) 173,967,835...................... (b)2.16 3 7/8, 4 1/8 1912....... (a) 150,506,057 155,846,652 2,479,635 (a) 1.65 23 1/16, 3 1/8, 3 1/4, (b) 181,090,256...................... (b)1.37 3 5/8, 4, 4 1/8, 4 1/4, 4 7/8, 5 3/16, 5 3/4 1913....... (a) 151,607,084 271,364,310 3,088,913 (a) 2.04 3 31/2, 3 3/8, 3 3/4, (b) 192,711,441...................... (b) 1.60 3 7/8, 4, 4 1/4, 4 3/8, 4 5/8, 4 7/8, 5, 5 1/4, 5 1/2, 5 7/8, 6 1914....... (a) 150,146,925 147,645,220 4,162,300 (a) 2.77 4 2 5/8, 2 7/8, 3, 3 1/8, (b) 192,995,551...................... (b)2.16 3 1/4, 3 1/2,35/8, 3 3/4, 3 7/8, 4, 4 1/8, 4 3/8, 4 9/16, 4 1/4, 4 5/8, 4 3/4, 6 1915 to Dec. 15....... (a) 159,787,337 100,810,247 3,413,162 (a) 2.14 6 1 7/8, 2 1/8, 2 1/4, (b) 198,989,786...................... (b) 1.72 23/8, 2 1/2,25/8, 3, 3 1/8, 3 1/4, 3 3/8, 3 1/2, 3 19/32 $36,470,837 11911: $20,000,000 of the total ranged from 4 per cent up; $32,918,0(9, at 5 per cent; the remainder at the other varying rates stated. 2 1912: Of the $155,000,000 issued, $12,030,000 ranged from 5 to 5 3/4 per cent; $24,000,000 ranged from 4 to 4 3/4 per cent; the remainder ranged from 3 1/16 up to 3 7/8 per cent. a 1913: Of the $271,000,033 issued, $42,00),000 carried interest of from 3 1/2 to 3 15/16 per cent; $16,000,000 from 4 to 4 7/8 per cent, and the remainder at 5, 5 1/8, 5 1/4 and 5 7/8 per cent, with $2,000,003 at 6 per cent. 4 1914: Of the $147,645,220 issued, $18,016,418 bore interest ranging from 2 5/8 to 3 per cent; $22,281,253 from 3 1/8 to 3 1/2 per cent; $26,575,652 from 3 5/8 to 3 15/16 per cent; $37,727,897 from 4 to 4 13/16 per cent; and $43,000,000 issued September 11, 1914 (dated September 1, 1914), and sold to the Bankers' Syndicate to obtain gold for transmission to London and Paris, wherewith to redeem city securities falling due in 1914 and payable principal and interest, in these capitals, hence the rate of 6 per cent. s 1915: Of the $100,810,247 issued, $5,090,000 bore interest at the rate of 1 7/8 per cent; $66,478,821 ranged from 2 1/8 to 2.95 and $29,331,423 from 3 to 3 19/32 per cent. TABLE F THE CITY OF NEW YORK - DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE - DIVISION OF CHIEF ACCOUNTANT Table summarizing, by significant group totals, the annual budgetary appropria- Estimates approximating the postions of the city of New York for the five (5) years from January 1, 1911, to sible budget requirements for the December 31, 1915 four (4) years stated, viz.: January 1, 1916, to Dec. 31, 1919 to I I CLASSIFICATION 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 I. State taxes...................................... City and county appropriations...... $113,306,013 17 Redemption of special revenue bonds. 7,334,125 00 II. Totals, administration, operation and maintenance appropriations....... $120,640,138 17 Debt service: Interest on long-term bonds outstanding October first of each year............ $29,714,137 09 Interest on notes and bonds estimated to be issued after October first and to the following October first........................... Interest on revenue bonds............. 4,500,000 00 Redemption of long-term bonds (mainly of former municipalities)............ 1,324,820 39 t Redemption of stated percentums of non-revenue-producing outlays provided by one-year notes or bonds in accordance with the terms of a resolution of September 11, 1914; redemp-i tion of 15-year serial bonds; amortization of 10-year repaving bonds.................. Amortization of funded debt (sinking| fund installments).................. 7,788,739 51 III. Totals, debt service (excluding redemp-' tion of special revenue bonds)....... $43,327,696 99 $4,301,345 65 $7,947,031 96 $4,576,303 431............... $13,975,022E $8,373,8291 $11,613,9611 $12,435,303 $122,247,015 95 $127,487,027 86 $133,307,730 54 $133,045,313 04 E $133,000,000 $134,000,000 $134,000,000 $134,000,000 E 6,500,000 6,010,314 92 6,727,065 51 6,022,825 00 8,920,000 00 E 2,800,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 7,500,000 $128,257,330 87 $134,214,093 37 $139,330,555 54 $141,965,313 04 $142,300,000 $142,000,000 $142,000,000 $141,500,000 ~~/~ /-~~;. ___..-.... $32,473,685 931 $35,453,876 67 $35,245,836 58 $37,678,903 85 $37,070,9351E $37,890,000 $*4,500,000 *$9,000,000 38,435,0001 39,200,000 3,000,000 00 3,000,000 00 2,500,000 00 1,404,320 39 1,070,841 99 1,391,077 19 1,750,000 00 3,000,000 00 1,083,477 19 E 1,200,000 E 4,000,000 1,838,955 1,000,000 3,000,000 4,555,587 1,000,000 2,750,000 1,810,780 1,000,090 2,750,000 2,265,280 15,382,390 9,500,000 *1,200,000.................................................... E 8,366,206 93 8,725,597 17 7,451,778 88 7,400,000 00 E 2,088,230 5,816,580 8,586,700 8,200,000 E8,600,000 9,000,000 *500,000 $45,244,213 25 $48,250,315 83 $46,588,692 65 $66,582,480 $50,912,381 04 $54,398,120 $60,862,167 $80,297,670 t Redemption of 25 per cent., 50 per cent., and 75 per cent. in 1916, 1917, and 1918, of non-revenue-producing outlays provided for by one-year notes or bends. TABLE F - Concluded CLASSIFICATION 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 Total appropriations to cover state taxes, administration and debt service.......................... $163,967,835 16 $177,802,889 77 $190,411,441 16 $190,495,551 62 $192,877,694 08 $210,673,142 $211,235,996 $220,196,441 $234,232,973 IV. Deficiencies in taxes................ 10,000,00000 3,287,366 74 2,300,00000 2,500,000 00 6,112,092 44 E 4,500,000 5,500,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 Total appropriations to be provided by general fund revenues and general property tax levy................. $173,967,835 16 $181,090,256 51 $192,711,441 16.5192,995,551 62 $198,989,786 52 E $215,173,142 $216,735,996 $225,196,441 $238,232,973 NOTES State taxes: Deficiencies in taxes: co: The estimates of State taxes are predicated on 68.1 per cent. of the amounts The amounts estimated for deficiencies in taxes beginning with $4,500,000, of the total direct State taxes on the latest estimates of the State in 1916 (which apparently should be $6,500,000), reflects providing for Comptroller's office presented to the Senate Committee on Taxation an annual loss of $4,000,000, and the taking up in 1917 of $1,500,000 in New York City on October fifth. and in 1918 of $500,000 of the $2,000,000 additional which apparently Special revenue bond redemptions: should be placed in our estimates for the year 1916, viz., $6,500,000 The estimates of special revenue bond redemptions during the years instead of $4,500,000. stated are based on the assumption that in 1918 and in 1919 there Amortization of long-term bonds: should be a reduction in the total cost of the Public Service Commission The estimates of the amortization of long-term bonds, i. e., sinking fund due in all probability to a reduction in their engineering force. installments in the budget to provide for amortization of long-term Serial bord redemptions: bonds, are based on what is considered the lowest possible estimate The redemption of serial bonds and the amounts estimated to be placed for such needs. in the budgets for such, together with the appropriations for redemption Interest on long-term bonds: of one-year notes, are all predicated on what would seen to be the The estimates of the interest on long-term bonds and also on revenue lowest possible amount which the city could get along with for non- bonds are likewise based on what are believed to be the lowest amounts revenue-producing public improvements, to-wit, $7,500,000 each in which should be used in any estimate for this purpose. 1916 and 1917; $12,500,000 in 1918, and $15,000,000 in 1919. Additional interest in 1918 and 1919: The estimates for additional interest in 1918 and in 1919, indicated oy * reflect approximated amounts which in all probability will require to be provided in the budgets of these years to meet interest payments on rapid transit bonds under contracts Nos. 3 and 4. F/ TABLE G TAX LEVY ALLOWANCES IN BUDGET FOR 1915 SEGREGATED ACCORDING TO DEPARTMENTS, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (EXCLUDING COUNTY OFFICES) bo I DISCRETIONARY OR PARTLY MANDATORY Departmental Mandatory budget Reasonable Rate expense mandatory Discretionary Total _______mandatory Board of Aldermen and City Clerk............... Board of Estimate and Apportionment.......... Commissioners of the Sinking Fund.............. The Mayoralty............................... Department of Finance....................... City Chamberlain.......................... Law Department.............................. Department of Taxes and Assessments.......... Board of Elections..................... Municipal Civil Service Commission............. Commissioners of Accounts..................... Bureau of Weights and Measures................ Department of Licenses........................ Board of Assessors............................. Art Commission.............................. Examining Board of Plumbers................. President, Borough of Manhattan.............. President, Borough of the Bronx................ President, Borough of Brooklyn................. President, Borough of Queens................... President, Borough of Richmond............... Department of Education..................... The College of the City of New York............ Hunter College of the City of New York......... New York Public Library................. Municipal Reference Library................. Brooklyn Public Library....................... Queens Borough Public Library................ Park Board and Department of Parks (all Boroughs) Jumel Mansion............................... $150,000 00 1,310,490 00............. 720 00 25,170,466'41 175,000 00 150,000 00............ $20,500 00 1,297 28 16,237 00 3,000 00 600 00 7,500 00............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ $159,167 80 621,438 00 3,420 00 61,350 00 1,516,805 00 58,015 00 838,370 00 589,706 50.............. 216,845 00 260,329 07 66,275 00 164,425 00 40,429 50 6,625 00 2,805 00 2,729,206 10 1,218,946 24 2,131,519 97 2,040,781 70 712,485 51 7,223,153 98 517,456 01 397,014 20 731,909 50 13,450 00 445,863 84 155,385 00 2,461,550 57 4,112 00 $159,167 80 621,438 00 3,420 00 61,350 00 1,516,805 00 58,015 00 851,370 00 589,706 50 216,845 00 260,329 07 66,275 00 164,425 00 40,429 50 6,625 00 2,805 00 2,749,706 10 1,220,243 52 2,147,756 97 2,043,781 70 713,085 51 14,669,883 49 517,456 01 397,014 20 731,999 50 13,450 00 445,863 84 155,385 00 2,461,550 57 4,112 00 $309,167 80 621,438 00 3,420 00 61,350 00 1,516,805 00 58,015 00 851,370 00 589,706 50 1,310,490 00 216,845 00 260,329 07 66,275 00 171,925 00 40,429 50 6,625 00 3,525 00 2,749,706 10 1,220,243 52 2,147,756 97 2,043,781 70 713,085 51 39,840,349 90 692,456 01 547,014 20 731,909 50 13,450 00 445,863 84 155,385 00 2,461,550 57 4,112 00 TABLE G - Concluded DISCRETIONARY OR PARTLY MANDATORY Departmental Mandatory budget Reasonable Rate expense mandatory Discretionary Total mandatory I I~~~~~~~~~oa Grant's Tom b................................ New York Public Library Building.............. Metropolitan Museum of Art................... New York Aquarium.......................... American Museum of Natural History........... New York Botanical Gardens................... New York Zoological Garden................... Museum of Arts and Sciences (including Taxidermical Laboratory)........................... Children's Museum, Brooklyn.................. Botanical Garden and Arboretum............... Bronx Parkway Commission.................. The Public Recreation Commission.............. Staten Island Association of Arts and Sciences.... Police Department............................ Fire Department............................. Arm ory Board................................ Board of Building Examiners................... U. S. Volunteer Life Saving Corps............... Department of Health......................... Department of Public Charities................ Bellevue and Allied Hospitals................... Board of Ambulance Service.................... Tenement House Department................... Department of Water Supply, Gas and Electricity. Department of Street Cleaning.................. Charitable Institutions......................... Commitment of Insane Persons................. Department of Correction...................... Board of Inebriety............................ Board of Parole.............................. Department of Bridges......................... Department of Docks and Ferries............... The City Court of New York................... Court of Special Sessions...................... $20,000 00 54,000 00.............. 1,451,200 00 37,200 00.......................................... 4,000 00 79,500 00.......................................... 170,000 00.............. 3,100 00 3,100 00......................................................................................................................................................... I....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................$........................................87,500 00...................................................................... 12,760 00............................................................................................................................................................ $5,000 00 36,600 00 200,000 00 47,000 00 200,000 00 107,163 00 200,000 00 140,226 75 19,594 25 9,022 00 15,825,894 27 9,206,335 22 102,275 00 9,460 00 12,071 25 3,436,492 22 2,534,129 16 1,458,962 50 82,000 00 712,548 40 6,803,356 64 7,646,186 74 1,282,320 51 26,000 00 8,675 00 802,218 09 1,946,515 88 24,737 00 400,940 00 $5,000 00 36,600 00 200,000 00 47,000 00 200,000 00 107,163 00 200,000 00 140,226 75.............. 19,594 25 9,022 00 15,913,394 27 9,206,335 22 102,275 00 9,460 00 12,071 25 3,439,492 22 3,929,389 16 1,458,962 50 82,000 00 712,548 40 6,803,356 64 7,646,186 74 5,371,375 00 1,309,120 51 26,000 00 8,675 00 802,218 09 1,946,515 88 24,737 00 400,940 00 $5,000 00 36,600 00 200,000 00 47,000 00 200,000 00 107,163 00 200,000 00 160,226 75 54,000 00 19,594 25 9,022 00 17,364,594 27 9,243,535 22 102,275 00 9,460 00 12,071 25 3,443,492 22 4,008,889 16 1,458,962 50 82,000 00 712,548 40 6,973,356 64 7,646,186 74 5,371,375 00 5,000 00 1,312,220 51 26,000 00 8,675 00 802,218 09 1,946,515 88 256,737 00 400,940 00 ra z M City Magistrates' Court, 1st Division............ City Magistrates' Court, 2d Division............ Municipal Courts, City of New York............ General Interpreters, Borough of Brooklyn....... Board of Coroners, Manhattan.................. Board of Coroners, The Bronx.................. Board of Coroners, Brooklyn................... Board of Coroners, Queens...................... Board of Coroners, Richmond................... Board of City Record, City of New York......... Advertising................................... Amortization................................. R ent........................................ Miscellaneous................................ Total for the City of New York............. 487,300 00 100,000 00.......i....4. 1,640 03 $29,609,116 44............. 2.................................. I................ -5,0#00 00.................................................................................................................................................................................................. $7, 579, 289 51.............. 450,069 50 401,487 42 443,940 00 9,000 00 62,960 00 29,700 00 34,720 00 20,300 00 12,025 00 938,455 70 65,944,473 48 85S,471 00 t56,4188 00 450,069 50 401,487 42 443,940 00 9,000 00 62,960 00 29,700 00 34,720 00 20,3')0 00 12,025 00 938,455 70 25,000 00 65,944,473 48 858,471 00 56,438 00 5162,346,953 26.............. 450,069 50 401,487 42 931,240 00 9,000 00 62,09() 00 29,70:) 00 3-1,720 00 20,300 00 12,025 00 93),455 70 125,000 00 65,944, 473 48 858,471 00 58,128 03 $191,956,069 70 0 Ct I-I $6,831,009 28.............. $147,936,654 47.............. 38 [SENATE TABLE H GROWTH OF BUDGETS AND CAUSES THEREFOR SINCE CONSOLIDADATION, JANUARY 1, 1898 Department of Education Next to the debt service, the largest single item of the annual tax budget is the appropriation made to the Department of Education. A summary of statistics taken from the city superintendent's reports from 1899 to 1914 shows that the percentage of increase in costs is much greater than the percentage of increase in either population or average daily attendance. The figures are as follows: POPULATION (Estimated) 1914.............................. 5,586,851 1899.............................. 3,550,053 Increase........................ 2,036,798 or 57.4% AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE 1914.............................. 666,255 1899.............................. 358,897 Increase........................ 307,358 or 85.6% EXPENDITURES FOR PERSONAL SERVICE FROM GENERAL SCHOOL FUND 1914............................. $30,036,354 10 1899............................. 9,300,249 28 Increase...................... $20,736,104 82 or 222.9% EXPENDITURES FOR SUPPLIES, REPAIRS, ETC., FROM SPECIAL SCHOOL FUND 1914............................. $7,307,679 60 1899............................. 2,506,749 94 Increase....................... $4,800,929 66 or 191.5% There are two well-known factors which account in considerable measure for the very great increase in the expenditures from the No. 25] 39 General School Funds. The first is the Davis law, pursuant to which the salaries paid in the outlying boroughs were raised to the Manhattan standard during the years 1900 and 1901. The second is the Equal-pay and Silverstein laws (Chap. 534, Laws 1913), which had their greatest effect in 1912 and 1913. Eliminating the factors just cited, the following result is obtained: Expenditures in 1914................ $30,036,354 10 Expenditures in 1899................ 9,300,249 28 $20,736,104 82 Deduct: Estimated increase due to the operation of the Davis law............. $3,700,000 00 Estimated increase due to the operation of the Equalpay and Silverstein laws............. 5,000,000 00 8,700,000 00 Increase................... $12,036,104 82 or 129.4% The increase in the cost of personal service, therefore, exclusive of extraordinary increases due to the enactment of the Davis, Equal-pay and Silverstein laws, is more than two times greater than the percentage of increase in population, and over one and a half times greater than the percentage of increase in the average daily attendance. The increase in the percentage of other costs paid from the Special School Fund, such as repairs, supplies, etc., is nearly three and one-half times greater than the percentage of increase in population, and nearly two and one-quarter times greater than the percentage of increase in the average daily attendance. Prior to 1904 the expenses of the high schools paid from the General School Fund were included with elementary schools. Taking the year 1904 as the starting point and comparing the expenditures of that year with 1914, the following increases and decreases both in amount and percentage have occurred: EXPENDITURES FROM GENERAL SCHOOL FUND - SCHOOL YEAR ENDING JULY 31 OF YEAR INDICATED (From the City Superintendent's Reports) EXPENDITURES AMOUNTS PERCENTAGES 1904 Elementary school principals and teachers... $12,669,355 05 Kindergarten............................. 324,131 00 M usic.................................. 77,641 09 Drawing, manual training and shopwork..... 71,842 20 Physical training.......................... 27,967 64 Sewing................................. 61,382 11 Cooking................................. 32,291 65 German............................. 80,245 86 French and Italian........................ 13,785 08 V ocational schools..................................... High schools............................. 1,413,195 82 Training schools.......................... 114,053 92 Evening schools........................... 421,529 17 Vacation schools.......................... 71,347 77 Vacation playgrounds..................... 55,894 74 Recreation centers........................ 53,763 08 Attendance officers........................ 81,147 49 Lectures................................. 63,523 38 Corporate schools......................... 284,062 50 Supervision.............................. 225,344 43 $16,142,503 98 1914 $21,629,083 68 894,897 43 89,783 59 269,929 70 50,465 17 92,449 57 188,361 14 62,554 00 6,269 71 103,583 52 4,356,978 20 282,589 93 958,024 71 71,731 84 92,637 34 88,654 42 139,824 99 63,679 05 238,428 75 356,427 36 $30,036,354 10 Increases $8,959,628 63 570,766 43 12,142 50 198,087 50 22,497 53 31,067 46 156,069 49 103,583 52 2,943,782 38 168,536 01 536,495 54 384 07 36,742 60 34,891 34 58,677 50 155 67 131,082 93 $13,964,591 10 Decreases $17,691 86 7,515 37 45,533 75 $70,740 98 Increases 70.72 176.09 15.64 275.73 80.48 50.61 483.31...100. 100 208.37 147.77 127.77.54 65.74 64.90 72.31.24 58.17.......... Decreases............................................................ 22.05 54.52 16.06......... C) 1/2 1-4 LTJ z No. 25] 41 INCREASES IN POPULATION AND AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE, DAY SCHOOLS 1904 Population....... 3,838,024 Average daily attendance....... 466,571 1914 5,586,851 INCREASES Number Percentage 1,748,827 45.57 666,255 199,684 42.80 TABLE I APPROPRIATIONS FOR COUNTY BUDGETS 1898........................................ 1899........................................ 1900........................................ 1901........................................ 1902........................................ 1903........................................ 1904........................................ 1905........................................ 1906........................................ 1907........................................ 1908........................................ 1909........................................ 1910........................................ 1911......................................... 1912....................................... 1913........................................ 1914....................................... 1915........................................ 1916........................................ $2,848,124 66 3,594,649 57 3,699,488 99 3,701,916 17 3,731,330 13 3,776,266 43 3,762,230 59 4,097,090 81 4,230,775 51 4,470,543 63 5,097,862 28 5,175,796 23 5,355,124 84 5,453,805 25 5,915,808 43 6,234,661 86 6,630,165 66 7,033,716 82 7,101,565 95. TABLE J STATEMENT OF RECEIPTS FOR GENERAL PURPOSES OF STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE FIVE YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1915, WITH ESTIMATED RECEIPTS PAID BY THE CITY OF NEW YORK AND PERCENTAGES TO TOTALS 1911 1912 1913 RECEIPTS Estimated Ea Estimated Estimated Total receipts from T receipts from T receipts from re Newo Total Total New York New York a New York a City Cty City ______^( _________P Direct taxes: Court and stenographers' expenses..... Armory tax......................... General purposes..................... Sinking Fund contributions........... Total direct taxes................ Indirect taxes: Excise.............................. Corporations*....................... Organization of corporations*.......... Transfers (inheritance tax)............ Stock transfers (stamp tax)*........... Secured debt tax*.................... M ortgages.......................... Motor vehiclest...................... Racing associations................... Arrears, interest and redemption of lands............................. Sale of land for unpaid taxes.......... Total indirect taxes.............. Other receipts: Public land sales..................... Fees and other receipts of public officers. Fines, fees and duties................. Miscellaneous receipts of public officers. Interest on bank balances (net)........ $228,618.56......................$348,082 09 * "i:..839;i. 3' i7 $4,403,202 15...... 4,139,227 87 4,139,227 87 $372,667 79............ 4,123,562 97 6,657,883 49 $8,042,395 88 $228,618 56................... $6,326,823 13 $4,403,202 15 69.5 $11,154,114 25 $8,042,395 88 72.1 $7,832,498 91 $4,378,226 90 55.8 $9,412,363 84 $5,779,645 6 61.4 $9,280,681 65 $5,717,590 98 61.6 9,781,748 72 7,825,398 97 80 10,349,164 76 8,279,331 81 80 10,910,529 13 8,728,423 30 80 337,261 11 202,356 66 60 472,959 81 283,775 88 60 455,512 50 273,307 50 60 8,152,198 77 5,559,797 59 68.2 12,153,188 84 10,088,734 86 83 12,724,236 86 10,388,255 60 81.6 3,499,811 32 3,149,830 19 90 3,653,037 24 3,287,733 51 90 2,927,810 88 2,635,029 79 90.............................. 1,411,567 60 1,270,410 84 90 1,167,476 04 1,050,728 44 90 1,787,621 66 1,291,510 78 72.2 1,852,324 45 1,319,189 82 71.2 1,647,710 82 1,073,223 46 65.1 878,799 25 474,551 60 54 1,053,762 25 569,031 59 54 1,267,832 95 682,984 95 53.8 2,568 00................... 2,022 00....................850 00.................... 45,373 00.............. 26,614 34.................. 50,434 18.................... 105,122 46...................................................44 56................... $32,423,004 10 $22,881,672 69 70.57$40,387,005 13 $30,877,853 99 76.44 $40,433,119 57 $30,549,544 02 75.55 tO $28,000 70 635,259 75 221,349 19 817,659 46 144,387 55...................................................................... $23,166 98 499,344 6C 380,355 22 860,806 77 165,851 33...................................................................... $42,729 45 638,204 01 387,465 19 754,431 92 323,585 02...................................................................... or, N t4 Insurance Department, expenses refunded, etc........................ Banking Department, expenses refunded, etc........................ United States aid to State institutions.. Miscellaneous....................... Compromise claims against Greatel New York........................ Total other receipts.............. Transfers between funds................ Canal Maintenance Fund, miscellaneous receipts............................. Total receipts for general purposes of government................. New York City valuations to total State valuations........................... New York City population to total State.. 604,585 22 144,009 46 179,484 60 118,154 20,.......................................................................................... 689,268 86 252,306 95 179,119 94 116,727 44.................................................................................... 782,894 16 216,755 16 156,255 06 60,879 85.................................................................................... t! O Li-j $2,892,890 13.................... $3,166,948 15.................. $3,363,199 82.................... $349,500 00.................... $332,629 07.................. $323,992 45.................... 159,646 40.................... 123,828 41.................... 71,824 52.................... $36,053,659 10 $22,881,672 69 63.46 $50,337,233 89 $35,281,056 14 70.08 $55,346,250 61 $38,591,939 90 69.72 70.83%................................................ 72.10................................................... 0.4.......:.......:...... * Estimated. t Includes Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties. TABLE J - Concluded 1914 1915 TOTALS, 5 YEARS RECEIPTS Estimated | Estimated | || Total receipts from ~ Total eiptTotal Se New York City New York New York s City Wg 3City (^(PL Direct taxes: Court and stenographers' expenses.... Armory tax....................... General purposes.................. Sinking Fund contributions......... Total Direct Taxes............. Indirect Taxes: Excise............................ Corporations*..................... Organization of corporations*........ Transfers (inheritance tax).......... Stock transfers (stamp tax) *........ Secured debt tax*.................. M ortgages........................ Motor vehiclest.................... Racing associations................. Arrears, interest and redemption of lands........................... Sale of land for unpaid taxes........ Total Indirect Taxes.......... Other Receipts: Public land sale.................... Fees and other receipts of public officers Fines, fees and duties............... Miscellaneous receipts of public officers Interest on bank balances (net)...... Insurance Department, expenses refunded, etc...................... Banking Department, expenses refunded, etc...................... United States aid to State institutions $373,276 16 926,014 61 6,401,981 04 $4,689,913 33 $287,042 81 683,793 88............ $1,609,687 41 1,609,808 49 5,963,076 14 17,199,092 40 $17,135,511 36 $7,701,271 81 $4,689,913 33 60.8 $970,836 69.................. $26,381,664 44 $17,135,511 36 64.9 -~~~~~~~~~~~ I2 S644 11~51~ 4 $9,360,099 31 11,634,000 84 345,133 78 11,162,478 4C 2,056,687 0O 828,619 87 1,390,746 91 1,528,220 73 1,542 0C $5,664,157 86 9,307,200 8C 207,080 27 6,220,133 74 1,851,018 3C 745,757 8S 896,967 24 779,506 62.............. 60.5 80 60 55.7 90 90 64.4 51...... $9,099,355 28 11,235,964 11 436,383 38 8,263,893 66 3,559,425 60 1,016,748 63 1,552,201 54 1,857,289 00 1,542 37 $5,536,939 12 8,988,771 28 261,830 02 5,701,743 91 3,203,483 04 915,073 77 724,679 78 893,569 00.............. 60.8 80 60 69 90 90 46.6 48.1...... $44,984,998 99 53,911,407 56 2,047,250 58 52,455,996 54 15,696,772 10 4,424,412 14 8,230,605 45 6,585,904 18 8,524 37 $27,076,560 54 43,129 126 1C 1,228,350 33 37,958,665 7C 14,127,094 83 3,981,970 93 5,305,571 O0 3,399,643 7C............... 60.2 80 O 60 * 72.3 90 90 64.4 51.6...... 19,298 29..............................................I... 51,483 65................................................ 193,204 36.................. 105,167 02..................... 138,326,827 26 $25,671,822 71 67 S37,074,287 23 $26,226,089 92 70.73 $188,644,243 29 $136,206,983 33 92.2 1~~~~~~~7.358,64232 1626933 $22,602 63 725,482 54 430,369 87 867,851 6S 398,140 98...................................................................... $25,253 06 586,204 00 412,164 49 758,892 36 327,757 64...................................................................... $141,752 82 3,084,494 96 1,831,703 96 4,059,642 19 1,359,722 52........................................................................... 839,684 33.............. 207,022 61.............. 143,350 00.............. 923,921 48.................. 208,921 24.............. 135,354 62.............. 3,840,354 051............... 1,029,015 42............... 793,564 22............... r — rH M iscellaneous..................... Compromise claims against Greater New York...................... Total Other Receipts......... Transfers between funds.............. Canal Maintenance Fund, miscellaneous receipts........................... Total receipts for general purposes of government............... New York City valuations to total State valuations......................... New York City population to total State 91,318 55................... 14,232 18................... 270,538 76.............................................. 401,312 22............... 270,538 76............... C bN V1 $3,996,361 95.................. $3,392,701 07................... $16,812,101 12.................... $531,823 91.................. $330,366 06................... $1,868,311 49..................... 86,431 87................... 64,009 59.................... 505,740 79..................... $50,642,716 80 130,361,736 04 60 $41,832,200 64 $26,226,089 92 62.69 $234,212,061 13 $153,342,494 69 65.47. ~~~ ~ ~ ~~__=- _ _ _. 69.27%.............. 68.11% 52.00%............................ * Estimated. t Includes Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties. 46 [SENATE TABLE K LIST OF DEPARTMENTS IN WHICH THERE HAS BEEN A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN EMPLOYEES AND SALARIES FOR THE LAST FivEYEARS 1910 1915 DEPARTMENT Mayor's office................. Board of Estimate and Apportionment................... Commissioner of Accounts...... Bureau of Weights and Measures Board of Aldermen............. City Clerk.................... President, Borough of Manhattan President, Borough of Queens... Department of Correction...... Department of Licenses........ City Magistrate's Court........ Court of Special Sessions....... Board of Ambulance Service.... Board of City Record.......... Hunter College................ Board of Inebriety............. Board of Parole............... Civil Service Commission....... Bellevue and Allied Hospitals... Public Charities Department.... Public Health Department...... Fire Department - Civil employees and salaried officers... Police Department - Civilian employees................. Board of Education - civil service employees............... Nun o )osit 2 1 1 2 1 nber Number f of lions Salary positions Salary 13 $35,300 17 $43,250 50 110,170 267 487,070 91 184,880 115 223,760 21 32,600 42 54,640 30 64,650 38 84,050 31 51,256 38 63,300,074 2,127,950 2,496 2,603,610,541 1,486,548 1,913 1,881,438 559 519,849 697 667,902 53 84,900 111 153,047 187 466,900 393 811,230 63 183,550 161 367,440 1 1,200 4 7,600 15 25,600 33 47,307 212 339,.65 234 497,564................20 17,520 2 2,800 5 8,400 69 124,660 109 175,200,256 478,977 1,657 648,391,326 967,972 3,548 1,723,835,463 2,020,366 3,231 2,551,277,749 2,979,732 2,103 3,784,637 237 294,373 286 353,588 760 943,279 1,025 1,276,836,803 $13,527,227 18,543 $18,532,892.................. 4,740 $5,005,665 13 Increase.......................... TABLE L TABLE SHOWING INCREASE IN MANDATORY DEPARTMENTS 1910 1915 Number of positions Board of Education - supervising and teaching force........ 18,182 Public Service Commission...... 719 County governments........... 1,879 20,780 Number of Salary positions $21,031,749 1,163,810 3,916,603 $26,112,162 21,759 2,207 2,836 26,802 Salary $30,227,673 3,090,162 5,817,826 $39,135,661 No. 25] 47 TABLE M DEPARTMENTS IN WHICH THERE HAS BEEN A DECREASE OR A VERY SLIGHT INCREASE 1910 1915 Number Number of of DEPARTMENT positions Salary positions Salary Comptroller's office............ 756 $1,287,210 885 $1,344,890 Board of Assessors............. 16 40,250 15 29,650 President, Borough of Brooklyn. 2,027 1,900,074 1,773 1,772,965 President, Borough of Bronx.... 1,327 1,263,243 1,036 1,108,713 President, Borough of Richmond. 759 767,568 642 586,738 Department of Bridges......... 1,155 1,452,803 1,044 1,266,906 City Chamberlain.............. 27 58,200 25 55,210 Municipal Court............... 316 893,700 327 920,900 Board of Elections............ 54 111,050 54 107,115 Fire Department-regular grades 3,193 4,262,912 3,673 4,848,142 Law Department............. 427 795,300 460 833,980 Department of Parks - Manhattan and Richmond........... 944 814,108 1,051 944,858 Department of Parks - Bronx.. 645 442,212 533 378,624 Department of Parks - Brooklyn and Queens.............. 967 877,043 976 838,874 Department of Street Cleaning.. 5,916 4,960,463 5,463 4,608,911 Department of Taxes and Assessments..................... 263 506,380 290 601,120 Tenement House Department... 772 783,502 610 652,517 Department of Water, Gas and Electricity............. 2,911 3,533,092 2,762 3,161,588 Board of Water Supply......... 1,671 2,031,796 909 1,259,833 Department of Docks and Ferries 2,593 2,873,561 1,706 2,333,726 College of City of New York.... 236 513,231 217 595,838 New York Public Library....... 510 337,280 646 457,970 New York Aquariums.......... 32 32,030 31 32,237 Police - uniformed force....... 10,048 13,721,950 10,606 15,101,702 Total..................... 37,565 $44,258,958 35,734 $43,843,007 MINORITY REPORT [49] Minority Report of the Joint Legislative Committee for the Investigation of the Finances of the City of New York ALBANY, February 7, 1916. To the Senate and Assembly: Because the majority report of the Joint Legislative Committee appointed to inquire into the finances of the City of New York does not present to the Legislature a complete or effective picture of all the facts adduced by the Committee, and because the suggestions made in this majority report are not competent to remedy the serious situation which the Committee hearings disclosed, I respectfully desire to submit the following minority report: The facts submitted under oath to the Committee by the Mayor of New York City and other officers and witnesses tended to establish three main propositions. (a) The taxpayers of New York City are at present carrying a burden of taxes which in many instances are practically confiscatory, and unless some means are found to relieve them New York ICity will shortly find itself in serious financial difficulties. (b) This condition can be partly remedied by repealing mandatory legislation affecting the local administration of the city government. (c) It can be more substantially remedied by preventing the present discrimination against New York City by the State Legislature in the appropriation and distribution of State funds. The majority report of the Joint Investigating Committee deals very comprehensively with the first two of these propositions, but it practically ignores the third and most important. The undersigned agree with the measures proposed in the majority report for reducing city taxes by giving the city a larger measure of home rule. It would be absurd for anyone to assume that a city of 5,000,000 people, which has undertaken and carried to completion the most intricate and far-reaching public [51] 52 [SENATE undertakings, is incompetent to govern itself in any respect. But an examination of the testimony before your Committee should convince the Legislature that New York City is asking more than the measure of home rule proposed in the majority report. The Legislature will doubtless recollect that the object sought in the appointment of the Joint Investigating Committee was to ascertain and allay, if possible, the discontent and unrest in New York City in regard to the financial matters over which the Legislature assumes control. It is respectfully submitted that the Legislature will not accomplish this object by placing itself on record as willing to do justice to New York City where other parts of the State are not concerned, and as being unwilling to do justice in instances where New York City complains of discrimination of which that part of the State outside of New York City is the beneficiary. Of the thirteen suggestions made in the majority report by your Committee, in the form of bills proposed, nine relate solely to the local administration of the government of New York City. The remaining four would effect a saving to the city of New York amounting to only a little more than a million dollars a year. The bill changing the date of the collection of taxes in New York City, the bill giving the city power over salaries and expenses paid for from the city treasury, the bill permitting the city to make the sheriff's office a salary and not a fee office, the bill abolishing the city jail, and the bill granting the city power to consolidate departments are, on the whole, salutary and needed measures. But, while most important in principle, they are less important when viewed from the standpoint of their effect in reducing the tax rate in New York City. Your Committee discovered that New York City was dissatisfied in the following particulars, which are practically ignored in the majority report: (a) Because it is compelled to pay more than two-thirds of all State taxes, New York City feels that it is entitled to greater consideration in the matter of local appropriations made by the Legislature. No. 25] 53 In his testimony the Mayor of New York City pointed out that the Legislature annually appropriates sums aggregating between two and three million dollars for purposes which are purely local in their effect and operation. New York City receives practically none of these local appropriations, but they are in the main for the sole and exclusive benefit of particular up-state communities. As instances of these appropriations the attention of the Committee was directed to last year's appropriation of $150,000 for diverting Olean creek, the reappropriation of $75,000 for building the Normanskill Viaduct in the city of Albany, and the reappropriation of $149,000 out of current revenues for building the Palenville road. New York City believes that it should have some protection from appropriations of this kind, either through a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds vote on all bills where the benefit is chiefly local, or by a constitutional amendment giving the city the just and fair legislative representation to which it is entitled and which will enable it to protect itself. (b) New York City feels that it is the victim of gross discrimination in being compelled to contribute $1,300,000 annually for the maintenance of local dirt roads in the up-state townships. It was pointed out to your committee that New York City is compelled to spend more for the maintenance of these town roads than it expends for the maintenance of its own highways in the counties of New York and the Bronx. In view of the fact that the city now annually contributes over $2,000,000 for the maintenance of State and county highways, its citizens are firmly convinced that they should not be compelled to pay an additional sum for the maintenance of these town roads. (c) New York City further objects to the payment by the State of taxes on State land in the up-state counties, and to the payment by the State of uncollected taxes in the counties outside of the City of New York. State property is exempt from taxation in the city, and it is the view of those who testified before your Committee that State property should be exempt wherever located. The State never reimburses New York City for its 54 [ SENATE uncollected taxes, and the city believes that the State should not reimburse the counties outside the city for their negligence or inconpetency in this regard. (d) New York City feels that it is the victim of a monstrous injustice in the present legislative apportionment of State highways. It was pointed out to your Committee that the taxpayers of New York City will be compelled to pay over $182,000,000 to retire the bonds now authorized for the construction of State highways, and that when these State highways are completed the city will be compelled to pay over $8,000,000 a year for their maintenance. Not a single mile of the 12,000 miles of State highways authorized by the Legislature is apportioned to the City of New York, in spite of tile constitutional requirement that the Legislature shall provide for the equitable apportionment of these highways " among the counties." Two courses are open to the city in this matter. Either it can apply to the courts to set aside as unconstitutional the bond issues now authorized for the completion of the State highway system, or it can appeal to the Legislature for an apportionment which is constitutional. In view of the fact that the first course would deprive the counties outside New York City of the State highways still to be built, it would seem the part of prudence and good judgment for the Legislature to settle the matter without involving a recourse to the courts. (e) New York City's situation so far as taxes upon its real estate is concerned, is fully outlined in the majority report. As one effective remedy for the situation there disclosed the city asks that the proceeds of the stock transfer tax collected in New York City, and amounting to approximately $4,000,000 a year be transferred to New York City. It was pointed out to your Committee that in the smaller communities throughout the State it is customary to permit the local authorities to levy a license fee on the operations of local merchants. Inasmuch as the stock transfer tax is made possible solely by the exceptional commercial opportunities afforded by the City of New York, it would seem just to permit the city to collect the proceeds of the stock transfer tax and apply it to the reduction of taxes upon real estate. No. 25] rr) (f) It will be remembered that the occasion of the appointment of your Committee was the protest made by New York City against the imposition of a direct tax last year by the Legislature. This protest was made, not because of any opposition to a direct tax as a direct tax, but because the city felt that it was being imposed upon in being asked to meet the State appropriations enumerated above, and the Legislature should know that the city will similarly object to any direct tax which is levied while these appropriations are still in existence. To meet the causes for unrest and dissatisfaction in New York City outlined in this minority report there will be submitted to the Legislature the following lmeasures: 1. A constitutional aienidmeiitl providing for a two-thirds vote upon all appropriations where the benefits sought are chiefly local, and another constitutional amendment providing for a legislative apportionment which will give New York City a representation in the Senate and Assembly sufficient to protect a majority of the population of the State from the financial domination of a minority. 2. A bill repealing the State Aid Law. 3. A bill providing that State property shall be exempt from taxation wherever located. 4. A bill apportioning to New York City its proper share of State highways. 5. A bill apportioning the proceeds of the stock transfer tax to the localities where this tax is collected. These measures can be enacted by the Legislature in deference to the wishes of the people of the City of New York without working any hardship upon the citizens of the counties outside of New York City. If passed they will substantially relieve the city's present financial situation. Even more important than this result, however, will be the creation of a better feeling on the part of the people of New York City toward the State Legislature, and the stimulation of the city's desire to do its full share in the development and the progress of the State as a whole. Every great public undertaking begun and completed by the State in the past has been so begun and so completed through the 56 [SENATE No. 25] cordial cooperation and assistance of New York City. Similarly in the future the State must look to New York City for approval and support of similar State improvements. The Legislature will consult the best interests of the State as a whole if it strengthens and encourages New York City's desire to participate in the future undertakings of the State by granting to it that modicum of justice which the city now demands. Respectfully submitted, ROBERT F. WAGNER, THOMAS H. CULLEN, ALFRED E. SMIITH. AUG 6 1931 UN.. r fRhtlH. LIBRARY f:':r~pi iiitr:k1!3f': ~~.., ~~-u;i Sjj Tiitu~r'.il?I;~~ ~;;;jul.h ~ iJ ')"t'k irit,~j ~~~;rrllU: tiitf!t~~ ~~II sfniii)if~,,:~l,~,;I ~*rz;,ii~.,,,,tsi;? ~, tj 3rii4kli Itilii,:~rrii...2;"" bi'.l:'"';'E:tq!s:~ uL'r!j~ata. pi:jr~l itiE:irqc,1,;t":~ ~~f~.. tltl(tf.i 'r:bzr;nl:::~~li; ~""l~'~'rjrjl (. ircnrtraH,,r:~e:7 t~ i:?i'ffr:~i ra f)(l)) If,Tf; ~rif ' r..., 'i~rra0l:9rre*i, ?lf:rt ~I ~,: ia 'i"';a: rrtIEi: frv: Ei. ~I !raatu:rr;~'i:I~,, i 4)ri ~I~~~ai;r:YI;:'t rcrs t~p "~.;oUII3Ct;;(t- ( ar""' I~:? " I:iit~ P?6 I`"'*"I~ ~i'';'`~ "''";~~;;tir ~rflcirdi:;g ~I:;:-;;:..::-~?~~t~l`:: ~ Bbi:!lrri, r, g EA t;,,?;Si i ' cat;a: l~P~:i?uunilS;t:t!"t ; ~; ~~r,`~t~il;.,_' ~~ lirlr ~*,yc;.:i~~i.)FI-~~ -Llit;.~i:tr ~i;t:1!?I X!':: "' r~.:i)II:r,11~ut~''rI t *; e;I ~ Ilil ~ L tijijf S,,:, i era;-t ~1;~~ ~i*;ii;t):r~ "r5:E ~''''`* '!3!:':;:~~~::F or.rl; e,~h?,:I " ui3:S1P:::iillri — *rrc*, j'!bO: qlli,. 'f';i6~.,a,;:~ ~~:;:::tj! "~asiil I:1 l)t"1ittlrgiii;;5rli'~r~'s" ""::i tfjj'i; ijj F I t; EttisI iiigC rt ri aly s, 5:rl:i r- 'I I; rrr iCirl)F~~*li;l 'iEl- "I";:itj:tH"II iNr '""" eAiiti~i~ SiEiI:~ " 'C'''olt~i On:nr,:llcll ' i 1M4iF'"?tF.b:;~r. t!~rrcriiit.i:".)1~ aitarl IX:it!?:: E:i gg egSilG i;:3ti: '~