f, ffl REPORT OF A STUDY of the FINANCIAL CONDITION AND PRACTICES of the CITY OF ROCHESTER, N. Y. THE U8HARY OF THE APR 3 0 1924 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS . PW t iffly US fi4HY OF m UNl'fFP&i Tv - . , V * t-’ of ( jf Qp ft ! tMn ROCHESTER BUREAU OF MUNICIPAL RESEARCH, Inc. DECEMBER, 1923 NOTICE: Return or renew all Library Materials! The Minimum Fee for each Lost Book is $50.00. The person charging this material is responsible for its return to the library from which it was withdrawn on or before the Latest Date stamped below. Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for discipli¬ nary action and may result in dismissal from the University. To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN L161—0-1096 Report of a Study of the Financial Condition and Practices of the City of Rochester, N. Y. Submitted to The Mayor, the Comptroller, the Corporation Counsel, and the Members of the Common Council THE LIBRARY OF THE APfU-Q- 1924 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS Rochester Bureau of Muncipal Research, Inc. DECEMBER, I923 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Summary of Recommendations. 4 Introduction.v. 6 Part I—General Description of Financial Procedure. 7 The Purpose of the Government. 7 Funds. 8 Budget Procedure.10 Expenditure Procedure.12 Revenue Procedure.14 Assessment of Property and Tax Levy.14 Delinquent Taxes.15 Miscellaneous Revenues.18 Assessment Procedure.19 Local Improvements.19 Collection of Assessments.21 Borrowing Procedure.22 Borrowing for Current Expense.24 Assessment Fund Borrowing.25 Loan Fund Borrowing.25 Redemption of Debt.26 Part II —History of Financial Transactions for Last Thirteen Years. . .31 Expenditures.31 Revenues.33 Tax Revenues.33 Tax Rate and Tax Limit.34 Miscellaneous Revenues.35 Assessments.36 Borrowing.37 Debt Limit.38 Redemption of Debt.39 Part III--Financial Condition of City at Present Time .41 Growing Expenditures.41 Expenditures for Schools.42 Condition of the Revenues.42 Increasing Assessed Valuations.42 Borrowing for Current Expenses.43 Utility Revenues.44 Miscellaneous Revenues.44 Condition of Assessments.45 Indebtedness Condition.45 Sinking Funds.46 Part IV— Proposed Changes in Policy and Procedure .48 Expenditures.48 Revenues.50 Tax Revenues.50 Utility Revenues.51 Miscellaneous Revenues.52 Assessments.54 Borrowing. 55 Immediate Program.55 Bonding Section for Charter.56 Funds. .62 Budget.65 Budget Section in Charter.65 Other Charter Amendments.67 Form of the Budget.68 Appendix—Financial Tables 1 to 42 74—109 ■b^.\ ^ SS \\ n_ 1 INDEX OF FINANCIAL TABLES Title of Table Table Number Tax Roll Items. 1 Licenses. ) . 2 Budget Expenditures Analyzed by Organization Units. 3 Comparison of 1922 Budget Expenditures with 1910 Expenditures.. 4 Budget Expenditures 1910-1922 Inclusive. 5 Comparison of 1922 Budget Expenditures with 1910 Expenditures Classified by Object of Expenditure. 6 Direct Assessments for Current Expenses... 7 Local Improvement Ordinances Certified by Comptroller to Assessors 8 Expenditures of City of Rochester for Land and Buildings. 9 Revenues of City of Rochester. 10 Assessed Valuations of Property. 11 Assessed Valuation, Equalization Rate and Estimated True Valua¬ tion of Property. 12 Tax Rate Applicable to General Municipal Expense. 13 Revenues of the City of Rochester from Sources Other than Munic¬ ipal Taxation and Borrowing. 14 Cost of Local Improvements Certified in Years 1913-1922 and Analysis of Assessment Charges. 15 Charges Against the City of Rochester on Account of Local Im¬ provement Assessments, E. S. T. S. Assessments and Addi¬ tions to Annual Tax Rolls. 16 Summary of Money Raised by Borrowing. 17 Money Raised by Borrowing. 18 Summary Statement of Note Transactions by Years. 19 Summary Statement by Purpose of Note Transactions. 20 Summary Statement of Bond Issues by Years. 21 Detail of Bond Issues. 22 Yearly Debt Statements. 23 Redemption of Bonds and Notes from Sinking Funds. 24 Summary Debt Service Expenditures. 25 Expenditures for General Debt Service. 26 Expenditures for Water Debt Service. 27 Expenditures for Public Market Debt Service. 28 Bonds Outstanding. 29 Notes Outstanding, December 31, 1922. 30 Assets of Sinking Funds as of December 31, 1922. 31 Balances of Water Sinking Funds as of December 31, 1922. 32 Balances of Special Sinking Funds. 33 Balances of Sinking Funds as of December 31, 1922. 34 Estimated Deficits of Special Sinking Funds at Maturity. 35 Collections from Business Taxes (Other Than on Liquor Traffic) and from General Licenses and Permits in Thirteen Cities, 1919. . 36 List of Term Bonds in Order of Maturity Dates, Which Should Be Carried by the General Fund. 37 Analysis of Proposed General Debt Service. 38 Analysis of Proposed Water Debt Service. 39 Analysis of Future General Debt Service. 40 Summary Budget for Current Funds. 41 Budget Appropriations. 42 I 543414 This report was prepared in 1919 for the Rochester Bureau of Municipal Research, Inc., by Clarence C. Ludwig. Revision of certain portions and addition of material to bring the report to date December 31 , 1922 , were made by Clarence E. Higgins. The Trustees of the Bureau submit the report to the City Administration with the following recommendations: THE CITY SHOULD Page Expenditures reference 1 Standardize positions and employment policy before raising salaries. 49 2 Revise procedure for purchasing materials and supplies. ... 49 3 Increase expenditures for debt service so as to make bond redemption adequate. 48 Revenues 4 Equalize real estate assessments and revise assessment methods. 50 5 Support the movement to exempt educational costs from the tax limit. 51 6 Make its utilities self-sustaining. 51 7 Support the movement to secure for the cities a larger share of the state income tax. 52 8 Increase or impose new license and permit fees. 52 Assessments 9 Take care of its debt to the Local Improvement Fund on account of delinquent' assessment charges. 54 Borrowing 10 Make its immediate bonding program conform to suggested financial standards. 55 11 Amend the charter to limit the term of bonds issued for improvements to the estimated life of the improvements 5 7 12 Amend the charter to keep improvements assessed wholly against the city out of the Local Improvement Fund. . 57 13 Amend the charter to permit the funding of the city’s share of assessments on a ten year basis. 57 14 Amend the charter to require the Council to make adequate provision for the redemption of all bonds issued for improvements... 57 15 By amendment of the charter or by ordinance permit the creation of supplementary sinking funds. 58 5 Page Funds reference 16 Amend the charter so the city can separate its fund ac¬ counting from its proprietary accounting.,. 62 17 Amend the charter to include several general provisions on funds. 63 18 Create a separate school fund. 63 Budget 19 Enforce the charter provision requiring the submission of departmental estimates by November 1 . 65 20 Include anticipated current expense borrowing in the budget program and the appropriation ordinance. 65 21 Amend the charter immediately to give the Council needed power and require it to control expenditure of money for various purposes. 65 22 Amend the charter immediately to abolish the power of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment to make sup¬ plemental appropriations out of excess receipts. 66 23 Amend the charter immediately to make current fund surpluses available for appropriation rather than transfer to sinking funds. 67 24 Amend the charter to revise the entire budget and tax levy calendar. 67 25 Amend the charter to enlarge the scope of the budget so it will include all the funds of the city. 68 26 Amend the charter to require the automatic insertion in the budget of certain fixed charges and redemption of debt. 68 27 Revise the form of the appropriation ordinance to get greater itemization. 72 28 Include more statements in the budget data submitted to the Board, the Council and the public. 73 6 INTRODUCTION The cost of government in Rochester, like the cost of food and clothes, increased rapidly during and after the war. Although this increase in the cost of government has been neither so sharp nor so sudden as that in the commodity market of the commercial world, it is to be attributed, in part at least, to the same general causes. The city has had to pay more for supplies, for the use of money and for personal serv¬ ice. In addition to the inflation of prices, another element enters into the problem of cost as it affects the city. The scope of government is being constantly and necessarily enlarged; the various functions which are being administered by the people’s municipal agency are growing in number and comprehensiveness. This trend towards expansion and multiplication of function is in line with the development of “state” activity the country over and it is neither possible nor desirable to retard it. This is the basic element of the problem of municipal government and it promises that governmental costs will not come down sympathet¬ ically with deflation in the commodity and money markets. Moreover, the “efficiency movement” in government, while it may reduce extrava¬ gance in expenditures, will not in the long run reduce the aggregate cost because efficiency must always be tested by unit cost of service and not by total cost. How to finance the increasing cost of government is, therefore, a permanent problem. The difficulties in which the City of Rochester now finds itself with respect to finances were inevitable, but they have been accentuated by the temporary inflation of the war period. In a word, the difficulty has become acute at this time because the revenues of the city, limited partly by law and partly by natural causes, have not responded to the needs of the city for funds. The situation is critical. It is the purpose of this report to survey the situation and to analyze some of the elements that enter into it. This is done in the hope that information pertinent to the problem may be disseminated and that some assistance may be rendered the administration in solving the problem. The subject matter of this report is presented according to the following general outline:— First, a general description of the financial procedure; Second, a history of financial transactions for the past thirteen years; Third, an analysis of the financial condition of the city at the present time; and Fourth, suggestions for remedying or relieving the situation. PART I GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF FINANCIAL PROCEDURE The financial problem of the city differs in so many respects from that of a private business concern that it is thought advisable to describe briefly the financial procedure of Rochester. To appreciate fully the problem facing the financial administration of the city, it is necessary to be acquainted with the methods used in spending money, raising revenue, borrowing money, passing budgets and creating funds, all of which differ very considerably from ordinary business procedure. The Purpose of the Government Unlike a private business concern, the government of the city of Rochester is not in business to make a profit. Its main object, in fact its sole excuse for existence, is to render certain services to the public. A business is interested mainly in its profits; a city is interested mainly in giving required service efficiently and at cost. To a business, revenues are the primary consideration and expenditures the secondary; to the government, expenditures are the primary consideration, while revenues are a necessary but secondary consideration. The financial problem of the city, then, involves mainly the question of what expenditures shall be made and how the proposed expenditures shall be financed. Having determined what services shall be rendered, the city calls upon its taxing power or its credit as a borrower to provide the money. But the taxing and borrowing power of the city are not unlimited. Not being restricted by the necessity of producing a profit, the city nevertheless finds itself hedged about by various legal limitations. Thus no money can be spent or raised without authorization by the legislative body of the city—the Common Council. “No appropriation of money may be made except by ordinance specifying each item, the amount thereof, and the department, beard, bureau, court, office, or specific appropriation for which the appropriation is made.” (Section 97 -City Charter.) This general provision of the charter is supplemented by many specific provisions which lay down the procedure for incurring liabilities, levying taxes, issuing securities, etc. These charter provi¬ sions embody and define certain well recognized principles of finance, 8 the aim of which is to protect the public against the ravages of a possible unrepresentative or corrupt government. The city is restricted in its financial transactions, not only by its own charter, but also by the state constitution. The most important constitutional limitations on city finance are the provisions limiting the taxing power and the borrowing power. Notwithstanding many constitutional and charter limitations, the officials of the city possess a great deal of discretionary power in admin¬ istering its finances. There is plenty of room on the one hand for reck¬ less, shortsighted, planless proceedings which disregard every canon of sound finance and on the other for careful financial planning which comprehends the future as well as the present. FUNDS A description of the financial procedure of the city logically begins with a discussion of funds. A “fund” is a financial device which em¬ bodies the various legal requirements, restrictions, and authorizations for the receipt and disbursement of money. To create a fund means to set aside certain specific resources for certain specific purposes or to meet certain obligations. A fund may derive its name from the nature of its resources and the method of obtaining money therefrom or from the purpose for which it is set aside. Thus there are many kinds of funds and there is no arbitrary way of classifying or naming them. With the exception of the trust funds (such as the pension funds and the cemetery funds) and the sinking funds (which will be discussed later in connection with borrowing) the funds of the city of Rochester may be put into three main groups: (i) revenue and expense funds; ( 2 ) assessment funds; ( 3 ) loan funds. The revenue and expense funds are current funds which apply current revenues to the current operations of the government. In Rochester, as in other cities, the most important revenue and expense fund is the General Fund. The resources of this fund usually consist of the estimated tax revenues and the estimated miscellaneous revenues; the obligations comprise the appropriations to the various departments for current operation. One often finds in cities and states various “special revenue and expense” funds, which set aside certain specific revenues for specific purposes. The City of Rochester has two funds of this type, the two utility funds—namely, the Water Fund and the Public Market Fund. The municipally- 9 owned utilities are supposed to be self-sustaining and the special funds set aside their revenues for use only in operating and maintaining them. All of the so-called “current” expenditures of the City of Rochester are made from one or another of these three revenue and expense funds. An exception to this statement must be made in the case of some current services, such as extra street lighting, sidewalk snow plowing and sprink¬ ling, which are financed through the Local Improvement Fund. The primary purpose of the latter fund is to finance local improvements (capital outlays) such as pavements, sidewalks and sewers, the cost of which is assessed directly against the property owners benefited. The cost of the aforementioned current services is charged against the Local Improvement Fund rather than the General Fund, because the burden is shifted to the taxpayer by the direct assessment method rather than by the taxation method. The assessment funds of the city are the Local Improvement Fund and the East Side Trunk Sewer Fund. As indicated in the preceding paragraph, the resources of these funds consist partly of authorized loans pending the levying of assessments, partly of reimbursable expendi¬ tures, and partly of assessments levied and either collected or uncollected. With the exceptions noted they are applied to the construction of capital improvements. The Local Improvement Fund is a general assessment fund comprising all the “local improvement ordinances” except the East Side Trunk Sewer fund. The procedure for handling the latter is specially laid down in the charter. The resources of the various loan funds consist, in the beginning, of authorizations to borrow money to be used for capital outlays such as the construction of various city buildings, the construction of conduit lines and plants, the purchase of land, etc. Usually there is a separate loan fund created for each major improvement, although occasionally several improvements are lumped together in one loan fund such as the recent Municipal Building Construction Fund. The loan funds that are now open on the books of the city are as follows: Water Improvement Fund. Sewage Disposal Fund. Municipal Building Construction Fund. Rochester Land Purchase Fund. School Building and Site Fund. Canal Land Purchase Fund. Brown Street Subway Fund. Lewiston Avenue and Ridge Road Bridge Fund. 10 BUDGET PROCEDURE The administration of funds is the chief concern of the financial officers of the city. The most important instrument used for this pur¬ pose is the “budget.” The term “budget” is used with more or less restricted meanings in various cities. In its fullest sense, a budget comprises a complete program of expenditures and an adequate plan for financing them. A budget of this type is supported by many kinds of reports, statements and plans. An operating report and a financial report from each department, the usual financial statements of the comptroller, departmental work programs and estimates, and detailed revenue, assessment, and borrowing plans would all be required to support a thorough-going budget. The acceptance of such a budget would involve, as its final consummation, a'levy of taxes, the fixing of rates and charges for the various miscellaneous revenues, the authoriza¬ tion of borrowing and assessments and the appropriation of funds to the various departments and for various purposes. Compared with an all-inclusive budget of this kind, the Rochester budget is very restricted in scope. As defined by the charter, it covers only current funds, those which were classified above as revenue and expense funds, namely, the General Fund, the Water Fund and the Public Market Fund. The charter provides a procedure for assessment authorizations and loan authorizations which is entirely separate from the budget procedure. The budget calendar prescribed by the charter is briefly as follows: On or before Nov. i—Estimates of all departments, except Depart¬ ment of Public Instruction, are to be presented to Mayor. (Sec. 28 .) On or before Dec. 31 —Estimates of Department of Public Instruc¬ tion are to be presented to Mayor. (Sec. 28 .) On or before Dec. 31 —Departmental reports on year’s work are to be presented to Mayor. (Sec. 29 .) Month of January—Board of Estimate and Apportionment may change salary rates only during January. (Sec. 65 .) On or before Feb. 14 —Consideration of estimates by Mayor and Board is to be completed and tentative budget submitted to Common Council. (Sec. 62 .) 11 Between Feb. 15 and March 15—Common Council is to grant public hearing and consider tentative budget as submitted by Board. (Sec. 105.) On or before March 15—Common Council is to adopt budget as submitted or amended. (Sec. 105.) April 1-5—Common Council is to confirm tax rolls and levy annual taxes. (Sec. 107.) The charter denies the Common Council power to raise any items of the tentative budget as submitted to it by the Board of Estimate; it may, however, reduce any items except those relating to indebtedness, judgments, and estimated revenues. From the foregoing calendar and the limitation on the Council’s power of amendment, it will be seen that the Rochester budget is an executive budget. The real budget authority is the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, which the Mayor controls. With respect to the actual working out of the budget calendar and procedure by the Board, several facts should be noted. In the first place, departmental estimates are not submitted until January—two months after the last date allowed by the charter. An exception to this statement may be mentioned in connection with the 1923 budget. By means of cooperation between the Comptroller’s office and the Bureau of Municipal Research, the department estimates for 1923 were submitted on November 1, 1922. In the second place, the estimates are submitted on forms which are prepared by the Comptroller and which provide for an analysis by character, function, and object, of the last year’s expenditures and the estimated expenditures for the next year. In the third place, an effort has been made to grant public hearings during the period that the estimates were being considered by the Board. Although the departmental estimates are analyzed and classified by character, function and object, this analysis does not extend to the appropriation ordinance. As far as the appropriation is concerned, the Rochester budget is an extremely “lump-sum” budget. The items allowed in the appropriation ordinance are not granted subject to a schedule of any kind except the salary schedule. The salary schedule does control the amount of money that may be spent for personal service, because it prescribes the number of incumbents and the salary rates attached to each position in each department. But outside of the salary 12 control, there is nothing in the Rochester budget which prevents an estimated allowance for equipment from being used for supplies, or an estimated allowance for personal service from being used for any other purpose. The make-up of the budget, in so far as control over expendi¬ tures is concerned, permits of a minimum of control on the part of the central officers. The power to appropriate money resides mainly in the legislative body of the city government, but the charter has granted to the Board of Estimate and Apportionment a modified right to make supplementary appropriations. This power applies to the so-called excess receipts, those arising from the excess of actual revenues over estimated revenues. Section 63 of the charter says in part, “ . . . When any moneys or revenues are received by the city or any department, board or officers thereof, from any source other than by municipal tax and which are not otherwise appropriated or directed by law to be applied, such money or revenue may be used and applied towards and in addition to the funds appropriated as aforesaid, in such manner as the board of estimate and apportionment may direct.” Actual revenues are usually greater than the estimated revenues upon which the original appropriations are based and the effect of the foregoing provision of the charter is to make it customary for the various departments to call on the Board at the end of each year for as large a dole as possible out of the general pot. Inasmuch as the planned expenditures of the annual budget are not covered by regular appropriations until the middle of March, it is necessary for the Council to appropriate monthly allowances for the various departments for the first three months of the year in anticipation of the regular budget. These anticipatory appropriations go hand in hand with current monthly borrowing to provide funds for running the government in anticipation of the collection of taxes which begins May 1st. This type of borrowing will be discussed under the head of borrowing procedure. EXPENDITURE PROCEDURE “No department, board, court, or officer is permitted during any fiscal year to expend or contract to be expended any money or to enter into any contract which by its terms involves the expenditure of money in excess of the amounts appropriated in the annual estimate adopted 13 by the Common Council or otherwise lawfully added thereto for such department, board, court, or office for such fiscal year . . . (Sec. 23, in part). Once the Council has appropriated a sum of money for any department, the head of that department may go ahead and incur expense or liability on behalf of the city. Such action may take the form of placing an employee on the payroll of the city, subject to the salary schedule and the civil service regulations; purchasing materials and supplies, subject to the purchasing procedure laid down by the charter; or entering into contracts for certain definite services, subject to the contract procedure laid down by the charter. Contracts entered into and open market orders given are regarded as contingent liabilities of the city and the Comptroller charges them against the proper appropriation items. The yearly appropriations are not divided into monthly allotments and there is nothing to prevent a spending officer from spending all his appropriation the first half of the year if he is so minded. Along towards the end of the year it is customary for the Comptroller to deduct the permanent payroll (to the end of the year), the outstanding open market orders (requisitions are used in Rochester rather than orders for registering contingent liabilities) and contracts from the unexpended balances in order to arrive at the unen¬ cumbered balances for each department. The charter lays down a specific procedure for passing and auditing claims. Claims are of two general types—payrolls and ordinary voucher claims. Both must pass through the hands of the Comptroller, whose duty it is to see that claims are charged against the proper appropriations, that the particular appropriations are not overdrawn and that the law has been complied with in all respects. It is also his duty to see that payrolls conform with the salary schedules of the budget; that the purchasing procedure has been correct; and that the claims are properly advertised. The Treasurer also is required by the charter to “keep a separate account with every department, board, bureau, court, office, appropria¬ tion and fund for which moneys are appropriated in the annual estimate and raised by assessment, and must in every check or draft drawn by him state particularly against which of such funds it is drawn unless the money is drawn for use in his office. He must at no time permit any of the appropriations for the same including moneys lawfully added thereto to be overdrawn, or a claim chargeable to one fund to be charged to another.” (Sec. 162, in part.) The effect of this provision is to 14 require both the Comptroller and Treasurer to keep fund and appro¬ priation accounts and to carry the fund accounting into the cash account¬ ing ; in short to split the cash account into many divisions to correspond with the funds. As regards the purchasing procedure, the requirements of the charter, together with custom, tend to delay the payment of bills owed by the city. The average time elapsing between the delivery of goods to the city and the receipt of payment is approximately two months, too long a period for the city to take full advantage of discounts offered. More¬ over, there is no central storehouse and the purchases for the several departments are made independently, no attempt being made to coor¬ dinate purchases of supplies used in common by two or more departments. REVENUE PROCEDURE The resources of Rochester’s “current budget” have customarily been divided into two main classes: (i) general city tax revenue and (2) miscellaneous revenue. The latter class includes fees, fines, interest earned, contributions, city’s share of state taxes, miscellaneous sales and income, utility revenues, etc. Usually the city tax and the miscel¬ laneous revenues have been the only resources applied to the current budget. Thus, the amount to be raised by general city tax, defined by the charter as the “tax budget,” has been determined by deducting the miscellaneous revenues from the total budget. Assessment of Property and Tax Levy The general city tax has always been the main source of revenue for financing the current budget. Technically the city tax is a general property tax, and, although the state income tax law exempts most personal property from the general property tax, it is for all practical purposes a real estate tax. Real estate is assessed for the purposes of local taxation by the Department of Assessment and Taxation of the city government. This assessment by the local assessors includes property owned by corporations holding public franchises, with the exception of such property as is situated in, on, under or over a public street. This latter class of property, including intangible values, is called “special franchises” and is assessed by the state tax commission. Special franchise valuations are certified annually to the city clerk by the state tax commission, and, for purposes of calculating the tax and debt limits, are considered as real estate. 15 The task of assessing property is performed by the assessors for the most part during the summer months. The tax rolls are required by the charter to be completed by January 15th, at which time allega¬ tions are heard and valuations revised. By April 1, the rolls must be delivered to the City Clerk, who turns them over to the Common Council for confirmation and for the levying of taxes. Delinquent Taxes At this point it may be advisable to mention a matter of procedure which has an important bearing on the problem of collecting delinquent taxes. The charter requires the placing of some items and permits the placing of others on the tax roll in addition to the general city tax. For example, local improvement assessments and water charges which are delinquent on March 1, are closed on the books where they originally appeared as charges and are added to the annual tax. In addition to various delinquent accounts, the annual tax roll carries the charges for several direct assessments for current services. The tax roll items, in¬ cluding the general city tax, may be classified as follows: Taxes Property Tax. Water Frontage Tax. Delinquent Accounts Watei Meter Rates. Local Improvement Assessments. East Side Trunk Sewer Assessments. Sidewalk Repair and Cleaning Charges—D. P. W. Public Safety Charges—D. P. S. Direct Assessments Charges for Street Sprinkling. Charges for Extra Lighting. Charges for Snow Removal (Plowing). Charges for Care and Embellishment and Tree Planting. Of the foregoing items, the property tax alone is levied on a valua¬ tion basis; the others are levied on a frontage basis, except delinquent Department of Public Works and Department of Public Safety charges which are direct charges against individual parcels of property for the actual costs of services performed. It is obvious that in relation to delinquent accounts, the tax roll is a secondary method of collection 16 and in relation to direct assessment, it is the primary method of col¬ lection. The various legal, administrative and accounting aspects of these charges are shown in Table I. The important point in connection with this procedure, which is an admirable one in many respects, is that the various additions to taxes are liens against the property taxed. When the items are placed on the annual tax roll, they are merged for legal purposes and become one aggregate lien against each parcel of property. The merging of the various delinquent accounts into the tax lien provides a single and effective method of compelling collection. A recent charter amendment makes it unnecessary to hold these delinquent accounts open as resources of their respective funds until collection. On the contrary, the open accounts in the water and assessment funds are closed at the time of transfer to the tax roll; the tax account of the general fund “buys” them, so to speak; they are converted into a tax and the general fund compensates the other funds for the face value of the assets taken over. Each taxpayer receives a bill specifying the items which go to make up the total charge levied against his property. But in law there is just the one charge, and that is a lien on the property. Taxes are due May i of each year, and may be paid any time be¬ tween May i and November 15. The following interest charges are added to the taxes:— If the taxes are paid May 1-31. . . . June 1-15.... June 16-30.... July 1-15- July 16-31.... Aug. 1-15.... Aug. 16-31 Sept. 1-15. . . . Sept. 16-30. . . . Oct. 1-15 . . . . Oct. 16-31. . . . Nov. 1-15 . . . . No interest x% 1% i#% 2% 2^% 3% 3 ^% 4 % 4 ^% 5 % 5 ^% Ten per cent per annum is added for all time after November 15. Novem¬ ber 15 is the date after which unpaid taxes are regarded as delinquent. 17 The charter provides in general for two methods of procedure in collecting delinquent taxes. It provides in the first place that the Treasurer may issue warrants to collectors authorizing them to collect the tax, by distress and sale of personal property if necessary. A penalty of five per cent is added in this case for collector’s fee. The method of collecting taxes by tax collectors applies both to personal and real estate taxes and was the main reliance of the Treasurer up to several years ago. This method, however, has now been abandoned and the city relies entirely upon the second general method of collection, namely, legal proceedings on the part of the Corporation Counsel. These legal pro¬ ceedings may be of three kinds:— a—Supplementary proceedings, b—Actions, c—Tax lien foreclosures. The first two may be used in the case of personal taxes and any of the three in the case of real estate. As the new tax law makes personal taxes a negligible quantity, the primary method relied upon for the collection of taxes at the present time is the tax lien foreclosure. Briefly, the procedure for foreclosing tax liens is as follows: After advertising, the Treasurer transmits to the Corporation Counsel in January of each year a list of delinquent personal taxes which became due the preceding year and a list of delinquent real estate taxes which became due the second year preceding. A charge of fifty cents is added to each delinquent account advertised and reported to the Law Depart¬ ment. The Corporation Counsel selects the cases which involve the largest amounts of money and the least legal complication and serves notices on the property owners that foreclosure proceedings are about to be opened. A further fee of one dollar is added to the tax account to cover the cost of this service. The serving of the notices has the effect of bringing in a good many taxpayers to settle their accounts before they are taken into court. In case the action to foreclose the tax lien is carried through, the proceeds of the execution, as admin¬ istered by the referee, are applied first to court costs, second to “disbursements” and, finally, to the satisfaction of the tax and assess¬ ment lien. The oldest delinquent accounts are taken care of first, then the next oldest, and so on until the money runs out. Very rarely does it happen that there is enough money from a tax sale to cover all the costs and to reimburse the city entirely for its tax and assessment lien. 18 Those accounts for which there is not sufficient foreclosure money are, nevertheless, closed out and charged to the appropriation account, “Rebates of Taxes and Assessments.” Recently a “Tax Foreclosure” fund was created for the use of the Law Department. The resources of this fund are the receipts from the sale of tax lien real estate and they are to be applied by the city to the purchase of land in tax lien foreclosure cases. Previous to the creation of this fund, it was impossible for the city to bid at a tax sale more than the costs and the disbursements. Now the citv can bid the full amount, can clear its delinquent tax accounts, and can hold the property purchased to determine the trend of the real estate market or the availability of the property for local improvement use. Miscellaneous Revenues All the revenues of the city other than the general city tax revenue are lumped together under the title “Miscellaneous Revenues.” They are of various kinds and sources. Until a few years ago, one of the most important sources of miscellaneous revenue was liquor license receipts. This has now been displaced by other new sources such as the city’s share of the state income tax. The state income tax consists of two parts—a corporation income tax and a personal income tax. Of the corporation tax, the city receives one third of the collections from Roch¬ ester corporations; of the personal income tax, the city receives a one- half share, based on the ratio of the assessed valuation of Rochester property to the total state valuation. [The receipts from the personal income tax, it is evident, are somewhat dependent on the assessed prop¬ erty valuations and a raising of the assessments toward the ioo per cent basis would result in larger revenue from this source.] A share of the bank stock tax, which is collected by the county, is also turned over to the city and added to its miscellaneous revenues. This tax has been declared unconstitutional and the city has refunded its proper share of the collections. Interest on delinquent taxes and interest on general fund bank balances bring in a substantial revenue. There also are fines and various license and permit fees. In addition to these, many of the departments derive a revenue from their incidental operations. Charges for service rendered or for commodities sold make up the largest part of the depart¬ mental revenues. As examples of these, there may be mentioned bath house receipts, lunch room. sales, sale of tankage and grease from the 19 garbage plant, rent of market stalls, rent of public buildings and sale of old materials. The largest departmental revenues come from the utility departments. Although these are listed with the miscel¬ laneous revenues, they are not applicable to the general fund but are resources of the special utility funds. The Department of Public Instruc¬ tion receives a contribution from the state based on enrollment and on teachers employed. Since the Lockwood teachers’ salary bill became law, the city has received a much larger amount from the state. The Rochester quota is $550 per teacher and is intended to recompense the city for raising teachers’ salaries in compliance with the law. Several methods have been provided for collecting miscellaneous revenues. Most of the license fees are collected by the Treasurer, although some are collected by the City Clerk and some by the Health Bureau. All contributions and quotas from the state or county, as well as all interest accruals, are of course collected through the Treasurer. Water rates are collected by the Treasurer; charges for meters sold and miscellaneous sales and services are collected by the department. Prac¬ tically all department revenues are collected in this fashion—that is, directly by the department concerned—and the cash is turned over to the Treasurer. Detailed information respecting the legal authority, proce¬ dure and rates of fee for the various Rochester licenses is shown in the appended Table No. 2. Miscellaneous receipts are not spread equally over the year. Con¬ tributions from outside jurisdictions are received sporadically; license fees are received mainly in January; departmental revenues are seasonal. Water revenues alone are fairly evenly distributed over the year, the revenues accruing every month of the year. ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE The procedure for authorizing the construction of local improve¬ ments and the levying of assessments to pay for the cost is laid down in detail by the charter. The Council may authorize an improvement and may direct that the whole of the expense of such improvement be charged against the property benefited, or with the consent of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, that the whole or part of it be borne by the city at large. Local Improvements Consideration of a proposed local improvement may be begun by the city on its own initiative or as the result of a petition from interested 20 property owners. In either case the Council requires the City Engineer to make an estimate of the total cost and the maximum cost per front foot. As soon as the Engineer makes his report on estimated cost, the Council passes a “first ordinance,” declaring its intention to require a specific improvement to be made, giving the estimated cost, the amount to be paid by the city (if any), the part of the city assessed, and the time for hearing allegations thereon. [If the first ordinance is amended to increase the cost, new public notices must be given and allegations heard again.] The “final ordinance” specifies in addition the number of equal annual installments in which the assessments are to be payable. The number of installments is limited by the charter, as follows:— (a) When the estimated maximum cost per front foot is not more than $1.00, there may be not over three installments. (b) $i.oi to $3.00—not over five installments. (c) $3.01 to $5.00—not over seven installments. (d) Over $5.00—not more than ten installments. A “final ordinance” requires a two-thirds vote of the Council for its passage, unless the improvement has been requested by petition of a majority of the property owners affected. Detailed account of the expense incurred under each local improve¬ ment ordinance is kept by the City Engineer and by the Comptroller. The charter places on the Comptroller the duty of ascertaining the ex¬ pense of each local improvement which is to be assessed. The total expense as certified by him must include (1) All damages or awards, (2) All expense of construction, (3) Interest on the money involved to the time when the first installment is due. The items which go to make up the total cost are listed as follows in the Comptroller’s report to the Assessors:— Amount paid to contractor. Amount paid for cartage. Amount paid for advertising. Amount paid for stakes. Amount paid for local inspection. Amount paid for general inspection. Amount paid for labor by Street Department, Amount paid for miscellaneous. Charge for interest. Total. 21 In calculating interest charges, the Comptroller uses the average rate paid by the city to secure cash for its assessment funds in anticipation of assessments levied. The rate used at the present time is four and one- half per cent. The term used varies, the interest being calculated on each particular disbursement from the date of the disbursement to the date when the first installment is due. Collection of Assessments When an improvement has been completed and the total cost certified by the Comptroller, it is the duty of the Assessors to make up assessment rolls and distribute the cost on a frontage basis. The charter requires that the Assessors furnish the Treasurer with a separate assessment roll for each local improvement ordinance. The Council has the power to correct errors in assessments or to reassess. Every assessment roll must be confirmed by the Council before going to the Treasurer. Local assessments are due on the first day of the month following the receipt of the roll by the Treasurer, if the roll is received before the fifteenth; they are due on the fifteenth of the following month if received on or after that date. The Treasurer gives five days’ public notice of every local assessment and has bills printed to send to the property owners assessed. The bills show the aggregate assessment and also indicate the dates on which the various installments are due. The aggregate assessment or any of the installments may be paid at any time, but if the whole assessment is not paid at the time that the first installment is due, interest at the rate of six per cent per annum * will be charged from the time of the first installment until the time of payment. As was stated above, if an assessment or an installment thereof is due but is not paid by the first of March the delinquent assess¬ ment is added to the tax roll. In such a case, the interest charged is ten per cent per annum from the time the assessment was due until June first following. Thus the city has no separate problem of collecting delinquent assessments. The East Side Trunk Sewer Fund is a special assessment fund created by the charter to finance the construction of the East Side Trunk Sewer. It is provided that in 1908 and every five years thereafter the Council shall determine the amount necessary 22 (1) To pay bonds falling due in the five-year period. (2) To pay any additional bonds. (3) To pay interest on bonds. (4) To pay any additional assessment for the reconstruction of a sewer or disposal plant. (5) To pay interest to the time of the first installment. (6) To pay expenses incident to making assessments. The assessments, as thus determined, are payable in five equal annual installments. The procedure for making up the East Side Trunk Sewer rolls and for collections and for adding delinquents to the tax roll is the same as in the case of regular local improvement assessments. Government property, i. e., property belonging to the city, county, state, or United States, is exempted from taxation but is not exempted from its share of local assessments. Hence the local assessment rolls include government owned as well as privately owned parcels of property and show the charges against them in the same way. There is this difference, however,—the total cost chargeable against the government is regarded as being payable in only one installment and if not paid when due it has no interest added to it for delinquency. Nor can it be added to taxes as are other delinquent assessments. Theoretically, the city’s share of local assessments is to be taken care of every year and out of a special appropriation item called “City’s Share of Local Assessments.” Of recent years, this item has been excluded from the budget, inasmuch as the city doesn’t have to pay a penalty for delinquency, and because the charges have reached onerous proportions. BORROWING PROCEDURE “The Common Council has power from time to time to borrow money for city purposes and to cause to be issued therefor, in amounts designated by it, notes of the city directed by it and running for a period not exceeding eight months, and bearing interest at a rate fixed by the Common Council, or at its option by competition, not exceeding the legal rate of interest per annum, and bonds of the city, signed by the Mayor and Treasurer, sealed with the corporate seal and countersigned by the Comptroller and at the option of the Common Council, by a transfer agent designated by it, payable and transferable at such places as the Common Council may designate, running for a period or different 23 periods determined by the Common Council not exceeding thirty years, bearing interest at a rate fixed by the Common Council not exceeding the legal rate of interest per annum; such notes and bonds to be sold under the direction of the Comptroller, after competition, upon sealed proposals at not less than par. Bonds issued to meet appropriations for current expenses not anticipated or provided for out of current rev¬ enues shall run for a period not exceeding five years.The provisions of any general law or special law do not govern or apply to the issuance and sale of the notes and bonds herein authorized. Nor shall any such law unless hereafter enacted and specifically expressing an intention so to do, limit or affect the power of the Common Council to authorize the issuance of notes or bonds or to make appropriations.” (Sec. 96, Charter.) This grant of borrowing power is very broad and gives wide discre¬ tion to the city officials to issue securities for any purpose which can be regarded as a “city purpose.” The important limitations may be specified as follows: (1) The maximum interest rate, for both notes and bonds, is six per cent. (2) Neither notes nor bonds may be sold for less than par. (3) The maximum term for notes is eight months and for bonds thirty years (except bonds issued for current expenses, in which case the maximum term is five years). (4) Competition for notes may be expressed in a variable interest rate or premium. Competition for bonds may be expressed in a variable premium only. The kinds of borrowing in which the city engages may be classified as follows: (1) Tax anticipation borrowing. (2) Tax revenue borrowing (overdue taxes). (3) Current expense borrowing. (4) Borrowing for capital outlays or permanent improvements. (a) To provide working capital for assessment funds. (b) To provide capital for loan funds. Tax anticipation borrowing is made necessary by the fact that the expenditures of the current year’s budget begin in January, whereas the tax revenues do not come in until May and June. In order to provide funds for the operation of the government the first four months of the 24 year, so-called “revenue” notes are issued each month; those issued in January running five months, those issued in February running four months, those issued in March running three months, and those issued in April running two months. The notes mature approximately the middle of June when tax collections are at their peak and out of which they are liquidated. The four series of tax anticipation notes in 1922 aggregated $3,300,000 and cost $36,712.50 in interest. Tax revenue borrowing is another kind of temporary borrowing necessary to convert the resources of the general fund into liquid form. At the end of every year some of the tax revenue is still uncollected, i. e., delinquent; but the budget appropriations cover the whole revenue whether or not it can all be collected the first year. Thus it is necessary to secure funds to finance the regular expenditures at the end of the year and the notes issued are liquidated out of the delinquent tax accounts when they are finally collected, either directly by the Treasurer or indi¬ rectly by the Law Department. As it is usually two or three years before all the delinquent accounts of a particular tax levy can be closed and as new levies constantly give rise to new delinquent accounts, the city must always carry a greater or less amount of tax receivable assets on its books. These assets must be covered by revenue borrowing, and the city will constantly have revenue notes outstanding, unless there is a large unapplied general fund surplus. These notes in Rochester are called “overdue tax notes,” and the amount outstanding at the end of 1922 was $315,000.00. Borrowing for Current Expense Current expense borrowing arises out of several conditions. It may be a part of the budget plan that some of the current year’s expendi¬ tures should be financed by borrowing. The securities issued may be temporary notes which can be carried along by continual renewal, or funded into bonds, or taken care of out of the next year’s budget. Then again current borrowing may be necessary to provide for deficiencies such as occur when unforeseen emergencies arise or when the budget plan is not adequately enforced. In general, it may be said that borrow¬ ing for current expenses is an undesirable practice, unless required by emergency or legal complications. Prior to 1919 it had been resorted to in Rochester only to a slight extent. Since 1919 this type of borrowing has increased to amounts of considerable magnitude. Examples from 25 recent years are School Repair and Equipment Notes (1919) and General and School Current Expense Notes (1920, 1921 and 1922). While borrowing is the exceptional thing in the case of financing current expenditures, it is, on the other hand, the primary means relied upon to finance capital outlays and permanent improvements. The improvements thus financed are of two kinds—(1) the so-called local improvements and (2) general city improvements. Local improvements are those which are to be paid for ultimately, either in whole or in part, by reimbursements from the property owners directly benefited. General city improvements are those which are to be paid for by the taxpayers as a whole through taxation. Assessment Fund Borrowing Local improvements are handled through assessment funds, which have been discussed previously. Borrowing is resorted to in the case of these funds, not to pay for the improvements, but merely to provide working capital in anticipation of the ultimate reimbursements. This capital is necessary for the period of construction, for the time allowed for payment by installment, and for the time necessary to transfer delin¬ quent accounts to the tax roll. It is not the practice in Rochester to issue bonds to cover the cost of each particular local improvement (except in the case of the East Side Trunk Sewer and a few other minor exceptions), but rather to issue bonds for large amounts sufficient to cover the needs of the Local Improvement Fund as a whole, whether there are a dozen ordinances involved or a hundred. Rochester’s Local Improvement bond issues have in recent years been both of the “term'’ and “serial” type and have the maximum life allowed by the charter, namely, thirty years. No particular provision is made for the redemp¬ tion of local improvement bonds, except the automatic one of compulsory assessments. The status of the fund at the time of maturity determines whether a particular “term” bond shall be paid or refunded. Serial bonds must of course be paid serially out of collected assessments. Loan Fund Borrowing General city improvements are handled through loan funds. Unlike the assessment funds, there is a separate loan fund and a separate bond issue for each improvement or kind of improvement. Thus there is outstanding at the present time, besides water bonds and public market bonds, the following general bonds:— 26 Sewage Disposal Bonds. Garbage Disposal Bonds. Incinerator Bonds. Convention Hall Purchase Bonds. Exposition Park Purchase Bonds. Fire House Construction Bonds. Voting Machine Purchase Bonds. City Garage Bonds. Library Alteration and Equipment Bonds. Park Bonds. Playground Bonds. School Bonds Municipal Building Bonds. Rochester and State R. R. Bonds Municipal Improvement Bonds. Canal Land Purchase Bonds. Equipment (Street Cleaning) Bonds. Municipal Land Purchase Bonds. As soon as a loan fund has been authorized, contracts are let and the authorized expenditures are made. It is the practice to secure the necessary funds for current demands by issuing short term notes instead of bonds. This system provides the money only as needed and saves the payment of interest on a large amount of money which would not be spent immediately if bonds were issued at the beginning. When several note issues have accumulated or when the authorized expenditures are completed, the aggregate is funded by selling bonds and redeeming the notes with the proceeds. Interest due on all outstanding notes and bonds is a fixed charge against the various funds concerned. Interest on the water indebtedness is;payable out of the water fund, that on market bonds out of the market fund/and that on the assessment bonds and notes out of the assessment funds. Interest on all other indebtedness is payable out of the general fund. Redemption of Debt The indebtedness of the city is redeemed in various ways. For the redemption of temporary notes issued in anticipation of taxes, for overdue taxes, or for current deficiencies, the provision is automatic. By the nature of the case they are redeemed out of the revenues of the 27 general fund either in the current or succeeding budgets. Likewise assessment indebtedness is redeemed out of assessment collections. The redemption of loan fund indebtedness depends upon the nature of the securities and then again upon the provisions for redemption that are laid down in the charter or the authorizing ordinances. If the bonds are of the serial type, a certain definite portion of the indebtedness auto¬ matically matures every year and the serial installments are contract liabilities which must be met. If the bonds are of the ordinary “term” type, special provision must be made for redemption outside the indebt¬ edness contract itself. The method used is the creation of sinking funds. This is why bonds which are not of the “serial” type are some¬ times called “sinking-fund bonds.” The purpose of a sinking fund is to set aside periodically out of current revenues installments which with accumulated interest earned can be applied toward the redemption of the principal of a debt at its maturity. A sinking fund scientifically made up would provide for an actuarially determined installment which with accumulated interest (earned either at the bank or through investment) would be sufficient at the time of maturity to “amortize” the loan, i. e., redeem it com¬ pletely. Sinking funds are not always created scientifically nor are the accumulated funds always wisely handled and invested. Sometimes it is provided that certain specific revenues should be placed in a sinking fund or that a certain percentage of the principal or a fixed amount should be set aside every year as a sinking fund. These are all make¬ shift methods of establishing sinking funds and determining the installments. With regard to the necessity of providing adequate redemption for its indebtedness and with regard to sinking funds, the charter of the City of Rochester says:— “The Common Council has power to create a sinking fund for the redemption of bonds herein authorized, and to provide that there must be deposited therein annually fixed sums or percentages of the appro¬ priations or revenues of the department, board, bureau or office for the benefit of which the bonds are issued; or it may provide that a certain sum must be raised annually by taxes and added to such sinking fund; or it may provide other means of paying or redeeming the bonds at maturity, or it may redeem the same by the issue of new bonds; or it may issue the same without creating a sinking fund, or making other provisions for the redemption thereof.” (Sec. 96 in part.) 28 In addition to the above general provisions, the charter makes specific provisions for the following sinking funds:— General Sinking Fund. Water Sinking Fund (General). Water Distributing Sinking Fund. Hemlock Lake Watershed Sinking Fund. Park Sinking Fund. High School Sinking Fund. School Sinking Fund. Public Market Sinking Fund. Of these, the Water Distributing, High School, and School Sinking Funds are no longer in existence, having served the purpose for which they were created. The Public Market Sinking Fund installment is to consist of “all revenues from hucksters’ licenses except the part thereof directed to be paid into the police pension fund, and an annual sum raised by taxa¬ tion or taken from the revenues of the market, sufficient to redeem at maturity the public market bonds.” (Sec. 158.) It is the practice to credit this sinking fund every year with the whole surplus of the current Market Fund, and this has been more than sufficient in recent years to amortize the bonds outstanding. Market bonds amounting to $78,000 were held as investments in the Water Sinking Funds and were paid from the Market Sinking Fund in 1922. The annual installment of $18,500, which was required by the charter to be added to the Hemlock Lake Sinking Fund, has also resulted in an accumulation which will be more than sufficient at maturity to redeem the Hemlock Lake Watershed bonds. The transfer of this installment has, therefore, been stopped. The Water Sinking Fund is a general sinking fund which may be applied “for the purpose of redeeming bonds of the city now or hereafter issued for the construction, extension, betterment, repair, and main¬ tenance of the water works system and for the redemption of which there is no sinking fund or an insufficient sinking fund provided.” (Sec. 152.) The resources of this fund are three:— (1) $30,000 annually out of water revenues. (2) The annual surplus of the Water Fund. (3) The surplus of any special water sinking fund. 29 The resources of the Park Sinking Fund are annual installments of $3,600 out of current taxes until such time as the fund “contains a sum sufficient to pay and redeem the park bonds or any re-issue thereof.” This installment, which is one per cent of the original principal of the debt, will not'be sufficient to amortize the bonds, it being estimated that there will be a deficit of about $100,000.00. The General Sinking Fund may be used “to retire bonds of the city now or hereafter issued for which no sinking fund or an insufficient sink¬ ing fund is provided.” (Sec. 151.) The resources of the fund consist of the annual surpluses of the General Fund and the surpluses of any other sinking funds except those created for the redemption of water works bonds. The General Fund surpluses and the Water Fund surpluses have not been credited annually to the respective sinking funds, except when funds were actually needed to redeem bonds. The reason for not trans¬ ferring these surpluses “each year,” as provided by the charter, is that to do so would necessitate the borrowing of more money to finance the current budget than is now necessary. That is, these surpluses are used as working funds at the end of the year when the fund resources consist mainly of uncollected taxes and water rates. If the surplus moneys were not available for this purpose, it would be necessary to issue more Overdue Tax notes and to issue also some “Overdue Water” notes. The charter sinking funds as discussed above are not the only ones on the books of the city. In accordance with the power granted it in the general bond section (Sec. 96), the Common Council has created sinking funds by ordinance. These sinking funds are usually authorized in the ordinances which create the loan funds. The installments pro¬ vided for are usually (1) one per cent of the principal, or (2) a fixed sum, or (3) a sum sufficient to “amortize” the debt at maturity. The “one per cent” installments are usually insufficient for thirty year bonds; the “fixed-sum” installments usually have no scientific relation to the needs of the funds; while the “amortization” installments leave it to the Comptroller to calculate the sum required. Premiums received from the sale of bonds are customarily placed in the sinking funds established to redeem them. The first credit to a special sinking fund, therefore, is the premium; later, credits are made for the annual installments, income from investments and interest on bank balances. 30 Another practice which should be mentioned in connection with the subject of sinking fund procedure is the custom of creating sinking funds for “serial” bonds as well as for the regular “sinking fund” bonds. In the case of serial bonds, the serial installment is put into the sinking fund and taken out again the same year. This is done because the debt service item “Redemption of bonds—direct or through sinking funds” is expended out of the General Fund in June every year, and, with one or two exceptions, the serial installments are not immediately due in June. To carry the debt installments in the sinking funds rather than in the General Fund results in a slight saving of interest for those funds at the expense of the General Fund. If at the maturity of any bond issue, there is a deficit in the special sinking fund provided, or if there is no special sinking fund for redemp¬ tion, three courses may be pursued:— (1) The bonds may be paid out of the General Sinking Fund, (2) They may be paid out of the current budget, (3) They may be refunded. PART II HISTORY OF FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS FOR LAST THIRTEEN YEARS Study of the financial transactions of the city during the last thirteen years involves consideration, first, of the expenditures for various purposes, and second, of the means employed for financing the expenditures. EXPENDITURES Expenditures are naturally divided into two classes—current and capital. As was explained in Part I, current expenditures are made from the three current funds which come under budget control (the General Fund and the two utility funds), and also to some extent from the Local Improvement Fund. The budget expenditures for the years 1910 to 1922, analyzed according to organization units, are set forth in Table 3. The total of $14,133,475.23 for 1922 is an increase of 242 per cent over the figure of $4,137,298.30 for 1910. Reference to Table 4 will show the percentage increases for the most important organization units, as compared with this aggregate increase of 242 per cent. In Table 5 the yearly budget expenditures are analyzed by “objects ’’ into four classes, as follows:—Debt Service, Personal Service, Other Current Expense, and Acquisition of Property. It will be noted that Personal Service comprises over fifty per cent of each year’s budget. Table 6 gives the percentage increase of the four classes of expenditure during the thirteen year period. The expenditures for Debt Service show the largest percentage increase. These expenditures have increased much more rapidly than the aggregate budget. This is to be attributed to the fact that in the last two or three years several note issues have been redeemed out of the budget in addition to the regular debt service items of interest, serial installments, and sinking fund installments. Personal Service shows a slightly greater percentage increase than the budget aggregate, while Other Current Expenses are considerably less. The current services which are not covered by the budget but which are cleared through the Local Improvement Fund are as follows at the present time:— Snow Removal (or sidewalk snow plowing). Extra Lighting. Sprinkling. Care and Embellishment and Tree Planting. 32 Prior to 1920, the cost of street cleaning and flushing was also directly assessed through the Local Improvement Fund, but these services are now carried by the General Fund. The procedure whereby the cost of these current services is assessed through the medium of the tax roll was described above in Part I. Prior to 1918, “Extra Lighting” was assessed by the regular local improvement assessment procedure rather than by the tax-roll procedure. The cost of these services for each of the previous thirteen years is shown in Table 7. The “dates” in this table refer to the time of collection (or insertion in tax-roll) and the actual expenditures were made generally a year earlier. The table will serve both as a table of expenditures and as a table of assessments. Capital expenditures are made from the Local Improvement Fund or from the various loan funds. The Local Improvement Fund pro¬ vides working capital for the construction of various improvements, the cost of which is to be directly assessed against the property benefited. In order to allocate the expenditures from this fund to particular years, it is necessary to fix some arbitrary point in the financial process of con¬ struction and assessment by which to classify the individual improve¬ ments. The point used as a basis for the distribution in Table 8 is the date that the ordinances were certified by the Comptroller to the As¬ sessors. In addition to being distributed by the years in which they were certified, the improvements are classified by kind as follows:— Pavements. Sewers. Walks. Openings, extensions, widenings, discontinuings, gradings and combinations. (Grading, walks, and sewers). (Grading and walks). (Walks and sewers). (Grading and sewers). Removal of poles and lighting (Current expenses). Miscellaneous. The average yearly expenditures for local improvements of all kinds is slightly more than a million dollars. All other capital expenditures, with the exception of the compara¬ tively small items included in the budget for “acquisition of property,” are made from the various loan funds. These expenditures for the past 33 thirteen years are classified by purpose in Table 9. The largest outlays have been made for the water system, for schools, for parks and play¬ grounds, for a sewage disposal system, for bridges and for police and fire buildings. FINANCING THE EXPENDITURES Revenues The principal means of financing the current expenditures of the budget has been the current revenues. Borrowing for current expenses has been permitted to some extent, but up to the present time this has not materially influenced the customary practice of financing the budget from these three sources of revenue:— (1) Tax revenue. (2) Utility revenue. (3) Miscellaneous revenue. The sums derived from these sources of revenue during the last thirteen years are set forth in Table 10. Of these the most important is the revenue derived from the city tax levy, since it comprises about five-sevenths of the total revenue. The general city tax was levied on a total assessed valuation in 1922 of $359,784,448.00. The assessed valuations used from 1905 to date, together with the constituent elements that go to make up the totals, appear in Table 11. Real estate is by far the largest element of assessed property; special franchises are next in importance. Since 1918, when most personalty was exempted from property taxation to make way for the state income tax, the element of assessed personal property has been negligible. The separate but negligible class called “Pension” means property purchased with pension money and which is subject to a smaller tax levy to cover the cost of schools and highways only. The relation of the total assessed valuations to the estimated full valuations, and the equalization rates used by the State Tax Commission, are shown in Table 12. It will be remembered that in the thirteen years from 1910 to 1922 inclusive, the budget increased 242 per cent. Similarly the tax levy, as shown in Table 10, also more than tripled in the same period of time. But the total assessed valuations, on which the levies are based, have increased considerably less than this. Hence it would seem inevitable that the 34 tax rate should have increased. That such was actually the case is evident from an inspection of the yearly rates, which are as follows:— Year City Rate City Rate Pension* 1910 19.32 7-55 1911 18.96 7-53 1912 19.52 7-53 1913 19-34 7.42 I 9 I 4 19-75 7-74 1915 19-73 7.87 1916 20.69 8-54 1917 18.89 8-45 1918 21.67 9.98 1919 24.06 i °-35 1920 23.24 9.28 1921 22.881 11.03 1922 29.48 T 4 • 59 1923 28.444 T 3 • 79 *Property purchased with pension money is exempted from the full city tax rate, it being subject to a special rate based on the cost of schools and highways. Tax Rate and Tax Limit How does this tax rate compare with the tax limit laid down in the state constitution? The paragraph of the constitution in question reads as follows:— “The amount hereafter to be raised by tax for county or city pur¬ poses, in any county containing a city of over one hundred thousand inhabitants, or any such city of this state, in addition to providing for the principal and interest of the existing debt, shall not in the aggregate exceed in any one year two per centum of the assessed valuation of the real and personal estate of such county or city, to be ascertained as prescribed in this section in respect to county or city debt—(i. e. ‘as it appeared by the assessment rolls of said county or city on the last assess¬ ment for state or county taxes’)-’’ (Art. VIII, Section io in part.) It will be seen from the foregoing that the tax limitation does not apply to the complete tax levy, but to that part of it covering general municipal expense. In other words, a tax levy for debt is unlimited, while a levy for general municipal expense is limited to two per cent of 35 the assessed valuation of the previous year. In Table 13 the total tax levies are divided into these two parts, so that it is possible to calculate the ratio of the general municipal expense levy to the assessment of the previous year. The last column of this table gives the percentage ratios for the last eleven years and it is obvious that, for this period of time at least, the city has been right up to the tax limit. It should be remembered that these tax limit ratios are purely tech¬ nical and that, practically speaking, “tax limits do not limit.” This is because the financing of the budget expenditures does not rely entirely upon the tax levy, but also upon borrowing. This point is discussed more fully in Part IV of this report. Miscellaneous Revenues After tax revenue, the most important single source of revenue is the revenue from the utilities. The market revenues consist of stall rents mainly and are the resource of the market fund. They are negligible in amount, as the total budget for the market is less than $15,000.00. Water levenues consist for the larger part of “meter rates.” To these are added several smaller items such as Water Frontage Tax, Sale of Meters, Interest, etc. The 1922 revenue of the Water Fund was distributed as follows:— Meter Rates. $1,015,178.73 Frontage Tax. 15,006.54 Sales of Meters, Taps, etc. 28,941.00 Interest and Penalties on Water Rates— 3,144.63 Interest on Bank Balances. 2,894.11 Water Used by City Departments. 147,007.88 Total. $1,212,172.89 All other miscellaneous revenues (i.e., excluding the utility revenues) yield at the present time approximately $2,800,000.00. The classification of these revenues and the amounts collected during the last thirteen years are shown in detail in Table 14. This table includes the utility revenues as well as those applicable only to the general fund. Several items of minor importance such as licenses for junk dealers, pawnbrokers and theatres, and fines and forfeitures are not shown in the table because the charter applies these revenues to the Police and Fire Pension Funds, and on the books of the city they are entered directly to the credit of these funds rather than indirectly (in and out) through the Miscellaneous 36 Revenues account of the General Fund. While the tax revenues have increased approximately 230 per cent during the last thirteen years, it appears from an inspection of the totals in this table that utility revenues have increased approximately 100 per cent and other miscellaneous revenues approximately 475 per cent. It should also be pointed out in connection with this table that the large item of liquor license receipts has been replaced in recent years by the city’s share of the state income tax, personal and corporate. Assessments Direct assessments for current services correspond with the expendi¬ tures for current services as set forth in Table 7. Unlike the assessments for current services, the assessments for local improvements are levied and collected according to the local assess¬ ment procedure outlined in Part I of this report. In Table 8 the cost of the local improvements certified in the last ten years is analyzed according to the kind of improvement for which the expenditures were made. The total yearly costs there presented are further analyzed in Table 15 according to the distribution of the charges as between the City of Rochester, the New York State Railways, all other property owners, and total. The charges against the City of Rochester are divided into two parts—one representing the charges against the city at large and the other the charges against city owned parcels of property. The charges against the city at large in 1913 and 1922 are unduly large because there are included ordinances for the Central Avenue bridge (1913) and for deepening the Genesee River (1922). On these ordinances the whole or a large part of the cost was assessed against the city at large. The charges against the New York State Railways are for the propor¬ tionate share of paving costs on streets in which car tracks are located. During the years 1917 to 1920, inclusive, the Railway Company con¬ structed the pavements itself. In addition to its share of the regular local ordinances, the city has to bear every fifth year its share of the East Side Trunk Sewer assessment. It must also bear its share of the cost of the current services added to the tax rolls every year. A summary of these various charges against the city is given in Table 16. It was explained above in Part I that assessments against the city were regarded as being payable in one installment, but that no penalty was imposed for non-payment The city’s $hare of the East Side Trunk 37 Sewer assessments and the additions to the tax roll have been currently taken care of, but most of the city’s share of the regular local ordinances was delinquent until early in 1922, when a bond issue of $1,750,000 was floated to clear up the delinquency and reimburse the local improvement fund. Borrowing After current revenues and assessments, there remains to be con¬ sidered a third method of financing the expenditures of the city, namely, borrowing. The description of the borrowing procedure in Part I includ¬ ed an enumeration of the various purposes for which money might be borrowed. The proceeds of borrowing from 1910 to 1922 are shown in summary form in Table 17 and in more detailed form in Table 18. It was explained in Part I of this report that most of the city’s borrowing takes the form originally of note issues and is later converted into the form of bonds. A summary of the note transactions that have taken place from 1910 to 1922 is presented in the following statement:— Balance outstanding January 1, 1910. $ 2,614,000.00 New Notes issued 1910-1922... 57,374,045.75 Total Notes Issued. $59,988,045.75 Notes paid from Current Revenues. $30,861,045.75 Notes Funded. 23,202,000.00 54,063,045.75 Balance outstanding December 31, 1922. $5,925,000.00 The transactions thus summarized are further amplified by years and by purpose in Tables 19 and 20. Referring to Table 20, it is shown that during the thirteen year period new notes were issued (exclusive of Revenue Anticipation Notes) to the amount of $31,971,545.75. Of this amount $5,458,545.75 was liquidated out of current revenues or assessments. By far the largest portion of the note issues was funded into bonds. On December 31, 1922, the notes outstanding which had not yet been funded or otherwise liquidated amounted to $5,925,000.00. It is evident that the issue of notes and the issue of bonds are very closely tied up together, the notes being issued first and the bonds later in order to save interest. The bond issues are summarized by years in Table 21 and are given in detail by purpose in Table 22. The individ- 38 ual issues are set over against the notes that were funded. It should be noted, however, that in 1912, 1913, 1914, 1921 and 1922, there were several cases in which the proceeds of the bond issues were used directly for construction or for bond refunding. These cases are excep¬ tions to the customary procedure. Debt Limit The question naturally arises, to what extent has the city approached its debt limit? The city’s debt limit is laid down in Article VIII, section ten of the state constitution. It is as follows:— “No county or city shall be allowed to become indebted for any purpose or in any manner to an amount which, including existing indebt¬ edness, shall exceed ten per centum of the assessed valuation of the real estate of such county or city on the last assessment for state or county taxes prior to the incurring of such indebtedness; and all indebtedness in excess of such limitation except such as now may exist, shall be abso¬ lutely void, except as herein otherwise provided. No county or city whose present indebtedness exceeds ten per centum of the assessed valuation of its real estate subject to taxation, shall be allowed to become indebted in any further amount until such indebtedness shall be reduced within such limit. This section shall not be construed to prevent the issuing of certificates of indebtedness or revenue bonds issued in anticipa¬ tion of the collection of taxes for amounts actually contained or to be contained in the taxes for the year when such certificates or revenue bonds are issued and payable out of such taxes. Nor shall this section be construed to prevent the issue of bonds to provide for the supply of water; but the term of the bonds issued to provide for the supply of water, in excess of the limitation of indebtedness fixed herein, shall not exceed twenty years, and a sinking fund shall be created on the issuing of the said bonds for their redemption, by raising annually a sum which will produce an amount equal to the sum of the principal and interest of said bonds at their maturity. All certificates of indebtedness or revenue bonds issued in anticipation of the collection of taxes which are not retired within five years after their date of issue, and bonds issued to provide for the supply of water, and any debt hereafter incurred by any portion or part of a city, if there shall be any such debt, shall be included in ascertaining the power of the city to become otherwise indebted; except that debts incurred by any city of the first class after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and four, to provide for the supply of water shall not be so included.” 39 What specific liabilities are included in the term “existing indebtedness,” and what exemptions are allowed have been thor¬ oughly construed by the courts. As far as Rochester is concerned, the gross debt includes all of the bond and note indebtedness; the exemptions are two: (i) the assets of sinking funds which are applicable to included debt, and (2) water indebtedness incurred after 1904. The exemption of water debt issued after 1904 was made applicable to Rochester (to “any city of the first class”) by a constitutional amendment in 1917. Table 23, which analyses the debt statements for the last twenty- three years, reveals the fact that Rochester was practically up to its debt limit continuously until 1917, when the aforementioned water exemption was granted. This added five million to the total exemption. At the present time (December 31, 1922) the city is $3,424,000.00 under the limit. Debt Redemption Maturing indebtedness has been taken care of in various ways, some of the temporary notes being paid out of current revenues, and the long-term bonds being either redeemed out of sinking funds or refunded. Serial bonds have of course been paid periodically, sometimes directly out of the budget, but mostly through the sinking funds. There is no regularity of practice with respect to whether or not serial payments shall be made out of sinking funds. Therefore, Table 24, which shows the various payments out of the sinking funds from 1910 to 1922 inclu¬ sive, is not a complete history of all bond payments. Table 24 also shows that all the sinking funds together received aggregate additions, from 1910 to 1922, of $4,884,008.75. Some¬ what more than half of this amount (or $2,734,869.98) was received from the tax levy, either in the form of serial or sinking fund install¬ ments out of the budget or else in the form of fund surpluses. The summary debt service payments out of the last thirteen budgets are presented in Table 25. The figures there given include both the interest payments and the redemption payments. Separate analyses of the general debt service, water debt service, and public market debt service are given in Tables 26, 27 and 28. The only public market debt payments made out of the budget are for interest on market bonds. Contributions to the Market Sinking Fund consist, by charter requirement, of the annual Market Fund surplus balances. As the market bonds have recently been retired, the Market Sinking Fund is no longer required. While the Market Fund 40 surpluses have been transferred regularly, the Water and General Fund surpluses have been transferred sporadically. The practice with respect to the General Fund surpluses is to transfer old surpluses whenever the General Sinking Fund has to have resources with which to meet its obligations. The transfers have been as follows during the last thirteen years: 1910 . $162,219.06 19 11 . 74,292.27 1913. 23,530.74 i9G. 340.19 1919 . 50,000.00 1920 . 89,868.33 1921 . 10,000.00 1922 . 100,000.00 The irregular character of the sinking fund transactions is due largely to the fact that the charter sets up the sinking funds on an unscientific basis. An analysis of the present sinking fund condition and a study of what is necessary to put the funds on a scientific basis and to make them adequate for their purpose is presented in Part III and Part IV of this report. PART III FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE CITY AT THE PRESENT TIME In studying the financial condition of the city it is not necessary, as in the case of a private business, to present a balance sheet of assets and liabilities. The city’s obligations are not liens against the material assets of the city nor does its solvency depend upon the ability to show a surplus. On the other hand, a city’s financial condition is tested by the service it is rendering and the means it has at hand for financing the cost of such service. Such a test involves a study of the tax and debt limits at the present time and the mortgaging of the same for future years. Without going into an appraisal of the cost of the various functions performed by the city, an attempt will be made in this part of the report to outline the immediate demands upon the city in the coming year and to discuss briefly the various means that may be used to finance these demands. As explained previously, the three main sources of funds are revenues, assessments and borrowing. GROWING EXPENDITURES It will be remembered that the city budget increased 242 per cent from 1910 to 1922. The total budget expenditure for 1922 is $14,133,475.23 as compared with expenditures of $12,888,777.93 for 1921. Beginning with the year 1918, the budget has increased more than $1,000,- 000 each year. The year 1921 is an exception as the increase amounted to more than $2,000,000. This is attributable to the fact that the salaries of city employees were increased in that year. In 1920, for the first time, it was contemplated that borrowing should constitute one of the main resources of the budget and this part of the plan did not appear in the “spring budget” nor were appropriations passed for the full contemplated expenditures of the Department of Public Instruction. The budget program actually contemplated expenditures of at least $800,000.00 more than appears in the budget appropriation. This plan has continued ever since with a notable increase in the borrowings during the last two years. It is evident that expenditures are growing apace and that provision must be made for even much larger current expenses. 42 Expenditures for Schools Much of the responsibility for this condition must be laid at the door of the schools, for educational costs the last few years have grown out of all proportion to the costs of the other departments of government. By charter provision and by state law the administration of the schools has been separated from the general city administration and is largely uncontrolled by the central financial officers of the city. The 1920 education statute, popularly known as the Lockwood Law, sets certain minimum salary requirements for all teachers in the state, which are substantial increases over the prevailing rates paid in the - various cities. The increased salary cost, made necessary by this law, is largely offset, however, by the granting of state aid. This aid takes the form of a quota, which varies according to the size of the city and which depends upon compliance with the law in other respects. For Rochester, the state quota is $550 per teacher. The state aid money is secured by a direct tax levy. Although capital expenditures were curtailed during and immediately following the war period, owing to the high cost, the inevitable resump¬ tion of capital projects has taken place. In 1920 no bonds were sold because there was no market for them at a reasonable rate of interest. In 1921 and 1922 bonds aggregating $11,116,000 were issued to fund outstanding notes and to provide working capital for new projects. The immediate future, therefore, does not give promise of reduced expenditures, whether out of current funds or out of assessment or loan funds. Lower unit costs, if they occur, will likely be more than offset by increasing quantitv of service and improvements. The net result will likely be increased total expenditures in every line of municipal activity. CONDITION OF THE REVENUES To meet the inevitable increases in expenditures, what is the condi¬ tion of the city’s revenues? How expansible are the tax revenues, utility revenues, and miscellaneous revenues? Increasing Assessed Valuations The productiveness of the general city tax involves two considera¬ tions—first, the assessment “base” on which the tax is levied, and second, the tax rate allowed under the tax limit provision of the constitution. Obviously, the yield of a certain tax rate is directly pro- 43 portional to the assessed valuations, and if the assessments are raised a given percentage the total levy can be increased by the same percentage without changing the rate. The assessed valuation of Rochester prop¬ erty has been equalized as being about 88 per cent of full value. If this percentage is fairly accurate, it is evident that there is a considerable margin for an increase in assessed valuations toward the ioo per cent mark. A general increase in the level of assessments was made in 1921 by the Board of Assessment and Taxation, to the extent of approximately 20 per cent. This move brought assessed valuations considerably closer to the actual values (figuring the actual values on a permanent basis and not taking advantage of temporary inflation) and also provided a sub¬ stantial increase in tax revenue. In spite of this increase, additional revenue was not sufficient to meet the increase in current operation costs. A normal annual increase in valuations is to be expected but it is not prob¬ able that this will ever be sufficient to offset the increases in operation costs. If increasing the assessments will not yield an immediate increase in revenues, can such a result be secured by increasing the ‘‘unlimited' 1 or “exempt” part of the tax rate? The tax limit applies to a levy for “city purposes” and exempts from the limitations the items for debt service. Thus the tax levy in Rochester has customarily been divided into two parts:—one, “unlimited,” to cover whatever was required for general fund debt service (i. e. interest on general notes and bonds and redemption of same whether direct or through sinking funds); the other, “limited,” being the remainder of the budget minus the estimated mis¬ cellaneous revenues. The only way in which the total levy can be ma¬ terially increased is to enlarge the “unlimited” part of the levy.- This may be done either by increasing the debt service or by defining certain functions of the city so as to exclude them from the term “city purposes." The former method has been used to a considerable extent in many of the cities of the state; the latter method has been the subject of court action in Rochester and “city purposes” has been defined. As a result of the court adjudication the city can despair of any relief by excluding certain functions from “city purposes.” Borrowing for Current Expenses The expedient of borrowing for part of the current expenses of one year and taking care of such temporary indebtedness in the debt service (unlimited) item of the following year’s budget is an effective way of 44 getting around the tax limit, while technically it does not violate the letter of the constitutional mandate. This practice has not been neces¬ sary in Rochester until the last four years. In 1919, $250,000.00 of the school expenditures were taken care of by selling School Repair and Equipment notes; these notes were liquidated out of the 1920 tax levy. In 1920, $900,000.00 was borrowed, in 1921, $2,129,000.00 and in 1922, $1,940,000.00, and in each of these cases the notes were paid off in the following year. It appears as though this practice would have to be resorted to indefinitely unless relief of some kind is forthcoming. Utility Revenues It is axiomatic that the rates charged by municipal utilities should be sufficient completely to cover all costs of operating the utilities. In other words, utility revenues should be applied as the resources of special utility funds and it should not be necessary to subsidize these funds from tax revenues. The Public Market seems to be paying its way. But the same cannot be said of the Water Works, the city’s single important utility. Although material increases in the water rates were made in 1921, which should provide sufficient money to make the utility self-supporting, such a condi¬ tion is precluded by work performed for other departments and rebates to “charitable institutions” for which the Water Bureau is not reimbursed. Miscellaneous Revenues Miscellaneous revenues have been increased in recent years because several of the most important items are new or have been changed by legislative enactment. For example, the city received an allotted share of the state personal income tax for the third time in 1922; and a share of the corporation income tax for the fifth time. The quota from the state for education has been much enlarged in compliance with the 1920 law; but such quota has been entirely offset by mandatory salary increases. The return from the city’s share of the state corporation income tax has also increased considerably. A good many of the license fees as well as fines and fees of other kinds are fixed by state law and are not subject to municipal adjustment. Much of the return from miscellaneous sales is dependent on market conditions and cannot be arbitrarily increased. On the other hand, many of the license fees are fixed locally and are capable of adjustment. Most of them have not been changed for many years. Moreover, many businesses and privileges are carried on for which no fees are now charged 45 and from which a considerable revenue might well be derived. A fuller discussion of the license and permit question is presented in Part IV of this report. CONDITION OF ASSESSMENTS Direct assessments provide an adequate means of financing local improvements. No specific constitutional, statutory or charter limita-. tion restricts the amount of money that may be raised by this means, pro¬ vided always that it is to be used for defraying the cost of special improve¬ ments from which the contributing property owners derive a special benefit. The city is free, therefore, to proceed with a local improvement program as dictated by the needs of the city and subject only to the restraint of public opinion and the constitutional debt limit. The city is not cumbered with the problem of collecting delinquent assessments from property owners. The procedure for adding such delinquent accounts to the annual taxes was explained above in Part I. As previously stated, charges against the city are not subject to the same penalties and procedure as charges against private owners. It is a situation for concern that the public indebtedness to the Local Improve¬ ment Fund for delinquent local charges is accumulating again in large proportions. Approximately $400,000 has been added since the bond issue in January, 1922, and to this may be added $568,000 for the city’s share of the Clarissa Street bridge project which has been completed, but not certified. INDEBTEDNESS CONDITION Table 29 gives an analysis of the city’s bonds outstanding as of December 31, 1922. The total bonded indebtedness is there shown to be $35,7 1 9 >795 -°°* At the same date, temporary notes were outstanding to the amount of $5,925,000.00, making a total outstanding indebtedness of $41,644,795.00. The note indebtedness outstanding at the end of the year 1922 is classified in Table 30. The problem of the immediate future with respect to borrowing has to do with the disposition of this large outstanding note indebtedness. A program for funding a large part of it is now pending. While the total indebtedness is sufficiently under the debt limit, indications are that this condition will not maintain very long. With large projects and with local improvements increasing rapidly, the debt problem promises to become more and more acute in the immediate 46 future. Unless some definite program of improvements is adopted which will take cognizance of the financial means, the city may find itself in an embarrassing financial situation. Sinking Funds The condition of the sinking funds is decidedly unsatisfactory because of the unscientific manner in which they were created. The balances of the various sinking funds as of December 31, 1922, are shown in Tables 31, 32, 33 and 34. Attention is called to the General Sinking Fund and the Water Sinking Fund. It will be remembered that the charter provides that the surpluses of the general fund shall be periodically transferred to the general sinking fund and that the surpluses of the water fund shall be transferred to the water sinking fund. These surpluses comprise the main resources of these two charter sinking funds. For reasons explained previously the charter provisions requiring a transfer of these surpluses have not been enforced. It has been the practice for the city to transfer an amount from the surplus account to the sinking fund account only when funds were actually needed to take care of some maturing bond issue. For example, an amount of $100,000.00 was transferred from the general surplus account to the general sinking fund on August 30, 1922, in order to provide funds for the redemption of an issue of bridge bonds maturing September 1, 1922. There still remains, however, in the general surplus account a balance of $57 1 >655.92 which technically belongs to the general sinking fund, but which actually has not been transferred. The yearly surplus balances for the last thirteen years which go to make up this total balance of S57 1 ,655.92 are as follows at the present time:— 1910 .Closed out to General Fund 1911 .Closed out to General Fund 1912 .Closed out to General Fund 1913 .Closed out to General Fund 1914 .Closed out to General Fund 1915 .Closed out to General Fund 1916 .Closed out to General Fund 1917 . $ 22,864.64 1918 . 70,227.11 1919 . 60,410.85 1920 . 46,976.29 1921 . 84,205.12 19 22 . 286,971.91 Total.$571,655.92 47 The water fund surpluses have accumulated in a similar manner and present a total amount of $206,169.53, which still remains in the surplus account and has not been transferred to the water sinking fund according to the charter mandate. As it is impossible to know just how much or when these surpluses will be transferred, they have not been included in the tables purporting to show the balances of the various sinking funds. In considering the question of deficits in the various sinking funds, it is comparatively easy to calculate the deficits for those special sinking funds to which a definite calculable installment is transferred every year. But with respect to the water sinking fund and the general sinking fund, it is difficult to estimate the deficits because of the erratic character of their resources. An estimate has been made, however, of the assets of the special sinking funds at the maturity of the bonds which they were set up to amortize. In most every case, the estimated assets will be inadequate completely to amortize the respective bond issues and deficits will result. These estimated deficits are shown in Table 35. The charter states that the deficit resulting in any special sinking fund at the time of maturity shall be made up out of the general sinking fund or the water sinking fund (depending upon whether the bonds are general bonds or water bonds). The estimated deficits listed in Table 35 amount in total to approximately $1,846,000.00. This amount, therefore, is a legal charge against the two charter sinking funds; not only must the two charter sinking funds take care of these estimated deficits, but, according to the charter, they must also redeem all other bonds for which no sinking fund provision whatever is made. It is difficult to calculate whether the general and water sinking funds will be able to meet their legal requirements because it is impossible to guess what the general and water surpluses are going to be in the future. As has been stated repeatedly, the installments which should go into a sinking fund should be computed actuarially. Tables.are given in Part IV to show how such annual sinking fund installments are figured and what is necessary to make the sinking funds adequate to meet their requirements. PART IV PROPOSED CHANGES IN POLICY AND PROCEDURE The preceding parts of this report have dealt with the financial procedure, history and condition of the city. It is the purpose of this part to consider briefly what should be done at once to meet the imme¬ diate crisis, and what ought to be done in the future in the way of effecting permanent changes in procedure to better this financial condition. To this end, definite recommendations are made, not with a view to laying down in detail the steps of a proposed program, but in order to present the general principles involved and to indicate the relations of these principles to the situation as it exists in Rochester. EXPENDITURES The question as to what functions of government should be expanded or restricted and what particular items of expenditures should be changed involves study and analysis of each operating department of the city. Obviously such analysis is not possible in a report of this kind; therefore, recommendations as to particular departmental expenditures are not presented herein. Attention is directed solely toward the general financial policy of the city. From this point of view certain comment is possible concerning the four main classes of expenditures outlined in Part II (namely, Debt Service, Personal Service, Other Current Expenses and Acquisition of Property). In particular it may be said that past expenditures for Debt Service have been inadequate and that adherence to proper financial standards requires a material increase in this item. The indebtedness requirements which necessitate this material increase are considered in detail in a later section of this report under the head of “Borrowing.” As salaries of city employees were adjusted in 1921, it is not expected that there will be any general increase in the immediate future. From time to time some adjustments probably will be made. It is obvious that in the future the raising of salaries should not take the form of a flat percentage increase, which would preserve and accentuate the inequalities existing in the present salary schedule. There are innumerable cases in 49 which employees of the city doing similar work but in different depart¬ ments receive greatly disparate salaries. It is necessary for the sake both of economy and of justice to the employees that titles and positions in the service should be standardized before salary increases are allowed. A standardization of titles and positions as a basis for salary adjustments has already been recommended by this Bureau and it is hoped that the adoption of such a program will precede any authorization for increased salary expenditures. Similarly, as increased expenditures are necessary for other current expenses such as materials and supplies, it is obvious that such expendi¬ tures should be made through as effective a purchasing procedure as possible. A strictly administered system of centralized purchasing will do much to lower the cost of materials and supplies to the city. The operation of the purchasing procedure which is now being used has been made the subject of a special investigation by this Bureau and a report embodying recommendations for changes has been submitted to the Mayor. It is believed that the necessary steps to effect the changes will be taken in the near future. It is proper that expenditures for capital outlays should be made from loan funds (i. e., from funds whose resources are the proceeds of borrowing), while current expenditures should of course be made from current funds. In other words, current expenditures should not be made out of loan funds. It is also desirable that to as large an extent as pos¬ sible, some capital expenditures should be made out of current funds. The latter was the practice in Rochester to a considerable extent up to the time of the war. Now, because of the restrictions of the tax limit, most of the capital outlay items that used to be in the current budget have been eliminated and are considered as operations of the loan funds. This seems to be justified by the present exigency, but it is believed that the old practice should be resumed as soon as possible because of its safety and conservatism. On the other hand, the present financial situation offers a tempta¬ tion for the city to charge as many current expense items as possible against loan funds and this tendency should be strongly resisted. It is thought that the central financial officers of the city should exercise a close supervision over the vouchers which are charged against the various loan funds. Particular attention is called to the application of this point in the case of the Water Works Improvement Fund. That fund, 50 which is financed by the proceeds of 30-year borrowing, has been used to a considerable extent to pay claims for questionable items of capital outlay, at least for items which • are very largely consumable and of comparatively short life. REVENUES Tax Revenues The effort which the Department of Assessment and Taxation is now making to raise the assessed valuations of Rochester property is commendable and is in line with the tendency toward assessment reform in all the larger cities of the country. It is generally regarded as desirable that the assessed valuations of property, upon which taxes are based, should f)e made to coincide as nearly as may be possible and practicable with the actual values. It should be pointed out, however, that as the assessed valuations approach actual valuations, the way is opened for much more frequent and insistent objections on the part of the taxpayers to the decisions of the assessors. Hence, it is necessary that the assessors should be sure of themselves and that the assessed valuations should be based upon some scientific system of assessment which will adequately support the city as against the complaints of the taxpayers. This matter of a revision of the assessment methods used in Rochester has been made the subject of a special study by the Bureau of Municipal Research, and a report on the same has been recently published. The raising of the assessments will do much to relieve the financial embarrassment of the city. This is true not only because the city will have a larger base for municipal taxation, but also because the city will thereby receive a larger pro rata share of the state personal income tax. (See page 18.) But the big problem of how to finance the constantly increasing expenditures of the city cannot be solved by this method. A real solution must take into account the question of the validity of a municipal tax limit. For practical reasons, most city officials are opposed to tax limits. It should be emphasized that their position is correct on the grounds of theory and principle. The financial operations of a city are limited in a double way by the provision of the state constitution relating to indebtedness and taxation. This provision was adopted many years ago when the scope of municipal government was not nearly so wide as it is now, and if a two per cent limit was proper in the old days it surely cannot be said that a two per cent limit is fair at the present time. Not only is it true that the functions 51 of municipal government have rapidly increased in number and scope, but it is obvious also that a tax limit is not a proper method for restricting the activities of a city. It would seem to be preferable that the kind of functions in which a city may engage should be limited (if any limitation whatever is desirable) and that a city should be permitted to pay as it goes for its authorized activities. Furthermore, there is a psychological reason why tax limits are unnecessary—the same reason that makes debt limits necessary. Because of the immediate and direct pressure which taxpayers can bring upon a city administration, it is natural that a city should not desire to pay for its current activities completely as it goes and that it should desire rather to put off to future generations as much of the burden as possible. In other words, the imposition of taxes is restrained by the direct, selfish interests of the taxpayers; while there is no such influence restraining the borrowing of money and the shifting of burdens to the future. Hence, it seems only logical that for taxes an artificial legislative restriction is not necessary but that for borrowing such a restriction is necessary. It is important that the city should recognize its position in this matter of the tax limit and it is recommended that the city officials take an out-and-out stand against the constitutional tax limit of the state. To change the constitutional provision itself seems to be an impossible task, but there are other ways in which the city can use its influence in the movement to change the tax limit. Without amending the constitu¬ tion, the tax limit can be changed in effect by securing the exemption from it of certain functions of the city government, such as education. The logic of the situation with respect to education has been discussed previously in this report. A movement is on foot to have the state legislature “define” education out from under the constitutional provision. This movement has also taken the form of a suggestion that the cost of education be financed out of separate school tax levies. Possibly such separate school levies would be subjected to another tax limit, but it would at least have the effect of raising the two per cent limit. Utility Revenues Inasmuch as the Water Works is the one large utility owned by the City of Rochester, consideration of utility revenues is largely con¬ fined to a consideration of the adequacy of the water rate and the various other charges for service imposed by the Water Bureau. It need only be stated here that the question ot utility revenues is quite detached from the 52 other financial problems of the city because of the principle that a utility should be completely self-sustaining. The complete financial burden of a utility should be carried by its own revenue and it should not be sub¬ sidized from the general fund of the city; nor should it be required on the other hand to contribute a surplus to the general fund of the city. Miscellaneous Revenues The most important single item in the list of miscellaneous revenues of the city is the city’s share of the state income tax. This tax consists of two parts: the tax on personal incomes which is distributed one half to the cities on the basis of assessment valuations; and the tax on corpor¬ ation incomes which is distributed one-third to the cities on the basis of the location of the businesses. The exemption of personal property from municipal taxation is a supplementary provision of the state income tax law. In seeking for new sources of revenue the question has often arisen as to whether or not cities could tap the source of income taxation, since real estate is already heavily burdened. The administrative diffi¬ culties of local collection, however, make municipal income taxes imprac¬ ticable. But it has been suggested that the cities of the state might secure more revenue from this source indirectly, by being granted a larger share of the state income tax. This last suggestion seems to be a practical one and it is therefore recommended that the City of Rochester actively back the movement to obtain for municipalities a larger share of that tax than they are now receiving. An upward revision of the license and permit fees is one of the first steps commonly employed by cities in meeting their needs for more revenues. Particular attention should be given to this method in Rochester because the revenues from this source appear to be less than in most other cities of similar size. In Rochester license fees are lower than the average, there are fewer occupations licensed, and no fees at all are charged for permits. Comparative collections from this source in 1919 (last available figures in this form) for thirteen cities of Roch¬ ester’s population class are shown in Table 36. The total collections are divided into five classes:— (1) Business taxes without issue of license. (2) Business taxes with issue of license. (3) Dog Licenses. (4) General Licenses. (5) Permits. 53 It will be seen that Rochester is almost at the bottom of the list as far as amount of collections is concerned. It has been the practice for southern cities to impose special business taxes on practically every business, trade, or occupation as an exercise of their revenue-raising power. There is doubt as to the legality of such procedure in the cities of New York State, but much larger license fees and more of them can be imposed as an incident to the exercise of the police power. The courts have held that the imposition of license fees is an exercise of police power provided there is a reasonable relation between the amount of the fee and the cost of the police or other supervi¬ sion required. Under this interpretation of the city’s police power, there is ample justification for the suggestion that the present license fees be raised to correspond more nearly with those imposed in other large cities. Then, in addition, there are other occupations or businesses which are, or ought to be, subject to municipal regulation and which are not now licensed. Among such non-licensed occupations may be mentioned dealers in certain food products, automobile agencies, dealers in explosives (gasoline dealers, gas filling stations, kerosene or naphtha dealers, dealers in fireworks, powder or firearms), dances and stands in public places. Until recently, Rochester was the only large city in the State of New York which did not license public vehicles (taxicabs, etc.). With the adoption of a motorcab ordinance, the city now regulates these vehicles and imposes fees which amount to a considerable sum. As stated, the City of Rochester does not charge fees for its various permits. Here again there is room for additional revenue. The city would be justified in charging fees to cover at least the clerical and inspection cost of granting permits. Some cities also charge a periodic fee or rental where periodic inspection is necessary or where the privilege granted is of a permanent nature. Of the former class would be a fee for periodic inspection of boilers or elevators; of the latter class would be a rental for the privileges of encroaching on public streets with signs and areaways. Permits which might be covered by fees are of two general classes, as follows: i. Building Permits. To build. To occupy. To demolish. 54 To move. To install plumbing. To install boilers. To install electricity. To install elevators. (Fees for original permits; fees for periodic inspection, where necessary.) 2. Permits for encroachments or occupancy of streets. To excavate in street, temporarily. To store materials in street, temporarily. To enclose street for building purposes, temporarily. To move heavy loads over streets. To move buildings over streets. To erect signs, awnings, bay windows, hoods, marquees, balconies, cornices, etc., over street lines. (Fees for original permits; periodic rentals for privileges, if title of streets is in city.) To construct areas, cellars, tunnels, bridges, tracks, pipes, etc., under, on, or over streets. (Fees for original permits; periodic rentals for privileges, if title of streets is in city.) Considerable data have been gathered by the Bureau of Municipal Research on the rates and fees charged by other large cities and by New York cities for permits and licenses. If the city desires to consider this recommendation that rates and fees be raised or be imposed where now there are none, such detailed information will gladly be placed at its disposal. ASSESSMENTS * No changes are recommended at this time with regard to the pro¬ cedure for levying assessments for local improvements. It is recommended that the city’s share of local improvement assess¬ ments which is delinquent at the present time be taken care of immediately as a part of the city’s bonding program. It is thought also that the Charter should be changed to provide a method whereby such accounts will be properly taken care of in the future. The Charter also should stipulate that those improvements for which the city at 55 large is to pay the whole cost shall be financed out of special loan funds and not out of assessment funds. These recommendations will be ampli¬ fied in the next section. BORROWING # The borrowing question has two aspects: first, what shall be done in the immediate future to carry the city over its present financial crisis; and second, what changes in policy and procedure shall be instituted to protect the city against unwise borrowing and against inadequate debt service. Immediate Program Referring to the immediate borrowing program, it should be pointed out that the city is wise in funding as soon as possible its outstanding temporary indebtedness. An analysis of the temporary indebtedness as of December 31, 1922, is shown in Table 30. With respect to these notes and the bonds that are proposed to be issued, the following recommenda¬ tions are made: 1. The term and type of the assessment bonds should be determined from purely fiscal considerations. 2. The Sewage Disposal and Municipal Building Construction bonds should have a term of not more than twenty years. 3. The Land Purchase, School and Water bonds may justifiably be issued for a thirty year term. 4. All bonds issued should be of the serial type. [This is to insure adequate redemption.] 5. If any of the bonds issued are of the sinking fund type rather than the serial type, it is suggested that the authorizing ordinances include provision for sinking fund installments “sufficient to amortize at maturity,” rather than the customary provision for annual install¬ ments of one per cent. 6. The indebtedness of the city to the Local Improvement Fund on account of delinquent local improvement assessments should be taken care of by an issue of ten year serial City Improvement Bonds. 7. The temporary indebtedness incurred on account of current expenses (or budget deficiencies) should not be funded at all, but should be placed in the next year’s budget. 56 In view of the situation in which the city finds itself and in view of the fact that the city must get around the tax limit, if it is to finance its operations adequately, it is recommended that the city engage tem¬ porarily in current expense borrowing such as was done in 1920, 1921 and 1922. This is recommended with the provision that temporary current expense indebtedness shall not be funded, but shall in every case be in¬ cluded in the budget of the year following that in which the indebtedness is incurred. Normally this is an unwise and expensive proceeding and it is justified in the present emergency only for the technical reasons which have already been explained. Furthermore, this recommendation is pertinent only in case the city does not succeed in securing legislative authorization for the exemption of educational costs from the tax limit. Bonding Section for the Charter The situation of the city with respect to indebtedness and sinking funds can be remedied most effectively by charter amendments. The adoption of a bonding program such as has been recommended above for the immediate future would partially solve the indebtedness problem of the city, provided it were continued year after year. But it is thought that the only safe way in which to guard the city against an abuse of its borrowing power is to write into the charter certain financial limitations. The section of the charter dealing with the borrowing power does not seem to be consistent with other sections of the charter having to do with other subjects. In other words, the provisions relating to borrowing seem to be broader, less detailed and to give more unlimited power to the Common Council than do other sections of the charter. It was pointed out in the discussion of tax limits and debt limits that the borrow¬ ing power of the city should in the nature of the case be more strictly limited than any other power given to the city. The Rochester charter does not recognize this cardinal difference. There are exceedingly detailed limitations on some functions of the city where there should be none, and, on the other hand, there is a lack of limitations where such limitations would logically seem to be necessary. The charter delegation of borrowing power to the city is exceedingly broad. The only real limitations are two: first, that no bonds issued by the city shall have a term of more than thirty years; second, that bonds issued to meet appropriations for current expenses shall have a term not to exceed five years. The first of these limitations is vitiated because of the freedom allowed the city to refund an issue of bonds as 57 often as it desires. The second provision also is capable of similar manipulation and an additional one because there is nothing in the charter to limit the number of times that temporary notes issued for current expenses may be renewed before they are funded into bonds. These limitations in themselves, however, are exceedingly desirable and should be retained. They will be strengthened by the addition of other limitations which the charter should be amended to include. These additional limitations are given in summary form following:— 1. “Bonds issued to meet appropriations for current expenses not anticipated or provided for out of current revenues, shall run for a period not exceeding five years.” To this should be added the provision that in case such bonds are issued to fund tempor¬ ary notes which were originally issued for the same purpose, the maximum term allowable for the bonds should be reduced so that the aggregate period of time from the date of issue of the original notes to the maturity of the bonds should not exceed five years. The refunding of such bonds should be prohibited. 2. Bonds issued for improvements (except those issued to provide working capital for assessment funds or those issued to fund the city’s share of assessment charges) should be for a term not to exceed the estimated life of the improvements. Before authorizing such bonds, the Common Council should obtain from the City Engineer his certification as to the estimated life of the improvements for which the bonds are to provide the money. 3. Improvements for which the city at large is to pay the whole cost should not be financed out of assessment funds, but either out of current funds or out of special loan funds which are created for the purpose. 4. The city’s share of assessments for local improvements, if not paid annually out of current funds, should be annually funded by the issue of City Improvement Bonds which should be serial bonds and should have a term of not more than ten years. 5. In the case of bonds issued for improvements (except those issued to provide working capital for assessment funds), the Common Council should make adequate provision for redemp- 58 tion either by providing in the bond contract for some type of serial re-payment of principal or else by authorizing the creation of a sinking fund and an annual sinking fund installment ade¬ quate completely to amortize the bonds at maturity. 6. For all bonds for which sinking funds are created, it should be the duty of the Comptroller to calculate actuarially the annual installments necessary to be set aside, and it should be his duty annually to insert the aggregate of such sinking fund install¬ ments in the estimates of the current budget. 7. In addition to the present charter sinking funds, there should be created cwo Supplementary Sinking Funds, namely, supple¬ mentary funds to the general sinking funds and the water sinking funds. The Supplementary Sinking Funds should be computed on an actuarial basis and used to supply the deficiencies in the present funds so that the current obligations of the city can be paid at maturity. The purpose of the first charter amendment suggested above is to provide a sufficient limitation upon the length of time that the redemp¬ tion of current expense borrowing may be delayed. Generally speaking, it is inadvisable to permit of borrowing for current expenses at all, but such limitation should not be written into the charter because it is con¬ ceivable that emergencies might arise when extraordinary expenditures would be necessary and in such cases it is thought current expense borrowing on a five-year basis would be justified. [An epidemic seriously threatening the health or safety of the city is an example of such an emergency. The current expense borrowing in which the city is now engaging in order to get around the tax limit in a technical sense cannot be considered as emergency borrowing and there would be no justification for funding on a five-year basis.] The first sentence of the above pro¬ posal is in the charter now; but the additional limitations are needed to strengthen it. The second charter limitation recommended is in line with the usual provision of state laws relating to municipal finances. Most every municipal bonding law includes a provision that the term of improvement bonds shall not exceed the estimated life of the improvements for which the money is to be spent. The equity of this provision is obvious. The people who receive the benefit of an improvement should pay for such benefit and should not be able to shift the burden to a future generation 59 which does not receive the benefit and which in all probability will have additional obligations properly its own. This limitation is a maxi¬ mum limitation only. It is obvious that if a contemplated improvement will have a life of more than thirty years, the term of the bonds would come under the present charter limitation which specifies a maximum of thirty years for all bonds. This thirty year maximum is justified in every case for fiscal reasons. .The cost of an exceedingly long term bond is so excessive that thirty or thirty-five years is generally considered as the longest allowable term which is at all economical. Assessment bonds are excepted from this provision because such bonds are issued merely to secure working capital for a fund which is used to finance a large number of individual improvements or “ordinances.” The financial principle that an improvement should be paid for during its life is not violated by allowing this exception. The provisions of the charter which lay down the local assessment procedure and which stipulate that every particular ordinance shall be paid for by the property owners benefited in not more than ten annual installments, adequately carry out this principle. The term of assess¬ ment bonds, therefore, needs to have no relation to the life of any local improvement which is financed by any assessment fund under these other charter provisions. Bonds issued to take care of the city’s share of local assessment charges are likewise excepted from the charter change suggested. This is because the aggregate indebtedness of the general fund to the local improvement fund on account of the city’s share of assessments represents a good many separate improvements, some of which are short-lived and others of which are long-lived. The third limitation, which it is thought should be placed in the bonding section of the charter, has to do with the kind of improve¬ ments to be financed out of the Local Improvement Fund. Ad¬ vantage has been taken of the Local Improvement Fund in the past by charging against it several improvements for which the ordinances specify that ioo per cent of the cost should be charged against the city at large. The purpose of the Local Improvement Fund is to provide a means of financing improvements, the cost of which is to be borne by the property owners benefited. Obviously, if only one quarter of the total cost is to be assessed against the benefited property owners, the improvement still would have to be financed by the Local Improvement Fund. But there is no justification for placing the so-called ‘Too per 60 cent improvements” in the Local Improvement Fund. The recom¬ mended charter amendment would prevent such an abuse and require that a loan fund be set up for the particular purpose. Each such improve¬ ment would come under the provision suggestd in paragraph two above and would be financed by the issue of bonds for a term not greater than the estimated life of the improvement, nor greater than thirty years in any event. With regard to the fourth provision recommended, it may be said that the suggested limitation aims at the present practice of not taking care annually of the city’s share of local assessments. In a general way there are two methods for handling this item of expense: first, the city may pay as it goes, i. e., to insert in the annual budget an amount sufficient to cover the liability; and second, the city may fund the liability by issuing bonds. Of the two methods the pay-as-you-go method has the advantage of being cheaper, but it has the disadvantage of subjecting the city to extremely variable charges. During one year the charges which become due may be very small in amount, while the next year they may be large in amount. For example, in the year 1922, the charges of this kind against the city exceeded $1,000,000, an excessive amount as compared to the amounts of other years. This difficulty is obviated by funding the liability, although the cost is somewhat greater. The funding of the liability will spread the burden more evenly over the years and for this reason it is recommended that the funding plan be made optional. Inasmuch as the total charge against the city may cover a large number of individual improvements, some of which are compara¬ tively short-lived and others of which are long-lived, it is suggested that the maximum term allowed for these City Improvement Bonds should be ten years, which is the maximum time allowed to private property owners for paying their assessments. It is thought advisable also that these bonds should be of the serial type, because of their short term and because of the economy and safety of the serial method. The most important charter change in the foregoing list would requiie the Common Council to make adequate provision for the redemp¬ tion of all improvement bonds issued. [Here again assessment bonds are excepted for the reasons previously given.] Charter limitations as to the term of bonds have no meaning unless there is also this require¬ ment that adequate provision be made for redemption. It has been customary of late years to permit cities, in exercising their borrowing 61 power, to issue only serial bonds. Cities have been subjected to this limitation not only because serial bonds usually are more economical than sinking fund bonds, but mainly because their redemption is auto¬ matically provided for and because sinking funds have usually been unwisely handled by all the municipal governments in the country. In the provision here suggested, Rochester would not be limited so narrowly. However, if the city should use its option and issue term bonds rather than serial bonds, the proposed provision requires the establishment of an adequate sinking fund. The sixth amendment recommended is supplemental to the fifth and makes it the duty of the Comptroller to calculate the sinking fund installments for all sinking fund bonds. Considering the two provisions together it is easy to see that if the Council does not authorize serial bonds (which automatically take care of redemption) it must authorize an adequate sinking fund. As soon as such a sinking fund has been authorized it becomes the duty of the Comptroller to calculate the install¬ ments on an actuarial basis and to place them in the debt service items of the budget each year. It is thought that these two provisions taken together will protect the city against any unwise borrowing in the future, as far as provision for redemption is concerned. The seventh charter change proposed above requires the establish¬ ment of two additional sinking funds to supplement the present charter sinking funds. It is possible for the Common Council to establish by ordinance the necessary sinking funds to accomplish this purpose. (The present sinking funds are unscientific, inasmuch as there is no relation established between their resources and their obligations. It will be remembered that the resources of these sinking funds consist primarily of other fund surpluses which may prove to be less than, equal to, or greater than the actual requirements of the funds in this, but which are not governed at all by those requirements. Obviously there should be only two resources for any sinking fund: first, the income from cash balances on investments; the second, the annual installments which are calculated actuarially and which should be sufficient at the maturity of the bonds to amortize them completely.) It is therefore suggested that in addition to the present sinking funds, the two supplementary funds mentioned be established to relieve the present insolvent conditions of the funds. It is not legally possible to abolish the funds and replace them by consolidated funds on adequate bases, but it is possible and proper to create these additional funds to overcome the shortages of the others. 62 To take care of the present outstanding sinking fund indebtedness adequately, it will be necessary to place in the water sinking funds an annual installment of $206,000. This should be compared with the inadequate installment of $86,940 which is being set aside at the present time. (See Table 39.) Similarly, the sinking fund installment necessary to take care of all outstanding general term bonds (this includes both school and general) would be $121,000. (See Table 38.) The install¬ ments now being placed in the general sinking funds are short of this amount by about $8,350 (not considering general fund surpluses). FUNDS Under the present charter provisions it seems to be impossible for the city to separate its fund accounting from its proprietary accounting. In other words, the city cannot keep a separate account on the one hand of its funds, appropriations, and allowances, and on the other hand of its assets and liabilities. The lack of distinction between the two types of accounting in Rochester has gone so far that the Treasurer’s cash account has been split up into various parts to correspond with the various funds of the city. There is a separate cash account, a separate bank book and a separate check book for each fund and in many cases for subdivisions of funds. A voucher or claim against the city cannot be charged against more than a single fund account and the check which is issued to cover the voucher carries the name of the fund account against which it is drawn. This unsatisfactory procedure seems to be required by the following provision of the charter:— “The treasurer must keep a separate account with every depart¬ ment, board, bureau, court, office, appropriation and fund for which moneys are appropriated in the annual estimate or raised by assessment and must in every check or draft drawn by him state particularly against which of such funds it is drawn, unless the money is drawn for use in his office. He must at no time permit any of the appropriations for the same including moneys lawfully added thereto to be overdrawn, or a claim chargeable to one fund to be charged to another.” (Part of Section 162.) The requirement that the Treasurer shall keep account of funds and appropriations seems to be entirely unnecessary in view of the fact that this is one of the primary duties of the Comptroller. The Comptroller’s chief function is to keep account of funds, appropriations and allowances, 63 while the treasurer's chief function is to act as custodian and to keep account of cash. In order that the duplication of fund accounting in the two offices may be eliminated and in order that fund accounting may be separated from proprietary accounting, it is recommended that the foregoing provision be eliminated from the charter. It is thought that this will clear the way for the installation of adequate fund accounts in the Comptroller’s office, and that it will permit of the handling and disposition of cash from a purely fiscal point of view. It is also thought advisable to have an additional paragraph in the charter relating in a general way to the funds of the city. It is suggested that such a paragraph should contain the following provisions:— 1. A general classification of funds such as current funds, assess¬ ment funds, loan funds, sinking funds and trust funds. 2. Premiums received from the sale of bonds should be placed in separate premium funds which should be applied only to the payment of interest. 3. Proceeds from the sale of capital assets should not be credited to current funds, but only to capital or loan funds. 4. The utilities operated by the city should be regarded as self- sustaining utilities and separate funds should be set up to show their operation as such. 5. The Comptroller should have the power to set up new funds or subdivide existing funds for purposes of information. 6. The Common Council should have the power to subdivide existing funds or set up new funds or in any way classify or limit appropriations and allowances, not otherwise contrary to law, for purposes of controlling expenditures. In addition to the above, another change should be made which does not involve a charter amendment. It is recommended that the Comptroller set up in his accounts and in the budget a separate school fund. School expenditures have heretofore been regarded as a part of the liabilities of the general fund, but there are several reasons, especially pertinent at the present time, why a separate fund should be created. The setting up of this separate school fund should go hand in hand with a separate consideration of school expenditures in the city budget. If this is done, the budget will comprehend four current funds, namely; 64 the general fund, the school fund, the water fund, and the public market fund. This recommendation should be considered in the light of what has already been said with reference to current expense borrowing. If it is necessary for the city to engage in current expense borrowing (because of the tax limit), then it would seem advisable that such current expense borrowing should be restricted to the school fund and should not be per¬ mitted in the general fund. The reasons why it seems desirable to have a separate school fund may be summarized as follows: 1. The recent, rapid increase in the cost of government is due mainly to education. 2. The State Education Law relating to salary increases (Lockwood Law, 1920) requires that the quotas given by the state to the city for the purpose of salary increases shall be kept separate from and not included in the general fund for the reduction of taxes. 3. The administration of the school budget is almost entirely uncontrolled by the city officials and it gives an accurate picture of the situation to separate the controlled expenditures from the uncontrolled expenditures. (See page 42.) 4. The general departments of the city can best be kept from the temptation to incur budget deficits, thus necessitating current expense borrowing, by setting up a separate school fund and restricting this means of financing to that fund. 5. The tendency of legislation seems to be that education shall be regarded as a state rather than a local function, and it is entirely possible that expenditures for education may be exempted from the constitutional tax limit by legislative action. With regard to an expenditure .analysis and a budget classification for the Department of Public Instruction, it is thought unnecessary that the Comptroller’s office should keep a detailed analysis as it does for the other departments, or that the appropriations to that Department should be segregated in any way except to make a separation as between current expenses, fixed charges, acquisition of property, and redemption of debt. The Department of Public Instruction should be permitted to make its own expenditure analysis according to a classification that will satisfy its own needs. Inasmuch as educational expenditures are 65 not controlled by the financial officers of the city, such an expenditure classification does not need to be supervised by the Comptroller except to see that total expenditures are within the appropriations and allowances. BUDGET Two recommendations are made with respect to the budget which do not require charter changes: first, that the charter provision stipulat¬ ing November first as the last date for the submission of departmental estimates to the Mayor be enforced; second, that the budget include the complete financial program for the current funds, i. e., it should include borrowing for current expenses as a resource of the budget. It was stated previously that the financial plans for 1920, 1921 and 1922 included the borrowing for current expenses, but that these bor¬ rowings did not appear in the budget either as means of financing on the one side or as planned expenditures on the other. There seems to be nothing in the charter to prevent the Board of Estimate and Appor¬ tionment from setting up the proceeds of current expense borrowing as one of the resources of the current budget (in addition to tax revenues and miscellaneous revenues), and from making a complete appropriation for the contemplated current expenditure. The budget does not amount to much if it does not plan and provide means of control over all the expenditures for the year. To be adequate, it must present a complete program. The form of a summary statement showing a complete budget program for the current funds is given in Table 41 and it is especially urged that this summary form be used in connection with future budgets. With the exception of these two suggestions, it seems that most of the recommendations with respect to the budget will require changes in the charter. Some of the recommended changes are immediately necessary if the city is to have a real budget, while others probably cannot be brought about in the near future. Budget Section in the Charter The first charter change which is suggested and which is immediately necessary, is a provision to give the Common Council power to specify in detail, and to require it to control the purposes for which money is to be spent in each department, bureau, board or office; in other words, to give the Council a real appropriating power. The present budget provisions of the charter specify the procedure whereby the estimates shall be 66 presented to the Council and imply that the Council shall appropriate lump sums only to such departments, bureaus, boards, or offices as are specified in the charter. These various provisions have been interpreted to mean that the Common Council can appropriate only a lump sum of money for each organization unit that is named in the charter, but that it cannot in any way specify the purpose for which this money shall be spent. For example, the effect of this interpretation is that the Council may allow a million dollars for a certain bureau, but it cannot attach any conditions to the expenditure of this million dollars, such as that certain parts of it shall be spent for certain particular functions or that certain parts of it shall be spent for certain objects (such as materials and supplies), or again that certain parts of it shall be spent in a certain way (such as for current expenses or for redemption of debt or for acquisi¬ tion of property). Not only should the Council exercise an "effective appropriating power, but it should be able to recognize in the budget new administrative organizations or re-organizations within depaitments named in the charter, which have been made or which it may be desirable to create in the future. The Council, in other words, should not be held down to the administrative organization created by the charter. A flexible provision should be inserted to permit the Council to accommodate itself to new conditions resulting from the growth of the city and other causes. In addition to this, it is recommended that the following provision be eliminated from the charter: "When any moneys or revenues are received by the city or any department, board or officer thereof, from any source other than by municipal tax and which are not otherwise appropriated or directed by law to be applied, such moneys or revenue may be used and applied toward and in addition to the funds appropriated as aforesaid, in such manner as the Board of Estimate and Apportion¬ ment may direct.” (Part of Section 63.) The effect of this provision is to give the Board of Estimate and Apportionment an appropriating power which it should not have, except to the extent that it should be permitted to distribute a contingent fund (this is provided for in another place in the charter). A budget is of no effect if it is easy for a department or officer to obtain a supple¬ mental appropriation at any time. Supplemental appropriations are justified in emergencies; if emergencies do occur, the supplemental appropriations should be granted whether there are excess receipts or 67 not. In emergency cases, also, it is proper that the department requiring the supplemental appropriation should go back to the legislative body whence it originally secured its budget allowance. Up until recent years there usually was a large amount of excess receipts (around $200,000), and the Board of Estimate and Apportion¬ ment usually doled out this amount to the various departments. Knowl¬ edge of this year-end procedure permitted some of the department heads to disregard the budget to a considerable extent. Therefore, in order to make the budget really effective, it is recommended that this power to grant supplemental appropriations be taken away from the Board of Estimate and Apportionment and left where it really belongs—in the legislative body. As said before, supplemental appropriations should be governed by necessity and not by excess of receipts. If the actual miscellaneous revenues turn out to be more than the estimates, there is created a surplus in the current funds and this surplus should be subject to appropriations the following year. Continuing this line of argument, it is obvious that fund surpluses, whether created by excess receipts or unexpended appropriations, should be used as the first resources of the following year’s budget and should not be transferred to sinking funds. It is suggested, therefore, that the budget section of the charter should include a provision to make the current fund surpluses available for appropriation the following year. This provision, of course, would go hand in hand with the change in the sinking fund provisions of the charter recommended previously. The foregoing three charter changes are regarded as most important for the establishment of a proper budget system to control the current funds of the city and an immediate effort to obtain them is urged. Other Charter Amendments Certain other charter amendments should be made in the future with respect to a further refinement of the budget procedure. In the first place, the entire budget and tax calendar ought to be shifted so that the various stages in the budget and tax levy procedure can be consummated at least two months earlier in the fiscal year. The largest single reason for advocating a change of this kind, is the saving that would be effected in interest charges for tax anticipation notes. In 1922, such interest charges amounted to $36,000; and borrowing for this purpose is increasing annually. 68 In the second place, the scope of the budget should be enlarged so that it will include not only the current funds, but also the loan funds, and ultimately the assessment funds as well. A complete city budget would include the complete financial program showing the operations of the previous year, the financial condition, the work program and the financial program for the coming year with respect to every fund on the books of the city. It is recognized that this desirable situation cannot be forthcoming immediately, but the recommendation is made with a view to setting up a goal at which the city may aim in its budget progress. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that the constitution of the pension funds of the city is absolutely unscientific since there is no relation between the requirements of the pension funds and their various resources, such as fixed installments and certain specified miscellaneous revenues. This objection applies equally to the sinking funds and the pension funds. As in the case of the sinking funds, so in the case of the pension funds, it is recommended that the charter provisions be changed and that the resources of the pension funds be made to consist of annual installments which are actuarially determined on the basis of pension experience tables. The pension funds, like all other funds, should be included in the city budget. It is further suggested that the budget section of the charter should lay down the procedure for insertion in the budget of estimates for fixed charges and redemption of debt. The various fixed charges, such as interest, judgments and settlements, rebates of taxes and assessments, pensions, taxes, contributions and grants, reimbursement of other funds for certain recurring services and the various items of redemption of debt, should be inserted in the budget estimates by the Comptroller and information should be given by him supporting in detail the various items of debt service. Form of the Budget The classification of expenditures which until recently was used in the Comptroller’s office gave an exceedingly detailed analysis of all claims according to the character, function and object of expenditure. The work of each department was divided into functions and every function was still further divided into the classes: Administration, Operation, Upkeep, Fixed Charges, Contingencies, Capital Outlay and Payments as Agent. Each one of these classes was again subdivided into the various classes of object of expenditure, such as Personal Service, Services Other 69 than Personal, Materials and Supplies, and Equipment. Before the claims were sent to the Comptroller’s office by the various departments> they were coded according to this elaborate classification by function, character and object. In the Comptroller’s office the expenditures were analyzed by means of the Hollerith Tabulating Machine system. The analysis of expenditures was recorded on both detail and summary sheets by the Comptroller, showing monthly, quarterly and yearly totals. This system of classifying expenditures was capable of yielding almost any kind of information desired regarding expenditures and was capable of sorting the claims in a half dozen different ways if necessary- But the experience of the Comptroller’s office was that the information obtained by this system was not used to any large extent either by the department heads or by the budget committee of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. This situation was due partly to the fact that the classification was in some respects too refined, and partly to the fact that it did not tie up well with the appropriation act. It will be remembered from the discussion of the budget procedure in Part I of this report that the budget appropriation is extremely lump sum in its itemization, and that no control is therefore exercised over the expenditure of money either as to function or character or object of expenditure. The remedy for the situation seemed to be to create a closer relation between the budget appropriation and the expenditure classification- The appropriation had not been segregated sufficiently, while the ex¬ penditure analysis seemed to have been segregated too much. The remedy, to put it in another way, could be found by introducing an element of segregation into the appropriation ordinance on the one hand, and by eliminating some of the refined segregation in the expenditure analysis on the other hand. In answer to a request from the Comptroller, this elaborate expendi¬ ture analysis was revised by the accounting staff of the Bureau, and also at the same time the form of the appropriation ordinance was changed. Several changes have been made in the existing classification and certain compromises have been made, which seem to meet the practical exigencies of the city. In changing the analysis of expenditures and the form of the appropriation act, certain principles were adhered to: first, that classification by object, by character and by function should not be mixed up, but should be properly interrelated; second, that classi¬ fication by object should not be an indiscriminate list of objects pur¬ chased in the different departments, but should be a more or less logical 70 arrangement of the whole field of objects into a number of groups, in¬ clusive enough to cover practically the entire field of possible expendi¬ tures; third, that segregation in the appropriation ordinance should go so far at least as to separate expenditures of a different character or function. For example, current expenses should be separated from acquisition of property, etc.; and if the current expenses of a department or bureau are divided among several large, distinctive functions, such separate functions should call for separate items in the appropriation act. In making a revision of the expenditure analysis, the appropriation ordinance and budget estimate sheets were changed so as to enable adherence to these principles. The revision which was made is ad¬ mittedly temporary and experimental, but it is thought that the changes are in the right direction and they will afford a larger element of control over the expenditure of budget money. The revised classification of expenditures has the same general framework as that used in connection with the Hollerith Tabulating system. It was proposed that expenditures be analyzed primarily by funds, secondarily by organization units, then by character of expendi¬ ture, then by function and lastly by object. The primary analysis distributes all budget expenditures in four funds—general, school, water and market. The classification by organization units is the same as that formerly in use, except that recognition is given to the adminis¬ trative unit in the Department of Public Works called the Bureau of Sanitation, which has previously been included in the Bureau of Streets and Sewers. The third analysis distributes all expenditures into four classes by character: Current Expenses, Fixed Charges, Acquisition of Property, Redemption of Debt. The refined analysis by function has been dropped for the present because of the small use made of this information and the labor involved in obtaining it. The point is made, however, that it is desirable to preserve in a classification of expenditures an analysis by function pro¬ vided the functional divisions are large and distinctive. The goal which the city should try to reach in respect to a functional classifica¬ tion is to embody the functions in the administrative organization of the different bureaus and offices. For example, if a bureau is per¬ forming four large and distinctive functions, the best way for obtaining an adequate functional classification is to create within the bureau four divisions or minor administrative units. In view of the fact that the 71 organization units of the city are not now completely premised on func¬ tional lines, a tentative functional analysis was proposed for two or three departments. These departments are the City Engineer’s office, the Health Bureau and the Department of Public Works. In the City En¬ gineer’s office, it was suggested that the Testing Laboratory be separated from the other functions of the office, as Municipal Buildings and City Planning have already been separated. In the Health Bureau, it was suggested that the Municipal Hospital be separated from the function of General Health Service. In the Department of Public Works recognition was given to the Bureau of Sanitation, the organization of which has been divided into four functions, namely—Supervision, Street Cleaning, Refuse Collection and Refuse Disposal. The work that remains to be done by the Bureau of Streets and Sewers was divided into two functions; Highway Maintenance and Operation, and Maintenance and Operation of Sewage System. Outside of these three cases, no further functional analysis was proposed. With the exception of the Department of Public Works, these changes have been carried out by the city. Most of the smaller departments are concerned mainly with only one large function and it is felt that a further functional classification should be dictated by the experience of the future. It will be seen from the foregoing that almost the entire functional analysis under the old system has been dropped. Some changes have also been made in the classification of objects of expenditure. The same primary titles were retained, but the sub-classifications of Materials and Supplies and Equipment have been revised. It was the desire of the Comptroller to make his analysis of expenditures by the old method of columnar analysis and to obviate the necessity of using the Hollerith Tabulating machines. In order to accomplish this end, it was necessary that all analyses except one be embodied in the appropriation ordinance. The proposal was made, therefore, that analysis by funds, organization units, character and function (only the few functions mentioned above) be included in the appropriation ordinance and that the analysis by object be made outside of the appropriation ordinance. Attention should be called to the functional classification in this respect: “Current Expenses” is the only character class which has been divided into functions; the character classes of Fixed Charges, Acquisition of Property and Redemption of Debt have not been divided into functions. 72 The form recommended for that part of the appropriation ordinance which relates to this itemization is shown in Table 42. It will be seen from an inspection of this table that within each department there is at least one item for Current Expenses and also one item, if necessary, for Acquisition of Property. There is an item for each particular fixed charge expenditure and an item for each kind of redemption of debt expenditure. The appropriation ordinance exercises no control over the expenditure of an item for Current Expenses as between the various objects such as personal services, services other than personal, etc., except such control as is exercised through the salary schedule. Reference has already been made to the Corporation Counsel’s interpretation of the charter to the effect that the Common Council cannot hold the department heads to such an itemization as has been made in this table. To remedy the situation in a thorough manner and to give the Council a real budget-making power, a charter amend¬ ment is necessary. This proposal has been discussed above. It seems desirable, however, that this form of the appropriation ordinance be accepted by common consent and the complete plan be followed in future budgets, in anticipation of the necessary charter change, and in order that a proper basis of comparison may be established for future budgets. If it is felt that a strict interpretation of the charter will not allow the inclu¬ sion of the suggested itemization in the appropriation ordinance, the Board of Estimate and Apportionment can stipulate, extra-legally, that the Comptroller shall set up his appropriation accounts on the proposed basis, and that the departments in their spending shall adhere to such itemization unless changes are authorized by the Board. Estimate sheets have been prepared for the Comptroller for use in obtaining departmental estimates on the basis of the classification used in the suggested appropriation ordinance. The estimate sheets include the further analysis of the current expense items by object. This further analysis is for information only and is not to be included in the appropria¬ tion ordinance. As was stated above, both the budget estimate sheets and the appropriation ordinance have been divided into four parts according to funds. A summary of the budget estimates and of the appropriation items by funds and character of expenditure should be presented by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment to the Council along with its other budget statements. Such a summary foim has beeft referred to previously and is shown in Table 41. This table not only summarizes the budget estimates and the appropriation items under the heading of “Planned Expenditures,” but also shows the “Means of Financing” the same. It is felt that the information which has been given both to the budget committee of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment and to the public with respect to the annual budget has been entirely too meager. The budget reports should include not only balance sheets, operating statements, and other financial statements of the Comptroller’s office, but also progress reports and the detailed work programs of the different departments. It is, therefore, suggested: first, that the departmental estimates be printed in detail for public information; second, that the charter provision on annual reports (requiring each department head to submit an annual report to the Mayor not later than December 31st each year) be enforced; third, that these annual reports be considered by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment in revising the budget requests and transmitted to the Common Council as a part of the budget information; fourth, that the Board of Estimate and Apportionment require a summary work program for the coming year from each depart¬ ment head and that these work programs also be transmitted to the Council as budget information. m LIBRARY OF THE IWV'RSITY 0? MI.IMOIS Tax Bill No. Namlents of Amount of Item Fund Credited Taxes 1 Prope}-Rate not over $20.00 a l for G. M. E. General 2 Water Tax k ax of 3 cents fixed by Water Delin¬ quent Ac¬ counts 2 Delinc Acc< lus interest, at 10% rom time due till June 1 , Water 9 & 10 Delinc Impro Asse a.1 plus > to time install, is due ¥0 from time install, is due . following Local Improvement 8 Delinc E. S Asse al plus 3 to time install, is due ¥0 from time intall. is due . following E. S. T. S. 6 Delinc wall Clea -D arge plus flat penalty of General 6 Delinq Safety Accc —D arge plus flat penalty of General Direct Assess¬ ments 3 Direct for c Stre< Sprii — ■* :tors’ estimates ion charges, D. P. W. ; ( 4 J 4 %—time of middle me 1) . Local Improvement 4 Direct ttors’ estimates for ct ( 43 ^%—time of middle Extr ine 1) Local Improvement 7 Direct ctors’ estimates for qion charges, D. P. W. Sno\jt ( 434 %—time of middle Line 1 ) Local Improvement 5 Direct ctors’ estimates and for ord|>n or C. &ment Cost Tree.14% end of year to June 1 Local Improvement TABLE No. 1 TAX ROLL ITEMS THE LIBRARY OF THE UHW.RSi* Y t'- : fTUWOlS Tax Bill No. Name of Item Legal References Accounts Kept By When Reported to Assessors Placed on Rolls Components of Amount of Item Fund Credited When By Taxes 1 1 Property Tax State Const.— Art. 8, § 10 State Tax Law Charter City Clerk April 1, (Charter § 107) April 1, 20 Assessors Tax Levy—Rate not over $20.00 a thousand for G. M. E. General 2 1 Water Frontage Tax Charter Sec. 109 Sec. 172 Sec. 188 Sec. 272 Detail—Water Bureau Summary— Comptroller On or before March 1 On or before April 1 Assessors Frontage Tax of 3 cents fixed by Charter Water Delin¬ quent Ac¬ counts 2 Delinquent Water Accounts Charter Sec. 172 Sec. 188 Sec. 271 Detail—W ater Bureau Summary— Comptroller On or before March 1 On or before April 1 Assessors Principal plus interest, at 10% annum from time due till June 1, following Water 9 & 10 Delinquent Local Improvement Assessments Sec. 172 Sec. 176 Detail— Treasurer Summary— Comptroller On or before May 1 Treasurer (1) Principal plus (2) Int. 6% to time install, is due (3) Int. 10% from time install, is due to June 1 following Local Improvement 8 Delinquent E. S. T. S. Assessments Charter Sec. 118 Sec. 172 Sec. 176 -1- Detail— Treasurer Summary— Comptroller On or before May 1 Treasurer (1) Principal plus (2) Int. 6% to time install, is due (3) Int. 10% from time intall. is due to June 1 following E. S. T. S. 6 Delinquent Side¬ walk Repair anc. Cleaning Accts. —D. P. W. Charter Sec. 254 Detail—D. P. W. Summary— Comptroller On or before March 1 On or before April 1 Assessors Original charge plus flat penalty of 10 % General 6 Delinquent Public Safety Accounts —D. P. S. Charter Sec. 188 Sub. 4 Detail—D. P. S. Summary— Comptroller On or before March 1 On or before April 1 Assessors Original charge plus flat penalty of 10 % General Direct Assess¬ ments 3 Direct Assessment for ordinance Street Sprinkling Charter Sec. 146 Sec. 188 (See C. C. Proc. 1919—138) Detail—D. P. W. Comptroller Summary— Comptroller On or before March 1 On or before April 1 Assessors (1) Contractors’ estimates (2) Inspection charges, D. P. W. (3) Interest (4)4%—time of middle est. to June 1) Local Improvement 4 Direct Assessment for ordinance Extra Lighting Charter Sec. 146 Sec. 188 (See C. C. Proc. 1919-215, 273; 1917-258) Detail—Eng. Comptroller Summary— Comptroller On or before March 1 On or before April 1 Assessors (1) Contractors’ estimates (2) Interest (4 )4%—time of middle est. to June 1) Local Improvement 7 Direct Assessment for ordinance Snow Removal ; Charter Sec. 146 Sec. 188 (See C. C. Proc. 1919—304) Detail—D. P. W. Comptroller Summary— Comptroller On or before March 1 On or before April 1 Assessors (1) Contractors’ estimates (2) Inspection charges, D. P. W. (3) Interest (4)4%—time of middle est. to June 1) Local Improvement 5 Direct Assessment for ordinance C. & E. and Tree Planting Charter Sec. 146 Sec. 188 (See C. C. Proc. 1919—105) Detail—Park Department Summary— Comptroller On or before March 1 Or on before April 1 Assessors (1) Contractors’ estimates and Inspection or (2) Department Cost (3) Int.—4)4% end of year to June 1 Local Improvement ( 74 ) u **« * 4 itlfc - TABLE No. 2 LICENSES Occupation Licensed Legal Authority Auctioneer.| General State Law (Charter-Specific) General City Law Section 19, 20 Sec. 86 Billposter. 'General J5tate Law Cartman.| GeneraLState Law (Charter-Specific) Employment Agency.. | General State Law (Sec. 86) (Charter-Specific) Grower.| General State Law (Sec. 86) Huckster, Horse and I (Charter-Specific) Wagon.I General State Law (Sec. 86 and 335) Junk Dealer, Horse I (Charter-Specific) and Wagon. General State Law (Sec. 86 and 335) Junk Dealer, Push I (Charter-Specific) Cart. General State Law (Sec. 86 and 335) (Licensed Occupation Ordinance) (Licensed Occupation Ordinance) (Licensed Occupation Ordinance) (Licensed Occupation Ordinance) (Licensed Occupation Ordinance) (Licensed Occupation Ordinance) (Licensed Occupation Ordinance) (Licensed Occupation Ordinance) Junk Dealer, Store... Moving Picture Machine Operator. (Charter-Specific) General State Law (Sec. 86 and 335) (State Law-Specific) General State Law (General City Law—Sec. 18) (Licensed Occupation Ordinance) Pawnbroker. Peddler, Push Cart. Peddler, Foot. .. Picture Theatre. Pool, Billiards and Bowling. Shows and Circuses. Secondhand Dealers. Theatres. Milk Dealer. (Charter-Specific) General State Law (Sec. 86 and 335) (Charter-Specific) General State Law (Sec. 86) (Charter-Specific) General State Law (Sec. 86) (Charter-Specific) General State Law (JSec. 336) (Charter-Specific) General State Law (JSec. 335) (Charter-Specific) General State Law (JSec. 336) General State Law (Licensed Occupation Ordinance) (Licensed Occupation Ordinance) (Licensed Occupation Ordinance) (Licensed Occupation Ordinance) (Licensed Occupation Ordinance) (Licensed Occupation Ordinance) (Licensed Occupation Ordinance) (Charter-Specific) (Licensed Occupation General State Law (JSec. 336) Ordinance) Ice Dealer. Scavenger. Plumber. Stationary Engineer. Hoist and Portable Engineer. General State Law General State Law General State Law (Health Ordinance) (Health Ordinance) (Health Ordinance) (Otate L/dW-opcuuv-; \ General State Law (Gen’l. City Law, Sec. 40-57) of Plumbers) General State La. (Eng. Lienee Ord.na, Hunter’s Licenses.... Marriage Licenses. . . . Shooting Galleries Midwives. Dog Licenses. Motor Cabmen. Motor Cab Drivers. . . Omnibus. General State Law State Law-Specific (Cons. Law—Sec. 185) State-Specific (Domestic Rel. Law Art. Ill) Charter Charter State Law (Art. 5-B Agricultural Law) General State Law Section 1-18) Motor Cab Stand. General State Law General State Law General State Law (Motor Cab and Motor Stand Ordinance) (Motor Cab and Motor Stand Ordinance) (Omnibus Ordinances) (Motor Cab and Motor Stand Ordinance) *0 25 and $0.50 fees are revenue of city. Regular fee is state revenue and is turned over monthly by clerk to county clerk who disposes of it as follows: (1) retains 4% as own compensation. . . , „ tn statP treasurer 2) transmits rest to conservation commission which in turn transmits to state treasurer. “County Treasurer receives $1.00 and City Treasurer receives $1.00 ***$0.25 registration fee is revenue of city. Regular fee is disposed of as follows. (1) $0.25 fee to assessors for listing dogs. (2) 10% monthly to state treasurer. (3) 45% monthly to county treasurer. (4) 45% monthly to city treasurer, tRefers only to disposition of revenue. Authorized by L icense Issued by Fee Collected by License Inspected by Rate of Fee Term of License 1922 Collections Number Issued Disposition of Revenue Mayor C License Officer Dity Clerk Treasurer Police $50.00 —Dec. 31 « 700.00 14 General Fund Mayor License Officer Hity Clerk Treasurer Police 20.00 1.00 sign —Dec. 31 360.00 18.00 18 18 General Fund Mayor Treasurer Police 1.00 1.00 sign —Dec. 31 117.00 117 General Fund License Officer City Clerk 117.00 117 Mayor License Officer City Clerk Treasurer Police 25.00 —Dec. 31 175.00 7 General Fund Mayor Market Master City Clerk City Clerk Police 1.00 —Apr. 30 General Fund $5.00 of each fee to Mayor Market Master City Clerk Treasurer Police 40.00 1.00 sign —Apr. 30 40.00 1.00 1 1 Police Pension Fund $35.00 to Market Fund Mayor Treasurer Police 3.00 1.00 sign —Dec. 31 231.00 77 Police Pension Fund—- License Officer City Clerk 77.00 77 Charter Mayor Police 1.00 1.00 sign —Dec. 31 12.00 12 Police Pension Fund—- License Officer City Clerk Treasurer 12.00 12 Charter Police Pension Fund— Mayor License Officer City Clerk Treasurer Police 25.00 —Dec. 31 275.00 11 Charter Mayor City Clerk Treasurer Police 5.00 Original 2.00 Renewal Year after date 178.85 5—$5.00 78—$2.00 General Fund Police Pension Fund— Mayor License Officer City Clerk Treasurer Police 100.00 —Dec. 31 1,100.00 11 Charter Mayor License Officer City Clerk Treasurer Police 15.00 1.00 sign —Dec. 31 795.00 53 53 General Fund Mayor License Officer City Clerk Treasurer Police 5.00 —Dec. 31 255.00 51 General Fund Mayor License Officer City Clerk Treasurer Police 50.00 —Dec. 31 1,350.00 27 Fire Pension Police Pension Fund Com. Public Safety License Officer City Clerk Treasurer Police 5.00 per table 5.00 1 and 2 alleys 2.00 each over 2 —Aug. 31 3,109.00 216 prior to Sept. 1, 1922. General Fund after Sept. 1, 1922 Fire Pension Fund—- Mayor License Officer City Clerk Treasurer Police 75.00 perform. 500.00 year —Dec. 31 Charter 5.00 day Museum 10.00 day Concert Mayor License Officer City Clerk Treasurer Police 2.00 —Dec. 31 228.00 114 General Fund Mayor License Officer Fire Pension Fund— City Clerk Treasurer Police 50.00 —Dec. 31 300.00 6 Charter Health Bureau Health Bureau Health Bureau Health Bureau 2.00 Store 1.00 Vehicle 1.00 Sign —Dec. 31 1,409.00 General Fund Health Health Health 1.00 Vehicle —Dec. 31 190.00 General Fund Bureau Bureau Bureau Bureau 1.00 Sign Health Health Health 10.00 —Dec. 31 General Fund Bureau Bureau Bureau Bureau 1.00 Sign Examining Board Health Examining Board Health 5.00 Indefinite 255.00 General Fund of Plumbers Bureau of Plumbers Bureau Board Examiners e of Stationary Engineers Board Examiner Stationary Engi neers, Counter¬ signed by City Clerk s Treasurer Police-Board Examiners Stationary Engineers Chief and 1st, $3.00 and $2.00; 2d and 3d, $2.00 and $1.00 Nightwatch, $1.00 and $1.00 —Dec. 31 1,648.00 General Fund Board Examiners e of Stationary Board Examiner Stationary Engi s Treasurer Police-Board Examiners 1st, $3.00 and $2.00; 2d, $2.00 and $1.00 —Dec. 31 1,648.00 General Fund Engineers neers, Counter- Stationary signed by City Clerk Engineers City Clerk City Clerk * .25 Res. Hunter .50 Non Res. .50 Non Res. Fisher —Dec. 31 331.75 General Fund Affidavit of City Clerk 2.00** 3,106.15 General Fund Parties City Clerk Police Pension 10.00 Customary Mayor License Officer City Clerk Treasurer Police —Dec. 31 None Fund Board Examiners Midwives Board Examine Midwives rs Treasurer Health Bureau 10.00 Indefinite 10.00 1 General Fund *** .25 per tag —June 30 City Clerk City Clerk City Clerk Assessor (to city) Com. Pub. Safety License Officer C. of P. S. Treasurer C. of P. S. 7.50—4 cyl. 10.00—over 4 cyl. —June 30 120.00 440.00 16 44 General Fund General Fund Com. Pub. Safety License Officer C. of P. S. Treasurer C. of P. S. 5.00 original 3.00 renewal —June 30 320.00 64 General Fund General Fund Com. Council City Clerk City Clerk City Clerk 10.00 Indefinite 100.00 10 General Fund Com. Pub. Safety License Officer C. of P. S. Treasurer C. of P. S. 1.00 —June 3C General Fund NIZATION UNITS 916 1917 191 i 345.61 $ 12 520.00 $ 15 4 720.00 720.00 7: 270.00 500.00 51 ; 500.00 19 434.00 5 9' : 089.11 4 494.33 4 9: i 856.08 35 426.79 38 3: 667.50 28 418.00 42 41 617.97 28 445.40 33 4i 506.02 326 268.49 352 1 1 224.52 8 2, 246.63 315.00 1 7 628.84 40 232.83 33 6! 752.43 1 268.35 1 4: i 685.98 41 204.26 47 41 744.25 16 000.00 19 8' 033.57 32 919.45 32 6 671.86 4 759.96 5 2 529.35 13 016.68 12 2i 075.95 21 713.53 24 5 644.03 13 112.85 13 71 212.40 50 870.43 60 8 606.04 127 763.68 172.1 436.11 576 195.92 646 9 681.19 545 667.64 625 0 425.81 17 211.29 17 6 335.61 1 214.19 1 1 365.50 360.00 3 40.00 468.60 1 713 107.77 2 096 8 932.23 165 852.92 208 3 483.97 5 314.59 5 9 236.38 72 469.25 83 2 381.27 4 938.03 5 8 731.72 176 892.39 188 2' 827.31 81 635.55 89 7 737.66 750.00 7 767.64 149 719.04 175 6, 698.42 27 000.00 24 7 983.04 7 122.79 7 2 057.06 1 294 749.08 1 490 8 436.99 18 105.34 17 1 905.32 2 000.00 17 6 628.24 8 156.47 8 6 286.18 363 591.87 376 5 373.40 447 755.02 463 7 271.08 7 246.14 8 4 480.00 4 480.00 3 6 535.87 89 216.52 99 8 167.35 127 459.67 141 1 2 6 077.57 $6 728 840.03 $7 735.0 TABLE No. 3 BUDGET EXPENDITURES ANALYZED BY ORGANIZATION UNITS (1910 to 1922 inc.) 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 Mayor’s Office.Jj & 10 834.90 10 908.91 720 00 11 241 87 11.186.11 14 512.99 10 237.12 Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. 720.00 720.00 720.00 720.00 720.00 Board of Estimate and Apportionment. 129.30 225.40 256.10 313.50 280.50 168.00 Contingent Fund . . Board of Contract and Supply. 3 845.10 4 396 90 4 668.80 4 465.72 4 472.97 4 151.14 Common Council and City Clerk. 37 994.50 33 707 17 33 888.28 34 564.59 38 002.80 37 587.67 Election Expenses. 16 699.00 14 054.00 31 390.00 24 831.50 42 822.41 35 772.50 Comptroller’s Office.. 22 715.31 22 611.40 23 966.48 24 238.47 24 725.92 24 177.85 Debt Service—General. 96 834.60 125 002.17 130 003.38 166 356.33 169 177.22 246 412.07 Judgments and Settlements. 3 128.04 4 852.92 8 006.65 8 074.92 8 825.09 5 338.61 Department of Law. 22 098.05 22 431.22 25 238.94 24.375.71 25 825.90 25 516.79 Art. r.nmmi^inn 24.00 Treasurer’s Office. 30 615.49 31 000.04 33 859.39 36 368.78 36 077.42 36 552.84 Rebates, Taxes and Assessments. 15 038.64 48 000 00 10 000.00 30 342 62 20 000.00 18 830.49 5 652.57 12 381.88 17 000 00 17 000 00 19 271.88 Department of Assessment and Taxation. .. . Civil Service Commission. 23 410.84 4 030.40 22 823.64 4 449.27 25 875.85 4 342.95 26 186.19 4 408.36 28 382.65 3 863.43 25 685.19 4 023.61 Oitv Court—Criminal Branch . 12 524.63 11 178.55 11 775.69 11 843.06 12 072.85 12 267.52 Citv Court—Civil Branch.. 12 407.02 12 575.28 15 356.63 15 415.78 15 687.75 15 781.16 Department of Public Safety—Commis¬ sioner’s Office .. 11 072.95 11 146.33 12 770.00 12 667.53 12 652.13 12 598.83 Blirpaii of TTealt.h . 66 147.74 73 982.87 91 044.61 79 067.99 90 871.75 94 849.01 Bureau of Fire . 437 245.29 535 885.75 485 863.90 509 791.56 548 940.81 540 028.42 Birrpnn nf BnliPP . 365 963.62 384 135.44 431 438.67 458 229.49 478 973.02 504 999.38 Biirppii nf BiiilHinP'.s. 13 633.33 13 349.12 14 454.51 16 033.08 16 534.07 16 108.34 TTvaminincr BnnrH nf Bllimhers. 1 373.68 1 355.96 1 281.56 1 404.13 1 317.44 1 255.21 Examining Board of Stationary Engineers. . . T^Y^miriincr Roard of TvTidwiferv. 366.50 80.00 374.35 80.00 361.45 60.00 360.00 100.00 360.00 130.00 391.25 130.00 Department of Public Instruction—General.. Department of Public Instruction—Debt Rprtn pp . 1 041 649.36 * 1 121 612.92 * 1 227 523.08 * 1 245 865.22 48 453.67 1 417 602.49 82 011.90 1 479 796.28 98 776.82 4 308.69 52 736.24 2 747.56 3 293.33 4 160.65 4 195.37 4 315.95 Public Library . 7 534.51 9 999.63 15 248.08 36 004.50 50 746.02 195 451.75 207 581.62 214 978.42 205 633.89 63 583.14 750.00 170 527.96 21 999.56 .L/C/JJdl LlJLldl U CJJL J- cxi . . . . Purooii r\f PI Q-tr err minds . 43 629.56 15 960.57 22 773.50 23 001.33 24 737.93 J_) U.1 Get U. vJl -L Idj gi .. A TotriAri o 1 TAo ir "P'.Y-npndpt; . 750.00 743.14 750.00 750.00 750.00 lvldllUl ldl lvcty l-/ApenoA/0. 89 985.35 88 760.39 95 231.00 111 085.32 133 275.50 J_/U]JdI LlJLldl L CJl v^iiai a ... A P Poll of Prim mission. 19 741.52 21 935.01 21 073.29 21 897.54 23 547.43 Department Public Works Commissioners Offipp . 12 053.60 13 105.12 12 843.76 13 166.95 966 723.32 13 162.67 11 990.35 1 053 280.65 Bureau of Streets and Sewers. 765 597.76 827 751.45 930 049.98 1 035 043.47 Bureau of Accounts and Records . City Garage . TD + c arirl A/fp^SlirPS. 5 086.19 4 993.59 5 658.76 319 181.85 376 984.29 7 348.49 4 687.69 65 124.20 112 840.89 290 426.64 398 651.86 6 635.25 4 496.88 66 269.04 85 959.12 pureau oi vveigiito duu .. 205 219.05 215 941.78 226 285.62 226 864.30 342 112.29 PUrcaU OI VV atcr crenel a± . . . . *D _« -4 . TA7"-,-for* TToVif SprVl OP . 343 604.25 339 222.26 361 012.88 Pureau oi water utut .. T4.-."Ul 7 x-v A !\ r^onpr^ 1 . 7 418.49 6 221.16 6 565.57 7 274.10 4 750.91 61 621.05 86 794.71 PUDiic lviarKer utucidi. • .. A/T^^l^-*- TAoKf Rprvicp. 5 061.81 5 040.00 5 040.00 JrUDllC IViarKei ueub ocivico . 47 860.80 61 197.08 64 893.81 uuty engineer b wuiLe. • • • .. Bureau of Municipal Buildings . 86 997.81 71 947.05 95.029.82 Bureau or euty rianning . $4 137 298.30 $4 396.895.41 $4 743 983.93 $4 918 586.15 $5 484 563.19 $5 643 914.16 1916 10 345.61 720.00 270.00 3 500.00 4 089.11 36 856.08 41 667.50 26 617.97 341 506.02 2 246.63 27 628.84 1 752.43 36 685.98 9 744.25 27 033.57 4 671.86 12 529.35 20 075.95 12 644.03 45 212.40 100 606.04 548 436.11 519 681.19 15 425.81 1 335.61 365.50 40.00 622 468.60 146 932.23 4 483.97 57 236.38 3 381.27 162 731.72 71 827.31 737.66 147 767.64 24 698.42 6 983.04 117 057.06 11 436.99 1 905.32 6 628.24 302 286.18 412 373.40 7 271.08 4 480.00 65 535.87 90 167.35 $6 120 077.57 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 $ 12 520.00 $ 15 419.47 $ 15 580.55 $ 14 839.61 $ 16 028.83 $ 15 244.66 720 00 720.00 720.00 720.00 720.00 720.00 500 00 500.00 500.00 1 595.80 672.60 1 035.60 19 434.00 5 973.95 2 830.94 10 719.14 20 457.38 4 494.33 4 924.08 6 178.32 5 905.28 6 479.17 7 325.02 35 426.79 38 323.64 44 157.78 53 193.21 55 702.65 58 998.69 28 418.00 42 485.75 42 667.00 45 355.25 43 197.50 39 219.50 28 445.40 33 405.44 37 537.30 40 225.02 45 766.43 45 797.22 326 268.49 352 145.11 382 585.21 553 344.95 612 071.16 814 390.84 1 09/1 SO 8 236.68 16 209 58 21 133.44 315.00 1 704.75 5 329.16 6 452.63 8 246.70 10 875.29 40 232.83 33 625.16 40 633.01 40 986.13 52 065.67 61 843.67 1 268.35 1 422.36 1 586.65 1 616.60 1 896.92 1 923.15 41 204.26 47 463.80 52 233.49 57 309.58 62 675.92 64 059.61 16 000.00 19 844.36 24 770.82 2 539.62 20 000.00 20 000.00 38 449.06 50 000.00 32 919.45 32 038.43 37 379.50 45 192.14 44 943.68 47 235.72 4 759.96 5 244.78 6 939.11 6 672.76 7 137.63 7 056.97 13 016.68 12 244.49 15 732.71 15 091.76 16 237.84 16 127.10 21 713.53 24 511.60 28 684.14 27 053.09 30 532.86 31 953.74 13 112.85 13 786.00 16 828.75 16 971.23 17 837.17 17 860.09 50 870.43 60 801.21 77 141.91 61 508.10 71 709.49 85 376.93 127 763.68 172.136.44 176 291.24 197 573.02 226 006.28 268.737.28 576 195.92 646 928.89 828 055.71 886 417.76 1 038.207.74 1 152 442.02 545 667.64 625 043.51 665 348.10 685 417.84 875.544.03 907.206.63 17 211.29 17 695.09 20 529.50 19 123.98 23 155.74 23 659.77 1 214.19 1 132.40 1 354.60 1 272.35 1 653.06 1 930.99 360.00 360.00 360.00 388.50 537.50 542.50 60.00 20.00 80 00 1 713 107.77 2 096 890.43 2 624 107.86 3 516 020.44 4 748 428.01 5 056 590.21 165 852.92 208 389.13 331 751.16 355 842.34 539.264 85 736.397.05 5 314.59 5 988.82 7 606.64 7 106.06 8 313.29 8 258.15 72 469.25 83 274.56 98 287.31 95 054.80 112 754.26 J153 880.05 4 938.03 5 850.23 11 597.79 10 332.33 12 768.03 14 093.11 176 892.39 188 273.26 240 467.96 221 609.19 313 220.19 335 527.33 81 635.55 89 700.00 105 810.34 113 006.91 154 039.47 146 376.97 750.00 748.18 750.00 733.12 993.80 937.45 149 719.04 175 651.72 156 701.79 147 055.26 210 272.11 215 193.51 27 000.00 24 700.00 29 356.84 26 926.01 31 936.07 38 120.76 7 122.79 7 289.54 9 342.26 9 432.38 10 344.63 10 351.55 1 294 749.08 1 490 892.09 1 722 500.00 1 678 665.02 1 902 326.75 2 072 695.60 18 105.34 17 159.74 21 566.05 20 549.03 20 856.64 20 064.95 2 000.00 17 627.98 22 538.45 19 108.34 23 640.53 15 885.77 8 156.47 8 623.75 10 046.86 10 388.29 11 813.39 12 473.38 363 591.87 378 580.69 391 374.22 464 368.33 612 509.84 643 549.23 447 755.02 463 756.23 492 533.60 495 015.64 519.527 48 524 142.96 7 246.14 8 404.02 8 428.36 9 284.05 10 287.90 9 972.53 4 480.00 3 605.00 2 730.00 2 730.00 2 730.00 227.50 89 216.52 99 815.21 126 856.61 123 658.02 134 246.99 144 200.00 127 459.67 141 134.56 148 626.41 148 294.91 194.719.33 177 914.18 2 618.48 25 346.02 23 565.32 24 018.66 24 522.62 $8 728 840.03 $7 735.068.99 $9 194 134.11 , $10 285 492.00 $12 888 777.93 $14 133 475.23 •Department of Public Instruction-Debt service included in Generall Debt Service (under Comptroller) in 1910, 1911 and 1912. flndudes expenditures for Bureau of History amounting to $9,399.42. TABLE No. 4 COMPARISON OF 1922 BUDGET EXPENDITURES WITH 1910 EXPENDITURES SHOWING TOTAL AND MOST IMPORTANT ORGANIZATION ITEMS 1910 Expenditures 1922 Expenditures Percentage Increase 1922 Over 1910 Total Budget. $4 137 298.30 $14 133 475.23 242 Mayor’s Office. $ 10 834.90 $ 15 244.66 41 Common Council and City Clerk... . 37 994.50 58 998.69 55 Comptroller’s Office. 22 715.31 45 797.22 102 Debt Service—General. *166 356.33 814 390.84 390 Department of Law. 22 098.05 61 843.67 180 Treasurer’s Office. 30 615.49 64 059.61 109 Department Assessment and Taxa’n . 23 410.84 47 235.72 102 City Court—Criminal Branch. 12 524.63 16 127.10 29 City Court—Civil Branch. Department of Public Safety—Com¬ missioner’s Office. 12 407.02 31 953.74 158 11 072.95 17 860.09 61 Bureau of Health. Bureau of Fire (Inc. Y. Fire and 66 147.74 268 737.28 306 Police Telegraph). Bureau of Police (Inc. x /i Fire and 437 245.29 1 195 130.48 173 Police Telegraph). 365 963.62 949 895.10 159 Bureau of Buildings.. Department of Public Instruction— 13 633.33 23 659.77 74 General. Department of Public Instruction— 1 041 649.36 5 056 590.21 385 Debt Service. *48 453.67 736 397.05 1420 Library.. Department of Parks and Bureau 7 534.51 153 880.05 1942 Playgrounds. 239 081.31 481 904.30 102 Department of Charities. 89 985.35 215 193.51 139 G. A. R. Relief. 19 741.52 38 120.76 93 Department of Public Works. 782 737.55 2 131 471.25 172 Bureau of Water—General. 205 219.05 643 549.23 214 Bureau of Water—Debt Service. 343 604.25 524 142.96 53 Public Market—General. 7 418.49 9 972.53 34 City Engineer’s Office. 47 860.80 144 200.00 201 Bureau of Municipal Buildings. 86 997.81 177 914.18 105 Bureau of City Planning. **2 618.48 24 522.62 837 *General Debt Service and School Debt Service figures are for 1913 instead of 1910, because items could not be separated for 1910, 1911 or 1912. **1918. r THE LIBRARY HmVERSITY OF ILLINOIS TABLE No. 5 BUDGET EXPENDITURES (1910 to 1922 Inclusive) (Analyzed by Object) Year Debt Service Personal Service Other Current Expense Acquisition of Property Total 1910 $ 445 500.66 $2 348 930.49 SI 241 616.44 $ 101 250.71 $4 137 298.30 1911 469 264.43 2 477 884.40 1 294 960.12 154 786.46 4 396 895.41 1912 496 056.26 2 677 783.56 1 432 574.49 137 569.62 4 743 983.93 1913 561 673.20 *2 797 602.88 1 499 927.75 59 472.32 4 918 676.15 1914 632 861.10 3 235 866.07 1 518 587.37 97 248.65 5 484 563.19 1915 748 337.63 3 421 162.48 1 378 073.90 96 340.15 5 643 914.16 1916 905 291.65 3 606 720.45 1 413 444.51 f194 620.96 6 120 077.57 1917 944 356.43 3 983 215.63 1 581 627.08 f219 640.89 6 728 840.03 1918 1 027 895.47 4 447 057.11 2 016 192.88 f243 923.53 7 735 068.99 1919 1 209 599.97 5 541 895.51 2 108 764.85 |333 873.78 9 194 134.11 1920 1 406 932.93 6 300 619.26 2 273 533.37 f304 406.44 10 285 492.00 1921 1 673 593.49 8 089 915.26 2 613 467.25 t511 801.93 12 879 777.93 1922 2 075 158.35 8 528 975.26 3 091 426.46 f437 915.16 14 133 475.23 * Department of Public Instruction estimated, t Includes minor as well as major equipment. TABLE No. 6 COMPARISON OF 1922 BUDGET EXPENDITURES WITH 1910 EXPENDITURES CLASSIFIED BY OBJECT OF EXPENDITURE Object of Expenditure 1910 Expenditures 1922 Expenditures Percentage Increase 1922 over 1910 Debt Service. $ 445 500.66 S 2 075 158.35 366 Personal Service. 2 348 930.49 8 528 975.26 263 Other Current Expenses 1 241 616.44 3 091 426.46 149 Acquisition of Property. 101 250.71 437 915.16 333 Total. $4 137 298.30 $14 133 475.23 242 C/3 oC o C/3 C/3 c n C/3 O H C* H-) o P4 H CL, § o u I* CQ 00 6 £ W D PQ < O « HH pH I—H H PC W U C/3 W U £ < £ M o PC o H £ U3 S > o PC &H S I-H c u o h-3 (N CN O' 4-> c 2 o a < -4-> o H OhMINiOO OONCOiOWO CO 00 t>- H !>• H05COCO^HCOOOOO OHCOGOr^--HCOOO CO 00 00 110000 0 co CO CM CO CM *0 05 CM co CO *0 CM 05 CO H r-H Miscellaneous tQ CD • CO • CM 00 I s - -05 O CO • • 00 CM CO • O OH -CO • to O H • t>- OH • 1—1 . to to 05 -CO CM CO • t> • 05 CM CO • t - to O -05 • CO i“H H • O CO -CM • T-H t'- H • o CM • O • • * T-H <*/> • • • $1 402 862.73 Removal of Poles and Lighting 05 -OOCMCMNCOOCM 1> • CO 05 tO H CO CO O b- .(o^conoocoooio CO •0'4cD05i-HCOC005 H • CO CO 00 05 O H CO GO • cm h- © i-H b- • CM H H CO m ■ *$151 728.71 Combina¬ tions (G. W. &S., G.&W., W. & S., G. & S.) Grading _ $ 22 517.84 33 727.91 63 621.41 97 594.34 8 290.84 76 491.80 107 170.42 48 256.30 96 870.61 192 937.46 $747 478.93 Openings, Extensions, Widenings, Discon- tinuings $ 16 579.43 154 247.69 120 902.51 84 102.05 164 440.97 25 879.54 38 497.58 54 694.03 $659 343.80 CD»OWH0500510N10 o ONCMhO00O5O^O C/3 CO CO 05 CO 00 O 05 GO ’-H 05 CM i < tOi-HHC005CMC50005CM 00 OO^OOSIMCOCOON^ *o > iH05COcOCOOOOCOO^ b- CbJ r-H r-H r-H r-H r-H C4 CO r-H r- r-H <*=> OOO^OCMiO>ONNM o '^■^r^05050co'ctHtoco to C/3 OOOOCMT^THrHCOCOCO 05 Lh CO’HOO'HIOCJOJN'^^ H iCCOCOHOOOO^O^t 1 w CO -O05i0' - HC0 05 4H c C0CM05CMCOc0C005CMCM 00 CD 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 o r-H r-H r-H r-H r-H r-H r-H r-H r-H t-H * Lighting—$123,051.54. Removal of Poles, $28,677.17. fDeepening Genesee River. Those Shown.) Purpos 919 1920 1921 1922 Snow Remc Sidewalk Extra Light Sprinkling. Care and E Tree Plar Street Cleai Flushing. . Calcium CL 538.28 163.44 349.54 121.10 962.32 780.29 $ 84 661.02 35 182.47 46 128.96 8 730.67 $ 90 027.74 38 152.32 58 248.12 9 926.77 $ 91 758.73 38 157.03 64 680.82 11 296.73 nouse in urn Total. 514.97 $174 703.12 $196 354.95 $205 893.31 TABLE No. 7 DIRECT ASSESSMENTS FOR CURRENT EXPENSES 1911—1922 (The Years Represent the Time of Collection; the Actual Expenditures Were Made in the Years Previous to Those Shown.) Purpose 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 Snow Removal and Sidewalk Plowing .. $ 26 892.49 t $ 38 207.96 $ 38 003.02 $ 36 140.96 $ 54 161.28 $ 55 979.57 $ 60 809.81 $ 65 538.28 37 163.44 $ 84 661.02 35 182.47 $ 90 027.74 38 152.32 CO O/IO 1 O $ 91 758.73 38 157.03 64 680 82 Sorinkling. 44 938.77 35 597.67 41 712.98 40 698.35 40 747.98 49 649.54 46 128.9b Oo Zrfco . Care and Emb. and Type Planting. 8 091.19 8 551.21 5 884.66 7 034.21 6 323.92 6 537.97 47 225.93 5 775.29 5 752.57 A/I AQ1 Id. 7 421.10 53 962.32 7 780.29 8 730.67 9 926.77 11 296.73 Street Cleaning. 20 991.41 27 544.21 38 915.35 48 178.15 55 834.01 44 247.78 4 505.55 O'! oyi. JL^fc 5 489.73 Calcium Chloride Treatment. TToiisp Numbering. . . . 5 102.79 9.84 4 447.35 Q KO/1 KH 9 003 74 • ••••••••••• • ••••••••••• 162.41 5 375.54 • •••••••••• 4 144.16 A 004: . OU L UUO . i bt Total. $100 913.86 $110 063.46 $91 888.53 $139 026.36 $143,494.22 $147 360.38 $149 765.03 $182 012.89 $221 514.97 $174 703.12 $196 354.95 $205 893.31 TO 1922 INCLUSIVE, CL ipment) 1917 1918 • $ 418 828.98 1 176.55 257 485.74 59 393.76 35 772.86 $ 477 538.96 775 885.95 90 000.00 128 474.97 14 796.84 194 583.13 *22 202.00 32 998.57 77 331.54 992.00 • 25 000.00 30 000.00 — *32 725.00 163 185.27 5 320.00 317 498.05 $1 133 497.86 $1 917 838.31 TABLE:No. 9 EXPENDITURES OF CITY OF ROCHESTER FOR LAND AND BUILDINGS, 1910 TO 1922 INCLUSIVE, CLASSIFIED BY PURPOSE (Together with totals expended for equipment) Cost Value Dec. 31, 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 Cost Value Dec. 31, 1922 Water. $ 9 627 513.63 $395 713.93 $ 382 786.02 $ 359 933.79 $ 242 842.35 $ 510 822.73 $ 236 230.45 $174 696.35 $ 418 828.98 $ 477 538.96 $ 217 263.56 $ 189 493.82 $ 312 905.93 $ 199 494.61 $13 746.065.11 Public Market. 192 208 36 3 224 93 8 557 00 1 958 24 1 176 55 5 500.00 212 b25.08 Schools. 2 521 045.36 148 038.91 147 020.10 191 868.78 561 394.91 454 128.95 434 185.36 310 149.23 257 485.74 775 885.95 900 270.91 681 813.43 1 811 463.55 2 770 002.85 11 964.754.03 Parks and Playgrounds. 1 793 718.82 100 976.42 134 643.53 70 958.00 238 669.43 47 079.97 446 783.71 *339.17 59 393.76 90 000.00 125 301.83 197 461.46 115 186.33 32 270.86 3 452 104.95 Qfii fin4 on 9i 09 s ; or 22 741.52 2 240 67 52 937.95 42 615.25 17 614.98 i on 99 oqp; 3^ 772 86 128 474 97 68 321 49 48 175.34 1 423 578.78 Health. 105 751.13 ljLj uuo . OU 14 796.84 21 263.26 41 787.47 29 013.84 13 958.43 228 811.64 Bridges. 996 137.28 7 364 00 92 357 83 56 528 69 234 86 *189 753.69 535 711.34 *30 337.38 16 788.96 1 485.031.89 Sewage Disposal. 3 109.84 7 483.11 286 390.82 605 894.09 454 580.43 320 802.14 369.679.89 180 619.80 194 583.13 77 331.54 56 376.98 49 224.47 61 784.83 31 526.71 2 699 387.78 Garbage Disposal. 125 000.00 *22 202.00 225 684.12 501 559.35 26 942.92 856 984.39 Tnpinprat.rvr 7 141 00 15 451 61 62 390 00 18 338.25 2 722.30 32 998.57 992.00 140 033.73 P.nnvpntinn TTg 11 83 720 00 28 382.05 1 043 50 78 000 00 191 145.55 Exnnsit.ion Park 24 481.96 220 842.60 262 357.56 1 742 73 25 000.00 54 551.94 *100 000.00 488 976.79 Gi tv Ga ra pp 31 855.56 6 500 00 30 000.00 15 000.00 83 355.56 380 953 83 380 953.83 Miscellaneous Properties. 198 055.47 *7 511.21 27 617.55 6 373.65 200.00 *35 523.65 *119 174.38 96 200.00 *32 725.00 5 320.00 *9 040.00 *13 350.00 174 342.71 25 318.13 316 103.27 **Equipment—all departments 785 209.17 25 955.22 36 395.70 155 079.86 46 250.03 96 155.02 92 972.13 125 484.51 163 185.27 317 498.05 200 109.31 313 884.67 412 491.36 93.18 2 770.763.48 Total. $17 680 649.85 $743 779.10 $1 416 469.84 $1 780 270.62 $1 626 332.78 $1 497 637,14 $1 470 435.40 $844 152.39 $1 133 497.86 $1 917 838.31 $1 649 419.28 $2 269 886.12 $3 288 410.52 $3 121 896.65 $40 440 675.86 *Deduction **Figures for Equipment show differences between inventories at beginning and end of years. TABLE No. 10 REVENUES OF CITY OF ROCHESTER (All Revenues Which Are Applicable To Current Funds, Except Proceeds of Borrowing) Year Tax Levy Utility Revenues Miscellaneous Revenues Total 1910 $ 3 190 740.50 $ 605 468.53 $ 495 458.33 $ 4 291 667.36 1911 3 323 884.50 631 292.78 526 245.78 4 481 423.06 1912 3 679 260.00 659 549.99 544 132.93 4 882 942.92 1913 3 863 757.67 703 281.98 543 716.56 5 110 756.21 1914 4 250 490.35 718 345.27 580 833.73 5 549 669.35 1915 4 457 946.16 704 716.22 596 741.87 5 759 404.25 1916 4 999 673.86 765 322.61 619 813.26 6 384 809.73 1917 5 221 047.39 838 765.31 811 827.86 6 871 640.56 1918 5 934 977.15 877 178.20 1 114 009.60 7 926 164.95 1919 6 886 165.45 910 611.82 1 270 531.50 9 067 308.77 1920 6 907 678.08 986 031.60 2 021 369.63 9 915 079.31 1921 8 060 395.91 1 172 926.39 2 680 227.74 11 913 550.04 1922 10 599 083.19 1 245 071.55 2 860 634.22 14 704 788.96 TABLE No. 11 ASSESSED VALUATIONS OF PROPERTY (1905 to 1922) Year Real Franchise Pension Personal Total 1905 $114 244 975 $ 5 742 825 $353 450 $6 598 600 $126 939 850 1906 119 514 240 8 298 675 372 000 6 918 000 135 102 915 1907 126 103 720 10 168 000 398 650 7 460 400 144 130 770 1908 130 395 645 11 781 225 405 115 7 180 250 149 762 235 1909 134 906 345 12 072 800 411 325 7 056 550 154 447 020 1910 143 621 435 13 059 600 424 950 8 305 500 165 411 485 1911 152 588 132 14 427 500 436 400 8 048 900 175 500 932 1912 165 956 275 14 281 300 449 775 8 122 300 188 809 650 1913 175 668 235 15 752 030 462 500 8 132 800 200 015 565 1914 191 209 695 15 632 520 451 125 8 190 700 215 484 040 1915 202 737 920 14 623 120 479 400 8 359 600 226 200 040 1916 215 285 489 16 411 120 513 800 9 731 550 241 941 959 1917 246 377 599 18 824 681 539 860 11 030 200 276 772 340 1918 251 968 654 19 146 025 526 000 2 643 450 274 284 129 1919 264 912 574 18 199 991 537 825 2 804 950 286 455 340 1920 275 872 171 20 139 120 497 600 1 025 250 297 534 141 1921 331 964 144 19 391 040 494 450 681 650 352 531 284 1922 339 451 203 19 293 520 485 525 554 200 359 784 448 TABLE No. 12 ASSESSED VALUATION, EQUALIZATION RATE AND ESTIMATED TRUE VALUATION OF PROPERTY (1913 to 1922) Year Total Assessed Valuation Equalization Rate Estimated Full Valuation 1913 $200 015 565 80% $250 019 456 1914 215 484 040 75% 287 312 053 1915 226 200 040 80% 282 750 050 1916 241 941 959 80% 302 427 448 1917 276 772 340 83% 333 460 650 1918 274 289 129 83% 330 468 830 1919 286 455 340 83% 345 126 915 1920 297 534 141 83% 358 474 868 1921 352 531 284 88% 400 603 731 1922 359 784 448 88% 408 845 963 TABLE No. 13 TAX RATE APPLICABLE TO GENERAL MUNICIPAL EXPENSE (1910 to 1922) (Reference to 2% Constitutional Tax Limit) Year Total Assessed Valuation Total Tax Levy Portion of Levy Cover- . ing General Debt Service Portion of Levy cover¬ ing General Mun. Expense Ratio of G. M. E. Levy to Assessment of Previous yr. 1909 1910 $154 447 020 165 411 485 $3 190 740.50 $ 96 834.60 $3 093 905.90 .0200 1911 175 489 632 3 323 884.50 125 002.17 3 198 882.33 .0192 1912 188 809 650 3 679 260.00 130 003.38 3 549 256.62 .0202 1913 200 015 565 3 863 757.67 214 900.00 3 648 857.67 .0193 1914 215 484 040 4 250 490.35 251 189.12 3 999 301.23 .0200 1915 226 200 040 4 457 946.16 345 188.89 4 112 757.27 .0191 1916 241 941 959 4 999 673 86 488 438.25 4 511 235.61 .0199 1917 276 772 340 5 221 047.39 492 121.41 4 728 925.98 .0195 1918 274 289 129 5 934 977.15 560 534.24 5 374 442.91 .0195 1919 286 455 340 6 886 165.45 714 336.37 6 171 829.08 .0225 1920 297 546 391 6 907 679.49 1 197 439.49 5 710 240.00 .0199 1921 352 531 284 8 060 395 91 2 116 552.61 5 943 843.30 .0199 1922 359 784 448 10 599 083.19 3 563 964.11 7 035 119.08 .0199 MUNIC] 'ension Fund} 1916 I 8 415.00 3 042.00 170.30 247.25 506.00 285.00 30 210.30 204 216.38 1 9QR 7A THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS n TABLE No. 14 REVENUES OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN MUNICIPAL TAXATION AND BORROWING 1910 to 1922 (Not including Receipts Applicable to Police and Fire Pension Fund) Department of Collection City Clerk. Comptroller. Assessment and Taxation. Treasurer. C. C. Criminal. C. C. Civil- Health Bureau. Fire Bureau. Dept. Public Instruc. Library. Dept, of Parks. Dept, of Charities. . . . Water Bureau. Street and Sewer Bureau. Kind of Revenue Dog Licenses. Marriage Licenses. . Hunters’ Fees. Commr. Deed Fees. Sign Licenses. Areaways. Miscellaneous. Midwives. Int. Bank Balance. Liquor Licenses. Share State Income Tax ( l A)- Share State Corp. Tax (y$) ■ ■ Premium on Notes. Misc. Revenues. Int. on Taxes. Bank Taxes. Tax Redemptions. Licensed Auctioneers. Licensed Bill Posters. Licensed Cartmen. Licensed Emp. Agencies. Licensed Hucksters. Licensed Peddlers. Licensed Movie Operator.. .. Licensed Secondhand Stores. Licensed Public Vehicles. . . . Licensed Drivers. Licensed Motorcycles. Fees, Plumbers. Fees, Sta. Engineers. Fees, Searches. Fees, Miscellaneous. Real Estate Dealers. Fines. Fees.. Licenses, Milk Dealers. Licenses, Ice Dealers... Licenses, Scavengers.. . Licenses, Miscellaneous. Market Bureau. . . . Div. Muni. Buildings . Corporation Counsel. Police Bureau. Police and Fire Tele. Bureau of Buildings. D. P. W. General- Genesee Valley Park. ♦Undistributed. Miscellaneous.. Miscellaneous.. Miscellaneous.. Miscellaneous.. Miscellaneous., M iscellaneous Incinerator. . . ._. Sidewalk Cleaning. Sidewalk Repairing. Garbage Reduction Plant... Snow Removal. Miscellaneous. Miscellaneous. Convention Hall. Exposition Park. City Hall Maintenance. Sale of Buildings. Sale of Lots, etc. Total Misc. Revenues (exc. those applicable to Pens ion Funds) Miscellaneous. Miscellaneous. Miscellaneous. Miscellaneous. Miscellaneous. Damage Award N. Y. State. 1910 7 985.00 2 345.00 132.80 157.00 515.00 24 778.25 202 586.07 23 189.06 58 066.46 * 400.00 280.00 105.00 175.00 755.00 130.00 464.00 3 147.25 4 378.00 5 815.65 1 018.86 41.00 34.00 * 121 380.32 1 772.23 592 725.44 13 418.34 12 743.09 1911 8 018.00 2 569.00 139.00 162.25 * 24 655.10 202 630.09 23 145.62 59 664.44 * 350.00 340.00 193.00 300.00 1 100.00 "iie'.oo 140.00 769.00 3 019.70 * 2 233.00 7 584.55 1 100.00 104.00 33.00 ♦ 147 963.79 1 075.50 617 955.24 4 078.17 13 337.54 1912 8 470.00 2 702.00 131.70 223.00 21 799.97 204 648.74 24 109.83 61 235.20 * 450.00 280.00 68.00 275.00 1 370.00 " 194 : 00 ' 140.00 673.00 3 410.00 * 3 698.00 7 755.80 1 155.00 140.00 22.00 * 143 125.90 1 357.00 639 935.76 21 261.97 19 614.23 1913 8 533.00 2 929.65 152.80 146.25 22 588.06 204 315.23 30 231.17 61 676.66 * 450.00 240.00 112.00 200.00 1 055.00 206.00 86.00 145.00 937.00 3 073.75 206.89 22 182.15 Utility Revenues. Other Miscellaneous Revenues $1 100 926.86 605 468.53 495 458.33 34 762.57 $1 157 538.56 631 292.78 526 245.78 35 436.82 $1 203 682.92 659 549.99 544 132.93 3 755.00 8 350.00 1 184.00 88.00 22.00 146 244.38 711.06 679 327.21 23 094.47 23 954.77 1914 8 829.00 2 959.70 148.10 255.25 * 22 981.09 206 683.38 31 107.75 66 569.67 * 350.00 200.00 123.00 175.00 1 440.00 154.00 202.00 65.00 2 325.00 175.00 1 012.00 2 810.75 23 010.08 $1 246 998.54 703 281.98 543 716.56 4 290.05 10 395.95 1 115.00 84.00 22.00 156-897.26 497.02 692 926.73 32 618.98 25 418.54 1915 027.00 701.80 159.00 170.25 777.00 23 112.11 197 582.91 1 256.04 38 515.06 66 757.19 687.00 450.00 180.00 83.00 175.00 105.00 140.00 157.00 222.00 900.00 242.50 225.00 185.00 223.00 737.75 127.35 1 1 2 26 347.78 4 984.00 11 136.80 1 238.00 133.00 11.00 503.73 1 556.57 169 268.54 2 709.39 18 255.78 1 826.85 678 802.72 17 164.35 1 418.01 3 717.90 8 834.70 25 913.50 3 741.50 697.92 15.92 603.69 26.62 1916 8 415.00 3 042.00 170.30 247.25 506.00 285.00 30 210.30 204 216.38 1 296.76 41 298.81 70 258.56 845.00 350.00 140.00 79.00 175.00 75.00 810.00 150.00 236.00 206.00 47.00 860.00 1 430.00 3 146.25 241.15 4 541.00 11 252.55 1 303.00 142.00 11.00 408.25 2 672.08 162 445.86 2 297.67 13 820.18 1 734.50 740 638.37 20 078.67 2 016.92 2 950.88 8 435.64 9 141.12 24 684.24 4 835.65 1 616.14 10.00 1 243.02 60.37 $1 299 179.90 718 345.27 580 833.73 II 301 458.09 704 716.22 596 741.87 385 075.87 765 322.61 619 753.26 1917 268.00 041.70 133.50 170.00 529.00 165.00 32 583.34 290 041.84 1 324.35 45 209.99 76 821.57 830.00 400.00 160.00 65.00 175.00 60.00 605.00 132.00 240.00 95.00 130.00 1 445.00 2 477.35 15.30 4 222.00 10 737.27 1 264.00 157.00 11.00 549.90 1 205.71 242 194.69 2 582.63 14 964.49 1 551.30 813 146.57 17 956.41 2 141.66 3 716.96 26 758.76 276.52 10 278.65 25 -618.74 4 425.00 1 071.80 4.50 1 345.15 279.76 15.76 650 593.17 838 765.31 I 811 827.86 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 $ 480.00 $ 7 729.12 | 3 544.09 $ 10 474.42 I 16 314.25 2 390.60 3 174.50 3 447.45 3 039.40 3 106.15 50.70 81.40 234.65 283.75 331.75 202.00 196.75 186.00 228.00 245.25 463.00 441.00 995.00 1 453.00 1 561.00 80.00 75.00 180.00 150.00 140.00 230.00 86.38 1 158.43 20.00 10.00 34 291 16 39 797.68 49 416.09 37 694.15 73 290.14 385 541.36 178 155.19 2 890.37 870.60 2 316.00 403 160.56 352 589.55 335 605.13 227 253.45 567 043.83 579 097.86 566 317.90 69 952.94 1 331.16 1 548.17 1 546.65 1 657.29 1 659.29 60 302.55 74 375.91 68 507.08 72 713.33 96 308.56 78 648.48 82 848.83 86 090.69 90 450.21 79 547.60 849.50 1 111.00 1 404.00 1 176.00 1 403.00 550.00 700.00 800.00 700.00 700.00 120.00 200.00 200.00 220.00 360.00 77.00 91.00 106.00 200.00 117.00 200.00 125.00 125.00 150.00 175.00 15 00 559.00 710.00 643.00 1 391.00 1 099.00 101.00 188.00 257.00 124.25 178.85 256.00 292.00 244.00 238.00 228.00 660.00 320.00 45.00 210.00 240.00 317.00 249.00 1 462.00 1 758.00 1 567.00 1 585.00 1 648.00 1 776.50 5 981.00 8 999.75 7 956.50 8 820.50 2.59 314.61 5 086.00 2 380.00 5 891.00 3 702.00 5 057.00 5 826.00 9 045.90 9 089.00 9 240.10 11 916.60 13 877.63 1 241.00 1 476.00 1 087.00 636.00 958.00 90.00 100.00 41.00 53.00 53.00 10 00 877:08 1 237.57 288.59 150.26 2 085.64 4 193.86 1 660.32 2 489.15 2 459.48 213 059.15 247 332.04 677 821.65 1 266 815.68 1 316 581.13 4 351.35 4 287.31 6 745.46 10 666.70 6 529.68 9 134.45 9 780.18 17 400.89 37 271.34 40 279.17 1 841.56 2 245.33 2 472.25 3 052.85 2 936.36 852 361.59 884 053.32 959 423.78 1 142 833.38 1 212 172.89 20 076.29 19 089.86 21'217.69 12 820.37 11 654.97 1 146.67 421.24 91.65 755.30 3 129.21 3 640.87 3 834.29 1 144.75 3 617.09 27 723.73 34 172.95 28 445.12 12 955.90 83 901.13 49.90 14 207.86 9 828.04 17 739.79 16 251.30 20 022.63 24 816.61 26 558.50 26 607.82 30 093.01 32 898.66 2 635.00 7 270.40 11 731.27 10 875.00 10 645.51 1 047.85 1 055.32 2 285.00 2 275.00 3 220.00 3.00 300.00 225.00 300.00 300.00 47 560.00 6 650.00 70^ 92 1 793.98 1 852.65 2 015.63 1 857.70 2 225.79 852.37 914.95 1 853.12 1 045.97 1 757.55 171.68 317.12 673.79 1 143.23 1 289.28 2 381.78 43.35 241.42 67.93 7.88 36.00 73.0S 100 000.00 1 679.87 5 299.69 9 171.23 11 991 187.80 $2 181 142.82 13 007 401.23 13 842 570.33 14 052 112.15 877 178.20 910 611.82 986 031.60 1 172 926.39 1 245 507.55 |1 114 009.60 $1 270 531.00 12 021 369.63 $2 669 643.94 12 806 604.60 TABLE No. 15 COST OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS CERTIFIED IN YEARS (1913 to 1922) AND ANALYSIS OF ASSESSMENT CHARGES Year Charges Against City at Large Charges Against City Parcels Total Against City of Rochester Total Against N. Y. S. Railways Total Against All other Property Total Locals Certified $ $ $ $ $ $ 1913 250 043.42 29 376.52 279 419.94 171 085.13 1 154 386.90 1 604 891.97 1914 15 896.08 18 144.71 34 040.79 815 677.76 849 718.55 1915 3 500.00 43 838.08 47 338.08 71 402.84 744 594.31 863 335.23 1916 59 290.95 43 807.99 103 098.94 *54 994.75 1 025 428.69 1 183 522.38 1917 35 525.29 61 575.98 97 101.27 474 252.59 571 353.86 1918 3 819.20 55 112.21 58 931.41 957 073.68 1 016 005.09 1919 64 793.71 22 507.85 87 301.56 781 476.82 868 778.38 1920 82 650.16 6 131.59 88 781.75 499 648.89 613 827.75 1921 150 233.24 85 695.47 235 928.71 9 180.52 930 677.74 1 175 786.97 1922 1 055 671.88 94 326.55 1 149 998.43 213 593.57 1 870 880.26 3 234 471.96 $ $ $ $ $ $ Total 1 721 423.93 460 516.95 2 181 940.88 520 256.81 9 254 097.64 11 956 295.33 *Includes $27 231.99 against New York Central. TABLE No. 16 CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY OF ROCHESTER ON ACCOUNT OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT ASSESSMENTS, E. S. T. S. ASSESSMENTS, AND ADDITIONS TO ANNUAL TAX ROLLS Year City’s Share of Locals City’s Share of E. S. T. S. City’s Share of Addition to Tax Roll Total 1913 $ 279 419.94 $ 2 502.54 $ 281 922.48 1914 34 040.79 $13 360.99 3 604.83 51 006.61 1915 47 338.08 2 811.87 50 149.95 1916 103 098.94 3 753.24 106 852.18 1917 97 101.27 4 367.77 101 469.04 1918 58 931.41 5 873.60 64 805.01 1919 87 301.56 12 935.75 7 733.83 107 971.14 1920 88 781.75 6 737.93 95 519.68 1921 235 928.71 7 297.05 243 225.76 1922 1 149 998.43 7 385.35 1 157 383.78 Total . $2 181 940.88 $26 296.74 $52 068.01 $2 260 305.63 TABLE No. 17 SUMMARY OF MONEY RAISED BY BORROWING (1910 to 1922 Inclusive) (Excluding Refunding Transactions) Funds Carrying Debt Purpose of Debt Amount Assessment Funds. . . . Local Improvement Construction. $ 6 941 000.00 Water Fund. Water Improvement and Conduit Construc¬ tion. 4 280 000.00 Market Fund. Public Market Construction. 10 000.00 General Fund. In anticipation of Taxes. 25 402 500.00 To cover delinquent Taxes. 1 069 724.78 To cover budget deficiencies and emergencies 5 872 000.00 General outlays*. 19 166 420.97 Total. $62 741 645.75 *Of the amount borrowed for general outlays ($19,166,420.97), the sum of $430,820.97 was liquidated after short terms out of current revenues; the remainder (or $18,735,600.) has either been funded into long term bonds or is outstanding as note indebtedness, waiting to be funded. ( 84 ) TABLE No. 18 MONEY RAISED BY BORROWING (1910 to 1922) CLASSIFIED BY YEARS AND FUNDS d 4-> o 0001^.0000000000 OL'-OOOOOOOOOOO ddOOCOOOOOOOOO NNOOCOOOOOOOOO OCWCINCOIOIOOOOOOO ClfOcOfOCO'^NCOiOOONH ClON'fCSrtffi^OOHcooooo OOCOIOCOOOIOCOIOHNMOI ooooooooooooo o o o - - - o . o Id S • • • o . o d ^ • • • o . o - - - o. o H ■ m . o • »—I 3 d cv ooooooooooooo o ^0 £ ooooooooooooo o d ooooooooooooo o pLn ooooooooooooo o ooooooooooooo o CD lOtOOOOLOOtOOLOOlOO o M N ‘O O C CO IO N O CO 1C N CO 00 deOCO(MtO—i CM P* d m ooooooooooooo o 4-> ooooooooooooo o ooooooooooooo o ooooooooooooo o C/3 C OOtotOOOOOOOOOO o C/3 rd 03 rT OOHOOiOCiOCiOCOOOO r-H c/3 Mh OcONONOOOcOOMhOCJ d C/3 * r-H t-H r—H i—H »-H H r-H r-H r-H r-H r-H r-H r-H d / TABLE No. 19 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF NOTE TRANSACTIONS BY YEARS (1910 to 1922 Inclusive) (Excluding Note Renewals) Year New Notes Issued Notes Paid from Current Revenues Notes Funded 1910 $ 1 829 827.00 $ 1 224 827.00 1911 3 393 824.78 1 215 600.00 1912 3 052 360.97 1 441 349.78 $ 1 000 000.00 1913 2 843 700.00 1 536 810.22 5 659 000.00 1914 2 976 333.00 1 645 875.00 900 000.00 1915 3 034 500.00 1 557 550.75 2 000 000.00 1916 3 597 500.00 1 779 033.00 1 270 000.00 1917 3 648 000.00 1 890 000.00 1 875 000.00 1918 3 585 000.00 2 112 000.00 2 268 000.00 1919 5 116 000.00 2 630 000.00 1 715 000.00 1920 6 760 000.00 3 340 000.00 1921 8 507 000.00 4 711 000.00 3 575 000.00 1922 9 030 000.00 5 777 000.00 2 940 000.00 Total. . $57 374 045.75 $30 861 045.75 $23 202 000.00 TABLE No. 20 SUMMARY STATEMENT BY PURPOSE OF NOTE TRANSACTIONS (1910 to 1922 Inclusive) (Excluding Note Renewals) Purpose of Note Issue Revenues. Overdue Tax. Local Improvement. E. S. T. S. Deepening Genesee River—Sec. 1. Deepening Genesee River—Sec. 2. Overflow Sewer Water Improvement.. Conduit Construction. Market Construction. Sewage Disposal. Garbage Disposal. . . . Incinerator. Convention Hall. Exposition Park. City Garage. Fire House Construction. City Hall Annex.. Voting Machine Purchase. Municipal Building Construction. Brown Street Subway. 36 School Playground. Front Street Playground. Construction. Durand Eastman Park Pier Con struction. Land Purchase—Pike’s Quarry- Land Purchase—Armory Park. .. . Land Purchase—Genesee Valle} Park. Land Purchase—18th Ward Park Land Purchase—Pinnacle Park. . . Land Purchase—Seneca Park.. Land Purchase—West High. . . Land Purchase—Britton Field. Land Purchase—Summerville Docks. Land Purchase—Court Street. Land Purchase—Tryon Park. Park Improvement. Pinnacle Avenue Pipe Line School—Building and Site.. Charities Deficiency. Election Deficiency. War Emergency. Repairs Under Guarantee. . Street Cleaning Equipment. School C. E. Deficiency. .. . Western Sewage. General Deficiency Lewiston Avenue Bridge. Total. Notes. cipation Notes) Notes Paid New Notes From Current Notes Issued Revenues Funded $25 402 500.00 $25 402 500.00 1 069 724.78 864 724.78 5 941 500.00 41 500.00 $5 450 000.00 128 500.00 128 500.00 100 000.00 100 000.00 475 000.00 475 000.00 46 000.00 46 000.00 2 510 000.00 4 049 000.00 1 545 000.00 1 545 000.00 10 000.00 10 000.00 2 875 000.00 105 000.00 2 755 000.00 875 000.00 875 000.00 140 000.00 140 000.00 20 000.00 20 000.00 501 992.97 31 992.97 470 000.00 30 000.00 30 000.00 30 000.00 30 000.00 75 000.00 75 000.00 10 000.00 10 000.00 79 156.00 9 156.00 70 000.00 570 000.00 550 000.00 325 000.00 95 000.00 6 500.00 6 500 00 30 000 00 30 000.00 L 7 000.00 7 000.00 10 000.00 10 000.00 5 000.00 5 000.00 5 000.00 5 000.00 r 123 500.00 123 500.00 28 000.00 28 000.00 6 900.00 6 900.00 18 527.00 18 527.00 35 712.00 4 212.00 31 500.00 35 000.00 5 000.00 30 000.00 13 200.00 8 200.00 5 000.00 12 333 00 12 333.00 50 456 80 50 456.80 74 543.20 74 543.20 15 000 00 - 7 000 00 3 000 00 9 000 00 9 000 00 4 500.00 4 500.00 57 500 00 57 500.00 7 525 000 00 6 100 000.00 350 000.00 350 000.00 18 000 00 18 000 00 7 000 00 7 000 00 i 000 00 150 000 00 io non no 10 000.00 100 000 00 100 000.00 o 07n non no 2 445 000.00 o u # u uuu . uu Q00 000 00 940 000 00 1 077 000 00 962 000 00 1 U # « UUu.uv 10 000 00 10 000.00 XU uuu.uu . $57 374 045.75 $30 861 045.75 $23 202 000.00 i 25 402 500.00 25 402 500.00 - . $31 971 545.75 $ 5 458 545.75 $23 202 000.00 ( 87 ) ... . . . . . . ... . . - . » • * . TABLE No. 21 SUMMARY STATEMENT OF BOND ISSUES BY YEARS (1910 to 1922 Inclusive) Year Total Issue For Construction Direct For Funding Notes 1910 1911 1912 $ 1 524 600.00 $ 524 600.00 $ 1 000 000.00 1913 6 139 000.00 *480 000.00 5 659 000.00 1914 1 017 000.00 117 000.00 900 000.00 1915 2 000 000.00 ' 2 000 000.00 1916 1 270 000.00 1 270 000.00 1917 1 875 000.00 1 875 000.00 1918 2 268 000.00 2 268 000.00 1919 1 715 000.00 1 715 000.00 1920 1921 4 225 000.00 650 000.00 3 575 000.00 1922 6 891 000.00 **3 951 000 00 2 940 000.00 Total. . $28 924 600.00 $5 722 600 00 $23 202 000 00 *Refunding of bonds. **Funding City’s Share of Local Assessments $1,750,000. TABLE No. 22 DETAIL OF BOND ISSUES (1912 to 1922 Inclusive) In Relation to Funding of Notes 1912 Kind of Bonds Amount of Issue For Con¬ struction- Direct For Fund¬ ing Notes Kind of Notes Funded Water Improvement. Fire House Construction. . Voting Machine Purchase. Schools—Building and Site Total. $1 000 000 125 000 49 600 350 000 $125 000 49 600 350 000 $1 000 000 Water Improvement 11 524 600 $524 600 $1 000 000 1913 Local Improvement. Water Improvement. Sewage Disposal. Incinerator. Exposition Park. Parks—Improvement and Extension. Rochester and State Line R.R. Total. $2 100 000 1 849 000 1 000 000 100 000 470 000 140 000 480 000 *480 000 $2 100 000 1 849 000 1 000 000 100 000 470 000 10 000 r 5 000 88 500 31 500 1 5 000 Local Improvement Water Improvement Sewage Disposal Incinerator. Industrial School Purchase Durand-Eastman Pk.— Pier Construction Land Purchase—Armory- Park Land Purchase—Genesee Valley Park Land Purchase—Pinnacle Park Land Purchase—Webster Park $6 139 000 $480 000 $5 659 000 *For Refunding Rochester and State Line R. R. Bonds. 1914 Sewage Disposal. Voting Machine Purchase $ 500 000 17 000 $ 17 000 $500,000 Sewage Disposal Schools—Building and Site 500 000 100 000 400 000 School Total. $1 017 000 $117 000 $900 000 1915 Local Improvement. $ 600 000 $ 600 000 Local Improvement Water Improvement. 300 000 300 000 Water Improvement Conduit Construction. . . . 400 000 400 000 Conduit Construction Sewage Disposal. 300 000 300 000 Sewage Disposal {Schools—Building and Site 400 000 400 000 School Total. $2 000 000 $2 000 000 TABLE No. 22—Continued 1916 Kind of Bonds Amount of Issue For Con¬ struction- Direct For Fund¬ ing Notes Kind of Notes Funded Local Improvement. Water Improvement. Sewage Disposal. City Garage. Library Alteration and Equipment. Playground. Park. $ 300 000 200 000 250 000 30 000 30 000 30 000 30 000 400 000 • $ 300 000 200 000 250 000 30 000 30 000 30 000 30 000 400 000 Local Improvement Water Improvement Sewage Disposal City Garage Library Alteration Equipment Front St. Playground Land Purchase—Seneca Park School Schools—Building and Site Total. $1 270 000 $1 270 000 1917 f$ 150 000 Local Improvement 100 000 Deepening Genesee Rvier Local Improvement. $ 500 000 • —Sec. 1 250 000 Deepening Genesee River —Sec. 2 Water Improvement. 150 000 150 000 Water Improvement Conduit Construction. . . . 535 000 535 000 Conduit Construction Sewage Disposal. 350 000 350 000 Sewage Disposal Tnr'inprat.nr. . 40 000 40.000 Incinerator Schools—Building and Site 300 000 300 000 School Total. ii 875 000 $1 875 000 1918 Local Improvement. Water Improvement. Conduit Construction. . . . Sewage Disposal. Garbage Disposal. Fire House Construction. . Voting Machine Purchase Park Improvement. Schools—Building and Site $ 225 000 $ 225 000 Deepening Genesee River —Sec. 2 225 000 225 000 Water Improvement 350 000 350.000 Conduit Construction 225 000 225 000 Sewage Disposal 135 000 135 000 Garbage Disposal 75 000 75 000 Rochester Land Purchase 70 000 70 000 Voting Machine Purchase f$ 35 000 Land Purchase—Genesee aq 000 J Valley Park 28 000 Land Purchase—High- l land Park 900 000 900 000 School $2 268 000 $2 268 000 Total TABLE No. 22—Continued _1920_ NO BOND ISSUE IN 1920 1919 Kind of Bonds Amount of Issue For Con¬ struction Direct For Fund¬ ing Notes Kind of Notes Funded Local Improvement. Water Improvement. Conduit Construction. . . . Sewage Disposal. Municipal Building Con¬ struction. Schools—Building and Site Total. $ 500 000 175 000 260 000 80 000 300 000 400 000 $ 500 000 175 000 260 000 80 000 300 000 400 000 Local Improvement Water Improvement Conduit Construction Sewage Disposal Municipal Building Con¬ struction School $1 715 000 $1 715 000 1921 Local Improvement. Water Improvement. . . . Sewage Disposal. School Construction. Municipal Building Con¬ struction. Garbage Disposal. Street Cleaning Equip¬ ment. Total. $ 700 000 $ 700 000 Local Improvement 375 000 225 000 150 000 Water Improvement 100 000 100 000 1 775 000 Sewage Disposal 2 000 000 225 000 1 550 000 School Construction 300 000 100 000 200 000 Municipal Building Con¬ struction 650 000 650 000 Garbage Disposal 100 000 100 000 Equipment $4 225 000 $ 650 000 $3 575 000 1922 Local Improvement. $ 250 000 $ 250 000 Municipal Improvement. fl 750 000 650 000 $1 100 000 Sewage Disposal. 50 000 50 000 School Construction. 3 000 000 1 475 000 1 525 000 Municipal Building Con- struction. 100 000 50 000 50 000 Garbage Disposal. ...... 90 000 90 000 Canal Land Purchase... . 1 526 000 1 526 000 Municipal Land Purchase 125 000 125 000 Total. $6 891 000 $3 951 000 $2 940 000 Local Improvement Municipal Improvement Sewage Disposal School Construction Municipal Building Con¬ struction Garbage Disposal Canal Land Purchase Municipal Land Purchase fFor Funding City’s Share of Local Assessments—$1,750,000.00. YEARLY DEBT STATEMENTS 4- ooooooooooooooooooooooo SHONOOOOOIOIONIOIOIOO^O^COCO^OO g •r- i ■^HION40^0INCOHCOOOCOHIOOOCD(NIONIOCO 03CClNHi0Wffi0300(NOC3C0MM0)OHNiO40)H WM-HG0C0O4HioiCOc0C^OlN^i0C0CMc04i0i0 o 00O03(NhO©N10ONh00(N403CD>CSN(0U5N NCC(3000000N!Nc003©0304004»OC;OnNNO ©NGO>-^COC3t^COrHCOCOCOOrHCOCOrH^H(MlOHO r CCOrH^rHC^cO^TtUOdOOCiOHCOcDNOOCliOiO +-> r\ i0cDW00C0030344cDtHioO03NcD(N(N(NHiH(N00 NcO’H'-'OCONOONCOO^iC^diOOOCOO-HONO & > OcOOcOo (U 'd c ooooo3co^-HconwcoLo^oco»nwococ»Nco4 OCOrt!OCOCOC v )t^OOCO'+iOOCM^t^OcOr^iOOOt^C3(M ■^CDOONOcOCO'H(NOOO»OCDn’-(03cONCONrH^ K- -“tHHNNNNHHnni-iooooQOcoojeo >0'4t^C^'4rHr-(CDCO'^03'rfO^CO'^IG0000003>03>00(N Oi-^WiOOJrHC^HMHT^NOWiOdiOMCOCOCOOfH Ttir^^HC3coo3)0 iOC3iO»OfOHOOrOOOO'^iONnOOOC003CDNHiON 44) c003O^iHcD4N 00 00i0NC0TtTtiCMiO^C0^i'4iO0300 c3 44) n ^(NOOGOOOOOOdcOCHOMHOOHOWCOOiNOJ^ fONi-H^ocD^iOM-HQONcOOOOW^OcDO^OOn COMCOCMrHCO^CDl04©»ONr-ICOOOrHOOCOt^COOOX T3 OiOCOHNOiONNHCOCOOOHr-iiOiOH^^iQCOH ■^NOCCCON03CDCOOiOcDC003nOWOO , t^OcDO CDC0C0^i0C0C0XN 00 03rH(MMmOr^cDMC0O03^ a a 3 o GOCiCOOOOOOOOOOOt^LOiOOOOOOOOO OOLOOiOOOOOOOOt^-Oit^-t^OOOOOOOO m CD 44) O QOtOWOOOOOOON^iOiOMCOOOOOOOO OOCDNOOOOOOONNMNOOMOOOOOOO t^l>*0©00©0©©00 00 Q £ CO^NCD^OCD^OiOlOO^rHOdOCDiOCO^^MtO NNiO^OiNNcOrHiHOJiHHcOOSiOOOOO^NOr-KN ^coo3HnC'Hooo3on40dOu:iHC34c;coccoi C/3 C/3 Nhh(MhhMNhimWiOOhC^h(MhCO'H»C*Q>C m o O OOOOOOOCO'^CSlOOOOOOOOOOCO'N^-iO OOOOOOiOOtoOOOOOOOOOOOOfNcDO C/3 T3 c OOOOOOOCOOJ^OOOOO^IOIOOIOQO^OIO ooooot^cooo^roooooor-o-0(Mi^cDT^a3 OOOOONCOQO^OOOOOH^OOOOOIOIOON O pq ■^!NiCiOOOO(M‘003HcOiOWCWHH'tncO'H03 t^ajoooooocooxoiwooiOrHNcooaNiocorHMH ON*0<0030303C3NO , tC0NrHi0i0Ni0-HN'^C0N OlCCOOOOOlOiOOOOOOHNNOOnC^LOcOdiO t-H t-H t-H ^H t-H t-H t-H t-H C3 ©3 ©3 ©3 ©3 ©3 CO m Year Dec. 31 OHC3W^»OcONOO©OHC3WTtUO©NOOffiOrH03 OOOOOOOOOOt-h^h^h-h^h^ht-it— ©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©ffi Exemption of water debt issued after 1904 made applicable to Rochester by constitutional amendment of 1917. TABLE No. 24 REDEMPTION OF BONDS AND NOTES FROM SINKING FUNDS (Or Through Sinking Funds) (1910 to 1922 Inclusive) Additions to Sinking Funds orior to 1910. . . $2 037 476.83 1 205 800.00 831 676.83 4 884 008.75 Less payments out of Sinking Funds prior to 1910. Balance in Sinking Funds December 31, 1909. Additions—1910 to 1922, inclusive: From tax levy (directly or indirectly*).$2 734 869.98 From interest on balances and investments and mis¬ cellaneous. 2 149 138.77 Less payments—1910 to 1922, inclusive, as specified below by years. .. . Balance in Sinking Funds December 31, 1922. $5 715 685.58 2 197 876.96 3 517 808.62 *Note: Serial or Sinking Funds installments—direct Transfer of fund surpluses— indirect. PAYMENTS BY YEARS 1910 Refunding Water Bonds (cancelled-before maturity). High School Bonds (Cancelled before Maturity). Public Market Notes. Total. $133 000.00 20 000.00 5 000.00 $158 000.00 1911 Park Bonds ($100 000.00 bonds cancelled before maturity). $ 87 617.80 1912 Consolidated Bonds (redeemed at maturity). Water Pipe Extension Bonds (cancelled before maturity). School Bonds of 1906. Total. $100 000.00 14 914.67 189.48 $115 104.15 1913 Public Market Bonds (cancelled before maturity). $ 16 000.00 . 145 000.00 60 000.00 4 000.26 Rochester Nunda and Penn R. R. Bonds (redeemed at maturity). Rochester and State Line R. R. Bonds (redeemed at maturity). ($520,000.00 of above refunded). Voting Machine Purchase Notes. Total. $225 000.26 1914 Water Pipe Extension Bonds (redeemed at maturity). Public Market Notes. Voting Machine Purchase Notes. $235 000.00 10 000.00 4 000.00 Total. $249 000.00 TABLE No. 24—Continued 1915 Public Market Notes. $ 5 000.00 1 054.75 1 700.00 Voting Machine Purchase Notes. Voting Machine Purchase Bonds (serial installment). Total. $7 754.75 1916 Voting Machine Purchase Bonds (serial installment) 1 700.00 1917 High School Bonds (serial installment). Rochester and State Line R. R. Bonds (cancelled before maturity). Voting Machine Purchase Bonds (serial installment). Park Bonds (serial installment). City Garage Bonds (serial installment).... Public Library Bonds (serial installment). Playground Bonds (serial installment). School Bonds (serial installment). $25 000.00 5 000.00 1 700.00 1 500.00 1 500.00 1 500.00 1 500.00 39 000.00 Total $ 76 700.00 1918 High School Bonds (serial installment). Hemlock Lake Watershed Bonds (redeemed at maturity). Public Market Bonds (cancelled before maturity). Rochester and State Line R.R. Bonds (cancelled before maturity) Fire House Construction Bonds (cancelled before maturity). School Bonds (serial installment). Incinerator Bonds (serial installment). Voting Machine Purchase Bonds (serial installment). Park Bonds (serial installment). City Garage Bonds (serial installment). Public Library Bonds (serial installment). Playground Bonds (serial installment). $ 25 000.00 200 000.00 50 000.00 25 000.00 25 000.00 24 500.00 2 000.00 1 700.00 1 500.00 1 500.00 1 500.00 1 500.00 Total $359 200.00 1919 High School Bonds (serial installment). School Bonds (serial installment)._. Voting Machine Purchase Bonds (serial installment) Park Bonds (serial installment). Garbage Disposal Bonds (serial installment). Fire House Construction Bonds (serial installment). Incinerator Construction Bonds (serial installment). City Garage Bonds (serial installment). Public Library Bonds (serial installment). Playground Bonds (serial installment). 25 000.00 54 500.00 5 200.00 4 500.00 4 500.00 2 500.00 2 000.00 1 500.00 1 500.00 1 500.00 $102 700.00 Total TABLE No. 24—Continued 1920 High School Bonds (serial installment). School Bonds (serial installment). Voting Machine Purchase Bonds (serial installment). Park Bonds (serial installment). Garbage Disposal Bonds (serial installment). Fire House Construction Bonds (serial installment). Incinerator Construction Bonds (serial installment). City Garage Bonds (serial installment). Public Library Bonds (serial installment). Playground Bonds (serial installment). Bridge Bonds (redeemed at maturity). Municipal Building Construction Bonds (serial installment ) $ 25 000.00 42 500.00 5 200.00 4 500.00 4 500.00 2 500.00 2 000.00 1 500.00 1 500.00 1 500.00 100 000.00 10 000.00 Total $200 700.00 1921 High School Bonds (serial installment). School Bonds (serial installment). Voting Machine Purchase Bonds (serial installment). Park Bonds (serial installment). Garbage Disposal Bonds (serial installment). Fire House Construction Bonds (serial installment). Incinerator Construction Bonds (serial installment). City Garage Bonds (serial installment). Public Library Bonds (serial installment). Playground Bonds (serial installment). Bridge Bonds (redeemed at maturity. Municipal Building Construction Bonds (serial installment) $ 25 000.00 42 500.00 5 200.00 4 500.00 4 500.00 2 500.00 2 000.00 1 500.00 1 500.00 1 500.00 100 000.00 10 000.00 Total $200 700.00 1922 High School Bonds (serial installment). School Bonds (serial installment. Voting Machine Bonds (serial installment). Park Bonds (serial installment). Garbage Disposal Bonds (serial installment). Fire House Construction (serial installment). Incinerator Construction Bonds (serial installment). City Garage Bonds (serial installment). Public Library Bonds (serial installment). Playground Bonds (serial installment). Bridge Bonds (redeemed at maturity). Municipal Building Construction (serial installment) Public Market Bonds (redeemed at maturity). Water Bonds (serial installment). Equipment Bonds (serial installment). Sewage Bonds (serial installment). $ 25 000.00 133 500.00 5 200.00 4 500.00 4 500.00 2 500.00 2 000.00 1 500.00 1 500.00 1 500.00 100 000.00 25 000.00 78 000.00 4 000.00 20 000.00 5 000.00 Total $413 700.00 TABLE No. 24—Continued SUMMARY OF PAYMENTS BY YEARS 1910. 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. 1921. 1922. Total $ 158 000. 00 87 617 80 115 104 15 225 000 26 249 000 00 7 754 .75 1 700 00 76 700 00 359 200 .00 102 700 00 200 700 00 200 700 00 413 700 00 $2 197 876 .96 TABLE No. 25 SUMMARY DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES OUT OF BUDGET (1910 to 1922 Inclusive) Year Schools Other General Total General Water Market Grand Total 1910 $ 96 834.60 $343 604.25 $5 061.81 $ 445 500.66 1911 125 002.17 339 222.26 5 040.00 469 264.43 1912 130 003.38 361 012.88 5 040.00 496 056.26 1913 $ 48 543.67 $ 166 356.33 214 900.00 342 112.29 4 750.91 561 763.20 1914 82 011.90 169 177.22 251 189.12 376 984.29 4 687.69 632 861.10 1915 98 776.82 246 412.07 345 188.89 398 651.86 4 496.88 748 337.63 1916 146 932.23 341 506.02 488 438.25 412 373.40 4 480.00 905 291.65 1917 165 852.92 326 268.49 492 121.41 447 755.02 4 480.00 944 356.43 1918 208 389.13 352 145.11 560 534.24 463 756.23 3 605.00 1 027 895.47 1919 331 751.16 382 585.21 714 336.37 492 533.60 2 730.00 1 209 599.97 1920 605 842.34 553 344.95 1 159 187.29 495 015.64 2 730.00 1 656 932.93 1921 1 334 264.85 717 071.16 2 051 336.01 519 527.48 2 730.00 2 573 593.49 1922 2 173 397.05 1 506 390.84 3 679 787.89 524 142.96 227.50 4 204 158.35 TABLE No. 26 EXPENDITURES FOR GENERAL DEBT SERVICE (1910 to 1922 Inclusive) (Excluding Debt Service Items Carried by Water, Market and Assessment Funds) Year Interest Redemption Direct or Through Sinking Fund Total Debt Service 1910 $ 85 668.83 $11 165.77 $ 96 834.60 1911 93 402.17 31 600.00 125 002.17 1912 101 403.38 28 600.00 130 003.38 1913 136 800.00 78 100.00 214 900.00 1914 162 089.12 89 100.00 251 189.12 1915 247 159.89 98 029.00 345 188.89 1916 352 788.25 135 650.00 488 438.25 1917 339 846.41 152 275.00 492 121.41 1918 390 400.36 *170 133.88 560 534.24 1919 457 896.37 *256 440.00 714 336.37 1920 582 797.29 *576 390.00 1 159 187.29 1921 747 246.01 *1 304 090.00 2 051 336.01 1922 973 597.89 *2 706 190.00 3 679 787.89 ^Includes redemption of following notes: (1) 1918—School Repair and Equipment. ..$ 13 251.38 (2) 1919—School Repair and Equipment. 50 000.00 (3) 1920—War Emergency. 100 000.00 School Repair and Equipment. 250 000.00 (4) 1921—General Current Expense. 105 000.00 School Current Expense. 795 000.00 (5) 1922—General Current Expense. 692 000.00 School Current Expense. 1 437 000.00 TABLE No. 27 EXPENDITURES FOR WATER DEBT SERVICE (1910 to 1922 Inclusive) Year Interest Redemption Through Sinking Fund Total Debt Service 1910 $280 104.25 $63 500.00 $343 604.24 1911 290 722.26 48 500.00 339 222.26 1912 312 512.88 48 500.00 361 012.88 1913 293 622.29 48 490.00 342 112.29 1914 326 494.29 50 490.00 376 984.29 1915 343 161.86 55 490.00 398 651.86 1916 354 883.40 57 490.00 412 373.40 1917 383 415.02 64 340.00 447 755.02 1918 399 416.23 64 340.00 463 756.23 1919 420 943.60 71 590.00 492 533.60 1920 419 075.64 75 940.00 495 015.64 1921 431 087.48 88 440.00 519 527.48 1922 435 702.96 88 440.00 524 142.96 TABLE No. 28 EXPENDITURES FOR PUBLIC MARKET DEBT SERVICE (1910 to 1922 Inclusive) Year Interest out of Budget Surplus of Market Fund Transferred to Sinking Fund Total Debt Service 1910 $5 061.81 $ 4 844.87 $ 9 906.68 1911 5 040.00 5 300.00. 10 340.00 1912 5 040.00 8 000.00 13 040.00 1913 4 750.91 13 000.00 17 750.91 1914 4 687.69 *12 000.00 16 687.69 1915 4 496.88 14 700.00 19 196.88' 1916 4 480.00 15 035.00 19 515.00 1917 4 480.00 13 045.80 17 525.80 1918 3 605.00 13 750.00 17 355.00 1919 2 730.00 12 046.55 14 776.55 1920 2 730.00 14 500.00 17 230.00 1921 2 730.00 14 500.00 17 230.00 1922 227.50 2 293.60 2 521.10 *From tax levy. TABLE No. 30 NOTES OUTSTANDING December 31, 1922 A. Current Fund Obligations: 1. Overdue Tax Notes. $ 315 000 1 940 000 $2 255 000 2. Current Expense Notes: School Deficit.SI 225 000 Miscellaneous Departments Deficit. 715 000 B. Assessment Fund Obligations: 1. Local Improvement Notes. 2. Brown Street Subway Notes. 3. Western Sewage Notes. $1 550 000 230 000 240 000 $2 020 000 C. Loan Fund Obligations: 1. Sewage Disposal Notes. 2. School Construction Notes. $ 20 000 1 425 000 20 000 25 000 160 000 1 650 000 3. Municipal Building Construction Notes. 4. Municipal Land Purchase Notes. 5. Water Improvement Notes. Total Outstanding. $5 925 000 Ge Class ring Fund Provision S. F. Amount Amount Outstanding, Dec. 31, 1922 A. W j S. F. at present time $ 170 000.00 (to ept charter S. F. 2 697 000.00 by F. 1 % installment $18 490 1 849 000.00 fu ept charter S. F. 360 000.00 ept charter S. F. 500 000.00 ept charter S. F. 1 000 000.00 ept charter S. F. 300 000.00 ept charter S. F. 950 000.00 F. 1% installment 7 000 700 000.00 F. 1% installment 2 000 200 000.00 F. 1% installment 6 850 685 000.00 F. 1 % installment 5 750 575 000.00 F. 1% installment 4 350 435 000.00 nking Fund to Amortize 12 500 371 000.00 500.00 5 000.00 19 500.00 B. Ass 500 000.00 (to 2 100 000.00 by 1 000 000.00 m< 600 000.00 500 000.00 700 000.00 240 000.00 IKE LIBRARY QF TIE UNIVERSITY PF ILLINOIS TABLE No. 29 BONDS OUTSTANDING—December 31, 1922 General Classification A. Water: (to be carried by water fund) B. Assessment (to be carriec by assess¬ ment funds) C. General (to be carriec by general fund) Kind of Bonds 1. Term Purpose of Issue 2. Serial 1. Term 2. Serial 1. Term 2. Serial Total. Hemlock Lake Watershed Refunding Water Water Improvement Refunding Water Additional Water Supply Water Improvement Additional Water Supply Additional Water Supply Water Impr. and Conduit Con. Water Improvement Water Impr. and Conduit Con Water Impr. and Conduit Con Water Impr. and Conduit Con Water Improvement. Water Works—Charlotte Water Works—Charlotte Water annexed territory Local Improvement Local Improvement Local Improvement Local Improvement Local Improvement Local Improvement Local Improvement Local Improvement Local Improvement Local Improvement E. S. T. S.—part 2 E. S. T. S.—part 3 E. S. T. S.—part 4 Sewage Disposal Sewage Disposal Sewage Disposal Sewage Disposal Sewage Disposal Sewage Disposal Sewage Disposal Incinerator Construction Convention Hall Purchase Exposition Park Purchase Fire House Construction Voting Machine Purchase Park Parks—Impr. and Ext. Schools—Building and Site Schools Schools Rochester and St. Line R. R (Second Refunding) Garbage Disposal Garbage Disposal Municipal Improvement Garbage Disposal Canal Purchase Incinerator Sewage Disposal Sewage Disposal City Garbage Library Alt. and Equip. Fire House Construction Voting Machine Purchase Voting Machine Purchase Equipment (Street Cleaning) Municipal Buildings Municipal Buildings Municipal Buildings Parks Park Improvement Municipal Land Purchase Playgrounds Schools Schools Schools Schools Schools Schools Annexed territory serials: Aggregate schools Aggregate Sew. and SidewalJ Electric Light—Charlotte Municipal Bldg—Charlotte Date of Issue Term Date of Maturity Original Principal "nterest Rate Annual Serial Install. Sinking Fund Provision S. F. Amount Amount Outstanding, Dec. 31, 1922 1904 20 1924 $ 170 000.00 3)4% Surplus in S. F. at present time $ 170 000.00 1903 30 1933 3 000 000.00 3 )4% None, except charter S. F. 2 697 000.OU 1913 20 1933 1 849 000.00 4^% Special S. F. 1% installment US 490 1 849 000.00 1905 30 1935 410 000.00 3M% None, except charter S. F. 360 000.00 1892 50 1942 500 000.00 3^% None, except charter S. F. 500 000.00 1912 30 1942 1 000 000.00 4 % None, except charter S. F. 1 000 000.00 1893 50 1943 300 000.00 4 % None, except charter S. F. 300 000.00 1894 50 1944 950 000.00 3M% None, except charter S. F. 950 000.00 1915 30 1945 700 000.00 4)4% Special S. F. 1 % installment 7 000 700 000.00 1916 30 1946 200 000.00 4 % Special S. F. 1% installment 2 000 200 000.00 1917 30 1947 685 000.00 4 % Special S. F. 1 % installment 6 850 685 000.00 1918 30 1948 575 000.00 4)4% Special S. F. 1% installment 5 750 575 000.00 1919 30 1949 435 000.00 4)4% Special S. F. 1% installment 4 350 435 000.00 1921 30 1951 375 000.00 5 % Special Sinking Fund to Amortize 12 500 371 000.00 1916 7 1917—1923 3 500.00 4^% 500.00 500.00 1916 11 1917—1927 11 000.00 4 H% 1 000.00 D uuu.uu 1918 17 1919—1935 25 500.00 5 % 1 500.00 19 5UU.UU 1904 20 1924 500 000.00 3K% None 500 000.00 1913 20 1933 2 100.000 00 4)4% None 2 100 000.UU 1908 30 1938* 1 000 000.00 4 None 1 000 000.00 1915 30 1945 600 000.00 4)4% None 600 000.00 1919 30 1949 500 000.00 4 )4% None 500 000.00 1921 20 1941 700 000.00 5 % None 700 000.00 1916 30 1917—1946 300 000.00 4 H% 10 000.00 240 000.00 1917 30 1918—1947 500 000.00 4 % 17 000.00 —$7,000 last year 415 000.00 1918 30 1919—1948 225 000.00 4)4% 7 500.00 195 000.00 1922 20 1923—1942 250 000.00 4)4% 12 000.00 —$22,000 last year 250 000.00 1892 6 1922—1927 150 000.00 4 % 25 000.00 125 000.00 1892 10 1928—1937 250 000.00 3)4% 25 000.00 250 000.00 1904 4 1938—1941 100 000.00 3 )4% 25 000.00 100 000.UU 1913 20 1933 1 000 000.00 4)4% Special S. F. 1% installment 10 000 1 000 000.00 1914 30 1944 500 000.00 4)4% Special S. F. 1 % installment 5 OUU 500 000.00 1915 30 1945 300 000.00 4)4% Special S. F. 1% installment 3 000 300 000.00 1916 30 1946 250 000.00 4 % Special S. F. 1% installment 2 500 250 000.00 1917 30 1947 350 000.00 4 % Special S. F. 1 % installment 3 50U 350 000.00 1918 30 1948 225 000.00 4)4% Special S. F. 1% installment 2 250 225 000.00 1919 30 1949 80 000.00 4)4% Special S. F. 1% installment 8UU 80 000.00 1913 20 1933 100 000.00 4)4% Special S. F. 1% installment 1 000 100 000.00 1909 20 1929 100 000.00 4 % None, except charter general S. F. 100 000.00 1913 20 1933 470 000.00 4 H% Special S. F. 1% installment 4 700 470 000.00 1912 12 1924 125 000.00 3 )4% Special S. F. to Amortize 9 000 100 000.00 1912 12 1924 49 600.00 4 % Special S. F. to Amortize 4 000 49 600.00 1888 40 1928 300 000.00 3 % Special S. F.— 3 600 200 000.00 1896 40 1936 60 000.00 3)4% 1% installment 60 000.00 1913 20 1933 140 000.00 4)4% Special S. F.—1% installment 1 400 140 000.00 1912 30 1942 350 000.00 4 % Special S. F. to Amortize 9 000 350 OUU.00 1914 30 1944 500 000.00 414% Special S. F. to Amortize 9 000 500 UOO.OO 1915 30 1945 400 000.00 4)4% Special S. F. to Amortize 9 000 400 000.00 1913 20 1933 480 000.00 4 >4% Special S. F. 2% installment 9 600 480 000.00 1921 30 1951 650 000.00 5 % Special S. F. to Amortize 21 700 650 000.00 1922 30 1952 90 000.00 434% Special S. F. to Amortize 3 000 90 000.00 1922 30 1923—1951 1 750 000.00 434% 58 000.00 —$68,000 last year 1 750 000.00 1918 30 1919—1948 135 000.00 4)4% 4 500.00 117 000.00 1922 30 1923—1952 1 526 000.00 434% 50 000.00 —76,000 last year 1 526 000.00 1917 20 1919—1937 40 000.00 4 % 2 000.00 30 000.00 1921 20 1922—1941 100 000.00 5 % 5 000.00 95 000.00 1922 20 1923—1942 50 000.00 414% 2 000.00 —10 years—3,000 10 years 50 000.00 1916 20 1917—1936 30 000.00 4M% 1 500.00 21 000.00 1916 20 1917—1936 30 000.00 4 M% 1 500.00 21 000.00 1918 30 1919—1948 75 000.00 414% 2 500.00 65 000.00 1914 10 1915—1924 17 000.00 4 % 1 700.00 3 400.00 1918 20 1919—1938 70 000.00 414% 3 500.00 56 000.00 1921 5 1922—1926 100 000.00 5 % 20 000.00 80 000.00 1919 30 1920—1949 300 000.00 434% 10 000.00 270 000.00 1921 20 1922—1941 300 000.00 5 % 15 000.00 285 000.00 1922 20 1923—1942 100 000.00 434% 5 000.00 100 000.00 1916 20 1917—1936 30 000.00 4K% 1 500 00 21 000.00 1918 20 1919—1938 63 000.00 434% 3 000.00 51 000.00 1922 20 1923—1942 125 000.00 4)4% 6 000.00 —11,000 last year 125 000.00 1916 20 1917—1936 30 000.00 4 H% 1 500.00 21 000.00 1916 30 1917—1946 400 000.00 434% 13 500.00 319 000.00 1917 30 1918—1947 300 000.00 4 % 10 000.00 250 000.00 1918 30 1919—1948 900 000.00 434% 30 000.00 780 000.00 1919 30 1920—1949 400 000.00 4)4% 13 000.00 —23,000 last year 361 000.00 1921 30 1922—1951 2 000 000.00 5 % 66 000.00 —86,000.00 last year 1 934 000.0C 1922 30 1923—1952 3 000 000.00 434% 100 000.00 3 000 000.00 9 940.00 161 020.0C cs 20 074.61 34 775.0C 1916 11 1917—1927 434% 400.00 2 000.0C 1916 10 1917—1926 4.85? 9 1 000.00 4 000.0C $35 719 795.0( ♦Optional after September 1, 1918. TABLE No. 31 ASSETS OF SINKING FUNDS As of December 31, 1922 Water: General Water Sinking Fund. Hemlock Lake Watershed Fund. Water Sinking Fund—1913. Water Sinking Fund—1915. Water Sinking Fund—1916. Water Sinking Fund—1917. Water Sinking Fund—1918. Waiter Sinking Fund—1919. Water Sinking Fund—1921. General: General Sinking Fund. Park Sinking Fund—1896. • Park Improvement and Extension Sinking Fund— 1913. Park Sinking Fund—1916. Playgrounds Sinking Fund—1916. Park Sinking Fund—1918. Garbage Disposal Sinking Fund—1918. Garbage Disposal Sinking Fund—1921. Garbage Disposal Sinking Fund—1922. Incinerating Plant Sinking Fund—1913. Incinerating Plant Sinking Fund—1917. Sewage Disposal Sinking Fund—1913. Sewage Disposal Sinking Fund—1914. Sewage Disposal Sinking Fund—1915. Sewage Disposal Sinking Fund—1916. Sewage Disposal Sinking Fund—1917. Sewage Disposal Sinking Fund—1918. Sewage Disposal Sinking Fund—1919-.. Sewage Disposal Sinking Fund—1921. Exposition Park Sinking Fund—1913. Rochester and State Line R. R. Sinking Fund. Fire House Construction Sinking-Fund—1912. Fire House Construction Sinking Fund—1918. Voting Machine Sinking Fund—1914. Voting Machine Sinking Fund—1918. School Sinking Fund—1912. School Sinking Fund—1914. School Sinking Fund—1915. School Sinking Fund—1916. School Sinking Fund—1917. School Sinking Fund—1918. School Sinking Fund—1919. School Sinking Fund—1921. City Garage Sinking Fund—1916. Library Sinking Fund—1916. Municipal Building Const. Sinking Fund—1919_ Municipal Building Const. Sinking Fund—1921 — Equipment—1921. $1 205 489.02 231 832.79 361 572.92 146 821.45 23 317.59 79 000.74 47 895.68 33 927.55 33 447.81 $ 5 859 .30 91 332 .43 18 366 .50 918 .18 918 .18 1 237 .82 3 354 .58 64 864 .19 3 030 .00 13 730 .40 2 158 .57 127 566 .28 98 829 .56 51 402 .09 25 228 .30 39 368 .43 18 675 56 6 223 39 3 201 25 59 063 51 105 898 24 80 083 81 2 653 16 36 412 98 1 423 16 111 265. 45 129 331. 30 104 441. 20 11 044. 49 14 862. 69 22 731. 79 11 916. 37 63 231. 82 918. 17 918. 18 8 646. 23 9 727. 20 3 668. 31 f $2 163 305.55 354 503.07 Total S3 517 808.62 TABLE No. 32 BALANCES OF WATER SINKING FUNDS As of December 31, 1922 Balance Fund Dec. 31, 1922 Hemlock Lake.S 231 832.79 Charter. 1 205 489.02 1913. 361 572.92 1915 . 146 821.45 1916 . 23 317.59 1917 . 79 000.74 1918 . 47 895.68 1919 .•. 33 927.55 1921. 33 447.81 Total.$2 163 305.55 TABLE No. 33 BALANCES OF SPECIAL SINKING FUNDS (Excluding Water and Public Market) As of December 31, 1922 Balance Fund Dec. 31, 1922 Parks and Playgrounds.S 112 773.11 Garbage Disposal. 71 248.77 Incineration. 15 888.97 Sewage Disposal. 370 494.86 Exposition Park. 59 063.51 Rochester and St. Line Railway. 105.898.24 Fire House Construction.t. 82 736.97 Voting Machine. 37 836.14 Schools. 468 825.11 Garage—Serial.: 918.17 Library—Serial. 918.18 Municipal Buildings—Serial. 18 373.43 Street Cleaning Equipment—Serial. 3 668.31 Total.$1 348 643.77 TABLE No. 34 BALANCES OF SINKING FUNDS As of December 31, 1922 Balance Dec. 31, 1922 Aggregate Water S. F.$2 163 305.55 Public Market. General S. F.'. 5 859.30 Aggregate all other Special S. F. 1 348 643.77 Total.S3 517 808.62 TABLES No. 35 ESTIMATED DEFICITS OF SPECIAL SINKING FUNDS AT MATURITY Water: Hemlock Lake Watershed Water—1913. Water—1915. Water—1916. Water—1917. Water—1918. Water—1919. Water—1921. 80 000* 1 043 000 81 000 62 000 189 000 187 000 132 000 391 000* General: Park (Charter). Park Improvement and Extension. Incinerator Plant. Sewage Disposal—1913. Sewage Disposal—1914. Sewage Disposal—1915. Sewage Disposal—1916. Sewage Disposal—1917. Sewage Disposal—1918. Sewage Disposal—1919. Exposition Park. Rochester and State Line Railway Fire House Construction. Voting Machine—1912-1924. Garbage Disposal—1921. Garbage Disposal—1922. Schools—1912. Schools—1913. Schools—1914. 87 92 65 668 94 63 87 99 73 26 315 179 5 2 701 78 143 114 186 $1 223 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 * 000 000 * 000 * 000 * 000 * 000 * 623 000 Total SI 846 000 *Estimated Surplus. TABLE No. 36 COLLECTIONS FROM BUSINESS TAXES (OTHER THAN ON LIQUOR TRAFFIC) AND FROM GENERAL LICENSES AND PERMITS IN THIRTEEN CITIES, 1919 (From Census Report) Busines Without License s Taxes With License Dog Licenses General Licenses Permits Total Seattle. $ 67 039 $ 5 076 $ 16 478 $ 8 389 .$ 96 982 Jersey City. $ 29 650 19 119 3 204 955 19 164 72 092 Kansas City. 230 563 16 078 90 523 31 441 368 605 Portland. 64 758 14 275 961 20 548 100 542 Indianapolis. 29 866 13 203 43 032 48 744 136 845 Denver. 8 444 112 201 8 206 44 430 22 251 195 532 ROCHESTER. 17 979 14 944 2 313 35 236 Providence. 89 50 793 10 937 134 7 137 69 090 St. Paul. 200 782 30 296 3 138 16 3 135 237 367 Louisville. 179 445 6 494 30 497 216 436 Columbus. 18 024 • 8 016 8 420 34 460 Oakland. 33 218 67 062 5 098 90 21 713 127 181 Toledo. 16 005 13 008 29 013 TABLE No. 37 LIST OF TERM BONDS, IN ORDER OF MATURITY DATES, WHICH SHOULD BE CARRIED BY THE GENERAL FUND (Arranged in Order of Maturity Dates) Fire House. . . . Voting Machine 1924 $ 100 000 49 600 149 600 Park. Convention Hall. Sewage Disposal. Incinerator. Exposition Park. Parks. Rochester and St. Line 1928 1929 1933 1 000 000 100 000 470 000 140 000 480 000 200 000 100 000 2 190 000 Parks. Schools. Sewage Disposal.. Schools. Sewage Disposal.. Schools. Sewage Disposal.. Sewage Disposal.. Sewage Disposal.. Sewage Disposal.. Garbage Disposal Garbage Disposal Total. 1936 1942 1944 500 000 500 000 1945 300 000 400 000 1946 1947 1948 1949 1951 1952 60 000 350 000 1 000 000 700 000 250 000 350 000 225 000 80 000 650 000 90 000 $6 394 600 TABLE No. 38 ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED GENERAL DEBT SERVICE On Present Outstanding Term Indebtedness .(December 31, 1922) Year Interest Present Sinking Fund Provisions Necessary Addi¬ tional Install¬ ments to Supplementary Sinking Funds Total Debt Service 1923 $ 284 784 $ 112 650 $ 8 350 $ 405 784 1924 284 784 112 650 8 350 405 784 1925 278 425 99 650 21 350 399 425 1926 278 425 99 650 21 350 399 425 1927 278 425 99 650 21 350 399 425 1928 278 425 99 650 21 350 399 425 1929 269 425 99 650 21 350 390 425 1930 265 425 99 650 21 350 386 425 1931 265 425 99 650 21 350 386 425 1932 265 425 99 650 21 350 386 425 1933 265 425 99 650 21 350 386 425 1934 166 875 72 350 48 650 287 875 1935 166 875 72 350 48 650 287 875 1936 166 875 72 350 48 650 287 875 1937 164 775 68 750 52 250 285 775 1938 164 775 68 750 • 52 250 285 775 1939 164 775 68 750 52 250 285 775 1940 164 775 68 750 52 250 285 775 1941 164 775 68 750 52 250 285 775 1942 164 775 68 750 52 250 285 775 1943 150 775 59 750 61 250 271 775 1944 150 775 59 750 61 250 271 775 1945 105 775 45 750 75 250 226 775 1946 74 275 33 750 87 250 195 275 1947 64 275 31 250 89 750 185 275 1948 50 275 27 750 93 250 171 275 1949 40 150 25 500 95 500 161 150 1950 40 150 24 700 96 300 161 150 1951 36 550 24 700 96 300 147 550 1952 4 050 3 000 118 000 125 050 Total.. $5 210 718 $2 087 600 $1 542 400 $8 850 718 NOTE:—It is proposed that a Supplementary Sinking Fund be established to take care of existing deficiencies in the various general sinking funds. In order to provide for retiring the general term bonds when due, a total of $121,000 will have to be set up each year. TABLE No. 39 ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED WATER DEBT SERVICE On Present Outstanding Term Indebtedness (December 31, 1922) Year Interest Present Sinking Fund Provisions Necessary Addi¬ tional Install¬ ments to Supplementary Sinking Fund Total Debt Service 1923 $ 430 000 $ 86 940 $ 119 060 $ 636 000 1924 430 000 86 940 119 060 636 000 1925 424 050 86 940 119 060 630 050 1926 424 050 86 940 119 060 630 050 1927 424 050 86 940 119 060 630 050 1928 424 050 86 940 119 060 630 050 1929 424 050 86 940 119 060 630 050 1930 424 050 86 940 119 060 630 050 1931 424 050 86 940 119 060 630 050 1932 424 050 86 940 119 060 630 050 1933 424 050 86 940 119 060 630 050 1934 246 450 68 450 137 550 452 450 1935 246 450 68 450 137 550 452 450 1936 233 850 68 450 137 550 439 850 1937 233 850 68 450 137 550 439 850 1938 233 850 68 450 137 550 439 850 1939 233 850 68 450 137 550 439 850 1940 233 850 68 450 137 550 439 850 1941 233 850 68 450 137 550 439 850 1942 233 850 68 450 137 550 439 850 1943 176 350 68 450 137 550 382 350 1944 164 350 68 450 137 550 370 350 1945 131 100 68 450 137 550 337 100 1946 99 600 61 450 144 550 305 600 1947 91 600 59 450 146 550 297 600 1948 64 200 52 600 153 400 270 200 1949 38 325 46 850 159 150 244 325 1950 18 750 42 500 163 500 224 750 1951 18 750 42 500 163 500 224 750 Total.... $7 609 325 $2 083 090 $3 890 910 $13 583 325 NOTE:—It is proposed that a Supplementary Sinking Fund be established to take care of existing deficiencies in the various water sinking funds. In order to provide for retiring the water bonds when due, a total of $206,000.00 will have to be set up each year. TABLE No. 40 ANALYSIS OF FUTURE GENERAL DEBT SERVICE* Covering Outstanding Serial Indebtedness (December 31, 1922)** Year Interest Serial Redemption Total Debt Service 1923 $ 528 277.88 $ 438 040.00 $ 966 317.88 1924 508 085.75 437 290.00 945 375.75 1925 487 923.63 435 590.00 923 513.63 1926 467 829.51 435 590.00 903 419.51 1927 447 735.39 414 590.00 862 325.39 1928 428 689.77 414 190.00 842 879.77 1929 409 662.15 414 190.00 823 852.15 1930 390 634.53 414 190.00 804 824.53 1931 371 606.91 414 690.00 786 296.91 1932 352 559 29 414 690.00 767 249.29 1933 333 511.67 412 810.00 746 321.67 1934 314 563.00 411 560.00 726 123.00 1935 295 672.50 410 000.00 705 672.50 1936 276 860.00 410 000.00 686 860.00 1937 258 047.50 404 000.00 662 047.50 1938 239 500.00 404 000.00 643 500.00 1939 220 877.50 394 500.00 615 377.50 1940 202 737.50 394 500.00 597 237.50 1941 184 597.50 394 500.00 579 097.50 1942 166 457.50 379 500.00 545 957.50 1943 149 092.50 360 500.00 509 592.50 1944 132 582.50 360 500.00 493 082.50 1945 116 072.50 360 500.00 476 572.50 1946 99 562.50 360 500.00 , 460 062.50 1947 83 277.50 347 000.00 430 277.50 1948 67 375.00 337 000.00 404 375.00 1949 51 872.50 300 000.00 351 872.50 1950 37 585.00 277 000.00 314 585.00 1951 24 782.50 307 000.00 331 782.50 1952 7 920.00 176 000.00 183 920.00 Total.. . $7 655 951.98 $11 434 420.00 $19 090 371.98 *Includes school serial indebtedness. **The debt service analyzed in this table should be carried by the general fund (i. e., it includes all serial bonds except those which should be carried by the water fund, the public market fund, or the assessment funds.) TABLE No. 41 SUMMARY BUDGET FOR CURRENT FUNDS • General Fund School Fund Water Fund Market Fund Total Planned Expenditures: For Current Expenses: 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 For Fixed Charges: Payment of Interest. . 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 Other Fixed Charges. . 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 For Acquisition of Prop- erty. 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 For Redemption of Debt: Redemption Tempo- rary Loans. . . . 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000. Serial Installments. . . 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 Sinking Fund Install- ments. 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 Estimated Surplus. 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 Total. $000 000 $000 000 $000 000 $000 000 $000 000 Means of Financing: Tax Revenues: Limited. $000 000 $000 000 $000 000 Unlimited. 000 000 000 000 000 000 Utility Revenues. 000 000 000 000 000 000 Miscellaneous Revenues. 000 000 000 000 000 000 Proceeds Temporary Borrowing. 000 000 000 000 Total. $000 000 $000 000 $000 000 $000 000 $000 000 TABLE No. 42 BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS A. Appropriations from General Fund TO THE MAYOR For Current Expenses. 0000.00 TO THE BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT For Current Expenses. 0000.00 For Contingent Fund (Subject to Reappropriation). 0000.00 TO THE BOARD OF CONTRACT AND SUPPLY For Current Expenses. 0000.00 TO THE COMMON COUNCIL AND CITY CLERK For Current Expenses of Office and Council. 0000.00 For Election Expenses. 0000.00 TO THE COMPTROLLER For Current Expenses of Office. 0000.00 For Fixed Charges as Specified Below: Interest on General Bonds and Notes. As Required (Estimated at 0000.00) Judgments and Settlements. As Required (Estimated at 0000.00) City’s Share Local Assessments. As Required (Estimated at 0000.00) Rebates of Taxes and Assessments. As Required (Estimated at 0000.00) Reimbursement of Water Fund: Free Water for Charitable Institutions. As Required (Estimated at 0000.00) Reimbursement of Water Fund: Free Water for City. 0000.00 Reimbursement of Water Fund for Cost of Fire Protection. Contribution to Police Pension Fund. Contribution to Fire Pension Fund. Contribution to Employees Pension Fund Pensions to Veterans. Grant to Infants’ Summer Hospital. Grant to Rochester Dental Dispensary. . . Grant to S. P. C. A.. Grant to S. P. C. C.. For Acquisition of Property. to be spent for Following Objects: (specify items) For Redemption of Debt as Specified Below: Redemption of General Current Expense Notes. Serial Installments on Funded Debt—General. Sinking Fund Installments on Funded Debt—General 0000.00 0000.00 0000.00 0000.00 0000.00 0000.00 0000.00 0000.00 0000.00 0000.00 0000.00 0000.00 0000.00 TO THE LAW DEPARTMENT For Current Expenses. 0000.00 For Purchase of Land on Tax Foreclosure. 0000.00 Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item TABLE No. 42—Continued TO THE ART COMMISSION For Current Expenses. 0000.00 Item TO THE TREASURER For Current Expenses. 0000.00 Item TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION For Current Expenses. 0000.00 Item TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION For Current Expenses. 0000.00 Item TO THE CITY COURT—CRIMINAL BRANCH For Current Expenses. 0000.00 Item TO THE CITY COURT—CIVIL BRANCH For Current Expenses. 0000.00 Item TO THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY—CENTRAL OFFICE For Current Expenses. 0000.00 Item TO THE BUREAU OF FIRE AND POLICE TELEGRAPH For Current Expenses. 0000.00 Item For Acquisition of Property. 0000.00 Item to be spent for Following Objects: (specify items) TO THE BUREAU OF HEALTH For Current Expenses to be spent According to the following Schedule of F unctions: General Health Service. 0000.00 Item Municipal Hospital. 0000.00 Item For Acquisition of Property. 0000.00 Item to be spent for Following Objects: (specify items) TO THE BUREAU OF FIRE For Current Expenses. 0000.00 Item For Fixed Charges as specified below: Contribution to Hose Co. No. 22. 0000.00 Item Contribution to Rochester Protectives. 0000.00 Item For Acquisition of Property. 0000.00 Item to be spent for following Objects: (specify items) TO THE BUREAU OF PLAYGROUNDS For Current Expenses. 0000.00 Item TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CHARITIES For Current Expenses... 0000.00 Item TO G. A. R. RELIEF COMMISSION For Current Expenses and Relief. 0000.00 Item For Memorial Day Celebration Expenses. 0000.00 Item TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS—CENTRAL OFFICE For Current Expenses. 0000.00 Item TABLE No. 42—Continued TO THE BUREAU OF STREETS AND SEWERS For Current Expenses to be Spent According to following Schedule of Functions: Highway and Maintenance and Operation. 0000.00 Item Operation and Maintenance of Sewerage System... . 0000.00 Item Street Lighting Contract. 0000.00 Item For Fixed Charges as Specified Below: Taxes. 0000.00 Item For Acquisition of Property. 0000.00 Item to be spent for Following Objects: (specify items) TO THE BUREAU OF SANITATION For Current Expenses to be spent according to Following Schedule of Functions: Supervision. 0000.00 Item Street Cleaning. 0000.00 Item Refuse Collection. 0000.00 Item Refuse Disposal. 0000.00 Item For Fixed Charges as Specified Below: Taxes on Disposal Plant. 0000.00 Item For Acquisition of Property. 0000.00 Item to be spent for Following Objects: (specify items) TO THE BUREAU OF ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS For Current Expenses. 0000.00 Item TO THE CITY GARAGE For Current Expenses. * 0000.00 Item TO THE BUREAU OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES For Current Expenses. 0000.00 Item TO THE CITY ENGINEER’S OFFICE For Current Expenses to be spent according to Following Schedule of Functions: Testing Laboratory. 0000.00 Item General Engineering Service. 0000.00 Item For Acquisition of Property. ». . . 0000.00 Item to be spent for Following Objects: (specify items) TO THE BUREAU OF MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS For Current Expenses. 0000.00 Item TO THE BUREAU OF CITY PLANNING For Current Expenses. 0000.00 Item TABLE No. 42—Continued B. Appropriations from the School Fund TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION For Current Expenses. 0000.00 For Fixed Charges as Specified Below: Contribution to Teachers’ Retirement Funds. As Required (Estimated at 0000.00) Taxes. 0000.00 For Acquisition of Property. 0000.00 to be spent for Following Objects: (specify items) TO THE COMPTROLLER For Fixed Charges as Specified Below: Interest on School Bonds and Notes. As Required (Estimated at 0000.00) Reimbursement of Water Fund Free Water for Schools. 0000.00 For Redemption of Debt as Specified Below: Redemption of School Current Expense Notes. 0000.00 Serial Installments on Funded School Debt. 0000.00 Sinking Fund Installments on Funded School Debt. 0000.00 C. Appropriations from the Water Fund TO THE BUREAU OF WATER Far Current Expenses. 0000.00 For Fixed Charges as Specified Below: Taxes.. 0000.00 For Acquisition of Property. 0000.00 to be spent according to Following Objects: (specify items) TO THE COMPTROLLER For Fixed Charges as Specified Below: Interest on Water Bonds and Notes. As Required (Estimated at 0000.00) For Redemption of Debt as Specified Below: Sinking Fund Installments on Funded Water Debt. . . 0000.00 D. Appropriations from Public Market Fund TO THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC MARKET For Current Expenses. 0000.00 TO THE COMPTROLLER For Fixed Charges as Specified Below: Interest on Market Bonds. As Required (Estimated at 0000.00) Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item / . /