section vii intergovernmental affairs 1. interstate...

Section VII INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

1. Interstate Organizations

THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS

THE COUNCIL of State Governments is a nonprofit state-supported and state-directed research, information, and service organization providing governmental assistance to officials at all levels of state government. Formally established in 1933, the mission of the Council is to strengthen state governments in the American federal system by collecting and disseminating information, promoting intergovernmental cooperation, and working to improve state government administrative and management techniques.

Various mechanisms are used to accomplish these tasks. On both the national and regional levels, the Council of State Governments collects, analyzes, and disseminates great amounts of state government data. Collecting the information includes soliciting and storing thousands of state, federal, and interstate agency-generated reports and data—both in document and computer formats. Analysis ranges from responding to hundreds of individual inquiries per month for state government information and tabular aggregation of all state responses to a particular issue, to a thorough examination of an issue followed by recommendations for state actions in a specific state's program. Disseminating the information involves conferences and seminars at the regional and national levels, training programs, and pubUshed reports and news accounts made available to elected and appointed state government officials who form the Council's principal client group.

A basic premise of the Council is that the states themselves are a primary source of ideas and information necessary to resolve administrative and legislative issues and problems. Thus, the Council serves as a major conduit for this interstate flow of information.

Offices of the Council In the earliest years of the Council's developments, state officials foresaw the need to

establish regional operations almost simultaneously with central services. When the Council's headquarters were established in Chicago, Illinois, in the early 1930s, a regional director was selected to work with the Council's executive director with the specific duty of serving the mid western states.

Acknowledging the concept of the states' strength through regional diversity, regional offices were established in the 1930s and 1940s in New York City to serve the northeastern states; San Francisco, California, to serve the western states; and, in 1958, in Atlanta, Georgia, to serve the southern states. An executive committee, representing state officials in a specific region, selects the issues and staff work focus for regional activities.

585

586 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

To stay attuned to federal activities which affect the states and to present state views when intergovernmental perspectives are required, the Council also established a Washington, D.C., office in 1938.

In 1969, the central office of the Council was relocated in Lexington, Kentucky, and the Chicago office became a regional center for the midwestern states.

Finances and Direction The states and U.S. territories and commonwealths contribute to the Council's finan

cial support. Additionally, the Council administers several private foundation and federal grant programs that are aligned with the organization's own research and information goals on behalf of the states and territories.

Organizational focus and overall direction for the activities of the Council's staff of about 160 persons are provided by a governing board consisting of all the nation's governors and, typically, two legislators from each state and jurisdiction. A governor serves as president of the Council and a legislator as chairman. Additionally, a lieutenant governor, an attorney general, and a chief justice of one of the states' highest courts represent their respective associations of state officials as members of the Council's governing board and executive committee.

From this broad-based governing body, totaling about 175 elected state officials, an executive committee of about one fifth of the governing board's number manages the business affairs of the Council between the annual governing board meetings. The annual meetings serve the dual role of providing a forum for the discussion of substantive state and federal issues and concerns, and conducting the management activities of the Council of State Governments.

The executive committee selects an executive director who is in charge of the Council's national and Washington offices. In November 1979, the governing board of the Council of State Governments adopted amendments to its articles of organization designed to further enhance the Council's regional concept. These changes provide a stronger role for regional state officials in the selection of regional office directors and formulation of regional budgets. A final budget coordination procedure outlined in the amended articles places decisionmaking authority in a 13-member budget committee representing both national and regional perspectives.

Operations of the Council

Secretariat Services Because of the continuing need for a dialogue on issues affecting the states and the im

portance to state officials of discussing these issues on a face-to-face basis, the Council maintains a strong staff role in the area of secretariat services. Secretariat services typically involve arranging annual and midterm meetings of national or regional groups of state officials, recording the minutes of these meetings, and communicating policy resolutions from these groups in the most effective manner. Resolutions generally emphasize state reactions to particular issues and suggest solutions to the problems posed. Policy resolutions are disseminated widely by the Council and often are incorporated into state and federal legislation and administrative decisions and regulations.

The Council primarily provides the staff secretariat function to the governing board of the Council of State Governments and its executive committee and to several national

INTERSTA TE ORGANIZA TIONS 587

organizations of state officials including the lieutenant governors, attorneys general, purchasing officials, and others. At the regional office level, similar services are provided for the regional conferences of state officials and their respective executive committees and the regional associations of state officials.

Research and Publications Two types of research are at the heart of the Council's efforts to keep the states' con

tinuously aware of innovative and improved state responses to issues affecting their citizens—survey data accumulation and policy analysis.

The survey mechanism has been a mainstay of the Council's activities beginning with the late Colorado Senator Henry Toll's efforts in the 1920s to accumulate the names and addresses of the nation's more than 7,500 state legislators. Such surveys now run the gamut of state government issues including financial activities, employment statistics, and legislation on specific issues, as well as the names and addresses of state officials for numerous rosters generated by the Council each year.

Policy analysis research within the Council often involves applications for federal grants or contracts in specific areas, such as criminal justice reform, state innovations productivity, governmental auditing and accounting, environmental resources, human services, and many others. Work programs usually involve assembling groups of state officials as advisers to the project; field research and writing; and publication of documents containing recommendations for improved state activity relative to the issues reviewed. Such grant and contract work in fiscal 1979 and 1980 resulted in the pubHcation and dissemination of more than 20,000 documents.

Immediate information needs are served by a Council inquiry unit which operates through telephone responses, follow-up documentation, and computer data searches.

Basic and ongoing publications of the Council, in addition to contract and grant document requirements, include news publications such as State Headlines, a biweekly providing brief news notes on the most recent state actions; State Government News, a monthly magazine more thoroughly reviewing state government issues and trends; and State Government, a quarterly magazine providing a scholarly perspective on state government areas of interest.

Biennially, the Council produces The Book of the States, which includes more than 600 pages of textual and tabular material on a wide range of state government programs. The Book of the States is known internationally as the most reliable reference material on states and their governments.

Other standard pubUcations include the annual volume of draft acts known as Suggested State Legislation. Selected by a committee of state legislators and other state officials, these acts provide a ready source of pre-drafted statute models on a variety of topics each year. (Titles of the drafts in the 1979 and 1980 editions of Suggested State Legislation are provided in this section.)

State Services

This function constitutes the Council's implementation program. Subsequent to research, pubHcation, and accumulation of the necessary expertise in state government fields of interest, state services is enlisted to dehver a useful, timely state government program directly to the doorstep of the state capi1?ols. Included in these units of service are the:


Innovations Transfer Program—An activity involving finding innovative state approaches to a problem or issue, researching the issue, and publishing reports of findings and recommendations. As a follow-up procedure, the Council's innovations program staff is available to discuss with governors, legislators, and other state officials the necessary procedures for transferring these programs from state to state.

Interstate Consulting Program—Tailored to an individual requesting state's needs, this program is designed to find the best advice and counsel within other states on a particular problem or issue and to provide the administrative mechanism for bringing the states' advisers together with the requesting state for relevant discussions and planning. In the past two years, interstate consulting projects have been concerned with state printing, purchasing, public information for legislatures, financial and program auditing and accounting, and administrative organization.

Training Programs—Using the most modern techniques of training, including studio and on-location videotape training film production, the Council is actively engaged in the state government training function. Training is under way or is being finalized in such areas as state auditing and accounting, and personnel management.


Officers and Executive Committee THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS

1979-80

President GOVERNOR OTIS R. BOWEN, M.D., Indiana

Chairman SENATE PRESIDENT OLIVER OCASEK, Ohio

Vice President GOVERNOR GEORGE NIGH, Oklahoma

Vice Chairman REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAM GRANNELL, Oregon

Other Members

SENATE PRESIDENT FRED E. ANDERSON, Colorado

SENATOR KEITH ASHWORTH, Nevada

GOVERNOR VICTOR ATIYEH, Oregon

SENATE PRESIDENT JASON BOE, Oregon

GOVERNOR JOSEPH E. BRENNAN, Maine

ATTORNEY GENERAL CHAUNCEY H. BROWNING, West Virginia

GOVERNOR BRENDAN T. BYRNE, New Jersey

SENATOR ROBERT L. CLARK, Nebraska

SPEAKER BILL CLAYTON, Texas

SENATE PRESIDENT ROSS O. DOYEN, Kansas

GOVERNOR EDWIN EDWARDS, Louisiana

GOVERNOR JOHN V. EVANS, Idaho

SENATE PRESIDENT PRO TEM CARL E. GAINER, West Virginia

GOVERNOR J. JOSEPH GARRAHY* Rhode Island

SENATOR JOSEPH S. GENDRON, Rhode Island

GOVERNOR ROBERT GRAHAM, Florida

REPRESENTATIVE ROY HAUSAUER, North Dakota

SPEAKER PRO TEM RICHARD S. HODES, Florida

GOVERNOR ROBERT F. LIST, Nevada

SENATOR JOHN J. MARCHI, New York

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR WILLIAM C. PHELPS, Missouri

SPEAKER GEORGE B. ROBERTS, JR., New Hampshire

SENATOR KENNETH C. ROYALL, JR., North Carolina

SENATOR ANTHONY SCARDINO, JR., New Jersey

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERT J. SHERAN, Minnesota

GOVERNOR CHARLES THONE, Nebraska

THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS Regional Conference Officials

As of January 1980 EASTERN CONFERENCE

Senator Anthony Scardino, Jr., New Jersey, Chairman Representative Timothy J. Moynihan, Connecticut, Vice Chairman

Senator Joseph S. Gendron, Rhode Island, Immediate Past Chairman

Connecticut Secretary of State Barbara B. Kennelly Senator Audrey P. Beck

Delaware State Treasurer Thomas R. Carper Senate President Pro Tern Richard S. Cordrey Speaker John P. Ferguson

Maine Senator Dana C. Devoe Representative Donald V. Carter Representative Sandra Prescott

Massachusetts Senator Stanley J. Zarod Representative John J. Long Representative W. Paul White

New Hampshire Senate President Robert B. Monier Representative Marshall French

New Jersey Attorney General John Degnan Senator William J. Hamilton, Jr. Assemblyman Albert Burstein

New York Senator Vander L. Beatty Senator John J. Marchi Speaker Stanley J. Fink

Pennsylvania Senator Michael A. O'Pake House Minority Leader K. Leroy Irvis Representative C. L. Schmitt

Rhode Island Governor J. Joseph Garrahy Senate Majority Leader Joseph S. Gendron Speaker Edward P. Manning Representative Mary Kilmarx

Vermont Lieutenant Governor Madeleine M. Kunin Senator William T. Doyle Representative Frederick W. Hutchinson

Virgin Islands Senate President Elmo D. Roebuck

COMMITTEES AND CHAIRMEN

Special Task Force on Economic Affairs Senator William Hamilton, Jr., New Jersey

Urban and Rural Affairs Senator Vander L. Beatty, New York

Human Resources Representative Sandra Prescott, Maine

Fiscal Affairs and Government Operations Vacancy

Energy Representative Mary Kilmarx, Rhode Island

MIDWESTERN CONFERENCE

Representative Roy Hausauer, North Dakota, Chairman Representative Casmer P. Ogonowski, Michigan, Vice Chairman Senator Robert L. Clark, Nebraska, Immediate Past Chairman

Illinois Senator Philip J. Rock

Missouri Senate President Pro Tem Norman L. Merrell

590

INTERSTATE ORGANIZATIONS 591

MIDWESTERN CONFERENCE—Continued

Indiana Speaker Pro Tem John J. Thomas

Iowa Senator Majority Leader Calvin O. Hultman

Kansas Speaker Wendell E. Lady Senate President Ross O. Doyen

Minnesota Senator Hubert H. Humphrey III

Ohio Senate President Oliver Ocasek Representative Vernon F. Cook

South Dakota Representative Jerome B. Lammers

Wisconsin Assembly Majority Floor Leader James W.

Wahner Senate Majority Leader William A. Bablitch

TASK FORCES AND CHAIRMEN

Agriculture Representative Joseph E. Tregoning, Wisconsin

Education Senator Joseph C. Harder, Kansas

Energy Senator Hubert H. Humphrey III, Minnesota

Legislative Oversight Senate President Pro Tem Mary A. McClure,

South Dakota

Taxation Representative James C. West, Iowa

Transportation Senator Donald N. Dworak, Nebraska

SOUTHERN LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE

Senator Kenneth C. Royall, Jr., North Carolina, Chairman Representative Mark D. O'Brien, Kentucky, Vice Chairman

Senate President Pro Tem Carl E. Gainer, West Virginia, Past Chairman

Alabama Lieutenant Governor George McMillan, Jr. Speaker Pro Tem Richard S. Manley

Arkansas Representative Ray S. Smith, Jr. Senator Joe Ray

Florida Speaker J. Hyatt Brown

Georgia Senator Render Hill Speaker Tom Murphy

Kentucky President Pro Tem Joseph W. Prather Speaker William G. Kenton

Louisiana Senate President Michael H. O'Keefe Speaker E. L. Henry

Maryland Senate President James Clark, Jr. Speaker Benjamin L. Cardin

Mississippi Representative George Payne Cosser Senator Carroll Ingram

North Carolina Speaker Carl J. Stewart, Jr. President Pro Tem Craig Lawing

Oklahoma Senate President Pro Tem Gene C. Howard Speaker Daniel D. Draper, Jr.

Puerto Rico Senate President Luis A. Ferre Representative Jose Granados-Navedo

South Carolina Speaker Rex L. Carter President Pro Tem L. Marion Gressette

Tennessee Speaker Ned R. McWherter Lieutenant Governor John S. Wilder

Texas Speaker Bill Clayton Senator John Traeger

Virginia President Pro Tem Edward E. Willey Delegate J. W. O'Brien

West Virginia Senate President W. T. Brotherton, Jr. Delegate W. Marion Shiflet


SOUTHERN LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE—Continued


Agriculture and Rural Development Representative Donald Blandford, Kentucky

Consumer Protection Senator Perrin Purvis, Mississippi Criminal Justice Senator Thomas V. Miller, Jr., Maryland Energy Senate President Pro Tem Knox Nelson, Arkansas

Federal Preemption Senate President Michael H. O'Keefe, Louisiana

Environmental Quality and Natural Resources Delegate J. W. O'Brien, Jr., Virginia

Fiscal Affairs and Government Operations Representative T. W. Edwards, Jr.,

South Carolina

Human Resources and Urban Affairs Senator Clovis Bryant, Arkansas

Transportation Speaker Pro Tem C. M. Hancock, Kentucky

WESTERN CONFERENCE

Representative William Grannell, Oregon, Chairman Senator Keith Ashworth, Nevada, Chairman-Elect

Representative Gary Peterson, Utah, Vice President Senator Robert H. Ziegler, Sr., Alaska, Immediate Past Chairman

Alaska Senator Glenn Hackney Senator George Hohman Representative Joseph H. McKinnon

American Samoa Senator Maiavatele P. Hunkin Senator Tagaloa M. Tuiolosega

Arizona Senate President Leo Corbet Senator James Mack Representative Sam McConnell, Jr.

Colorado Senate President Fred E. Anderson Representative Bob Kirscht

Guam Senator Cecilia C. Bamba Speaker Thomas V. C. Tanaka

Hawaii Senator John Ushijima Idaho Representative Walter E. Little Senator James Risch Representative John Sessions

Montana Senator John Healy Representative Robert L. Marks Representative John Scully

Nevada Senator James I. Gibson Assemblyman Thomas J. Hickey Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen Speaker Paul W. May, Jr.

New Mexico Representative Leo D. Catanach Representative James A. Caudell Senator Alex G. Martinez

Oregon Representative Gretchen Kafoury Senator Jason Boe Speaker Hardy Myers Senator E. D. Potts

Utah Representative C. Demont Judd Speaker James V. Hansen Senate President Miles Ferry Senator Karl N. Snow, Jr.

Washington Senator Gordon Walgren Co-Speaker Duane Berentson Co-Speaker John A. Bagnariol

Wyoming Senator Milton E. Nichols Senator Donald L. Northrup Representative Russ Donley


Agriculture Assemblyman Thomas J. Hickey, Nevada Education and Social Services Senator Glenn Hackney, Alaska

Energy and Resources Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Nevada

Government Reform and Fiscal Affairs Senator Karl N. Snow, Jr., Utah

Judiciary Representative John Scully, Montana Transportation Representative John Sessions, Idaho


PROPOSALS OF THE COMMITTEE ON SUGGESTED STATE LEGISLATION

1979 Suggested State Legislation PROPOSALS ACCOMPANIED BY DRAFT LEGISLATION

. Tenant Security Deposit Act Home Insulation Loan Guarantee Act State Early Release and Work Furlough Act Building Energy Conservation Standards Act State Alternative Energy Tax Incentive Act Civilian Conservation Work Program Act Freshwater Wetlands Act State Employables Program Act State Parent Locator Act Community Development Finance Corporation Act Community Corrections Act Disabled Physician Act Medical Discipline Acts State Temporary Intergovernmental Assignment

Act—Amended

Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act State Environmental Policy Act Amendment State Identity Protection Act Model State Vital Statistics Act Interstate Weather Modification Compact Art in Public Places Act Regulation of Invention Development Services Act State Clean Indoor Air Act State Health Statistics Act State Health Manpower Pilot Projects Act Local Government Investment Pool Act State Health Services Cost Review Commission Act State Appropriation and Budgeting of Federal

Funds Act Local Government Impact Fiscal Notes Act

STATEMENTS WITHOUT ACCOMPANYING DRAFT LEGISLATION

State Energy Resources Act—Statement State Water Resources Legislation—Statement

1980 Suggested State Legislation

PROPOSALS ACCOMPANIED BY DRAFT LEGISLATION

State and Local Government Pooled Insurance Act

Intergovernmental Tax Cooperation Act Public Deposits and Investments of Idle

Funds Act Consolidated State-Administered Pension

System Act Public Pension Review Act Local Accounting, Auditing, and Financial

Reporting Act State Compensation to Local Governments for

State-Owned Property Act Nonpermanent Employees Act Contributions to Employee Social Security Act Housing and Neighborhood Conservation Act Endangered Species Act Solar Energy Systems Encouragement Act Solar Energy Development Commission Act

Private Lands and Public Recreation Act Oil Spill Compensation and Control Act Trails System Act Environmental Radiation Protection Act Tourist Information Act Health Insurance Continuation and

Conversion Act Comprehensive Heahh Insurance Act Dental Practice Act Home Care Services Act Uniform Brain Death Act Uniform Audio-Visual Deposition Act Juvenile Justice Act Food Stamp Fraud Disqualification Act Administrative Procedures Act—Food Stamp

Emergency Clause Litter and Recyling Act Purchases of Recycled Paper Act

STATEMENTS WITHOUT ACCOMPANYING DRAFT LEGISLATION

Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments—Statement

Model Sentencing and Corrections Act-Statement

SELECTED ORGANIZATIONS SERVING STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

Academy for Contemporary Problems, 1501 Neil Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43201. (614) 421-7700 Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, llll-20th Street, NW, Suite 2000, Washington, D.C.

20575. (202) 653-5640 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 444 North Capitol Street, Washington,

D.C. 20001. (202)624-5800 American Judicature Society, 200 West Monroe, Suite 1606, Chicago, Illinois 60606. (312) 236-0634 American Planning Association, 1313 East 60th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637. (312) 947-2560. American Public Health Association, 1015-18th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036. (202) 467-5000 American Public Welfare Association, 1155-16th Street, NW, Suite 201, Washington, D.C. 20036. (202) 833-

9250 American Public Works Association, 1313 East 60th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637. (312) 947-2520. American Society for Public Administration, 1225 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036. (202)

785-3255 Association of Government Accountants, 727 South 23rd Street, Suite 120, Arlington, Virginia 22202. (703)

684-6931 Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, 1015-18th Street, Ninth Floor, Washington, D.C. 20036.

(202) 789-1044. Building Officials and Code Administrators International, 17926 South Halsted Street, Homewood, Illinois

60430. (312) 799-2300 Committee on the Office of Attorney General, 3901 Barrett Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina 27609. (919) 781-

5060 Conference of Chief Justices, 300 Newport Avenue, Williamsburg, Virginia 23185. (804) 253-2000 Conference of State Court Administrators, 300 Newport Avenue, Williamsburg, Virginia 23185. (804) 253-2000 Council of State Community Affairs Agencies, 444 North Capitol Street, Washington, D.C. 20001. (202) 624-

5850 Council of State Governments, Iron Works Pike, P.O. Box 11910, l,exington, Kentucky 40578. (606) 252-2291 Council of State Planning Agencies, 444 North Capitol Street, Suite 291, Washington, D.C. 20001. (202) 624-

5386 Education Commission of the States, 300 Lincoln Tower Building, 1860 Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado

80295. (303) 861-4917. Federation of Tax Administrators, 444 North Capitol Street, Washington, D.C. 20001. (202) 624-5890 International Association of Chiefs of Police, 11 Firstfield Road, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20760. (301) 948-0922 International City Management Association, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036. (202)

293-2200 International Personnel Management Association, 1850 K Street, NW, Suite 870, Washington, D.C. 20036.

(202) 833-5860 Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies, 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 126, Washington,

D.C. 20001. (202)628-5588 Municipal Finance Officers Association of U.S. and Canada, 180 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois

60601. (312)977-9700 National Association for State Information Systems, Iron Works Pike, P.O. Box 11910, Lexington, Kentucky

40578. (606) 252-2291 National Association of Attorneys General, Iron Works Pike, P.O. Box 11910, Lexington, Kentucky 40578.

(606) 252-2291 National Association of Conservation Districts, 1025 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20005. (202)

347-5995 National Association of Counties, 1735 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036. (202) 785-9577

594


National Association of Insurance Commissioners, 633 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1015, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203. (414) 271-4464

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, 1102 ICC Building, P.O. Box 684, Washington, D.C. 20044. (202) 628-7324

National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers, and Treasurers, Iron Works Pike, P.O. Box 11910, Lexington, Kentucky 40578. (606) 252-2291

National Association of State Boards of Accounting, 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036. (212) 575-6246

National Association of State Boards of Education, 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 526, Washington, D.C. 20001. (202)624-5845

National Association of State Budget Officers, 444 North Capitol Street, Washington, D.C. 20001. (202) 624-5382 National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, 1616 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20006. (202)

628-1566 National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, 1001 Third Street, SW, Suite 114, Washington,

D.C. 20024. (202) 554-7807 National Association of State Purchasing Officials, Iron Works Pike, P.O. Box 11910, Lexington, Kentucky

40578. (606) 252-2291 National Association of Tax Administrators, 444 North Capitol Street, Washington, D.C. 20001. (202) 624-5890 National Center for State Courts, 300 Newport Avenue, Williamsburg, Virginia 23185. (804) 253-2000 National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 645 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois

60611. (312)321-9710 National Conference of Lieutenant Governors, Iron Works Pike, P.O. Box 11910, Lexington, Kentucky 40578.

(606) 252-2291 National Conference of State Legislatures, 1405 Curtis Street, 23rd Floor, Denver, Colorado 80202. (303) 623-

6600 National Council on Governmental Accounting, 180 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 800, Chicago, Illinois

60601. (312)977-9700 National Criminal Justice Association, 444 North Capitol Street, Suite 305, Washington, D.C. 20001. (202)

347-4900 National Governors' Association, 444 North Capitol Street, Washington, D.C. 20001. (202) 624-5300 National Intergovernmental Audit Forum, 441 G Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20548. (202) 275-5200 National League of Cities, 1620 Eye Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20006. (202) 293-7310 National Municipal League, 47 East 68th Street, New York, New York 10021. (212) 535-5700 State Auditor Coordinating Council, Iron Works Pike, P.O. Box 11910, Lexington, Kentucky 40578. (606)

252-2291 Urban Institute, 2100 M Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20037. (202) 233-1950 U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1620 Eye Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20006. (202) 293-7330

INTERSTATE COMPACTS AND AGREEMENTS: 1978-79 By Benjamin J. Jones*

THE INTERSTATE COMPACT—the most formal binding legal instrument possible between two or more American states—was recognized in the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 10). In fact, the use of interstate compacts actually predates the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. This constitutional endorsement of the compact device occurred in an environment in which compacts had been used by British North American colonies and by states under the Articles of Confederation as means of settling boundary disputes. Through agreement on a boundary compact, the jurisdictions involved could assure themselves that the agreement was binding on all parties for perpetuity. Although most of the early compacts were boundary compacts, occasional use was also made of compacts to implement agreements regarding bridges, canals, and navigation. Thus, the recognition of the legitimacy of the compact mechanism in the American Constitution was a natural result of the experiences of the states and the perceived need for that instrument.

The use of compacts by states was relatively infrequent until the twentieth century. This was true even though compacts generally worked well and were usually the only practical legal devices available to meet the problem at hand. From the first use of compacts until 1920, only 36 interstate compacts were entered into by states. Between 1920 and 1940, about 20 more compacts were adopted. The real value of the compact clause, however, has only become apparent in the years since World War II. With the coming of more activist government at all levels and with the problems during the post-war period, the use of compacts made a startling jump. Between 1941 and 1975, over 100 compacts were negotiated, and their scope of coverage dramatically broadened. Compacts directed at national problems and open to joinder by all states, and sometimes even the federal government, have been created.

Compacts among only a few states no longer deal with just boundaries or other areas where the agreement is, in effect, self-implementing. Rather, compacts often establish interstate agencies with varying degrees of legal authority, and deal with such problems as education, criminal justice, transportation, and the environment. Although the last five years have seen a significant decline in the number of new compacts being entered into, the device remains a powerful tool for the states to respond to new problems in innovative ways within the context of the federal system.

Legal Context Interstate compacts are a unique type of legal document. They possess not only the legal

characteristics of a contract, such as those entered into by individuals or corporations, but they are also of a constitutional stature and are governed by a substantial body of federal constitutional law. This dual nature of the compact instrument has accounted for occa-

*Mr. Jones is Secretary, Committee on Suggested State Legislation, and an attorney researcher for the Council of State Governments.

596


sional confusion surrounding its use and purposes. It also accounts for the unique value of compacts as a solution to specific problems.

As a contract, interstate compacts are binding on the signatories in the same manner and with the same liinits as any other contract. This means that the very substantial law of contract pertaining to offer, acceptance, consideration, termination, etc., is largely applicable to the creation and operation of compacts.

The constitutional dimension of compacts similarly has applicable to it a large body of law stemming from the U.S. Constitution. Section 10, Article 1, of the Constitution, which serves as the basis for compacts, is actually phrased negatively. It provides that "No State shall, without the consent of Congress . . . enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power." This requirement of congressional consent for every interstate compact was interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to mean something slightly different from the exact meaning of the words.

In Virginia v. Tennessee [148 U.S. 503 (1893)], the Supreme Court held that although congressional consent was always necessary, that consent may validly be given by implication as well as by express action. At issue was a border compact which Congress had tacitly recognized in the setting up of federal judicial districts and other miscellaneous legislation. The Court established a twofold test to determine which compacts needed the express consent of Congress and which might assume that the absence of denial of consent was tacit approval. The Court said that specific approval was necessary where the compact being considered either "affected a power delegated to the national government" or when it affected "the political balance" of the federal system. Congressional satisfaction with this test given by the Supreme Court may be implied from the fact that on several occasions Congress has declined to give its consent to a compact submitted to it on the grounds that no specific consent was necessary under the constitutional test. Of course, even with those compacts which do not need specific congressional consent under Virginia V. Tennessee, Congress can always actively deny its consent to any compact, thus rendering the compact null and void.

Athough Virginia v. Tennessee clearly stands as the most important legal decision relating to interstate compacts, other important legal precedents have also developed. Subsequent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have established the nature of a compact as a contract, the rules for the judicial construction of compact texts, the binding nature of compact terms on signatory states, and the extent to which state poHce and other major governmental powers may be delegated to an interstate agency established by compact. In addition, the legal environment of compacts includes congressional debates and committee deliberations, and the legislative history of the compact, consisting of the minutes and other recorded deliberations of the various interstate bodies which have been involved in the formulation of compacts. Since congressional consent, either implicit or explicit, is so important to compact creation, the policies and administrative rules of federal agencies also constitute a significant part of the legal environment of compacts.

Specific Developments As the accompanying graph indicates, the pace of the creation of new compacts among

the states has clearly slowed since the beginning of the 1970s. This has greatly reduced the total number of new compacts placed into effect or even proposed during 1978 and 1979. Among those which were begun during 1978-79 is a new bilateral flood control compact regarding the Red River of the North, which is in the negotiation stages between the


governors of Minnesota and North Dakota. This compact, if ratified, will provide for cooperative efforts between the two states to prevent and control river flooding and to act cooperatively to manage disaster assistance should such flooding occur.

Another new compact, which was the subject of considerable discussion during 1978-79, also revolves around the use and control of waterways. The proposed Tri-Rivers Waterway Compact among Alabama, Florida, and Georgia has been quite a controversial proposal and is thus far still only in the idea stage. This suggested compact would establish a Tri-Riyers Commission to make the Apalachicola River navigable for barge traffic all the way through the Florida panhandle to the Gulf of Mexico. This, it is suggested, would open up a wide area of the three states to commercial river traffic where such traffic is currently impossible. Environmentalists have raised significant doubts about the project, which has also been criticized from an economic standpoint as being both basically nonprofitable and inequitable in the manner in which the three states involved would realize the benefits that would occur.

A third river compact proposed during 1978-79 involves South Dakota and Wyoming. Negotiations are presently under way between those two states regarding construction of an aqueduct by means of an interstate compact agency. The purpose would be to allocate Missouri River water and transfer some of that water for use in Wyoming.

A fourth and final river compact to surface during 1978-79 was the Red River Compact (of the south), which has just been implemented. Congress, in 1955, granted consent to Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas to negotiate a compact providing for an

GROWTH OF INTERSTATE COMPACTS 1783-1979

1783-1900

1901-1920

1921 1930

1931-1940

1941-1950

1951 1960

1961-1970

1971-1979


equitable apportionment among them of the waters of the Red River and its tributaries. Final effectiveness was simply made contingent upon the acceptance by the party states of the same compact terms. During 1978-79, three of the four states simultaneously enacted the compact with the same terms. As a result, the Red River Compact is now in effect among those three states, with Texas able to later join if it so desires.

Finally, an entirely new compact arose during 1978-79—the proposed Midwestern Grain Marketing Compact. Midwestern legislators and executive officials, with significant involvement of committees of the Midwestern Conference of the Council of State Governments, considered the advisability of midwestern states jointly studying and recommending action regarding grain marketing activities in those states under a compact. Deliberations directed toward such a compact are still under way. More common than the creation of entirely new compacts during 1978-79 was the ratification by new member states of existing interstate compacts and the alteration of existing agreements. Among membership changes in existing compacts during the last two years is the ratification of the Interstate Mining Compact by Ohio, joinder of the Multistate Highway Transportation agreement by California, adoption of the Pest Control Compact by Vermont, ratification of the Southern Growth Policies Compact by Oklahoma, and new membership in the Compact for Education by American Samoa.

Major alterations in existing compacts during 1978-79 included activities in the areas of energy, fire control, and criminal justice. In the energy area, a broad-based effort is now under way to change the Southern Interstate Nuclear Compact (which established the Southern Interstate Nuclear Board) to a similar entity to make policy recommendations to the states across the broad range of energy issues and not just for nuclear power. Accordingly, the Southern Conference of the Council of State Governments has taken a significant role in actions looking toward the changing of the Southern Interstate Nuclear Compact into the Southern Interstate Energy Compact, and changing the interstate agency established by the compact from the Southern Interstate Nuclear Board to the Southern Interstate Energy Board. Another stated purpose of these changes is to broaden the participation of state legislators in the compact agencies' activities, particularly in the formulation of energy policy recommendations.

Possible alteration of existing interstate fire control compacts was also a topic of discussion in the south during 1978-79. The purpose of these compacts is to promote mutual aid among the states in forest fire control, including the sharing of both equipment and personnel on a regional basis. A resolution passed in 1978 by the Southeastern States Forest Fire Compact Commission (which was established by the Southeastern Forest Fire Protection Compact) directed that a study be made of the advantages of merger between that compact and the Middle Atlantic Forest Fire Protection Compact. A major idea behind such a merger was that the original impetus for regional fire protection compacts—mutual aid—could be even better served if more states were under the same compact. Such a merger would require that all member states enact identical language of a new compact or that one of the previous compacts be redrafted and ratified by all participating states.

A final area where significant alterations in existing agreements are under discussion involves a national compact—the Agreement on Detainers. This is a national agreement in the sense that it is open to joinder by all states and the federal government. Almost all eligible jurisdictions have now joined this compact, including, as a full-fledged member, the federal government. The agreement facilitates expeditious and orderly disposition of criminal charges from another state pending against an individual who is already a


prisoner of a party state. It helps to determine the prisoner's status by disposing of any such detainers based upon untried indictments or complaints. Several problems with the compact have surfaced over the last decade, even though, on balance, it has been a clear success. These problems involve the relationship of the agreement to new constitutional requirements for a speedy trial and the relationship between the detainers agreement and the extradition process. Accordingly, the Council of State Governments' Governing Board established a special committee to examine possible revisions of the agreement. The committee is awaiting completion of work by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) on a new Uniform Extradition Act before making recommendations and publishing proposed revisions to the Agreement on Detainers if they are necessary. NCCUSL expects to decide whether to endorse the new Uniform Extradition Act at its annual meeting to be held in mid-1980.

Council Activities As it has for several decades, the Council of State Governments is ready to assist states

in the creation and operation of interstate agreements. In addition, the Council remains committed to maintenance of information files on compacts and continues to issue new publications on the subject and revise those of continuing interest. The list of selected references indicates the range of Council publications available on the subject.

As in the past, the Committee on Suggested State Legislation of the Council of State Governments continues to review proposed new compacts for publication in its annual Suggested State Legislation, and also often uses that publication to disseminate information to states on proposed alterations in existing compacts and general background on the status of many of the more important agreements. Those individuals interested in additional information or assistance are welcome to contact the Council directly.

Selected References The following are selected publications of the Council of State Governments on interstate compacts. Interstate Compacts and Agencies (1979 Edition). 1979. The Interstate Placement of Children: A Preliminary Report. 1978. The Handbook on Interstate Crime Control (1978 Edition). 1978. The Law and Use of Interstate Compacts. 1976.


PARTICIPATION IN SELECTED INTERSTATE COMPACTS AND AGREEMENTS*

I li

« I

State or other jurisdiction

M II ^•e 5

Alabama.. Alaska.. . . Arizona... Arkansas . California.

Colorado . . . Connecticut . Delaware . . . Florida Georgia

Hawaii . Idaho .. Illinois.. Indiana . Iowa . . .

Kansas . . , Kentucky . Louisiana Maine . . . , Maryland

Massachusetts , Michigan Minnesota . . , . Mississippi,... Missouri

Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey

New Mexico . . New York North Carolina North Dakota . Ohio

Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania . . Rhode Island.. South Carolina

South Dakota . Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont

Virginia Washington . . West Virginia. Wisconsin.... Wyoming . . . .

Dist. of Col American Samoa Guam Puerio Rico Virgin Islands . . . U.S.

government . . .

* *

'This is only a partial listing of the 176 compacts and agreements listed in the Council of State Governments' Interstate Compacts and Agencies (1979 edition).


PARTICIPATION IN SELECTED INTERSTATE COMPACTS AND AGREEMENTS—Continued*

B- -S

^ ;:

5 -

Slate or other jurisdiction

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California

Colorado! Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia

Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa

Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland

Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri

Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire . . . New Jersey

New Mexico New York North Carolina . . . . North Dakota Ohio

Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina . . . .

South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont

Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Dist. of Col American Samoa . . Guam Puerto Rico Virgin Islands U.S.

government

11 .3

^ -s M! 11 II 5 ^


PARTICIPATION IN SELECTED INTERSTATE COMPACTS AND AGREEMENTS-Concluded*

s i

« J

Stale or other Jurisdiction

•S-S-

to

i I i Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California

Colorado * Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia





New Mexico * New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio

Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina

South Dakota Tennessee Texas * Utah Vermont

Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Dist. ofCol American Samoa .. Guam Puerto Rico Virgin Islands U.S.

government

•

*

*

*

*

*

• •

*

•

*

•

•

•

•

•

*

•

*

•

*

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

* *

• •

*

• •

*

*

*

• •

•

*

*

*

•

* •

* •

•

-*

•

•

• •

•

•

•

*

*

*

*

*

* • * . .

*

•

* • *

* *

*

• *

• • •

•

*

* •

* •

• *

* * •

*

*

*

*

*

*

* *

*

* . •

* •

*. * •

* * * * * •

* * * * * * *

* •

* * * * * • •

* * • •

•

* * •

* •

* * * *

*

*

*

•

* * *

*

*

* *

* *

*

*

*

*

*

,

•

•

*

2. Intergovernmental Relations

SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS IN FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS

By Jane F. Roberts*

THE ADVISORY COMMISSION on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR), in its annual report on the state of the federal system issued in early 1979, focused on the Proposition 13 tax revolt in California and on the repercussions which were felt throughout the country and the national government. One year later, as the 1970s drew to a close, the after shocks—together with double-digit inflation, the threat of a recession, skyrocketing energy costs, and unrest on the international scene—continued to affect domestic policies and programs at all levels of the intergovernmental system.

One of the most significant developments in the systeni during the past year was the slowdown of federal assistance flowing to state and local governments. It came not as much as an attempt to scrutinize specific federal aid programs, but rather as a direct response to help curb inflation and reduce the federal deficit.

According to ACIR computations, the 1979 federal aid increase of $4.2 billion over the 1978 amount, and the budgeted increase of almost $1 billion for fiscal 1980, reflect the "slowest rate of growth for federal aid in recent history, with a rate of increase just under one percent." Additionally, despite a small percentage increase, ACIR assessment of the federal aid picture found that "in 'real' terms (constant 1972 dollars), this represents an actual decline of $3 billion between 1979 and 1980." Federal assistance as a percentage of state and local expenditures also peaked at 26.7 percent in 1978, and is expected to decline further to a level of 25.4 percent for 1979 and to 23.6 percent for 1980.

The decline in federal aid will have a number of important consequences for state and local governments. The slowdown represents a reversal of an expansionist trend that has existed for some time. Should this downward trend continue (and there is every indication that it will in view of the uncertain state of the economy), state and local jurisdictions will have to reassess their own fiscal and functional positions. Specifically, they will have to face the alternatives of reducing services or replacing lost federal dollars with other revenues—i.e., new taxes, fees, and the like. This reassessment, ironically, comes at a time when citizens increasingly are voicing their concerns about government accountability through the imposition of tax and expenditure limitations. States particularly will be affected during this period, as calls for the states to take up the slack come from both the federal and local levels, and while the voters continue to register their opposition to increased taxes and fees.

GRS and Fiscal Aid

The current trends in federal aid also could have a major impact on the future of general revenue sharing (GRS). While the current authorization does not expire until Sep-

*Ms. Roberts is State-Local Relations Associate, U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmeritar Relations.

604

INTERGO VERNMENTAL RELA TIONS 605

tember 1980, the renewal debate already has begun, with options ranging from increases in funding levels to help offset inflation, to elimination, major cutbacks, or adjustments in formula allocations.

One of the key issues in the renewal debate concerns the state share that accounts for one third of the funds. The initial salvos were fired during the fiscal 1980 budget review. Congress was presented several proposals to eliminate or sharply curtail the state share. Thus far, these challenges to GRS have failed.

While the administration has not as yet announced its proposal for GRS renewal, there is every reason to believe that at least some changes in the state portion of the program and perhaps some adjustments in the allocation formulas to enhance targeting will be offered. Pubhc interest groups representing state and local governments have pledged to work together for the reenactment of the GRS program in substantially its present form.

Another major fiscal assistance program also faced a difficult road in Congress—a revised antirecession assistance proposal. Under the administration's revised and targeted plan, fiscal relief would be provided only to local governments with unemployment rates which equal or exceed 6.5 percent. A second part of the proposal would provide a standby program of aid to state and local units that would be triggered when the seasonally adjusted national unemployment rate equaled or exceeded 6.5 percent for a quarter. The proposal has encountered formidable opposition in Congress, and final votes have been postponed until early 1980.

Oversight Theme

As the 96th Congress convened, members and observers aUke predicted that 1979 would be the year of "the oversight Congress." Although Congress did not complete action on any major Oversight initiative, some progress was evident in such areas as grant and regulatory reform and sunset legislation.

For example, two omnibus grant reform measures received considerable attention in the Senate—the Federal Assistance Reform Act and the Federal Assistance Reform and Small Community Act. Both measures are designed to simplify and reduce the cost of the grant process and would mandate uniformity in certain "crosscutting"national require= ments. In addition, both proposals include provisions for the consolidation Of grants iii the same functional area, advanced appropriations, and a strengthened joint funding process. Action by the full Senate and committee hearings in the House are expected early in 1980.

On the regulatory reform front, several measures^including the administration's Regulatory Reform Act of 1979—also were the subject of congressional review. The measures provide for various approaches to control and assess the cost of proposed regulations and to periodically review existing rules. Hearings in both houses are expected to resume in 1980.

Sunset legislation advanced in both houses, although substantial changes (which some observers would characterize as major compromises) were made as the proposals proceeded through committee. Under the revised approaches, reviews would be undertaken only for a handful of preselected programs up for renewal, with the relevant oversight committees having a major voice in the preselection process. The automatic termination provision—viewed as the heart of sunset—was dropped in both houses. As with grant and regulatory reform efforts, sunset legislation is expected to be on the congressional agenda again in early 1980.


Program Actions

While 1979 was not expected to be a banner year for urban and other program initiatives, several key issues were addressed. For example, urban development action grants were strengthened substantially and expanded from $400 million to $675 miUion for fiscal 1980. Action also was completed on the restructuring of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration program, including an increase in funding for state and local programs. A new Department of Education was established, and a reauthorization of the Economic Development Administration was implemented that included both increased funding and an expansion of its business development activities. However, other major initiatives—such as welfare reform, hospital cost containment, and energy program components—either were defeated or deferred.

Domestic Summit

By mid-1979, the Carter administration was seeking ways in which to bolster its domestic policies and to help offset criticisms of its management of government. What evolved was a series of personal sessions between the president, his advisors, and a broad range of public figures and private citizens. This "domestic summit" was the subject of much attention, and the outcomes were judged to have had mixed results at best. Of particular note, however, were the president's decisions to undertake a wholesale reshuffling of his cabinet (including the outright dismissal of three department secretaries) and a realignment of his key senior White House staff.

The president also established an independent, nonpartisan Commission for a National Agenda for the Eighties. The l(X)-member panel is to focus on the longer-term view of priority issues for the coming decade, and to consult with a broad range of interest groups from throughout the country—including state and local officials—before it presents its report in December 1980.

Sagebrush Rebellion

One very important area of federal-state relations originated in the states in early 1979—the land ownership policy of the federal government. The issue is of particular significance in the west, where nearly 5(X) million acres of land are affected. For example, the federal government owns about 26 percent of the District of Columbia and no more than about 12 percent of the land in any other state outside of the west. In eight western states, however, federal landowner ship ranges from 43 percent in Arizona to 96 percent in Alaska.

In Nevada, where the federal government claims about 87 percent of the land (about 50 million acres), the "sagebrush rebellion" originated when state legislation was enacted to regain ownership of the lands. At issue are not only open areas—much of them covered by sagebrush—but some highly valuable property as well. For example, there are about 60,(XX) acres claimed by the federal government in Las Vegas, including some parcels valued in the $10,000-per-acre range along the famous Las Vegas Strip. Excluded from the state takeover measure are Indian, reclamation, and military lands. As a result of its action, Nevada is expected to take the lead in instituting a lawsuit against the federal government that no doubt will be supported by other states.

The very complicated case is based on the "equal footing doctrine" established in the nineteenth century when the U.S. Supreme Court decided that Alabama was entitled to

INTERGO VERNMENTAL RELA TIONS 607

public lands within its boundaries at the time of its admission as a state. The Court found that Alabama should be admitted "on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatsoever," and has reaffirmed this doctrine on many occasions.

However, in 1864, and in response to the Court's ruHng, Congress conditioned Nevada's admission on the territorial legislature's renouncing all claims on public lands. Many Nevadans have regarded this condition as being unconstitutional since that time, but a legal challenge has been impossible because the federal government invoked its sovereign immunity power to prevent litigation. In 1976, Congress also passed a federal lands policy act that permits the federal government to retain public lands in perpetuity.

The key issue now is whether this unprecedented challenge to federal landownership by Nevada will be accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court. If it is, the outcome could have enormous and long-term consequences for state-federal relations.


TOTAL FEDERAL AID TO STATES: FISCAL 1974 TO 1978* (In thousands of dollars)

State or other jurisdiction 1974 1975

Total S46,040,381(c)

Alabama 829,475 Alaska 234,207 Arizona 426,956 Arkansas 470,181 Callfomta 4,665,989

Colorado 503,328 Connecticut 669,431 Deteware 119,155 Florida 1,160,863 Georgia 1,123,869

Hawaii 245,308 Idaho 187,252 Illinois 2,265,065 Indiana 710,720 Iowa 450,754

Kansas 385,468 Kentucky 826,290 Louisiana 946,504 Maine 277,862 MaryUnd 750,187

Massachusetts 1,311,763 Michigan 1,816,207 Minnesota 871,023 Mississippi 685,910 Missouri 852,859

Montana 212,860 Nebraska 271,810 Nevada 126,951 New Hampshire 149,617 New Jersey 1,316,469

New Mexico 337,182 New York 5,221,037 North Carolina 975,396 North Dakota 152,208 Ohio 1,760,225

Oklahoma 597,776 Oregon 557,718 Pennsylvania 2,390,490 Rhode Island 248,846 South Carolbia 559,268

South Dakota 210,032 Tennessee 851,141 Texas 2,128,082 Utah 275,247 Vermont 150,773

Virgtaia 890,559 Washington 792,930 WestVirgbiia 581,623 Wisconsin 817,868 Wyoming 119,426

Dist. ofCol 610,012 Puerto Rico 543,431 Virgbi Islands 97,894 Other (d) 109,210 Adjustments or undis

tributed to states.. . 197,675 200,340

1976(a) T.Q.(b) 1977 1978

$49,723,153

820,235 260,457 462,604 511,273

4,930,433

601,832 672,844 120,216

1,318,518 1,179,061

246,778 211,639

2,226,480 805,790 555,820

445,087 837,128 881,429 292,288 965,565

1,456,161 2,113,454 900,213 637,967 908,771

230,604 338,244 139,056 171,345

1,501,252

399,300 5,682,478 1,049,787 170,856

1,788,060

654,808 659,597

2,697,909 248,917 574,740

213,232 910,734

2,200,105 294,104 154,252

1,004,305 798,108 551,472 919,714 132,289

722,529 630,007 195,093 127,879

$59,107,874

992,934 318,553 530,309 613,667

5,802,854

672,597 723,950 160,607

1,527,688 1,421,097

306,796 252,922

2,808,813 980,936 675,156

517.562 1,016,934 1,135,430 375,411

1,113,997

1,824,023 2,600,513 1,106,679 781,581

1,040,933

283,675 401,112 186,415 218,844

1,863,012

424,224 6,420,639 1,275,045 202,889

2,136,835

685,252 795,966

3.125,214 311,018 697.729

227.668 1.082,446 2,603.572 361,514 176,110

1,179,357 984,220 653,934

1,204,165 166,657

749,043 812,955 218,680 163,389

$16,443,830

303,462 89.305 136,720 152.225

1.448.326

206,957 192.889 51.893

426.110 342,370

82.267 71.637

777.293 284,439 183,964

123,481 274,463 332,463 88,850

319,042

473,189 680.219 325,347 205,146 316,406

79,763 125,173 48,985 57,986

522,298

102,655 1,827,843 341,991 65,439

616,141

257,361 241,514 870,144 92.442 174,493

62.775 294,002 647,169 100,132 61,836

304,747 258,177 176,918 326.427 61.532

265,795 182,662 12,458 63,323

$68,436,840

1,120,519 382,004 648,435

638,779,074 6,813,730

714,543 894,981 187,302

1,988,414 1,861,105

400,144 287,675

3,202,188 1,095,093 714,420

548,524 1,018,066 1,237,128 411,510

1,244,922

2,079,940 2,915,254 1.224.464 800.688

1,142,323

347,632 367.820 206,027 233,703

2,199,862

449,345 7,446,787 1,511,942 224,401

2,510,305

782,019 836,132

3,628,059 357,546 802,540

240,454 1,188,617 2,885,381 387,837 222,501

1,311,454 1.118.893 631.233

1.493,308 185,644

942,136 939,008 235.033 179,576

$77,900,903

1,240,569 408,211 763,318

8,012,965

825,855 1,052,697 225,033

2,364,186 2,036,993

413,391 336,315

3,467,151 1,259,679 796,893

615,820 1,133,308 1,358,360 470,379

1,318,423

2,581,488 3,280,231 1,350,915 915.855

1,278,467

397,300 458,783 268,909 289,298

2,552,215

608,411 8,372,465 1,655,955 259,138

2,904,685

937,180 1.075.400 3.912.086 388,000 903,414

288,446 1,330,860 3,295,287 434,261 240.659

1,468,126 1,311,062 707,622

1,607,427 235,707

1,105,199 1,156,550 237,699 269,315

194,328 313,167 999,483 943,862

'Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Federal Aid to States, Fiscal Year 1978.

(a) Revised. (b) Transition quarter, July 1 through September 30, 1976.

(c) Includes payments to individuals under the food stamp program, later reclassifled as nongrants.

(d) Includes American Samoa. Guam, and Trust Territory.

GENERAL REVENUE SHARING By Kent A. Peterson*

THE GENERAL REVENUE SHARING program was first enacted with the passage of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-512). The program was reauthorized under the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Amendments of 1976 (P.L. 94-488). The revenue sharing program provides for the distribution of approximately $55 billion to more than 39,000 units of state and local government over a period of eight years and nine months. The current act, as amended, will expire in September 1980.

General revenue sharing is an "entitlement" program. No application by governments is necessary in order to receive funds. Funds are distributed to all eligible general-purpose governments. Special-purpose districts, such as school districts, special utility districts, and library districts, are not considered as eligible governments. To be eligible, general-purpose governments must certify that general revenue sharing funds will be spent in accordance with the law.

Payments to eligible units of government are made quarterly, based upon each unit's allocation for an entitlement period. Payments made since the beginning of the program are summarized in the tables following this article.

The entitlement periods and the total appropriations to be distributed are as follows:

Entitlement

period Start 1 .. 2 .. 3 .. 4 . . 5 .. 6 .. 7 .. 8 . . 9 ..

10 .. 11 ..

. Jan. 1972

. July 1972

. Jan. 1973

. July 1973

. July 1974

. July 1975

. July 1976

. Jan. 1977

. Oct. 1977

. Oct. 1978

. Oct. 1979

End June 1972 Dec. 1972 June 1973 June 1974 June 1975 June 1976 Dec. 1976 Sept. 1977 Sept. 1978 Sept. 1979 Sept. 1980

Duration

6 mos. 6 mos. 6 mos. 1 year 1 year 1 year 6 mos. 9 mos. 1 year 1 year 1 year

Amount $2,650,000,000 2,650,000,000 2,987,500,000 6,050,000,000 6,200,000,000 6,350,000,000 3,325,000,000 4,987,500,000 6,850,000,000 6,850,000,000 Not available

Under the revenue sharing program, one third of the total appropriations is reserved for the states, with the remaining two thirds distributed to local governments—counties, municipalities, townships, Indian tribes, and Alaskan native villages.

The amounts to be distributed to each unit of government are determined by applying a (Continued on page 614.)

*Mr. Peterson is Acting Deputy Director, Office of Revenue Sharing, U.S. Department of the Treasury.

609

GENERAL REVENUE SHARING PAYMENTS TO STATE GOVERNMENTS, BY STATE, BY ENTITLEMENT PERIOD*

(In thousands of dollars)

Stale or other jurisdiction

Total


Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia




1/72-6/72 7/72-12/72 1/73-6/73 7/73-6/74 7/74-6/75 7/75-6/76 7/76-12/76 1/77-9/77 10/ 77-9/ 78 10/ 78-9/ 79 (a) Total

o\

$890,501.3

14,946.1 1,093.3 8,287.1 9,710.4

92,443.6

8,995.7 11,091.5 3,147.5

24,206.7 18,092.3

3,910.8 3,512.1

45,211.4 18,775.5 12,457.8

8,653.8 17,187.1 20,410.0 5,122.6

17,671.8

27,243.6 37,033.2 17,560.6 14,746.8 16,216.9

$857,250.4 $1,018,315.3 $2,043,316.7 $2,082,386.5 $2,136,712.5 $1,120,153.1 $1,686,565.0 $2,292,797.8 $2,299,920.4 $16,427,919.0

14,342.2 1,049.1 7,952.3 9,341.4

88,708.5

8,632.2 10,643.4 3,108.1

23,228.6 17,361.3

3,752.8 3,370.2

43,384.7 18,016.9 11,954.4

8,304.1 17,723.9 19,885.9 4,915.6

16,957.8

26,142.9 35,536.9 16,851.1 14,333.8 15,562.9

16,906.6 1,297.0

10,084.7 11,590.8

107,362.9

10,463.9 12,438.7 3,661.8

28,734.4 20,637.1

4,402.6 4,130.0

50,755.0 21,206.1 14,098.6

9,634.5 20,157.3 23,699.4

5,883.0 19,612.4

31,562.4 42,239.5 19,419.1 17,113.7 18,581.6

34,058.0 2,609.0

20,312.6 21,844.0

216,338.8

21,076.5 25,051.9 6,490.1

57,803.0 41,565.5

8,854.4 8,318.7

102,270.5 42,713.4 28,397.4

19,405.8 37,913.7 46,835.7 12,211.3 39,521.7

63,604.4 85,115.7 39,113.8 35,687.9 37,293.9

34,254.4 2,734.1

20,992.0 22,357.5

215,871.0

21,817.9 26,564.2

6,518.0 63,901.0 43,744.8

8,896.2 7,901.7

103,580.1 42,436.7 28,221.2

18,766.2 35,699.9 46,418.3 12,617.4 40,102.8

64,879.8 87,151.1 40,891.9 33,685.9 39,211.4

33,857.0 3,065.8

21,347.8 22,208.6

219,557.2

22,929.6 28,486.8 6,810.1

65,439.2 43,940.1

9,240.1 8,163.7

107,471.3 42,891.5 28,023.6

19,435.8 36,780.9 45,657.6 13,325.6 42,033.5

68,847.8 88,577.2 44,334.8 31,354.3 40,719.8

17,888.2 2,055.2

10,566.8 11,856.7

118,658.2

12,319.5 14,112.6 3,536.1

33,350.3 23,389.8

5,031.1 4,035.3

56,998.6 23,492.3 13,669.5

9,926.2 18,856.4 24,436.2 6,787.6

22,233.3

35,042.3 45,663.0 22,297.7 17,073.5 20,930.8

27,014.0 3,604.1

16,305.8 17,775.2

178,330.2

18,449.5 21,277.7

5,294.3 51,623.9 36,615.5

8,252.9 6,391.2

85,517.8 35,636.2 20,434.8

15,077.8 28,459.0 33,595.5 10,376.8 33,417.4

52,901.6 68,510.4 33,647.7 25,514.2 31,465.3

36,861.4 6,038.3

24,549.5 22,012.6

252,924.6

25,054.6 28,265.8

7,075.6 67,217.2 48,543.9

11,286.4 7,939.3

115,494.6 48,483.9 26,592.7

19,622.7 38,594.3 46,863.6 13,707.5 45,325,9

74,000.4 93,766.3 45,326.4 33,108.7 43,087.9

36,043.7 7,876.7

26,654.6 22,329.5

259,766.2

25,244.4 28,833.3

7,079.8 68,386.0 50,710.2

11,172.1 8,535.8

114,067.4 45,938.0 27,588.8

20,008.6 36,758.0 44,354.9 15,639.2 45,687.3

72,459.2 96,107.3 45,741.7 33,707.6 42,818.5

266,171.6 31,422.6

167,053.2 171,026.7

1,749,961.2

174,983.8 206,765.9 52,721.4

483,890.3 343,600.5

74,799.4 62,298.0

824,751.4 339,590.5 211,438.8

148,835.5 288,130.5 352,157.1 100,586.6 322,563.9

516,684.4 679,700.6 325,184.9 256,326.4 305,889.0

Montana 3,381-9 3,245.3 3,883.5 Nebraska 6,413.6 6,154.5 7,303.2 Nevada 1,890.0 1,823.2 2,202.0 New Hampshire . . . . 2.737.4 2,626.8 3,173.1 New Jersey 27,496.3 26,385.4 31,111.4

New Mexico 5,680.9 5,451.4 6,657.0 New York 97,177.1 93,250.8 110,652.2 North Carolina 22,442.1 21,535.4 25,524.6 North Dakota 3,659.2 3,511.3 4,151.7 Ohio 35,300.4 33,874.1 39,291.4

Oklahoma 9,723.6 9,330.7 11,098.3 Oregon 8,747.8 8,394.3 9,740.0 Pennsylvania 45,862.5 44,009.5 51,894.4 Rhode Island 3,986.7 3,825.6 4,488.2 South Carolina 12,165.3 11,777.4 14,323.6

ON South Dakota 3,981.4 3,823.0 4,498.6 H- Tennessee 16,310.7 15,651.7 18.573.7 ^ Texas 40,958.3 39,303.4 47,447.2

Utah 5,047.7 4,843.7 5,961.8 Vermont 2,428.9 2,330.7 2,803.4

Virginia 17,546.1 16,837.1 19,531.5 Washington 12,864.7 12,344.9 14,399.1 West Virginia 11,503.6 11,288.9 13,617.6 Wisconsin 21,987.5 21,099.2 24,949.2 Wyoming 1.644.9 1,578.4 1,893.4

Dist. ofCol 11,834.5 11,892.7 13,472.1

'Source: Office of Revenue Sharing, U.S. Department of the Treasury, (a) Projected payments.

7,822.2 14,710.1 4,436.4 6,391.3

62,683.4

13,104.6 222,936.7

51,411.7 8,362.3

79,165.8

22,354.2 19,628.2

104,568.6 9,043.5

27,756.6

9,061.0 37,411.2 95,175.0 11,983.1 5,643.2

39.357.6 29,002.7 25,683.3 50,252.6 3,813.6

8,421.4 13,761.6 4,483.6 6,690.9

64,410.1

13.085.6 229,902.3

52,301.4 6.935.6

82.154.7

23.248.5 20.597.7

108,542.1 9,047.4

28,639.7

8,507.7 39,670.4 98,081.5 12,005.1 5,798.6

40,667.6 28,918.4 25,810.2 51,387.3

3,557.3

7,799.4 14,128.2 4,890.9 6,662.7

66,292.8

13,402.5 239,924.2 51,465.2

6,474.0 86.389.3

23,151.7 22,224.8

112,616.2 9,164.9

29,592.3

8,384.6 39,384.6

101,911.5 12,488.0 6,188.7

42,629.9 30,858.8 22,400.6 53,667.8

3,341.9

4,104.5 6,992.1 2,780.5 3,708.4

34,902.1

7,305.2 125,188.9 27,815.2

3.139.8 44.798.6

12.111.8 11.965.6 58.589.3 4.773.7

15.425.2

3,533.3 20,756.7 55,013.0 6,249.2 2,940.0

22,468.2 16,927.3 11,857.6 26,833.9

1,808.2

6,133.0 10,546.2 4,046.4 5,372.3

52,378.3

11,162.8 188,245.4 41,547.3

4,203.7 67,388.8

18,636.7 18,059.6 87,850.3

7,180.6 23,538.4

5,438.6 30,933.1 84,171.8

9,346.3 4,949.5

33,824.5 24,887.6 17,799.7 40,737.6

2,700.0

7,889.2 13,837.8 5,685.7 7,619.8

71,669.4

16,010.8 256,695.8

55,635.2 5,050.4

91,471.5

26,121.2 24,765.9

115,017.2 9,949.4

30,071.4

6,863.4 40,891.7

114,038.0 12,960.9 6,952.6

46.506.7 33,500.0 26,203.8 52,779.5 4,057.9

8,659.1 14,246.5 5,668.1 7,790.4

75,533.7

14,102.1 256,038.4 56,816.3 6,086.0

93,071.2

23,698.8 25,306.0

110,909.7 9,719.7

30,729.0

7,676.8 42,549.5

111,376.6 13,925.5 6,761.2

47,428.5 31,506.1 21,187.8 53,291.3 4,242.3

61,339.5 108,093.8 37,906.8 52,773.1

512.862.9

105.963.1 1.820.011.8

406,494.4 51,574.0

652,905.8

179,475.5 169,429.9 839,859.8

71,179.7 224,018.9

61,768.4 302,133.3 787,476.3

94,811.2 46,796.8

326,797.7 235,209.5 187,353.1 396,985.9

28,637.9

27,150.1 26,777.3 13,957.6 20,997.6 28,808.5 28,091.0 209,525.7

GENERAL REVENUE SHARING PAYMENTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, BY STATE, BY ENTITLEMENT PERIOD*

(In thousands of dollars)

State

Total


Colorado Connecticut . . . . Delaware Florida Georgia



Massachusetts . . Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri

1172-6172 7172-12172 1173-6173 7173-6174 7174-6175 7175-6176 7176-12176 1177-9177 10177-9178 10178-9179(a)

OS

$1,726,698.1

29,851.3 1,880.2

15,639.3 17,242.5

184,713.0

17,944.2 22,180.0 4,791.9

48,395.9 36,140.4

7,821.6 6,963.7

89,970.8 37,393.6 24,895.6

17,141.4 25,818.6 40,213.4 10,164.5 35,334.4

54,474.1 73,862.6 34,835.7 29,012.9 32,227.2

$1,668,752.8

28,679.9 1,819.9

15,008.4 16,582.3

177,272.7

17,219.6 21,356.4 15,884.6 46,447.7 34,694.3

7,505.5 6,685.2

86,642.6 35,944.8 23,894.5

16,486.5 23,701.8 38,309.5 9,793.3

33,924.8

52,286.0 71,050.2 33,556.1 27,726.7 30,984.8

$1,958,452.1

33,760.5 2,547.0

20,132.4 19,206.5

209,615.9

20,937.6 24,866.5

5,181.5 57,327.9 41,224.5

8,805.3 8,251.4

101,014.6 42,397.5 28,163.8

19,318.5 28,591.1 45,001.6 11,786.1 39,224.8

63,025.8 84,540.0 38,797.7 32,432.6 36,919.8

$3,928,154.3

65,561.9 4,763.7

40,516.7 38,135.5

432,203.1

41,909.1 49,403.1 11,053.0

113,860.8 82,482.3

17,708.9 16,464.3

201,352.1 82,666.7 55,855.9

38,109.8 58,247.1 90,729.3 23,840.8 78,386.9

125,953.6 166,948.4 77,744.8 62,469.8 73,766.4

$4,003,836.8

68,142.2 5,101.5

41,241.9 41,608.7

431,322.5

43,527.8 52,908.4 11,991.3

127,416.3 87,309.8

17,792.3 15,772.6

149,079.9 83,904.7 56,189.6

37,514.9 61,838.2 91,769.1 25,054.5 79,405.0

129,225.8 173,900.1 81,418.5 63,488.9 78,240.6

$4,105,589.7

67,632.4 5,961.2

42,490.2 43,346.3

438,424.6

45,837.8 56,783.9 12,366.7

130,294.1 87,655.4

18,480.2 16304.8

139,265.6 85,133.8 56,009.0

38,820.7 66,389.8 91,060.3 26,609.4 84,055.8

136,741.6 177,514.4 88,576.2 61,895.2 81,222.8

$2,144,255.1

35,407.9 4,034.4

20,811.5 22,972.2

236,489.4

24,565.5 27,205.7

7,024.7 66,160.9 44,508.8

10,062.1 7,961.4

72,889.6 45,907.7 27,057.5

19,510.9 36,425.0 48,208.4 13,219.5 43,969.1

69,521.7 90,977.0 44,276.0 33,092.2 41,526.9

$3,221,861.0

52,011.0 5,803.8

32,184.2 33,956.4

351,547.1

36,052.3 41,071.4 10,563.7

102,554.8 69,546.5

16,505.6 12,341.8

128,917.3 69,359.4 40,170.4

29,576.7 53,806.9 71,392.6 20,277.9 66,847.9

104,543.1 135,689.1 66,721.7 49,274.7 61,322.8

$4,519,942.1

73,636.3 11,660.6 49,061.7 44,011.2

505,778.8

50,059.0 56,455.4 14,150.4

134,275.1 96,957.2

22,572.7 15,859.7

230,422.6 96,787.6 53,024.9

39,204.2 74,844.9

107,783.5 27,386.3 90,649.8

147,816.8 187,219.4 90,578.0 65,939.4 86,042.0

$4,556,066.6

72,087.4 15,347.3 53,309.3 44,659.0

519,532.5

50,488.8 57,666.6 14,159.6

136,772.0 101,420.4

22,344.3 17,071.8

228,139.2 91,875.5 55,177.6

40,017.5 73,015.7

102,705.9 31,278.5 91,374.6

144,919.0 192,214.6 91,487.3 67,440.6 85,638.8

$31,833,608.6

526,770.8 58,919.6

330,395.6 321,720.6

3,486,900.0

348,541.7 409,897.4 107,167.4 963,505.5 681,939.6

149,598.5 123,676.7

1,427,694.3 671,371.3 420,438.8

295,701.1 502,679.1 727,173.6 199,410.8 643,173.1

1,028,507.5 1,353,915.8

647,992.0 492,773.0 607,892.1

<7\

Montana 6,465.6 6,218.9 7,725.9 Nebraska 12,742.3 12,251.8 14,620.1 Nevada 3,768.0 3,529.0 4,396.5 New Hampshire 5,430.4 5,282.7 6,223.7 New Jersey 54,984.4 52,769.7 62,167.1

New Mexico 9,838.0 9,454.0 12,264.9 New York 194,104.2 186,614.4 221,238.6 North Carolina 44,787.3 43,007.6 51,043.4 North Dakota 7,046.9 6,807.4 8,307.1 Ohio 70,373.3 67,742.4 78,575.0

Oklahoma 19,378.9 18,636.3 22,077.1 Oregon 17,447.4 16,755.5 19,484.9 Pennsylvania 91,359.6 87,868.0 103,802.9 Rhode Island 7,973.3 7,651.2 8,976.3 South Carolina 23,504.0 22,478.8 26,209.0

South Dakota 7,668.6 7,366.2 8,962.7 Tennessee 32,605.8 31,331.1 36,944.4 Texas 81,722.7 78,439.1 93,931.6 Utah 9,992.9 9,610.6 10,310.1 Vermont 4,759.3 4,685.2 5,531.6

Virginia 35,082.6 33,674.3 39,055.2 Washington 25,583.6 24,552.9 28,673.7 West Virginia 14,186.0 13,386.4 15,153.1 Wisconsin 43,748.8 42,073.7 45,927.4 Wyoming 3,235.4 3,107.5 3,778.9

'Source: Office of Revenue Sharing, U.S. Department of the Treasury, (a) Projected payments.

15,601.6 29,214.1 8,810.0

12,191.0 118,554.2

24,866.2 443,543.3 101,125.2

16,135.7 157,234.3

43,940.8 38,799.0

207,413.4 17,439.1 52,604.5

17,896.1 72,563.3

189,424.0 23,776.0 11,091.6

78,170.6 57,838.0 33,297.8 98,893.0

7,597.1

16,813.6 27,442.4 8,957.0

13,367.0 128,770.1

25,094.8 458,443.9 104,565.3

13,821.3 163,607.2

46,367.1 40,929.6

216,898.4 18,094.8 55,936.2

16,801.1 78,271.9

195,421.3 23,894.7 11,532.4

81,191.3 57,779.2 34,869.0

102,719.7 7,082.4

15,589.9 28,118.3 9,769.7

13,302.0 132,407.0

25,891.8 475,253.8 102,625.3

12,932.3 172,525.2

46,169.6 44,292.6

224,616.7 18,329.9 58,885.2

16,722.7 77,764.4

203,551.7 24,964.9 12,341.4

80,046.2 61,710.4 34,929.6

107,294.6 6,682.3

8,116.5 13,918.0 5,525.5 7,202.7

68,884.6

14,057.9 251,927.7 55,403.6

6,153.7 89,191.1

23,800.7 23,783.8

113,293.7 9,541.8

30,702.0

6,840.2 41,257.2

108,972.5 12,404.3 5,808.7

44,790.7 33,725.6 18,345.7 53,387.2

3,433.7

12,014.3 20,837.9

8,076.7 10,392.5 98,493.0

20,708.4 373,869.9

81,592.3 8,050.9

132,856.3

36,515.3 35,872.5

172,418.3 14,272.8 45,871.5

10,661.0 56,027.7

164,010.0 18,068.2 9,676.2

66,558.4 49,218.3 27,850.2 80,632.2

5,277.1

15.573.5 27,642.4 11,376.7 15,205.9

142,239.0

31,320.2 513,289.7 111,362.7

9,985.0 182,414.0

51,987.5 49,406.4

229,314.1 19,898.8 60,114.8

13,541.5 81,707.4

226,813.0 25,927.5 13,854.4

93,016.5 66,993.4 41,281.3

105,446.5 8,052.4

17,318.4 28,494.4 11,336.3 15,580.9

151,070.7

28,223.4 512,076.9 113,464.7

12,173.4 186,221.6

47,397.9 50,612.1

221,852.1 19,439.4 61,458.0

15,363.7 85,099.0

223,769.8 27,851.0 13,524.6

94,857.1 63,012.2 40,658.0

106,582.6 8,484.6

121,438.2 215,281.7

75,545.4 104,178.8

1,010,339.8

201,719.6 3,630,362.4

808,977.4 101,413.7

1,300,740.4

356,271.2 337,383.8

1,668,837.2 141,617.4 437,764.0

121,823.8 593,572.2

1,566,055.7 186,800.2 92,805.4

646,442.9 469,087.3 273,957.1 786,705.7

56,731.4


set of formulas to descriptive data pertaining to each unit. The data factors are prescribed by the revenue sharing law. The formula and data are used to determine each government's share of the total amount. Each government, therefore, competes with all other eligible governments for a portion of the total funds to be distributed. Because of the relative nature of the allocation process, it is possible that in some cases a change in a single element could change a large number of governments' shares by varying amounts.

The general revenue sharing program was originally conceived as a way of sharing the relatively more progressive federal tax revenue, especially income tax revenue, with state and local governments which traditionally have had to rely on more regressive taxes and revenue sources. Its major goal is to disburse federal funds with minimum restrictions on use, permitting the local decisionmaking process to determine the programs and activities where the money is most needed.

Under the 1976 amendments, general revenue sharing funds may be used for any purpose which is a legal use of the governments' own funds under state and local laws. The priority expenditure categories which restricted revenue sharing expenditures by governments were eliminated. Furthermore, the prohibition against recipients' use of funds for federal grant matching purposes was also repealed. However, recipients must spend, appropriate, or obligate revenue sharing funds within 24 months from the end of the entitlement period for which the funds are received. Although there are no restrictions as to the uses of general revenue sharing funds, recipient governments must comply with the public participation, audit, and nondiscrimination requirements specified by the revenue sharing law.

3. State-Local Relations

STATE ACTIONS AFFECTING LOCAL AFFAIRS By Eva Martin Ennis*

Introduction

TWO MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS in the past two years affect the organizational structure of state agencies of community affairs and their major initiatives regarding local affairs. The first is the recognition in the states that economic development (business and job creation) cannot occur effectively if community development needs (housing, public services, and facilities) are not met. States are responding to this new awareness with agency reorganizations, legislation, and policy and program formulations.

Agency reorganization took place in Illinois, Missouri, and Utah in 1979. In lUinois, a Department of Commerce and Community Affairs was formed by combining the Department of Local Government Affairs, the Department of Business and Economic Development, and the Governor's Office of Manpower and Human Development. In Missouri, two separate divisions for community and economic development were combined under the community development director. In Utah, the Department of Community Affairs was combined with the Department of Development Seryices to form the Department of Economic and Community Affairs. There are now 19 states that have organized most of their community and economic development functions into one agency. The following expressed purpose of the Illinois reorganization provides an indication of why states are moving in this direction.

Consolidation of functions now fragmented among these three agencies will strengthen the State's role in providing services and incentives which stimulate industrial and commercial growth, increase employment, and enhance the development of local communities. The new agency will serve as a broker to bring together public and private interests in order to promote economic development in ways that are consistent with State and local priorities.

An example of new legislation is a set of four Massachusetts statutes passed in 1978. The first establishes special treatment for Commercial Area Redevelopment Districts (CARDs), which are areas where the local community (with state approval) has decided to encourage more intensive commercial development. The other three statutes make commercial firms eligible for important financial incentives which were previously available only for industrial purposes. The three bills provide for tax-exempt revenue bond financing, mortgage insurance for rehabilitation of commercial buildings, and urban job incentives through state tax incentives. The significant state-local dimension is that the applicant community must obtain the approval of the local plan from the state's secretary for communities and development.

In the area of policy formulation, Colorado provides an excellent example of respond-

*Ms. Ennis is Director of Membership Services, Council of State Community Affairs Agencies. The introduction was written by Joseph S. Marinich, Executive Director, Council of State Community Affairs Agencies.

615


ing to comprehensive needs in community and economic development. A 1979 executive order outlined a growth and human settlements policy that must be followed by all state agencies in the performance of their functions. This performance is monitored and guided by the Department of Local Affairs, an agency that contains functions including community development, housing, economic development, rural development, and planning.

State programmatic initiatives have been numerous. They include Missouri's successful campaign to support the retention of existing business and to attract smaller enterprises to communities throughout the state. Michigan has provided extensive technical assistance in neighborhood development and community-based economic development. A major bill is likely to be passed in 1980 which would provide financial support for neighborhood ventures. Georgia has begun an extensive effort to assist communities in downtown development. The program is oriented to the retention of commercial establishments and the attraction of new ones.

The second major development is the increased activity of the states in the maintenance and revitalization of rurat areas. State activity in the past two years helped states secure a major role in the president's Small Community and Rural Development Policy announced December 20, 1979.

Most states have a variety of programs to benefit nonmetropolitan areas. These include state-financed assistance, such as water and sewer programs in one half of the states, as well as federally funded resources like the "balance-of-state" program established through the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act.

The three most significant federal actions that stimulate increased state attention to rural needs were: (1) a letter to all governors in April 1978 from the assistant secretary for rural development of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) inviting state-federal cooperation in rural development efforts, (2) funding to over 30 states in the past two years through small grants under the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) Section 111 planning program to stimulate state rural development strategy formulation, and (3) the request in the president's rural policy for all states to establish rural development councils.

In all of these actions, state-local relations have been a critical focus. The foremost factor in a state's attempt to exert more impact on rural development has been the state's knowledge of community problems and heeds as well as possessing managerial capacities. States have attempted to increase their knowledge through improved outreach and technical assistance, data collection (e.g.. North Carolina's Community Profiles Program), and local planning assistance.

As states have become more aware of how their rural areas and communities can be helped, they have pursued means to improve the use of state and federal resources in local development. In most states, state officials helped the USDA's Farmers Home Administration complete their state management plan which determines how allocations will be made for different programs (housing, community facilities, and business and industry) within the state. In eight states, agreements have been signed in the past two years with the USDA/FmHA which outline specific roles that state governments will play in the local and statewide use of the federal resources.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the past two years has examined how it might involve the states more in the selection process for HUD's $1 billion discretionary community development grant program for communities below 50,000 population. HUD has announced that regulations will be published in early 1980 that will allow a demonstration in at least two states where the federal selection criteria

STATE-LOCAL RELATIONS 617

will be replaced by a state government system. It is believed that the state's systems will be more attuned to the unique problems and capacities of its communities.

The initiatives in community and economic development, and in rural development, are important to state-local relations. For one, it is clear that the states feel more able to guide growth and development. For another, states are exerting pressure for more of a decisionmaking role in the intergovernmental system. Finally, the states' attention to both urban and rural needs reflects a maturation of state interest in and commitment to its communities. To be sure, there is unevenness in state responses, and some states have not taken significant actions to aid either urban or rural development; but examples of this are becoming fewer as communities call for more effective state aid, as federal actions prompt states to do more, and as states endeavor to assist communities on their own initiative. Given these forces, there is likely to be significant growth in the 1980s of state aid and involvement in local development.

Taxation and Finance

State actions affecting local governments during 1978-79 were reported in a number of areas. As in recent years, though, no actions were reported as frequently as those involving taxation and finance. While tax limitation proposals continued to be introduced and in some cases enacted, the area of taxation and finance took on a broader scope during the biennium.

Those states which previously had enacted tax limitations amended their taxing plans and methods so as to pay for needed governmental services. Other states took action affecting distribution of taxes, exemption from certain taxes, and the establishment of new or expanded taxes. Specific actions on sales taxes, motor fuel taxes, individual income taxes, property tax relief, and limits on state taxation can be found in the chapter "Recent Trends in State Taxation."

Distribution and Investment of Taxes. In an effort to niaintain an equitable distribution of tax dollars, California's legislature mandated that property tax revenues be distributed to local agencies in the same proportion as that prior to the passage of Proposition 13. In Colorado, the legislature protected the municipal share of the highway user trust fund and revised the formula for the fund's distribution among municipalities. Local subdivisions in Maryland will now receive the local portion of withholding and estimated income taxes for which tax returns have not been filed. In a related matter, Alabama legislation now provides for the redistribution of funds paid to the state by the Tennessee Valley Authority in Ueu of taxes.

Lawmakers in Alabama, Indiana, Massachusetts, and Michigan enacted legislation permitting local governments to invest certain funds in interest-bearing accounts.

Cost Sharing. Recognizing that many state-mandated programs and services place an increased financial burden on municipalities, Hawaii and Illinois enacted legislation requiring the state to provide some or all of the necessary funding. Legislation which has an impact on municipalities in Maine and New Hampshire must now contain a fiscal impact analysis. Local governments in New Hampshire will be allowed to delay the effective date of laws if the legislation's fiscal impact exceeds an established limit. The Rhode Island legislature established a mechanism for reimbursing cities and towns for the cost of state mandates.

By executive order, the ability of Massachusetts state agencies to impose new costs on cities and towns is limited. Those agencies must consult with local officials and project the


probable financial impact of state-mandated programs prior to the adoption of policies and regulations.

Missouri and North Dakota will make state revenue sharing funds available to local governments, while Rhode Island will make state aid available at the rate of 1.2 percent of the combined sales and income tax revenues. Those municipalities in New Jersey which were hardest hit by the loss of federal antirecession fiscal assistance will receive a special state subsidy.

Bonding. A variety of bonding legislation was approved by the states. New Jersey's municipal bond law now provides a state guarantee of local bond issues. Under this law, the state will earmark certain pass-through revenues for debt service, and the local finance board must confirm the municipality's financial capacity. The Michigan legislature permanently extended the municipal bond interest rate ceiling to 10 percent. Counties in Utah are now authorized to issue revenue bonds from collected or rebated excise tax revenues.

Financial Management. Fiscal stability and uniform procedures were of primary concern to legislators in Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Utah, and Virginia. Each of those states enacted legislation requiring or prescribing uniform budgeting and reporting systems for local governments.

Other Tax Actions. In two separate actions, the Colorado Supreme Court found the use tax on construction materials and the municipal use tax unconstitutional. The municipal use tax was struck down because there was not a sufficient connection when the law was applied to a vendor making occasional deliveries within a jurisdiction.

Cities and towns in Rhode Island are now required to disclose proposed property tax rate changes before the local budget is adopted.

In Arkansas, sewer and sanitation charges were exempted from state sales tax, while in Missouri residential utilities are exempted from both state and local sales taxes.

Administration and Management

During 1979, state actions affecting local government administration and management encompassed a multitude of issues. In Kansas, cities were authorized to acquire land in central business districts through bond financing. The bonds will be retired through increased revenues gained from improvements within the redeveloped areas.

Public contract officers in Hawaii are permitted to negotiate with the bidder when only one bid is received and that bid exceeds available funds. State-mandated bid requirements for purchases made without advertisement by first-class cities in Arkansas were raised from $1,000 to $2,000.

The Michigan Supreme Court established new zoning procedures, after determining that zoning was a legislative rather than an administrative function. If an ordinance is found unconstitutional, it will be enjoined and sent back to the municipal zoning body. The zoning body must then submit an amended ordinance for the court's consideration. District courts in Maryland have been empowered to enforce county and municipal zoning codes in actions brought by a county or a municipality.

Oregon and North Dakota were among the states which instituted uniform building codes. The Oregon legislation, however, allows cities to adopt regulations different from state building regulations with the approval of the director of the Department of Commerce.

Georgia and Nebraska instituted provisions for the recall of elected officials. The Nebraska legislation makes all city and school governing body members subject to

STA TE-LOCAL RELA TIONS 619

popular recall, while the Georgia legislation only applies to elected city officials. In other action related to election of local officials, the Nebraska legislature provided for Omaha city council members to be elected by district rather than at large. The city of Lincoln changed its method of electing council members, but did so through its home rule charter procedure.

In an action which opponents viewed as the first major state legislative infringement on Illinois home rule, the legislature established a uniform 21-year-old drinking age in the state, superseding conflicting local ordinances and preempting home rule powers which had previously been used to establish lower drinking ages in individual communities.

Legislation instituting or affecting home rule ordinances was approved in several states. A constitutional amendment in Iowa grants constitutional home rule to counties. New Hampshire's new home rule law allows cities and towns to adopt and amend local charter provisions affecting their form of government and governmental structure.

In other action, the Missouri legislature approved a measure which allows repeal of the blue law (ban on Sunday sales) on a county-by-county basis. The West Virginia attorney general ruled that the city of Fairmont and the county of Marian could not establish a joint human rights commission; only political subdivisions can establish such commissions.

Planning and Community Development

Significant state actions affecting municipal land use and community development programming were taken in 1979. Of primary importance were annexation and land use planning.

As a result of the recent clarification of annexation laws, Montana now has five methods of annexation. Voters in Wyoming may approve or disapprove the annexation of their town by one contiguous to it. Similarly, a revision of the South Dakota municipal annexation laws requires persons both in the municipality seeking to annex an area and those in the proposed annex area to vote or petition for annexation. A majority of the votes cast in the combined area of the municipality and the special annexation area is required.

In South Carolina, the circuit court held unconstitutional that portion of a state annexation statute requiring a freeholder election in the territory to be annexed. The ruling stated that such an election violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it imposed an additional qualification for voting without showing a compelling state interest to justify that qualification.

In other annexation-related actions, municipalities in Arkansas were authorized to annex unincorporated areas by ordinance.

The concerns of states about planning and balanced growth and development resulted in several legislative and executive actions. North Carolina enacted a balanced growth policy act which includes a provision for expanding the membership of the Local Government Advocacy Council. The governor designated the council and the State Goals and Policy Board to act as the interim balanced growth board.

Municipalities in New Hampshire have received legislative authorization to control the rate and timing of growth and development. Guidelines for the legislation were handed down in a recent state supreme court decision.

Washington's Planning and Community Affairs Agency has included tentative growth management recommendations in its Housing and Urban Development 701 grant application. Those recommendations, which include better coordination of agency review


processes and a reporting system designed to keep local officials better informed of state activities, resulted from efforts to prepare a statewide growth management plan.

Land use decisions made by local governments and state agencies in Oregon are under the jurisdiction of a recently established Land Use Board of Appeals. As part of its effort to manage development, Vermont's District 4 Environmental Commission denied an application for construction of a suburban shopping mall in a town of 3,200 because the application did not satisfy a sufficient number of the 10 criteria specified in the state's land use and development law. An appeal of the decision is pending.

West Virginia's municipal and county planning boards may now take official action on measures approved by a majority vote of the members attending a commission meeting, when a majority of all members is present. Previously, a majority vote of the entire membership was required.

Landfills and solid waste management are issues which generated legislative action in Michigan and Oregon. Oregon's lawmakers enacted provisions to facilitate the siting of landfills. The planning, location, acquisition, development, and operation of landfills are statewide concerns addressed by the legislation. The Solid Waste Management Act, authorized in Michigan, provides for more stringent regulation of solid waste disposal. The act includes a provision requiring surety bonds to assure maintenance of a landfill for five years after it is closed.

The concern for redevelopment of blighted areas resulted in legislative action in New Mexico and New York. New Mexico's chartered municipalities with populations over 200,000 are authorized by the municipal redevelopment code to designate blighted areas, plan and execute redevelopment in those areas, and finance the redevelopment through tax increment or revenue bonds. In New York, the Urban Development Action Area Act authorizes municipalities with populations over 100,000 to encourage redevelopment of municipally owned property in redevelopment areas by offering tax incentives to private enterprise.

Specifically related to housing, New Mexico and Texas enacted legislation which provides a financing mechanism through which low- and moderate-income persons can purchase houses. The Texas legislature estabUshed a state housing finance agency which is authorized to issue bonds. Proceeds from bond sales are channeled through local sponsors to provide home acquisition and improvement loans for low- and moderate-income persons. New Mexico's Municipal Mortgage Finance Act authorizes municipalities to provide housing financing for low- and moderate-income persons. The act also authorizes municipalities to issue tax-exempt bonds and to use the proceeds to purchase mortgages on single-family residences.

In other action, Michigan established a Cabinet of Community Development. Under the lieutenant governor's direction, the cabinet oversees coordination of all agencies involved in the state's urban program and directs revitalization efforts for the cities. In a similar move. New York established an Urban Affairs Cabinet which coordinates staff activities and policies affecting urban areas. The Office of Urban Revitalization, a branch of the Urban Affairs Cabinet, is the office through which state efforts to revitalize distressed areas are coordinated.

Labor Relations and Personnel

Collective bargaining in the public sector has been a major area for state action in the past. In 1979, however, Montana, New York, and Connecticut were the only states

STA TE-LOCAL RELA TIONS 621

reporting actions related to the collective bargaining process. Fire fighters in Montana are now subject to binding arbitration, while the requirement for binding arbitration to which New York police and fire fighters are subject was extended through 1981. The Connecticut legislature mandated that the last-best-offer binding arbitration be used to resolve teacher contract disputes.

The Virginia legislature enacted a policy to encourage resolution of employee problems through discussion involving employees, their immediate supervisors, and upper management. A grievance procedure is available to provide an immediate and fair method of settling disputes when employee problems cannot be otherwise resolved.

Governmental immunity and liability continued to receive attention from lawmakers in some states. As in previous years, states are moving away from the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Unhke previous years, though, state legislatures are taking action on their own and not as a reaction to court decisions.

Sovereign immunity in Uability suits against Wyoming local governments was removed in selected areas and liability was limited to $500,000 per occurrence. In Kansas, a comprehensive tort claims act waived state and local governmental immunity from torts, although a number of liabiUty exceptions were made. In this instance, liability is limited to $500 per occurrence.

Colorado protected its municipal employees' right of indemnity by making personal torts against public officers and employees subject to the same limitations as suits against public bodies.

Although the issues were quite dissimilar, the supreme courts in Michigan and Washington handed down decisions relating to governmental liability. The Michigan court held that operation of a municipal hospital is not a necessary function of government and the government is not immune from injuries suffered through negligence of a municipal hospital. The Washington court found that litigation to prevent violation of the state's open meeting law can be barred on the basis of the doctrine of laches (inexcusable delay).

In an effort to Umit municipal employee exposure to liability, the Connecticut legislature authorized the formation of an interlocal management risk agency. The agency will provide coverage to municipalities and local public agencies for workers' compensation and general liability.

Self-insurance was another method utilized by states to limit exposing municipal employees to liability. Authorization was given to local governments in New York to provide limited or complete self-insurance by establishing reserve funds to cover casualty and liability claims. Both the Kentucky and Tennessee legislatures authorized self-insurance pools for tort liability. Local governments in Idaho now have the option of pooling their insurance premiums and estabUshing a self-insured program. North Carolina has instituted a statewide public officials and employees insurance commission. The commission is authorized to negotiate a group hability insurance plan for local elected officials, police officers, and other public employees.

Employee benefit funds and retirement systems were items on the legislative agenda in some states. The power to establish employee benefit and retirement funds was extended to Class III cities in West Virginia. In Idaho, the fire fighters retirement fund was merged with the pubUc employees retirement system, while the Colorado legislature approved a new retirement benefit package for newly hired police and fire fighters.

In other personnel-related matters, the West Virginia Supreme Court struck down a


one-year city residency requirement for police applicants. The Mississippi legislature enacted a bill requiring all municipal civil service applicants to be citizens of the United States and electors of the county in which they reside. The Michigan legislature mandated overtime pay for fire fighters for hours on duty in excess of 216 during a 28-day period.

Arkansas assumed complete funding of municipal and county employees workers' compensation claims. Kentucky took a different approach in that local governments are now required to provide unemployment compensation and benefits to all eligible employees. In Tennessee, nonprofessional school employees are prohibited from drawing unemployment compensation during holiday and vacation periods.

The Massachusetts Court of Appeals ruled that the minimum wage statute does not apply to state, county, or municipal employees. Elected officials in Montana cities and towns were authorized to set their own salaries by ordinance or resolution.

State-Local Relations

The area of state-local relations continues to be of importance to states. Actions regarding cost sharing between state and municipal governments were discussed earlier, but many other actions were taken in 1979.

In order to facilitate direct communication between municipalities and the governor's office, Maine's governor established an 11-member council of local government officials. The council will advise him on the development of municipalities in Maine. Local elected officials and state agency directors in Wyoming will participate on a local government coordination committee established to coordinate state and local intergovernmental relations. The Mississippi legislature established procedures for intergovernmental cooperation among local, state, and federal agencies in the following areas: police and fire protection, water and sewage systems, garbage collection, road maintenance, planning, engineering, buildings, public facilities, industrial parks, ad valorem tax assessments and collection, and relocation of railroad lines.

General enabling legislation allows 14 of the 18 municipalities in Chittendon County, Vermont, to join the Chittendon Regional Council, the state's first council of elected local officials.

In a related area, Florida has moved toward improved local government cooperation and coordination by permitting municipalities to make agreements among themselves without approval from the state's Department of Legal Affairs.

Conclusion

The topics just discussed are the primary areas in which states took action affecting local governments during 1979. While taxation and finance continued to be the predominant area for action, it is apparent that states are diversifying their efforts and attempting to take steps which will improve local governments' internal management capacity as well as their ability to provide services to their constituents.

STATE AID TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN 1978*

AS STATE PAYMENTS to local governments reached over $300 per capita for the first time during fiscal 1978, additional attention was being turned to the overall role of the states in aiding or overseeing local government financial activity. Among the many aspects of the complex state-local relationship being reexamined were direct state grants-in-aid to localities, state takeover of responsibility for providing particular services, the expansion of state tax reUef programs and their subsequent impact upon local governments, and state assistance in the case of local government financial emergencies. Adding to the complexity of issues was the fact that many states make payments to the federal government which serve to supplement minimum categorical cash assistance payments to the aged, Wind, and disabled.

Of the total state intergovernmental payments of $67.3 bilUon in fiscal 1978, $65.8 billion was for state aid to local jurisdictions (with $1.5 bilHon in state-to-federal DIRECT STATE AID PAYMENTS transfers). TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

The rate of growth in total state inter- ^ .'!^^jl.^???!''^T,^^^,^L governmental expenditure has slowed in recent years, after increasing since the 1960s at a faster pace than state government direct general expenditure. Consequently, direct state aid payments to local governments (disregarding the state-to-federal payments), as a percentage of total state general expenditure, have stabilized, after slow but steady growth.

These figures reflect a general consistency in state government efforts at providing direct local financial assistance.

STATE GENERAL EXPENDITURE

Fiscal year

1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970

Percent

.. 34.7

.. 34.9

.. 34.8

.. 36.7

.. 36.3 37.2

Fiscal year

1972 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978

Percent

.. 37.2

.. 38.0

.. 36.9

.. 36.9

.. 37.2 36.6

Conceptual Framework

Bureau of the Census data on state intergovernmental expenditure is compiled in such a way as to include two distinct features: state intergovernmental expenditure which includes state payments to the federal government as well as to local governments; and state intergovernmental expenditure which includes federal funds which the states pass through to their local governments. State-to-federal payments for fiscal 1978 are shown in Table 5 on an individual state basis. These payments totaled only $341 million in fiscal 1974, but amounted to almost $1.5 billion by fiscal 1978. Not all states show payments to the federal

•Adapted by Maurice Criz and David Kellerman, Senior Advisor and Statistician, respectively. Governments Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census, from the Bureau's report. State Payments to Local Governments (vol. 6, no. 3 of the 1977 census of governments), and annual reports of State Government Finances.

623


government, as some choose to supplement federal categorical welfare aid with their own direct payments to qualified recipients.

Federal funds which states receive and then pass on to local governments are either distributed directly or in some combination with state funds. However, Bureau of the Census data cannot be used to identify state aid payments to local units by these two revenue sources.

In general, the Bureau of the Census defines state payments to local governments as consisting of grants-in-aid, payments in lieu of taxes, reimbursements for services performed, state-collected locally shared taxes, and the extension of contingent loans or advances (where repayment is on a conditional basis).

Excluded from the concept of state intergovernmental payments to local governments are the following:

1. Nonfiscal assistance to local governments in the form of advisory services or aid-in-kind.

2. Contributions by a state to trust funds it administers for the financing of retirement benefits to local government employees.

3. Shares of state-imposed taxes which are collected and retained by local governments. 4. Proceeds of state interest-bearing loans to local governments which, unlike con

tingent loans, are repayable over a specified time. Such loans are treated as debt and investment transactions.

5. Expenditure for the purchase of property, commodities, and utility services to other governments.

Admihistering Programs of State Aid

Administering programs of direct state aid payments to local governments involves addressing the issues of the amount of aid to be distributed, the method of allocation, and the method of financing the programs.

The amount of aid to be distributed is generally predetermined, either by legislative action or participation in a federally funded program. In some cases, state aid payments are based upon the yield of a specific revenue source, such as a tax on gasoline. In the education area, state aid is quite often set at a particular amount per pupil or per teacher, with total amounts paid to any given unit varying accordingly.

The choice of how to finance and distribute state aid is often dependent upon the basic intent or purpose of particular aid programs. Most states now have some type of program for general local government support (revenue sharing type programs). Generally broad-based revenue sources are used to finance these general local support programs. Payments can be made from a state's general fund or from a broad-based tax source such as the general sales tax or individual income tax. These sources are borne by nearly all taxpayers and are logically used to finance programs considered beneficial to the general public.

For some specific types of state aid, there is a direct relation between the function being financed and the source and distribution of the aid payments. Aid for highways, for example, is often financed from special trust funds comprised of gasoline tax revenue or highway user tax revenue. To some degree, the financing burden is borne by those who would use the highways most often, even though highways are a social commodity. The general approach involved is thus to finance the program through earmarked or designated revenue sources, with aid payments distributed according to origin or need.

Finally, some state aid programs might be designed so as to achieve specific goals.


Financing is generally based upon appropriations, with distributions to localities which meet certain criteria, such as the establishment of a specific program. State aid of this type often involves the redistribution of federal funds and may involve some matching requirements.

The State Role

Assessing the role of the states in aiding their local jurisdictions can be based upon any number of issues. Foremost among these are the state role in channeling federal funds to local governments, the issue of economic efficiency in financing certain types of services, the provision of tax relief for citizens, and the issue of state aid during local government fiscal emergencies.

One controversial topic in assessing intergovernmental aid is the impact upon local government expenditures—whether grants-in-aid substitute for local expenditure or serve to stimulate local expenditure. This question pertains to both state and federal grants made to local units, as the latter are indistinguishable in the Census Bureau data format when passed through states to localities.

Recent findings suggest that grants-in-aid are generally stimulative in nature and tend to result in local spending increases in excess of the amount of aid received.' There is variation among the states, however, and the complexities of state-local fiscal relationships or state fiscal systems may result in exceptions to this general finding. Nevertheless, such a finding can raise questions as to the intent of grant programs and their impact upon local governments during periods of growing concern over government deficits. For example, the impact of a cutoff in a grant program that has been in existence for some time might cause a loss of the service to taxpayers or force localities to increase their own financing share in order to maintain the service.

The issue of achieving economic efficiency in the provision of a given service essentially revolves around the question of which level of government should properly provide financing. Much has been written of spillover effects, equalization, and disparities in resources among local jurisdictions; yet these remain strong points in the argument for continued state aid programs.

More recently, state aid programs have become part of the overall effort toward tax relief for citizens. Some tax relief efforts, and tax reduction or limitation measures, have resulted in state aid programs being used to offset revenue losses to local governments. Such efforts generally began with the many property tax relief programs in existence.

Property tax relief programs vary considerably from state to state in terms of the beneficiaries, means of financing, administration, and form of relief granted. Not all such programs result in an actual state payment to a local unit of government.

Property tax relief programs are of two types, the circuit breaker and the homestead exemption. The circuit-breaker approach is generally administered by granting tax relief when a property owner's tax liability exceeds a fixed percentage of income. The percentage usually varies according to income size, with a maximum income above which no relief is granted. Relief can be in the form of a direct rebate to the property owner, credits on a state's individual income tax, or direct reduction in the tax bill itself. The program is quite often limited to a fixed group, especially the elderly, and renters are eligible in some cases.

The financing burden of the circuit-breaker program is generally borne by the state when the program involves a rebate to the taxpayer or a credit on the individual income


tax. When there is a mandated reduction in the property owner's tax bill, the burden can either be borne by the local government or the state. Only in the latter situation does the circuit-breaker property tax relief program result in state-to-local intergovernmental payments, with the state reimbursing the local government for lost tax revenue.

The homestead exemption form of property tax relief provides for a reduction in the assessed value of property, thereby lowering the tax liability to the property owner. This form of tax relief is generally broader in coverage than the circuit-breaker type, but also can be limited to certain groups (the elderly). Homestead exemption programs result in state-to-local payments as reimbursement for lost revenue in some states, but in others the program is mandated by state law, with the local governments absorbing the lost revenue.

With the fiscal crises of New York City, Cleveland, Wayne County (Michigan), and other local governments, there has been a renewed interest in the state role of providing emergency financial assistance and in the oversight of local government financial affairs. While state governments can respond in various ways to a local fiscal crisis, the most direct approach remains state aid payments or advances of such aid. Other less direct means of alleviating local fiscal or cash flow problems, which do not involve intergovernmental transfers, include the authorization of new taxing authority, the removal of debt or tax rate ceilings, or the state guarantee of local borrowing.

However, the issue of emergency state assistance goes beyond such specific aid measures. States constitutionally establish local governments and define their proper financial activity. They have certain responsibilities with respect to administration and oversight of local affairs, especially when unsound financial practices are one of the primary causes of financial emergencies.

Of necessity, states must become involved in both the short-term and long-term implications of local government financial emergencies. New York established the Municipal Assistance Corporation and the Emergency Financial Control Board to steer New York City through its crisis. Many states have agencies with specific oversight responsibility designed to deal with local finance over the long run, generally assessing local finances on a year-to-year basis.

As an example, Wayne County, Michigan, was able to stave off cash shortages over a three-year period by getting approval from the Michigan Municipal Finance Commission to borrow against future tax revenues. The lack of such approval for 1979 was one cause of Wayne County's fiscal problems.

Statistical Findings State intergovernmental expenditure in most major functional areas increased during

fiscal 1978. Most state intergovernmental payments continued to be for the support of local education, which accounted for almost 60 percent of all state aid expenditure.

Variation in the extent to which states provide education assistance to local units can be seen in the per capita figures for Table 3. Alaska ($477), Delaware ($263), Minnesota ($282), and New Mexico ($292) distributed the most per capita aid for education, while Nebraska ($75), New Hampshire ($45), and South Dakota ($87) had the lowest per capita amounts. Hawaii has state-administered public schools and distributes no aid.

The only major change in state aid for education occurred in Maine. In 1975, the state assumed primary responsibility for financing local schools through a uniform property tax, resulting in per capita school aid payments of $249 in 1976. This program has since been revised and the state tax repealed, resulting in a decrease in state aid payments ($183 in fiscal 1978).

STA TE-LOCAL RELA TIONS 627 State payments for public welfare remained the second largest category of aid to local

governments and totaled $8.6 billion during 1978. An additional $1.4 bilUon in the public welfare area was paid by states to the federal government.

States exhibited an even greater diversity in their respective programs for public welfare aid than for education, as indicated by the range of per capita expenditures. With the payment to the federal government included, the U.S. total per capita figure was $46 in 1978. However, the median state payment was only $2.98. Ten states had no such expenditure, while New York had intergovernmental payments of $236 per capita and California $138 per capita for public welfare.

Since 1976, Maryland and Virginia have assumed most of the responsibility for the public welfare function. The national total of state-to-local welfare aid thus dropped slightly in 1978 (see Table 1). Per capita payment of welfare aid has dropped in Maryland, and has risen only 1.2 percent in Virginia since 1976.

State aid for general local government support was the third largest category of state payments at $6.8 billion. All states but Delaware had such general support programs, which provide funds for use with little or no restriction. Some states use general purpose support programs to channel considerable amounts of aid to their localities. Wisconsin's $150 per capita distribution was the largest, with 10 other states showing an excess of $50 per capita in general support payments. Including Delaware, 10 states showed less than $5 per capita in general local support payments.

Table 5 presents state intergovernmental expenditure by type of receiving government. School districts received 47.6 percent of all state intergovernmental payments (48.9 percent of state aid to localities) during 1978. Generally speaking, the distribution of state payments by type of receiving government has remained steady over the years.

The 1977 census of governments report. State Payments to Local Governments, detailed state payments to local governments, by function and by type of receiving government, for each state. Summary data is presented here.

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF STATE AID, BY SELECTED FUNCTIONS AND TYPE OF RECEIVING GOVERNMENT: 1977

Receiving governments Total (a) Education

Public welfare Highways

General local

government support

School districts 47.6 Counties 22.6 Municipalities 19.3 Townships 1.2 Special districts 1.1 Various units 8.2

(a) Includes items not shown separately.

78.7 8.4 6.6 0.6

5.8

61.3 38.4 0.1

0.3

53.2 36.5 5.0

5.4

23.9 50.5 3.9 1.4

20.4

As indicated in the table, school districts were the recipients of 78.7 percent of all state aid for education. Counties and cities, primarily those with dependent schools, also were recipients of substantial state education aid.

County governments were the primary recipients of most state aid for public welfare, highways, health and hospitals, and corrections. Most state aid payments for general local


government support and sewerage went to municipalities, while most state aid to townships was for highways.

Footnote 1. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, The States and Intergovernmental Aids, report

A59 (Washington, D.C.: February 1977).

Table 1 SUMMARY OF STATE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS: 1942 TO 1978*

(In millions)

Fiscal year

1942 1944 1946 1948 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 I960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971. . . . 1972 1973 1974..-1975 1976 1977 1978

Total

$ 1,780 1,842 2,092 3,283 4,217 4,678 5,044 5,384 5,679 5,986 6,538 7,439 8,089 8,689 9,443

10,114 10,906 11,885 12,968 14,174 16,928 19,056 21,950 24,779 28,892 32,640 36,759 40,822 45,941 51,978 57,858 62,460 67,287

To federal

government

S 341 975

1,180 1,386 1.472

1 For general

local government support

$ 224 274 357 428 482 513 549 592 600 591 631 668 687 725 806 821 844

1,012 1,053 1,102 1,361 1,585 1,993 2,135 2,958 3,258 3,752 4,280 4,804 5,129 5,674 6,373 6,819

Total

$ 1,556 1,568 1,735 2,855 3,735 4,165 4,495 4,971 5,079 5,395 5,907 6,771 7,402 7,964 8,637 9,293

10,062 10,873 11,915 13,072 15,567 17,471 19,957 22,644 25,934 29,382 33,007 36,542 40,796 45,874 51,004 54,701 58,995

To local governments

For

Schools $ 790

861 953

1,554 2,054 2,248 2,525 2,740 2,934 3,154 3,541 4,212 4,598 4,957 5,461 5,963 6,474 6,993 7,664 8,351

10,177 11,845 13,321 14,858 17,085 19,292 21,195 23,316 27,107 31,110 34,084 36,964 40,125

specified purposes

Public welfare

$ 390 368 376 648 792 974 976 981

1,004 1,046 1,069 1,136 1,247 1,409 1,483 1,602 1,777 1,919 2,104 2,436 2,882 2,897 3,527 4,402 5,003 5,760 6,944 7,532 7,028 7,127 8,296 8,756 8,586

Highways

$ 344 298 339 507 610 667 728 803 871 911 984

1,083 1,167 1,207 1,247 1,266 1,326 1,416 1,524 1,630 1,725 1,861 2,029 2,109 2,439 2,507 2,633 2,953 3,211 3,225 3,241 3,631 3,821

1

All ' other $ 32

41 67

146 279 276 268 267 269 284 313 340 390 391 446 462 485 545 623 655 783 868

1,079 1,275 1,407 1,823 2,235 2,741 3,450 4,412 5,383 5,350 6,463

Per capita $ 13.37

13.95 15.05 22.64 28.11 30.78 32.55 34.19 35.42 36.62 39.28 43.86 46.76 49.37 52.75 55.51 58.94 63.31 68.06 73.43 86.79 96.70

110.27 123.20 142.73 158.82 177.16 195.22 218.07 244.71 270.42 288.65 309.52

*Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, State Payments to Local Governments (vol. 6, no. 3, of the 1977 census of governments) and annual reports of Slate Government Finances.


Table 2 STATE INTERGOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURE, BY STATE:

1972 TO 1978*

Amount (in thousands) Per capita amounts

State ' 1978 1976 1974 1972 ' ' 1978 1976 1974 1972'

All states $67,287,260 $57,858,241 $45,941,111 $36,759,246 $309.52 $270.42 $218.07 $177.16

Alabama 856,355 700,064 555,013 450,065 228.85 191.01 155.16 128.22 Alaska 265,975 207,088 146,623 102,138 659.99 542.12 435.08 314.27 Arizona 814,662 694,268 470,705 357,569 346.08 305.84 218.63 183.84 Arkansas 505,103 418,197 314,643 219,971 231.06 198.29 152.59 111.21 California 9,905,969 8,135,469 6,901,808 5,321,068 444.33 378.04 330.12 259.97

Colorado 746,746 675,431 482,735 376,089 279.68 261.49 193.40 159.56 Connecticut 593,857 525,225 429,011 442,371 191.63 168.50 138.93 143.53 Delaware 183,973 188,428 134,868 116,729 315.56 323.75 235.37 206.60 Florida 2,235,987 1,834,215 1,560,305 1,024,986 260.18 217.81 192.87 141.20 Georgia 1,177,775 845,591 817,138 598,776 231.66 170.14 167.38 126.86

Hawaii 49,711 22,772 21,741 19,629 55.42 25.67 25.67 24.26 Idaho 225,063 187,358 135,844 87,804 256.34 225.46 170.02 116.14 Illinois 2,869,480 2,652,553 2,043,053 1,627,820 255.22 236.22 183.55 144.68 Indiana 1,481,065 1,253,233 753,675 643,861 275.60 236.37 141.40 121.69 Iowa 969,801 797,891 584,348 462,338 334.88 278.01 204.68 160.37

Kansas 474,426 404,805 304,312 351,983 202.06 175.24 134.06 155.88 Kentucky 774,679 510,160 404,707 349,173 221.46 148.82 120.56 105.84 Louisiana 1,116,896 998,899 731,312 660,322 281.62 260.06 194.29 177.51 Maine 274,718 320,491 109,340 103,014 251.80 299.52 104.43 100.11 Maryland 1,199,885 1,460,454 1,091,811 882,168 289.62 352.43 266.69 217.50

Massachusetts 1,577,703 1,429,110 916,244 607,661 273.24 246.02 157.97 105.00 Michigan 3,071,384 2,306,268 2,072,529 1,619,064 334.25 253.32 227.80 178.27 Minnesota 1,960,373 1,602,859 1,391,182 1,117,908 489.12 404.25 355.17 286.94 Mississippi 691,567 582,224 459,559 367,995 287.67 247.33 197.74 162.61 Missouri 812,678 693,542 598,876 475,630 167.22 145.15 125.37 100.07

Montana 215,838 147,181 96,534 68,116 274.95 195.46 131.34 94.74 Nebraska 347,780 257,768 180,772 133,561 222.22 165.98 117.16 87.58 Nevada 197,202 143,910 119,059 98,704 298.79 235.92 207.78 187.29 New Hampshire 105,117 87,832 69,147 57,501 120.69 106.85 85.58 74.58 New Jersey 2,162,892 1,634,972 1,365,174 1,159,957 295.19 222.87 186.24 157.45

New Mexico 461,088 363,060 271,566 225,054 380.44 310.84 242.04 211.32 New York 10,075,469 9,977,102 7,914,358 7,097,255 567.70 551.71 436.99 386.43 North Carolina 1,960,984 1,652,666 1,179,995 950,625 351.62 302.19 220.03 182.32 North Dakota 177,804 148,253 114,500 86,222 272.71 230.56 179.75 136.43 Ohio 2,610,757 2,095,547 1,828,135 1,102,283 242.88 196.03 170.26 102.22

Oklahoma 631,479 491,460 368,558 321,030 219.26 177.68 136.05 121.88 Oregon 608,505 421,079 353,141 289,258 248.98 180.80 155.84 132.57 Pennsylvania 3,054,225 2,762,409 2,352,901 1,790,977 259.93 232.88 198.81 150.17 Rhode IsUnd 170,414 148,660 114,275 106,556 182.26 160.37 121.96 110.08 South Carolina 650,372 530,983 444,103 341,114 222.88 186.44 52 128.00

South Dakota 85,935 68,306 62,979 47,976 124.54 99.57 92.34 70.66 Tennessee 798,272 657,567 545,545 426,544 183.22 156.04 132.13 105.82 Texas 2,724,758 2,161,147 1,433,098 1,227,261 209.37 173.07 118.93 105.35 Utah 369,324 288,129 197,742 164,182 282.57 234.63 168.58 145.81 Vermont 97,068 81,941 69,620 53,832 199.32 172.14 148.13 .116.52

Virginia 1,045,710 1,010,572 844,923 682,179 203.13 200.83 172.15 143.19 Washington 1,138,795 947,921 671,821 573,083 301.75 262.44 193.27 166.45 West Virginia 461,282 356,823 254,904 205,165 248.00 195.95 142.32 115.20 Wisconsin 2,149,735 1,868,145 1,587,473 1,106,793 459.44 405.33 347.67 244.87 Wyoming 150,624 108,213 69,406 57,886 355.25 277.47 193.33 167.79

'Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, annual reports of State Government Finances.

Percentage in crease in

per capita

' 1976 to

1978

14.5

19.8 21.7 13.2 16.5 17.5

7.0 13.7 -2.5 19.5 36.2

115.9 13.7 8.0

16.6 20.5

15.3 48.8

8.3 -15.9

) -17.8

1 11.1 32.0 21.0 16.3 15.2

40.7 33.9

1 26.7 ; 13.0 1 32.5

: 22.4 1 2.9 1 16.4

18.3 ; 23.9

1 23.4 ' 37.7 ' 11.6 1 13.7 1 20.0

1 25.1 : 17.4 i 21.0

20.4 i 15.8

1 1.2 1 15.0 1 26.6

13.4 1 28.0

amounts

1974 to

1976

24.0

23.1 24.6 39.9 30.0 14.5

35.2 21.3 37.6 12.9 1.7

0.0 32.6 28.7 67.2 35.8

30.7 23.4 33.9

186.8 32.2

55.7 11.2 13.8 25.1 15.8

48.8 41.7 13.5 24.9 19.7

28.4 26.3 37.3 28.3 15.1

30.6 16.0 17.1 31.5 16.9

7.8 18.1 45.5 39.2 16.2

16.7 35.8 37.8 16.6 43.5

1972 ' to

1974

23.1

21.0 38.4 18.9 37.2 27.0

21.2 -3.2 13.9 36.6 31.9

5.8 46.4 26.9 16.2

• 27.6

-14.0 13.9 9.5 4.3

22.6

50.4 27.8 23.8 21.6 25.3

38.6 33.8 10.9 14.7 18.3

14.5 13.1 20.7 31.8 66.6

11.6 17.6 32.4 10.8 24.6

30.7 24.9 12.9 15.6 27.1

20.2 16.1 23.5 54.6 15.2


Table 3 PER CAPITA STATE INTERGOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURE,

BY FUNCTION AND BY STATE: 1978* General

local govern

ment State _^ Total support

All states $309.52 $ 31.37

Alabama 228.85 6.44 Alaska 659.99 79.10 Arizona 346.08 74.17 Arkansas 231.06 12.59 California 444.33 53.51

Colorado 279.68 6.04 Connecticut 191.63 30.78 Delaware 315.56 Florida 260.18 27.70 Georgia 231.66 3.17

Hawaii 55.42 24.89 Idaho 256.34 33.75 Illinois 255.22 14.42 Indiana 275.60 59.30 Iowa 334.88 37.33

Kansas 202.06 11.73 Kentucky 221.46 0.37 Louisiana 281.62 41.22 Maine 251.80 25.61 Maryland 289.62 23.59

Massachusetts 273.24 6.44 Michigan 334.25 56.55 Minnesota 489.12 80.05 Mississippi 287.67 37.61 Missouri 167.22 1.22

Montana 274.95 18.38 Nebraska 222.22 63.64 Nevada 298.79 25.13 New Hampshire 120.69 38.91 New Jersey 295.19 34.22

New Mexico 380.44 67.39 New York 567.70 58.53 North Carolina 351.62 15.42 North Dakota 272.71 29.73 Ohio 242.88 33.80

Oklahoma 219.26 2.70 Oregon 248.98 20.52 Pennsylvania 259.93 2.94 Rhode Island 182.26 12.00 South Carolina 222.88 19.29

South Dakota 124.54 6.68 Tennessee 183.22 15.94 Texas 209.37 1.34 Utah 282.57 0.77 Vermont 199.32 0.28

Virginia 203.13 3.99 Washington 301.75 11.05 West Virginia 248.00 5.00 Wisconsin 459.44 149.95 Wyoming 355.25 93.33

'Source: U .S. Bureau of the Census, Stale Government Finances in 1978.

1

Education $184.58

177.46 476.68 231.64 155.98 200.62

186.09 111.12 262.50 205.41 176.94

173.36 180.99 143.05 220.15

159.48 188.45 207.41 182.55 179.46

148.19 191.76 282.22 206.26 137.12

182.85 75.48

216.68 45.13

162.14

292.48 216.61 236.63 179.38 149.70

169:56 161.82 181.96 125.83 153.50

87.37 126.30 203.35 226.42 124.28

151.61 220.84 229.36 160.79 182.96

Specified functions

Public welfare $ 46.22

1.11 0.53 0.72

138.12

51.23 7.33 1.30

1.57

4.65

5.52 24.80

8.35

0.10

0.20 4.82 0.08

22.21 22.13 58.99

1.72

0.96 9.54 4.09

72.16

236.25 56.45 9.26

15.15

1.34 1.00

20.60 19.29

0.33 0.66

3.10 8.05

18.45 5.97

79.01 2.86

Highways $17.58

18.56

25.84 27.34 18.36

17.68 8.14 3.43

14.28 12.35

1.95 40.18 22.55 33.47 47.49

19.48 4.40

10.34 3.60

37.93

9.87 38.67 . 30.41 33.68 11.70

8.64 42.57 10.23 7.13 3.94

9.36 7.15 5.74

37.07 25.08

31.41 47.69 10.50 0.42

14.93

7.04 33.05

1.07 9.12

12.08

7.53 22.20

32.11 27.90

Miscellaneous ' and

unallocable $29,78

26.39 103.10

13.90 34.43 33.73

18.64 34.25 48.33 12.79 37.63

23.93 9.04

31.74 14.98 21.56

11.26 28.24 22.44 35.23 48.56

86.52 25.14 37.44 10.12 15.47

64.11 30.98 42.66 29.52 22.73

11.21 49.16 37.38 17.26 19.15

14.26 17.95 43.94 24.73 35.17

23.13 7.29 3.62

43.16 54.63

21.55 41.68 13.64 37.59 48.19


Table 4 STATE INTERGOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURE,

BY FUNCTION AND BY STATE: 1978* (In thousands of dollars)

General Specified functions local . .

govern- Miscellaneous ment Public and

State Total support Education welfare Highways combined All states $67,287,260 $6,819,438 $40,125,488 $10,047,049 $3,821,135 $6,474,150

Alabama 856,355 24,089 664,073 . . . 69,438 98,755 Alaska 265,975 31,876 192,103 448 . . . 41,548 Arizona 814,662 174,595 545,270 1,251 60,820 32,726 Arkansas 505,103 27,519 340,982 1,568 59,774 75,260 California 9,905,969 1,193,040 4,472.568 3,079,175 409,245 75l,941(a)

Colorado 746,746 16,131 496,868 136,781 47,200 49,766 Connecticut 593,857 95,397 344,364 22,728 25,224 106,144 Detoware 183,973 . . . 153,039 757 2,000 28,177 Florida 2,235,987 238,040 1,765,287 . . . 122,734 109,926 Georgia 1,177,775 16,117 899,568 7,961 62,794 191,335

Hawaii 49,711 22,327 . . . 4,173 1,750 21,461 Idaho 225,063 29,635 152,213 . . . 35,274 7,941 Illinois 2,869,480 162,153 2,034,882 62,097 253,537 356,811(b) Indiana 1,481,065 318,666 768,745 133,290 179,880 80,484 Iowa 969,801 108,114 637,547 24,185 137,521 62,434

Kansas 474,426 27,538 374,462 245 45,748 26,433 Kentucky 774,679 1,302 659,190 . . . 15,400 98,787 Louisiana 1,116,896 163,476 822,590 830 41,020 88,980 Maine 274,718 27,937 199,160 5,260 3,928 38,433 Maryland 1,199,885 97,743 743,499 314 157,159 201,170

Massachusetts 1,577,703 37,189 855,674 128,257 57,010 499.573(c) Michigan 3,071,384 519,600 1,762,115 203,366 355,313 230,990 Minnesota 1,960,373 320,860 1,131,137 236,444 121,880 150,052 Mississippi 691,567 90,418 495,852 . . . 80,972 24.325 Missouri 812,678 5,913 666,388 8,348 56,852 75,177

Montana 215,838 14,428 143,541 756 6,786 50,327 Nebraska 347,780 99,598 118,133 14,934 66,628 48,487 Nevada 197,202 16,584 143,012 2,697 6,752 28,157 New Hampshire 105,117 33,891 39,308 . . . 6,209 25,709 New Jersey 2,162,892 250,741 1,187,997 528,716 28,893 166,545

New Mexico 461,088 81,674 354,484 . . . 11,339 13,591 New York 10,075,469 1,038,784 3,844,389 4,192,992 126,815 872.489(d) North Carolina 1,960,984 86,005 1,319,678 314,830 32,017 208.454 North Dakota 177,804 19,386 116,957 6,036 24,172 11,253 Ohio 2,610,757 363,308 1,609,129 162,842 269,601 205,877

Oktahoma 631,479 7,770 488,329 ' 3,854 90,463 41.063 Oregon 608,505 50,152 395,487 2,459 116,544 43,863 Pennsylvania 3,054,225 34,595 2,138,034 241,998 123,331 5l6,267(e) Rhode Island 170,414 11,218 117,648 18,036 390 23,122 South Carolina 650,372 56,282 447,907 9 43,558 102,616

South Dakota 85,935 4,611 60,283 223 4,859 15.959 Tennessee 798,272 69,423 550,269 2,857 143,992 31,731 Texas 2,724,758 17,451 2,646,384 . . . 13,875 47,048 Utah 369,324 1,000 295,937 4,047 11,925 56,415 Vermont 97,068 136 60,523 3,922 5,883 26,604

Virginia 1,045,710 20,537 780,485 94,959 38,779 110,950 Washington 1,138,795 41,713 833,466 22,512 83,788 157,316 West Virginia 461,282 9,305 426,609 . . . . . . 25,368 Wisconsin 2,149,735 701,598 752,346 369,678 150,235 175.878 Wyoming 150,624 39,573 77,577 1,214 11,828 20,432

*Source:\}.S.^\ixea\xoHheCeni\i%,StateGovemmentFinancesin (d) Includes $245,644,000 health assistance, $85,499,000 rental 1978. subsidy payments, and $73,933,000 sewerage and water pollution

(a) Includes $331,526,000 health assistance payments. grants. (b) Includes $168,253,000 transportation aid and $63,788,000 (e) Includes $162,546,000 health assistance and $97,334,000

sewerage and water pollution control assistance. transportation assistance payments. (c) Includes $171,413,000 transportation aid and $170,509,000

CETA assistance.


Table 5 STATE INTERGOVERNMENTAL EXPENDITURE,

BY TYPE OF RECEIVING GOVERNMENT AND BY STATE: 1978* (In thousands of dollars)

Type of receiving government

State

All sUtes


Colorado Connecticut . . . . Delaware Florida Georgia



Massachusetts . . Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri


New Mexico . . . New York .\ North Carolina . North Dakota . . Ohio

Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania . . . Rhode Island . . . South Carolina .

South Dakota . . Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont

Virginia Washington West Virginia... Wisconsin Wyoming

Total intergovern

mental expenditure

$67,287,260

856,355 265,975 814,662 505,103

9,905,969

746,746 593,857 183,973

2,235,987 1,177,775

49,711 225,063

2,869,480 1,481,065

969,801

474,426 774,679

1,116,896 274,718

1,199,885

1,577,703 3,071,384 1,960,373

691,567 812,678

215,838 347,780 197,202 105,117

2,162,892

461,088 10,075,469

1,960,984 177,804

2,610,757

631,479 608,505

3,054,225 170,414 650,372

85,935 798,272

2,724,758 369,324 97,068

1,045,710 1,138,795

461,282 2,149,735

150,624

1

Federal

$1,472,378(8)

89i 1,241

356 887,352

227

825 2,295

862

4,173 721

2,444 7,374

1,283

872 4,568

314

117,199 60,770

1,043 .26

626 680

3,731

19,224

231,030

837

3i3 66,130

5,279 6

2,013

362 3,922

22,5 i 2

20,570 307

School districts

$32,010,086

664,073

545,270 340,258

4,268,335

496,667 12,859

139,104 1,765,287

899,568

152,2i3 2,024,712

768,745 637,547

374,462 659,190 822,590

1,762,115 1,127,004

495,250 666,155

143,541 118,133 142,888

9,507

354,484 2,364,287

116,957 1,516,934

488,064 395,487

2,138,034 3,492

447,907

60,283 10,414

2,638,845 295,937

60,523

833,466 426,112 745,810

77,577

Counties

$14,790,112

88,443 132,408 128,082 83,251

3,707,798

151,871

21,5i8 230,461 137,353

19,861 33,525

195,791 184,485 156,846

50,395 72,395

123,014 21,051

743,224

4,061 537,443 474,690 111,821 36,442

40,688 54,821 32,976

1,588 583,658

16,242 1,812,761 1,712,418

30,030 458,919

90,647 149,103 367,879

132,234

6,127 442,985

43,635 44,116

582,850 143,451

11,632 556,779 28,344

Municipalities

$11,953,506

28,291 98,670

132,664 59,642

890,876

88,030 250,044

18,190 228,944 31,377

23,876 11,281

346,569 113,260 117,615

35,580 22,511 46,256

141 371,773

9,065 524,859 267,891

84,470 56,166

14,409 51,631 15,665 28,699

128,047

86,351 5,547,201

119,399 17,017

127,220

40,952 56,411

257,272 89,338 31,688

3,842 339,300

37,695 21,354

3,295

401,649 114,068

1,882 519,881 41,199

Townships and New England "towns"

$852,259

251,8i2

42,i64

1,104

748 76,070 31,429

16,408 633

117,710

26,465

62,507 68,007

171

8,037

148,994

Special districts

$683,248

80 300

122,646

9,951 903

709 4,519

4,5 is 199,812

4,114 3,224

3,126 6,575 1,984

l,5i3

171,388 415

11,151

2,904

238 8,194

240 267

1,571

254 2,480

51 78

985

1,185 3,251

105,156

84

477 1,493

339

3,591 3,162

26 299

1 Combined

and unallocable

$5,525,671

75,548 34,006

7,325 21,296 28,962

78,239 4,336 8,291

104,096

1,801 22,810 60,432

408,017 47,195

8,476 14,008

122,180 248,958 83,061

l,275,242(b) 109,712 47,165

51,6ii

16,336 114,321

1,702 48,648

1,429,759(0)

3,757

129,ii6 13,722

479,397

10,631 3,940

57,247 4,298

38,453

13,499 5,573 4,106 6,062

20,952

57,620 22,136 21,656

157,675 2,898

'Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Stale Government Financesin 1978.

(a) Includes $1,461,491,000 Supplemental Security Income payments (may not include additional transfers not separately identified by other states).

(b) Includes $855,674,000 education subsidies, $57,010,000 highway subsidies, and $170,509,000 Comprehensive Employment Act aid.

(c) Comprised primarily of education aid to independent school districts and to schools operated by cities and towns.

section vii intergovernmental affairs 1. interstate...

Documents