revenue comparison report municipality of...

Revenue Comparison Report

Municipality of Anchorage

PADM 628 – Public Finance

Donna M. Williams &

Michael B. Smith

April 28, 2004

Revenue Comparison ReportExecutive Summary

This paper is being written as a final project for a class in the Masters of PublicAdministration program at the University of Alaska, PADM 628 - Administration ofFinancial Resources. The purpose of the project was to conduct a comparison ofrevenue sources used by the Municipality of Anchorage against a designated list ofpeer cities. It is a white paper, not a complete analysis, and should be used only as asource of general information. The following summarizes the report:

! The list of cites used as the basis for the peer city group were basedprimarily on population. Using the last census we choose cities withapproximately 60,000 more and less in population than the Municipalityof Anchorage. To get an overview of these cities, we also looked atsuch factors as form of government, fiscal cycle, and the size ofoperating budgets, though this information was not taken intoconsideration in the comparisons we did. The information collected canbe found in an excel spread sheet at appendix A. In our data collectionfor these cities we focused only on general fund monies. There is atremendous difference between the cities as to budgeting, fiscal cycles,and what cities consider part of their general fund revenues andexpenditures. Because of that, and without a line item analysis, thispaper cannot be considered a formal benchmarking analysis.

! The focus of this paper is in three areas: sales tax revenue, bed taxrevenue, and property tax revenue, examining two different aspects ofeach, the rate of tax, and percent of general fund revenue raised fromthat source. These are our conclusions:

Sales Tax: All the cities we examined are part of a state governmentwhere sales tax is collected, the majority of them collect asales tax themselves. The tax rate varied but the majorityis set at 1% to 1.5% with the states assuming theresponsibility for collection with the state sales tax, thenfunding it back to the cities. The percent of revenue as aportion of general fund monies ranged from 0% here inAnchorage to 53% in Baton Rouge, LA., with an average of26% of revenue coming from sales tax.

Bed Tax: The peer group for this category is small primarily becausemany cities, although they have a bed tax, do not accountfor it as a separate line item. Our analysis showsAnchorage with a tax rate of 8% is about average for thecities in the peer group.

Property Tax: This category was our primary interest; what wedetermined was not a surprise to what we expected. Anchorage collects 60% of its general fund revenue fromproperty taxes. In comparison to our peer group, this ishigh, only one other city is higher. Comparing averages,the peer group collected only 26% of its general fundrevenues from property taxes. The mill rate in Anchorageis also higher than all but one city. Anchorage’s mill rate isbetween 13 and 16 mills, the comparison cities are in therange of 3 to 7 mills.

The final area we analyzed was a comparison of cost per capita based ongeneral fund spending. It should be cautioned again that there are manydifferences among cities as to what is considered general fund money and whatis not, so this is only an informational comparison. However, it wasencouraging to see that the Municipality of Anchorage is well within the averagein this area. Our calculations show Anchorage with an annual per capitaspending rate of $967. In this category we did eliminate cities using a biannualbudget cycle leaving us with the highest city at $1600 and the lowest at around$400. Comparatively however, those were the highs and lows, most cities fallin the $700 - $1000 range.

Overall, although painted with a broad brush, we felt this is a good overview ofwhere Anchorage sits in comparison to cities of roughly the same size. Ifthere was a surprise, it would be in the amount and kinds of other taxes citiesare using as a way to generate revenues. We did not analyze those in thispaper, but there is a general list in the summary.

The obvious burden in the Municipality of Anchorage is on property holders,and we don’t believe, given more time, resources, and a bigger peer group, that the outcome would be any different, but we would suggest there arealternate sources of revenue, including a sales tax, that in the future can andshould be looked at as a way of alleviating some of this burden.

Comparison Revenue Report - - 2 - -

Introduction: Benchmarking - the comparison of two data points, with one of the data points

designated as the benchmark. The process of identifying and learning from best practices

anywhere in the world. The selection of a standard of excellence used to compare and

measure similar things. The practice of setting a measurable standard by which to

measure you own outcomes and practices. Identifying best practices.

While benchmarking is all of these things, it is often much more. The use of

benchmarking is most widely used in the analysis of best practices and performance

standards. Originally it focused on the business or corporate community. Now it is equally

applied to both corporate and government settings. By the definition above, a benchmark

is itself just a comparison point; a measuring stick by which to gauge your own

performance, generally a standard of excellence. That is how we choose to approach this

paper.

Primarily there are four common forms of benchmarking:

! Continuous Process Improvement

Here the focus is on improvement of processes, generally measured in improvements in time, cost, or quality. This is a major component of TQM (total quality management), generally done in-house where management identifies processes, suggests recommendations and implement change.


! Corporate Style Benchmarking (Single Process)

Again, the focus here is on process improvement, but recommendations for change are based in part of the use of a best practice or benchmarks from operation(s) outside your own organization. This is often used to increase such things as service and/or delivery efficiency such as the way FedEx has.

! Comparison of Performance Statistics

This process relies on the submission of data to a collection agency which then compiles information from similar organizations or communities then calculates performance measures for each of those identities against the others.

! Targets as Benchmarks

This process picks the target it wants to benchmark against. The target can be internal (if it was set by some previous trend or analysis) or external, using performance data outside the organization. The GFOA calls this form of benchmarking ‘strategic benchmarks’, where a government chooses some level of performance that a program, organization, or even a community may want to achieve. (Kelly, 2003)

Because of the nature of the assignment, this paper cannot be considered a true

benchmarking analysis. Instead, we choose to do a revenue comparison of the

Municipality of Anchorage against a group of peer cities, using a hybrid of two of the

benchmarking processes noted above; comparison of performance statistics and targets as

benchmarks. In doing that, we are not making recommendations about best practices,

nor are we making suggestions for change. The purpose was to use this opportunity to do

a comparison of how the Municipality of Anchorage differs from our peer group in the type

and amount of revenue sources it uses to fund city government. The fiscal cycles of each

of the cities also complicates the collection of data into a true benchmarking paper,

therefore this is not an attempt at policy. It is, instead, a presentation of comparisons.


Methodology

We started with a simple population analysis using data from the government

website for the last census in 2000 (U.S. Census), where the Municipality of Anchorage

was listed as having a population of about 260,000. For inclusion in our peer group, we

choose cities having approximately sixty to seventy thousand more in population and sixty

to seventy thousand less (see Tab 1). In all of the analysis and charts for this paper, we

have stayed with that same grouping. The charts and graphs, instead of being arranged

alphabetically, follows the population listing found behind tab one. In Appendix A, you will

find the master Excel spread sheet with all of the compiled data and the number listing for

each of these cities, tabs 2 through 38 represent each of these cities. After compiling the

initial group, we spent time researching the charters, codes and budgets of each of them.

We then compiled information as to form of government, basis for their fiscal year, and

operating budgets. We are using cities with both a strong mayor and council/manager form

of government, as well as cities with different fiscal cycles, and wide variances in operating

budgets. As to the fiscal years, there are primarily three cycles: July 1 - June 30, Oct 1 -

Sept 30, and Jan 1 - Dec 31. We wanted to use the most current final numbers for the

Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), so we chose to use FY 2004 as our target comparison

against the Municipalities FY 2003 budget. We did this because even with the difference in

fiscal cycles, and the fact that some cities have not finished their current fiscal year, these

numbers would include the last one or two quarters of the calendar year 2003. The

following cities were included in our peer group. Because of time constraints, where the

information is left blank, it was not obtainable.


City Form of Government Fiscal Year 2. Pittsburgh, PA Strong Mayor Jan 1 – Dec 31 3. Arlington, TX Council / Manager Oct 1 – Sept 30 4. Cincinnati, OH Council / Manager Jan 1 – Dec 31 5. Anaheim, CA Council / Manager 6. Toledo, OH Strong Mayor 7. Tampa, FL Strong Mayor Oct 1 – Sept 30 8. Buffalo, NY Strong Mayor 9. St. Paul, MN Strong Mayor Jan 1 – Dec 31 10. Corpus Christi, TX Council / Manager July 1 – June 30 11. Aurora (eliminated) - Biannual Budget 12. Raleigh, NC Council / Manager July 1 – June 30 13. Newark, NJ Strong Mayor 14. Lexington-Fayetteville,

KY Strong Mayor July 1 – June 30

15. Anchorage, AK Strong Mayor Jan 1 – Dec 31 16. Louisville, KY

(Jan ’03 – merged city and county governments)

Strong Mayor Old year: Jan thru Aug ’03; New Year Aug ’03 forward

17. Riverside, CA 18. St. Petersburg, FL 19. Bakersfield, CA Council / Manager 20. Stockton, CA Council / Manager July 1 – June 30 21. Birmingham, AL Strong Mayor July 1 – June 30 22. Jersey City, NJ Council / Manager No information 23. Norfolk, VA Council / Manger July 1 – June 30 24. Baton Rouge, LA Strong Mayor 25. Hialeah, FL Strong Mayor 26. Lincoln, NE Strong Mayor Sept 1 – Aug 31 27. Greensboro, NC Council / Manager 28. Plano, TX Council / Manager Oct 1 – Sept 30 29. Rochester, NY 30. Glendale, AZ Strong Mayor July 1 – June 30 31. Akron, OH Strong Mayor / Council 32. Garland, TX Council / Manager Oct 1 – Sept 30 33. Madison, WI Strong Mayor Jan 1 – Dec 31 34. Fort Wayne, IN Strong Mayor Jan 1 – Dec 31 35. Freemont, CA 36. Scottsdale, AZ Strong Mayor July 1 – June 30 37. Montgomery, AL Strong Mayor No info on web 38. Shreveport, LA Strong Mayor Jan 1 – Dec 31


Another difference between the MOA and our peer group is the form of government.

On the census table in our peer group, Anchorage is the only one listed as a combined

municipality. Some years ago, Anchorage combined the city/county functions of

government. The cities in our peer group (with the exception of two) are city governments

only. The two exceptions are the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, and the

City of Louisville, who on January 6, 2003 merged their city and county governments.

This difference also added to the difficulty of completing this report because there are a

number of revenue sources, such as the hotel bed tax in Pittsburgh, that combine state and

county taxes. For those sections, we included the county portion of the taxes only.

It should be mentioned that all the information obtained came directly from each

city’s official website. Some where more complete than others. Where information was

not obtainable from the website (such as the city of Akron where information was only

presented as percentages rather than actual dollar amounts) and where time constraints

limited us from obtaining information from other sources, we have left that information

blank. We attempted to keep our focus on certain attributes of each city. Because

information was readily available in some areas for some cities but not in others, each of

the grouping areas below may look different. There were also cities that we initially were

inclined to eliminate because they are on a bi-annual budgeting, but we choose to use

them for certain areas such as mill rate, because the information was relevant. The peer

groups for each of the areas discussed below will be different for these reasons. One of

our primary goals was to have enough data to conduct a good comparison with Anchorage.

Unfortunately we had to eliminate cities where data may not have been available.


School funding is another area that causes some concern. In this data sample, we

only looked at general fund budgeting and general fund revenues. We did not include any

special funds such as dedicated economic funds, enterprise funds or special revenue

funds. The difficulty of using general fund terminology is that some cities include school

funding as part of their general fund picture, others do not, and some cities include

dedicated funding or enterprise funds in their definition of general funds. Another reason

this report should be considered broad based and is without the ability to do a line item

review of each of these budgets to separate out these items, it may not be a completely

accurate comparison. Also, some cities such as Rochester, NY, who has a relatively high

mill rate, dedicate almost half of their mill rate directly to education, though it is still

considered general fund monies.

Discussion and Analysis

In our analysis, we narrowed the field of comparison down to three areas: sales tax

revenue, hotel bed tax revenue, and property tax revenue. There were several cities,

including Akron, Toledo, Birmingham, and Cincinnati, which derive a substantial portion of

their revenue from an income tax which surprised us, but we did not do a separate analysis

of those cities. In looking at the three areas listed above, we focused on the rate of the

tax, and the percent of general fund revenues generated by this revenue source. These

are the numbers presented in the graphs below.


Sales Tax

Peer City Analysis

All the cities used as part of this peer come from states where a state sales tax is collected. In each of these cities, the sales tax is collected at the state level and the percent noted above is passed back to the cities. There are exceptions, such as the city of Glendale, AZ. which has a special sales tax of 0.1 percent dedicated to fire and police. The burden of collection for most of these cities falls to the state when they then pass the appropriate amount back to the cities.


Neither the State of Alaska, nor the Municipality of Anchorage, collect a sales tax.

The following communities were used for this peer group analysis: City Local Tax Rate Revenue Collected % of General Fund

Revenues

Pittsburgh, PA 1.5% $7,241,000 2%

Arlington, TX 1.5% $38,608,886 24%

Tampa, FL 0.5% $25,755,788 9%

Corpus Christie, TX 1.0% $33,499,355 24%

Anchorage, AK 0.0% 0%

Raleigh, NC $48,202,485 19%

Riverside, CA 1.0% $43,900,000 29%

St. Petersburg, FL 1.0% $14,158,000 8%

Bakersfield, CA 1.5% $45,360,000 39%

Stockton, CA 1.0% $33,000,000 25%

Birmingham, AL 3.0% $86,925,000 30%

Norfolk, VA 1.0% $26,214,300 4%

Baton Rouge, LA 5.0% $108,805,610 53%


Lincoln, NE 1.5% $51,996,219 46%

Greensboro, NC $34,288,235 10%

Plano, TX 1.0% $43,441,321 30%

Rochester, NY 8.25% $111,380,000 43%

Glendale, AZ 1.2% $41,000,000 37%

Garland, TX 1.0% $18,031,000 17%

Freemont, CA $25,604,000 26%

Scottsdale, AZ 1.4% $77,400,000 40% Although there are highs and lows to each of these cities sales tax rates, you can

see from the following graph that they generally fall within one to two percent range. As the

discussion of a city sales tax comes up here in the Municipality, the numbers that people

generally use are from one to five percent. There has been discussion that five percent is

to high, but giving consideration to the percent at which most states collect a sales tax (see

appendix A), it shouldn’t be considered extreme. Our peer group broke out this way:

Sales Tax Rates

0.00%1.00%2.00%3.00%4.00%5.00%6.00%7.00%8.00%9.00%

Pittsburg

h, PA

Tampa

, FL

Anchora

ge, A

K

St. Pete

rsburg

, FL

Stockton

, CA

Norfolk,

VA

Linco

ln, N

E

Rocheste

r, NY

Garlan

d, TX


The biggest difference in the sales tax analysis comes when looking at the percent

of revenue generated by that source. As indicated, some cities rely on sales tax to

generate almost half their general fund revenues.

The average for these cities, as a percent of general fund revenue is about 26%.

Although the Municipality of Anchorage doesn’t collect a sales tax, we included this side by

side comparison just to show the striking difference.

Percent of Revenue from Sales Tax

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Pittsburg

h, PA

Tampa

, FL

Raleigh

, NC

St. Pete

rsburg

, FL

Stockton

, CA

Norfolk,

VA

Linco

ln, N

E

Plano,

TX

Glenda

le, AZ

Freemon

t, CA

Percent of Revenue from Sales Tax (Anchorage)

0%

100%

Percent of Total Rev. from Sales Tax (Peer Cities)

26%

74%


Hotel Occupancy Tax

Peer City Analysis

As with the sales tax, the numbers below only account for the city portion of this tax, it does not include state or county information with the exception of the city of Pittsburgh. The 8% tax listed of a county tax, but is included because the Municipality of Anchorage is a combined government. The city of Corpus Christie is guaranteed a base payment of $1.675 million from the CVB, plus an amount over that determine by formula. The 2% listed below is in addition to that and us used for beach clean up. Including state percentages, there are cities where the bed tax rate is as high at 14%.


The Municipality of Anchorage collects an 8% bed tax.

The legislature has discussed a state bed tax which the municipality opposes.

The following communities were used in our peer group:

City Local Tax Rate Revenue Collected

Pittsburgh, PA 8% $16,974,400

Arlington, TX 1.3% $4,000,000

Corpus Christie, TX 2.0% $8,220,288

Raleigh, NC 6% $ 950,000

Anchorage, AK 8.0% $11,500,000

Birmingham, AL 3.0% $142,809

Norfolk, VA 8.0% $5,000,000

Greensboro, NC 3% $2,633,700

Rochester, NY 2% $851,000

Garland, TX 7.0%

Scottsdale, AZ 3.0% $6,600,000


The second revenue source we looked at was the hotel bed tax, sometimes called

the transient or lodgings tax. Surprisingly, this was harder to dig out than anticipated. In

several instances this revenue source falls under the heading of special revenue source, or

as in the case of Corpus Christi, as part of a separate funding run as part of the Convention

and Visitors Bureau, not considered general fund monies. In other instances it was

grouped with other money in such a way that the actual bed tax was undeterminable.

In a bar chart analysis, the Municipality of Anchorage is about in the middle in terms

of the bed tax rate for cities, exclusive of any rate that is collected on a state or county

level.

Hotel/Bed Tax

0.00%2.00%4.00%6.00%8.00%

10.00%12.00%14.00%16.00%

Pittsburg

h, PA

Arlingto

n, TX

Corpus C

hristi

, TX

Raleigh

, NC

Anchora

ge, A

K

Birming

ham, A

L

Norfolk,

VA

Greensb

oro, N

C

Rocheste

r, NY

Garlan

d, TX

Scotts

dale,

AZ


Property Tax

Peer City Analysis

The city of Madison Wisconsin tops the list of city revenue collected by this means.


Property Tax Analysis - the city of anchorage collects nearly 60% from property taxes.

The last area we looked at was property taxes. It was also the biggest in terms of

our interest level. The revenue capacity of the Municipality of Anchorage is directly tied to

the tax cap, with the biggest portion of general fund revenue coming from the ad valorem or

property tax. Theoretically, revenues should be diversified enough to avoid putting all

your eggs one proverbial basket. This in not wholly the case with the Municipality of

Anchorage, roughly 60% of general fund revenues come from this one source – property

taxes. In our analysis we looked at the same general areas as above, percent of revenue

generated by this source, and the rate at which it is taxed.


The following communities were used in our peer group:

City Mill Rate Revenue Collected % of General Fund Revenues

Pittsburgh, PA 10.8 (city) 13.31 (school)

$123,132,000 31.87%

Arlington, TX 6.48 $57,635,492

Cincinnati, OH 6.10 $30,129,000 9.8%

Tampa, FL 6.539 $113,010,509 39.75

St. Paul, MN 10 $42,700,851 24.34

Corpus Christi, TX 6.40 $41,363,708 28.21

Raleigh, NC 3.850 $110,160,923 44.53%

Anchorage, AK 13.0 to 16.5 $169,400,000 59.75

Louisville, KY 3.76 $94,190,000 21.87

Riverside, CA 10.0 $11,010,000 7.44%

St. Petersburgh, FL 7.14 $68,656,000 39.23

Bakersfield, CA $22,068,000 19.03%

Stockton, CA $19,800,000 15.%

Birmingham, AL $18,939,683 7.19%

Norfolk, VA 14 $121,986,500 17.22%

Baton Rouge, LA $17,236,180 8.45%

Hialeah, FL 7.528

Lincoln, NE 2.9 $33,294,700 29.32%

Greensboro, NC 6.175 $103,619,505 31.7%

Plano, TX 4.335 $56,809,516 35.93%

Rochester, NY 6.33 (city) 14.19 (school)

$114,882,700 41.99

Glendale, AZ 1.72 3.0%

Akron, OH 6.29 $18,381,337 13%

Garland, TX 6.411

Madison, WI 8.30 $118,060,404 65.70%

Fort Wayne, IN 3.630 $61,224,010 42.78%

Freemont, CA $33,153,000 34.30%

Scottsdale, AZ 4.8 $16,572,708 8.47


The bar chart immediately below demonstrates that compared to our peer city group,

Anchorage (in red) is far above average in the mill rate it sets for property taxes. The only

city in this group higher than Anchorage is Rochester, NY. Their mill rate is based on a

level of 6.3 mills to the city, and 14.19 mills to school funding.

In terms of the percent of revenue collected from this one source, the bar chart on

the next page shows the Municipality of Anchorage again on the high end. Only one other

city collects more revenue as a percentage of the general fund from this area – Madison,

WI.

Mil Rates by City

0.000

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

Arli

ngto

n,

Tam

pa, F

L

Cor

pus

Lexi

ngto

n-

Loui

svill

e,

St.

Hia

leah

, FL

Gre

ensb

oro,

Roc

hest

er,

Akr

on, O

H

Mad

ison

,

Sco

ttsda

le,


Looking at these numbers in the form of a pie chart using an average of the cities we listed

in this peer group shows just how striking the difference is. Anchorage is in red above.

Percent of Rev. from Property Tax

0.00%10.00%

20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%

60.00%70.00%

Pittsburg

h, PA

Cincinna

ti, OH

St. Pau

l, MN

Raleigh

, NC

Louis

ville, K

Y

St. Pete

rsburg

, FL

Stockton

, CA

Norfolk,

VA

Linco

ln, N

E

Rocheste

r, NY

Madiso

n, W

I

Freemon

t, CA

Percent of Rev. from Property Tax (All Cities Ave.)

26%

74%

Percent of Rev. from Property Tax (Anchorage)

60%

40%


Cost Per Capita

Peer City Analysis

Most of the cities fall within a pretty even average. Of the cities we looked at there were really only two anomalies, Tampa, FL, and the City of Cincinnati, OH.


Anchorage falls well with the average of the cities we looked at.

The last area we looked at was cost per capita to run government. On the whole

the Municipality of Anchorage isn’t doing that bad. Eliminating the three highest cities from

the bar chart below, we compare favorably with the other cities listed, Anchorage is in red,

the last entry on the chart.

Ave. Cost per Capita

$0.00$500.00

$1,000.00$1,500.00

$2,000.00$2,500.00

$3,000.00$3,500.00

$4,000.00

Pittsburg

h, PA

Cincinna

ti, OH

Tampa

, FL

St. Pau

l, MN

Raleigh

, NC

Riversi

de, C

A

Bakersf

ield,

CA

Birming

ham, A

L

Baton R

ouge

, LA

Greensb

oro, N

C

Rocheste

r, NY

Akron,

OH

Madiso

n, W

I

Freemon

t, CA

Shreve

port, L

A


Summary

Again, because this can’t be considered a true benchmarking analysis we will not be

offering any policy suggestion, but will say the original area we wanted to look at was

property taxes. To that end we will note that there may be validity to the complaint that

property owners in Anchorage are shouldering a bigger burden of the tax base than they

maybe should be. Our estimate is that a more thorough analysis of property tax collection

throughout the country, including the use of a much wider peer group, and doing a true

budget line comparison, will likely result in the same conclusion.

While it is not reflected in this paper, there are also numerous other ways cities are

generating revenues that we looked at, areas the city may consider looking at should the

discussion arise as to ways to alleviate the burden of the property owners. For instance,

the City of Pittsburgh collects a ‘parking tax’. In January of this year they increased that tax

to 50% to cover revenue shortfalls. According to the Pittsburgh Gazette “The tax is levied

against parking operators’ gross receipts. For every dollar a lot collects, the city will take

50 cents. The parking tax falls on a different group of people. It does fall on some city

residents, but it also falls on a lot of the commuter population.” Other examples of revenue

sources we encountered include:

• A Wheel Tax - collected on tires. • An Amusement Tax - collected on the admission price of all forms of

‘amusement’ within a city. • An Occupation Privilege Tax – a tax levied on each individual who’s

principal place of employment is located in the city.


• A Business Privilege Tax – a tax on gross receipts from operating or conducting a service business, trade or profession in, or attributable to, the City, usually at a mill rate.

• A Mercantile Tax – similar to a sales tax where gross receipts are taxed using a mill rate.

• City Income Tax – also called an occupation tax in some cities. • A Bingo Gross Receipts Tax

In the end, what was surprising to us was the analysis of the per capita cost of

government. Anchorage seems to be doing a good job, well within the average, again, with

the majority its revenue coming from property taxes, but it may be worth taking a look at

what other baskets are out there.


References:

Ammons, D., Municipal Benchmarks, Assessing Local Performance and Establishing

Community Standards, (2001) Sage Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA.

Kelly, J. & Rivenbark, W., Performance Budgeting for State and Local Government, 2003,

M.E. Sharpe, New York

Miranda, R & Picur, R, Benchmarking and Measuring Debt Capacity, (2000) Government

Finance Officers Association

The Benchmarking Code of Conduct, APQC (American Productivity & Quality Center), [no

date referenced for this document – obtained from www.apqc.org 3/15/04]

The Benchmarking Code of Conduct, The Benchmarking Exchange [no date referenced

for this document – obtained from www.benchnet.com 3/15/04]

U.S. Census web page, www.uscensus.gov, table PHC-T-5, Incorporated Places of

100,000 or More Ranked by Population 2000

revenue comparison report municipality of...

Documents