00001.tif

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Contact Us

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content MUNICIPAL FINANCE PROBLEMS
OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA,
AN ANALYSIS OF THEIR NATURE, TRENDS AND PROSPECTS
A Dissertation
Presented to
the Faculty of the Department of Economics
The University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
by
Homer Howell Hamner
July, 1949
UMI Number: DP23240
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL U SERS
The quality of this reproduction is d ep en d en t upon the quality of th e copy subm itted.
In th e unlikely event that the author did not sen d a com plete m anuscript
and th ere a re m issing pag es, th e se will be noted. Also, if m aterial had to be rem oved,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation Publishing
UMI D P23240
Published by P roQ uest LLC (2014). Copyright in th e D issertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © P roQ uest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United S ta te s C ode
P roQ uest LLC.
789 E ast E isenhow er Parkw ay
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346
This dissertation, written by
........M M ^ . M ® l. hamer..............
under the guidance of h~X$.. Faculty Committee
on Studies, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by the Council
on Graduate Study and Research, in partial ful
fillment of requirements for the degree of
D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y
Dean
..
Com m ittee on Studies
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The dissertation is a product of long run graduate
training and final research. To such result many minds
contribute over many years. These should be acknowledged.
Nevertheless, not all influences can be exhaustively
treated. Some are too subtle to trace. Others are too
numerous to detail and classify.
Acknowledged below are certain individuals who have
perhaps chiefly contributed to the completion of this
doctoral work.
None of these latter years of progress toward a
dissertation would have been sustainable without the
guiding insight of Dr. J. Luther Leonard. This study
leans heavily on the lessons of Economic Doctrine which
more than many other economic fields passes beyond science
and comes close to the teaching of wisdom.
The chief director of this research has been Dr.
William H. Anderson, Professor of Taxation and Attorney
at Law. The writer gratefully acknowledges the fruitful
teaching of this able scholar. His good example and un
tiring counsel will be long remembered. Among graduate
students especially he has been able to inspire the
enthusiasm needed for hard work and the dedication required
for perseverance. This is the test of the real educator.
ill
The writer wishes to acknowledge the constructive
criticism contributed by Dr. Roy L. Garis. This thesis
is vitally linked with theories of changing price level
effects.
In his critical teaching and counsel Dr. Glyde ¥.
Phelps has substantially influenced this work. His analysis
of economic cycles and his exposition of the strength and
weaknesses in "Keynesian thinking” constantly contributed
to this study.
The entire discussion moves within the framework
of political institutions and of established legal practices.
Dr. Wilbert L. Hindman and Dr. Carlton C. Rodee have con
tributed to the accomplishment of this work by guiding counsel,
by constructive criticism, and by the insights communicated
in teaching. This writer gratefully acknowledges the scholarly
examples set by these investigators in the field of political
inquiry.
Together these men have contributed to whatever merit
this study may possess. The writer, however, takes full
responsibility for its final form and for whatever weaknesses
may diminish it.
Many individuals in business and government were
Interviewed in the course of this investigation. Their
generous grants of time and interest leave the investigator
in their debt.
The efficiency and spirit of the Glendale Controller's
Office must be noted. Mr. A. H. Haak and his staff gave
particular cooperation. Mr. Charles C. Sherrod, Assistant
City Controller for Glendale, contributed generously in time
and information, and'with special insight and understanding
of the objectives involved. Without his help the study
might have been nearly impossible.
Mr. J. A. Mellen, Director of Planning, gave special
help in the interpretation of trends.
Many other individuals gave information, suggestions
and counsel. The interviews listed in the Bibliography make
acknowledgment more complete.
Scholars also occasionally have families. None has
endured more than these in the "sieges of silence" that
must prevail to make the dissertation possible.
And two are dead who through many years of work be
lieved in this course of preparation. Some must keep the
fires of faith alive by their courage and selflessness. Pew
acknowledgments are more fundamental.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
PART I
THE GENERAL PROBLEMS OF MUNICIPAL FINANCE
I. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS..... ............... 1
General statement ........ 1
The nature and scope of the inquiry....... 1
The nature and extent of the data......... 8
The procedures and techniques u s e d ....... 11
II. AMERICAN MUNICIPAL FINANCE PROBLEMS AND THE
URBAN ECONOMY ‘ .................. 16
The general analysis of evidence .......... 16
Population data........................... 17
Urban wealth creation...................... 23
Urban income fluctuations ............ 25
The incidence of economic cycles ........... 28
Conclusion............................... 28
The issues............................... 29
PART II
THE FINANCIAL PROBLEMS OF THE CITY
OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
III. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CITY OF
GLENDALE................................. 30
vi
CHAPTER PAGE
General statement ........................ 30
Glendale’s geographic circumstances and
municipal finance ...................... 30
Glendale’s resource and population trends
and municipal finance problems ..... 3^
Glendale is not an (E) employing suburb . . 42
Glendale is also not a (B) balanced
suburb............................... 42
Glendale’s production activity and city
finance problems ...................... 45
Glendale employment and income fluctu
ations and city finance................ 74
Glendale’s cycle sensitive components
and city finance...................... 87
Conclusions................. 9^
IV. RECENT EXPENDITURE PROBLEMS OP THE CITY
OF GLENDALE............................. '97
General statement ........................ 97
The trends of Glendale municipal expendi
tures. General expenditures as a
pattern............................... 98
The public safety department. Police and
fire protection....................... 108
vii
CHAPTER PAGE
The public welfare department: Health and
welfare, parks and recreation, and
library.................................. 121
The general government department ............. 130
Employee retirement . . 136
The public works department ................... 141
The library serviee........................... 151
Schools expenditures .................. 161
The issues of Glendale municipal expendi
tures ....................................... 171
V. RECENT REVENUE PROBLEMS OP THE CITY OP
GLENDALE..................................... 177
The nature of Glendale's revenue Issues . . . 177
General revenues of the City of Glendale . . I7B
The property tax Issue in Glendale............ 188
The question of st.ate aids in Glendale . . . 201
The issue of new revenue sources in
Glendale.................................. 209
The subordinate revenue problems of
Glendale.............................. 224
Conclusions: Glendale's critical revenue
needs...................................... 227
APPENDIX: REVENUES OP THE UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT................................... 235
viii
CHAPTER PAGE
VI. RECENT DEBT AND CREDIT PROBLEMS OF THE CITY
OF GLENDALE........................ 238
General statement ........................ 238
The credit problem of the 'twenties in
Glendale......... 238
The debt problem of the ’thirties in
Glendale........................... . . 239
The task of the bond committee.......... 245
Glendale’s post war credit standing and
new debt prospects.............. 246
APPENDIX: DEBTS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT . . 249
PART III
MUNICIPAL FINANCE ALTERNATIVES
AND THEIR APPLICATION TO THE CITY OF GLENDALE
VII. RECENT MUNICIPAL FINANCE ALTERNATIVES ..... 253
The alternatives for expenditures ....... 253
The alternatives for municipal revenues . . 259
The question of st&te a i d s ........ 263
The issue of new revenue sources . 265
The alternatives for municipal debt .... 293
VIII. THE APPLICATION OF MUNICIPAL FINANCE
POLICIES FOR GLENDALE .................... 295
ix
CHAPTER PAGE
Expenditure policy conclusions .............. 295
Revenue policy conclusions .................. 302
Debt policy conclusions .................... 302
BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................ 309
APPENDIX.................................... 324
LIST OP TABLES
TABLE PAGE
I. Comparison of Growth Between Total U.S. and
Total U.S. Urban Population......... 19-20
II. Construction Data for U.S. Cities..... 24
III. (Part l) Summary of Data for U.S. Manu
facturing, Industrial Areas, and Los
Angeles Industrial Area: 1939 and 1929 . ♦ 26
(Part 2 ) ........... 27
IV. Glendale’s Annexation History .............. 35
V. Glendale's Population Growth .............. 38
VI. Residential U s e s ..................... 48
VII. Commercial Uses....................... 51
VIII. Industrial Uses ................ 54
IX. Public and Semi Public Uses ......... 56
X. Miscellaneous U s e s .................... 59
XI. Summary of Uses ............. , . . 60
XII. Comparison of Principal Uses with Average
of Thirty Statistical Areas in Los
Angeles County .......................... 61
XIII. Parks and Publicly Owned Recreation Areas . . 63-64
XIV. Off-Street Parking.................... .. . 67
XV. Building Permits .......................... 76
XVI. Postal Receipts....................... 79
xi
TABLE PAGE
XVII. Bank Deposits and Bank Clearings........... 81-82
XVIII. Glendale's Total Expenditures, Adjusted
for Population and Price Changes, by
Years . . ............................. 101
XIX. Comparison of Glendale’s Unadjusted and
Adjusted per Capita Expenditure Data . . . 102
XX. General Background Data for Glendale's
Total Expenditures . . ................. 106
XXI. The. Public Safety Department: Its Pro
portions of Total Municipal Employees
and of Total Municipal Spending, by
Years............................... . 109-110
XXII. Protection Expenditures, City of Glendale,
Selected Years........................... 116
XXIII. Police Protection Statistics, City of
Glendale........ ....................... 118
XXIV. Fire Protection Statistics, City of
Glendale............................... 120
XXV. Glendale Health and Welfare Expenditure . . 123
XXVI. Deflated Health and Welfare Expenditure . . 126
XXVII. Glendale Recreation Expenditures .......... 128
XXVIII. Deflated Recreation Expenditures ...... 131
XXIX. General Administration Expenditures,
Glendale.............................. 133
xii
TABLE PAGE
XXX. Deflated General Administration
Expenditures....................... 135
XXXI. Glendale Retirement Expenditure ............ 137
XXXII. Deflated Retirement Expenditures ............ 139
XXXIII. Special Project Non-Budgeted Expenditures,
Glendale................................. 140
XXXIV. Deflated Non-Budgeted Expenditures .......... 142
XXXV. Glendale Highway and Public Works Expendi
tures ................................... 144
XXX/I. Deflated Highway and Public Works Expendi
tures ........... 148
XXXVII. Comparison of Increases in Occupied, Sub
divided Lots with. Street Mileage Dedicated . 149
XXXVIII. Glendale Library Expenditures .............. 152
XXXIX. Deflated Library Expenditures .............. 154
XL. Glendale Library Service Statistics ..... 1 5 6 -1 5 7
XLI. Glendale School and City Expenditures .... 163
XLII. Deflated School Expenditures . . ............ 165
XLIII. Glendale School Enrollment Trends .......... 167
XLIV. Glendale Teacher Employment Trends .......... 169
XLV. Glendale Total Net Expenditures Per Pupil . . I70
XLVI. General Revenues of the City of Glendale . . . 179
(Part 2) General Revenues, Yearly Differences
and Rate of Change........................ 180
xiii
TABLE PAGE
XLVII. Glendale General Property Tax Levies,
Collections and Delinquencies ............ 183
(Part 2) Current Collections, Property Tax,
Yearly Differences, Yearly Rates of
Change, and Per Capita Collections,........ 184
XLVIII. Comparison of Distributions, Rates of
Change for Current Collections and
for General Revenues..................... 190
XLTX. General Property Tax Total Assessed Values
and Total Rates Applied, by Years ........ 193
L. General Property Tax: Total Rate Divided
Between Different Authorities and Purposes . 196
LI. Motorists' Taxes: Parking Meters, Gasoline
Tax Funds, Motor Vehicle in Lieu, County
Special Road Improvement, and Motor
Vehicle Fines - Traffic Safety . . ' ........ 203
LII. Consumption Taxes: Sales Tax and Alcoholic
Beverages T a x ............................ 207
LIII. Licenses Revenue: Building Permits and
Business Licenses ........................ 214
LIV. Licenses Revenue: Dog Licenses and Bicycle
Registrations ............................ 217
LV. Licenses Revenue: Privileges, Franchises,
Wires................................... 219
xiv
TABLE PAGE
LVI. Special Charges . . ........................ 222
LVI I. Revenues from Public Utilities ............ 226
LVIII. Comparison of Assessed Valuation and Tax
Rates of the Glendale City Schools .... 236
LIX. General Obligations, City of Glendale,
and Permanent Improvements ... .............. 240
LX. Principal and Interest Components, and
Yearly Debt Expenditure Totals ............... 242
LXI. Per Cents that Yearly Debts Expenditures
Have Been of Total Yearly Expenditures . . 244
LXII. Bonded Debt of Glendale Unified School
District . . . ................................ 250
LXIII. Summary of City Finances, 1942 - 1946 .... 254-256
LXIV. Income Taxes . 2 7 3 -2 7 8
LXV. Sales, Gross Receipts and Use Taxes ..... 279-291
PART I
THE GENERAL PROBLEMS OF MUNICIPAL FINANCE
CHAPTER I
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
General statement. The purposes of this chapter are:
(1) To identify the objectives, data, methods and concepts
which mark this investigation, and (2) to distinguish them
from the similar considerations of related but unlike inqui
ries . Such purposes are sustained by the requirements that
the scientific treatise shall possess internal logic and
empirical correspondence.
The nature and scope of the inquiry. The primary
interest of this study must be emphasized. Recent financial
problems of the City of Glendale, California, constitute
that interest. The data and reasoning of this thesis involve
other American cities but mostly for the prescribed end of
reaching general criteria for judging city performance.
United Kingdom and Canadian cities furnish data for certain
general conclusions which roughly parallel those for the
cities of the United States, but in general, the cities
examined are to be distinguished from European or other non-
American urban places.
City finances are the focus of interest and attention.
Probably it is undesirable to isolate them from other levels
2
of American finance, but the points of contact with other
than municipal governments will be considered incidental
and treated as secondary in the development of explanations.
In general, the finance problems of American cities
will be distinguished from those of the Federal level. They
are in fact not unrelated but their interaction will not be
made central to the exposition.
In general, American municipal finance problems will
be distinguished from those of State level. These, too,
touch at many points, in shared taxes and grants-in-aid
but these points will be treated as events emphasizing
municipal recepts more than State disbursements of funds.
Municipal finance problems will be distinguished finally
from those of other local .jurisdictions, such as counties,
townships, schools or other special-purpose districts.1
These are of course not unrelated to city finance activity
and minimizing the relationship is not to be construed as
minimizing its importance. Other local governments and
cities sometimes occupy identical areas, sometimes are merged
administratively, and often enjoy cooperative functions.
Municipal governments and city finances nevertheless furnish
the bulk of the considered data and are the units mainly
1 The Glendale Unified School District will be given
related but distinct treatment.
3
involved in the financial problems examined.
In addition, the emphasis will be upon problems of
finance, i.e., of expenditure, revenue and debt. Other
problems are significantly related, however, and will occupy
a suitable if subordinate place in the discussion. The pro
blems of city finance will be unmistakable. They pose certain
issues:
Shall the city*s general property tax be treated as an
adequate base for chief revenue reliance? If not, then should
a real estate levy (as a diminishing resource) be coupled
with demands for increasing State assistance (grants and
shared taxes)? If not, should these two be augmented by
new sources of city revenues? "What principal forms have
new sources taken? How great should the variety of these
be permitted to become? Which kinds are preferable generally?
Which are least desirable? These and like questions pose some
of the recent revenue issues of municipalities over the country.
How should expenditures be conducted In times of depression?
How conducted under conditions of war time emergency? How
maintained in periods of post war readmustment? These and
the issues of debt formation and reduction suggest the more
complete picture of city finance problems, covering as they
do, actual and desirable behavior patterns for collecting,
spending and borrowing public funds..
4
The recent financial problems of the City of Glendale
follow the general pattern:
In the depressed ’thirties some cities moved away
from a principal reliance on general property taxation.
They tended to retain State aids. Sometimes these were
increased for special uses. In addition cities developed
certain new revenue sources. Since the end of World War II
they have widely adopted the retail sales tax and they have
occasionally relied on appropriate use of funds from public
service departments. Special expenditure problems marked
their war time expansion and their post war readjustments.
Debt problems they have had, especially from the tax-delin-
quency circumstances of the depression decade, but these
have often been steadily reduced.
In dealing with municipal finance problems we shall
not confront all the government aspects of yields, deficits
and spendings. Those confronted will not be entitled neces
sarily to equal consideration.
The municipal problems of spending, revenue gathering
and debt making or discharging are especially relevant to
the tasks of the fiscal officers. In general these consist
of Budget Director, Controller, Treasurer, Purchasing Agent,
Auditor and Assessor.
Although public administration will not preoccupy us
5
mainly we shall ask some administration questions. They will
not be central, but they will be essential for comprehensive
treatment. Municipal finance problems can be torn from their
managerial aspects only by justifiable abstraction.
The adoption of a given tax or tax change may necessi
tate special procedural alternatives for budgeting, financial
reporting, cost accounting, treasury management, etc. Tax
analysis may not omit them in a given case.
The present study possesses obvious elements of im
portance which justify the pursuit of the inquiry. Broad
social consequences are involved in city changes and in
general municipal activity.. Financing merely measures these
changes and activities in monetary terms.
Considering all government activity in the United
States the bulk of government effects are in cities. City
government is a continuous, verifiable, twenty-four hours
a day service, directly affecting everyone. Though Federal
and State levels may be remote municipal activities are im
mediate, constant, personal and unavoidable.
Effects of public finance problems may thus be regis
tered on urban family behavior, urban school processes,
urban population changes, race relations and.religious
practices.
The strictly political consequences of city finance
problems involve the effects on the urban citizen, the urban
public official, urban political functions and policy making.
In the Western World of the twentieth century the very con
cepts of basic political change are urban: The good and ill
of planning, the industrialization of farming, and the firmer
establishment of lobbying. Urban men are at each other's
throats over the issues of managerial government. In the
waging of war the city becomes the obvious target and perhaps
the most difficult defense. In the waging of peace the dy
namics of government tend to center in the urban place.
The economic consequences of city finance problems
are another significant aspect of the more general stream
of social changes. Involved are the effects df these problems
on production and wealth transformation, on distribution, on
consumption or wealth use, satisfaction and enjoyment; and on
saving investment phenomena and capital accumulation. The
economy of regulated capitalism, of corporate aggregates and
federated unions, of strikes and collective bargaining, of
perennial controversy and inconstant truce, is an economy
of urban dwellers with urban values and standards of judgment.
This economy and these people are the chief beneficiaries or
principal victims of prevailing city government finance
practices.
The public finance consequences of this study will
7
concern -us mainly. We can state generally that the effects
involved are those impressed on: (1) Taxation behavior and
principles, (2) expenditure behavior and principles, and
(3) on debt and credit behavior and principles. Under fears
of war and of depression the motives of men are subject to a
conditioning peculiar to our time. Greater public spending
at city levels must somehow be met by adequate revenue re
sources. and other sustaining means. These latter include
debt increases. The causes of debt and the rising scale of
debt are critical and disturbing factors. Even the greater
complexity of the new city finance begets problems.
The main stages of this analysis will follow a plan.
The Gity of Glendale, California, is the focus for an original
case study. This presents an occasion for interpreting a
single American municipal finance operation in the light of
comparable data for other American and other Southern Califor
nia urban places.
Municipal finance remedies are examined generally over
the United States in a subsequent part and then applied as
statements of tendency in reviewing the financial alternatives
of the City of Glendale.
The main body of analysis is completed by a final
summary of findings and a group of recommendations.
Recent city finance problems raise one or two long run
8
questions which should he formulated but which probably cannot
be answered. If a war of some protracted length should come,
what would be the role of American city governments? Are the
trends toward more permanent internal security arrangements
likely to revolutionize the affairs of police and fire depart
ments? Whatever the extent of such developments they would
require financing. Would cities be expected to carry any
great or substantial part of a new fiscal burden, or would
Federal or other levels of administration care for it?
Even if peace prevails there are the persistent
worries over depressed business and unemployment. Most of
the American working force is urban. Great depression would
again bring mainly urban population without work and without
income.
If increasing government management should be our
course of policy what part would urban governments take in
the long run? Would Federal government continue indefinitely
to deal with cities largely by an indirect route through
States? Answers to these questions will involve alterations
in city financing, perhaps more profound than any yet con
templated.
The nature and extent of the data. The data to be
analyzed must be amenable to scientific handling if the
results are expected to be verified contributions to knowledge.
9
(1) Gathering or collecting material must be possible.
(2) Comprehensive evidence must be available if conclusions
are to be adequately sustained. (3) In the data used the
relevant and irrelevant elements must be separable for pur
poses of analysis. (4) Classification must be possible.
(5) Relationships between classes of events it must be
possible to formulate, measure and verify. In the physical
sciences these are the qualifications for the physical data
in the laboratories. In the social sciences the same quali
fications are harder to meet. Controlled experiment has only
limited application here. Data of behavior may be gathered
statistically, but beyond tabulation the difficulties begin.
Adequacy of data is often in doubt. The relevant and irrele
vant are inseparably mixed in a given case. The concept for
mulated cannot be measured precisely. Conclusions cannot be
verified with extremely high probability in the outcome. The
social scientist must do what he can, but it is often not un
like seeing through a glass darkly.
What primary data are available for this study?
Federal government publications have a place of basic impor
tance. The Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
furnishes a significant part of the facts that make a funda
mental framework. Much is derived from the data of the Six
teenth Census of 1940, both,in the original studies and in
10
the special reports growing out of them or supplementing them.
Other Federal publications contribute, though less often and
more indirectly. Among these are the Monthly Labor Review
and Survey of Current Business. The Statistical Abstract of
the United States includes a selected, often condensed repe
tition of some of the above data.
The special survey reports of economic and financial
study for particular cities are significant sources of data
dealing with each city as a special case.
Beyond the more standard indexes and special data
services are the more limited sources of the individual city.
The investigator discovered that not all cities of even con
siderable size make consolidated annual reports. When only
specialized statements are available, data may not- be ade
quate for the analysis task. When only work reports are
available their interpretation commonly by a member of staff
personnel is a requisite for their use.
Questionnaire data were strongly relied upon for
Glendale's record of fiscal affairs, for the particular
departments and functions. Interview data constituted
essential materials for study. They were less objective
but needed to discover clues in the interpretation of objec
tive data.
Comprehensive and systematic are the evidence sources
11
published by the Municipal Finance Officers Association and
by the International City Managers Association.
Many other kinds of secondary materials were helpful
in this area of study. Publications of the Tax Institute
and of the Tax Foundation were used. Appraisal studies of
the technical and professional journals gave important aid.
Important limits are apparent, however, even in the
sturdiest sources, such as the densus reports. Some facts
are not gathered for cities of less than 100,000 population
in a particular year. This meant less densus information
on such cities as Burbank. Some facts are given no oftener
than once in ten years although the years between may need
critical interpretation. Where estimates have filled in
gaps in data, private research groups have often been surveyed.
Often, however, several of them disagree on the same fact
estimated.
The most recent data are not always available, often
are tentative and not infrequently incomplete.
Too much reliance must not be placed on Sixteenth
Census data since almost ten years have elapsed and especially
since these years include the period of World War II.
The procedures and techniques used. In pursuit of a
prescribed inquiry an investigator must apply certain re
search processes to particular data. In this study we have
12
already suggested the nature of the inquiry and the classes
and extent of data involved. The methods of investigation must
now he explored.
They emphasize the work that was accomplished. However,
they also sharpen the lines of contrast by indicating what was
not done, or jobs that could not be done. Certain tasks were
only partly accomplished and even to such extent not without
difficulties and uncertainties.
Large universities maintain continuous programs of
study and inquiry, but they are no longer unique in this
activity. Other organizations have found research an indis
pensable necessity. Government, business, labor, great labo
ratories, libraries, advisory services, news and radio analysis
have transformed systematic fact gathering into an industry.
It is essential to distinguish the limits of this work from
those vaster worlds of study that are possible for organized
research staffs, with their -assembly line technicians and
their coordination directors, editors and the like.
At the doctoral level, however, the research task is
still largely a handicraft process yielding a custom made
product. The investigator must prove his ability to: (1)
Draft the framework of his discussion with logical acuteness,
(2) ask the significant questions, (3) gather data, (4) devise
means for.testing it, (5) forecast events by projecting lines
13
of tendency and trend, (6) select and defend criteria of
judgment, distinguishing them from other standards, and (7)
formulate explicit statements of recommendation dealing with
particular described circumstances.
Investigation of a city's financial affairs can be
conducted superficially from an inspection of secondary
sources. The doctoral study requires, however, that in the
trial of facts only the testimony of percipient witnesses
shall be admissible. Only primary sources are acceptable
for the distinctive work.
Secondary materials cannot in any case be ignored or
neglected. Often they will furnish corroborating evidence
of the story related by the investigator's main witnesses
and principal exhibits. Again, they provide basic materials
for areas not the primary focus of interest but which could
not be studied anyhow with less than staff resources.
The main concern of this study has been to analyze
an area and a city never before systematically treated for
the purpose of finding the significant finance problems and
their remedial alternatives.
It has been necessary to gather the considered judg
ments of seasoned public administrators, veteran politicians,
both the currently prevailing and the temporarily defeated.
To these have been added the viewpoints of local chiefs of
14
retailing, wholesaling, and construction establishments,
credit managers, officials of tax associations, chambers of
commerce and members of municipal league subdivisions. All
this is essential in mapping out the contours of a city's
economic base so that financial problems can be related to
connecting resource facts in the community.
For finance problems of the municipality do not exist
in vacuo, but in relation to all other major problems of the
city.
This investigator has used both the informal and the
formal methods of interviewing. In the first instance, it
was necessary to compose an account of statements made rela
tively soon after such meetings. In the second it was pos
sible to follow a more routine procedure of questions,
answers and note taking at the time of the interview.
It has been the endeavor of this study to take some
real responsibility for the search. Scientific procedures
should be in the direction of the true, the significant;, and
the fruitful. In so doing one must be prepared to fence with
partisans and critics. This writer believes that it is:
(1) Feasible and (2) worthwhile to reconcile theory and
practice in order that our learning shall not become a mere
ceremony, our science mere form, and both a celebration of
past facts only.
15
Some of the details of method should he emphasized.
Census in formation was examined closely and given a primacy
in controlling descriptions of problems. Special tcensus data
were selected for purposes of classification and conclusions.
Other Federal statistical sources helped to define the nature
of city finance problems generally.
Basic, indispensable data and information were furnished
by the Controller's Office of the City of Glendale. This dis
sertation would have been substantially reduced and far less
significant without the active cooperation of city fiscal
administrators.
The Glendale Unified School District is entirely
separate from the rest of the city. From its business manager
entirely separate classes of data were secured.
Wherever possible the weaknesses of otherwise acceptable
evidence have been indicated in the tables and elsewhere by
explanation.
CHAPTER II
AMERICAN MUNICIPAL FINANCE PROBLEMS AND
THE URBAN ECONOMY
The general analysIs of evidence. Over the
nation as a whole city governments face certain financial
problems in common. In general they are classed as prob
lems of efficiency, expenditure, revenues and debts. All
however.are connected, none is separable, from the nature
and limits of total urban and area resources.
In an economic sense these resources consist of:
(1) Growing, mobile and versatile population, (2) their
productive, employment and accumulation activities, (5)
their receipt and active use of income, and (4) whatever
local business features make its economic stability most
probable. Some components in the local and city economy
are more resistant than others to sharp business fluctua
tions. Certain economic incomes of the community are
largely undependable for the long run. To rely heavily
on them, therefore, is to secure the municipal load with
1 1 ropes of sand1 *.
The general purpose of this chapter is to show that
municipal finance processes are but another aspect of broader
economic events. From the evidence it seems clear that the
17
problems noted above grow out of the character of the urban
and metropolitan economy.
Population data. The people are the raison d *etre
for city governments. Urban populations constitute both
the beginning of municipal finance problems and the means
to solutions for those problems.
Historically, when they have arrived in American
cities in sufficient numbers, by birth and by immigration,
they have become the justification for city organization.
They require protection of person and of property
and thus provide the reason for founding and extending
police and fire departments. Their children are the basis
for the capital and operating expenditures for schools.
Their heealth is the consideration demanding adequate sani
tation agencies and measures. Their safety is the need
which sustains greater and more reliable traffic controls
and highway improvements.
"When either their numbers or their economic activi
ties change abruptly, increasing or decreasing, fiscal
measures of emergency character may become insistent.
The movement of native and foreign.‘ born population
toward great urban areas was not always a striking feature
18
of American life. Between 1790 and 1880 some forty-six
million people were added to the country's total numbers.1
More than two thirds settled in rural places. Less than
one third became urban. Since 1880 the urbanization trend
has become profound. Pour decades saw city growth rates
more than doubling those of the countryside. At first
they were three times, then four and at last nine times
as great. In the 'twenties the rate was only six times
over rural, but in the 'thirties total national growth
rate fell significantly. Immigration and birth rates to
gether were down between 1930 and 1940. Cities and sub
urban places together still surpassed rural places in growth,
but most large cities were little augmented and some were
even losing their resident numbers. Table I suggests the
data giving rise to these generalizations. The meaning is
that we began as a rural economy, later became primarily
urban and are now involved in a major trend toward becoming
dominantly suburban.
It is beyond the scope of this study to recount in
any detail the reasons for urbanization and for later
1 Austin P. Macdonald, American City Government and
Administration. (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company,
i944), pp. 22-39.
TABLE I
(Jan.)
COMPARISON OP GROWTH BETWEEN TOTAL U.S. AND
TOTAL U.S. URBAN POPULATION!
Years
Total U.S.
Population
Decade
Difference
Rate of
Increase
Total U.S.
Urban Pop.
Decade
Difference
Rate of
Increase
1790
1800
1810
1820
1830
3,929,214
5,308,483
7,239,881
9,638,453
12,866,020
1,379,269
1,931,398
2,398,572
3,227,567
35-10$
36.42$
33.12$
33.50$
1840
1850
I960
1970
1880
.17,069,453
23,191,876
31,443,321
38,558,371
50,155,783
4,203,433
6,122,423
8,251,445
7,115,050
11,597,412
32.70$
35.90$
35.55$
22.55$
30.10$
1890
1900
1910
1920
1930
62,947,714
75,994,575
91,972,266
105,710,620
122,775,046
12,791,931
13,046,861
15,977,691
13,738,354
17,064,426
25.55$
20.75$
21.05$
14.95$
l6.20$
22,106,265
30,159,921
41,998,932
54,157,973
68,954,823
8,053,656
11,839,011
12,159,041
14,796,850
36.45$
38.00$
29.00$
27.30$
1940
1948
131,669,275
145,340,000
8,894,229
7-24$ 74,423,702
5,468,879
7.94$
i —1
vo
I
TABLE I (Continued)
COMPARISON OF GROWTH BETWEEN TOTAL U.S. AND
TOTAL U.S. URBAN POPULATIONl
Years
Number
Urban Places
Decade
Difference
Rate of
Increase
1890 1,348
-
1900
1,737 389 28.85$
1910 2,262
525
30.20$
1920
2,722
460 20.30$
1930
3,165
443 16. . 30$
19*1-0 3,464
299 9.45$
Source: Bureau of the Census.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Census "urban place" means
place with population greater than 2500.
r o
o
21
suburban trends. Suffice it to say that urbanization
reflected at the end of the nineteenth century the vitality
of a new nation, immigration from Europe, rppid industrial
ization and secularization of values.
Suburbanization involves some movement to the city's
edge to reduce taxes. Tax colonization in terms of metro
politan revenues and bases means: (1) Declining real extate
values (and property tax bases) in central cities, (2)
lowered revenue from the property tax, (3) and condinued
or even rising costs to the central city for services
(transportation means, traffic controls, protective services)
rendered by such city to commuter population, the same being
largely unpaid for by the commuters. Suburbanization is per
haps a fundamental trend, as some analysts suppose, and must
needs be carefully studied and understood. It seems to rest
2
on a number of factorfchanges:
1. The human desire to live outside the city is named
as a primary cause;
2. Improved transportation facilities, especially
the private automobile, are means implementing that urge;
^ "Forces Affecting Metropolitan Patterns/’ Tax Policy.
January, 1948, pp. 4-8.
22
3. Together, these give rise to commuting, and to
increasingly "fluid" resident, semi-resident, and "contact"
population;
4. Fundamental, too, is the decentralization of in
dustry. Factors less potent include:
a. Decentralization of shopping centers;
b. The increasing amenities of country life; and
c. Rising standards of living generally.
Still other factors are underscored as potentially .
sustaining these forces. Included are:
1. Mass production tendencies in home building.
2. Military, and
3. Atomic decentralization.5
Some vriters have felt that a wholly new type of
city is in the making, with largely new types of inhabitants.
They picture the population so "fluid" that a new form of
local policy making and administration must be conceived.
They insist that new municipal finance will be a requirement.
Even now, however, cities must decide whether: (1)
To annex some or part of the suburban population to regain
some of their lost tax bases. They must decide how fast
and how far such a policy should proceed. (2) They must
2 Ibid ., pp. 8 -10.
23
also decide whether to use mostly property tax increases,
or State assistance increases for pending and urgent new
expenditure. (3) Finally they must judge the merits of
new revenue sources which would particularly require the
"fluid" population to share equitably- in supporting .muni
cipal services rendered. These are population generated
issues.
Urban wealth creation. Over time and place, from
Nineveh to New York, the general wealth of cities has been
axiomatic. Recent experience in the industrial United
States offers rare exception to this rule.
The economic activities of a city's people possess
a primacy of interest for their fiscal affairs. These
former are the means by which property values arise and
increase. They may provide a substantial base for tax
levies on wealth.
When wealth creation and accumulation in the community
are "progressing" its ability to provide and pay for city
services is also growing, generally. When productive acti
vity is stagnant or declining, however, so too are the
possibilities for municipal finance remedies.
The validity of these statements is suggested by the
facts summarized in Table II. In 1939 cities in the the
United States, of 100,000 population or more, possessed
TABLE II
CONSTRUCTION DATA FOR U.S. CITIES1
Number Per cent
Establishments Work Performed
City size
of
Cities
of U.S.
Population Number
Per cent
U.S. Total
(Value)
(000)
Per cent
U.S. Total
Total all cities
(of 100,000 popu
lation or more) 92 28.8
79,755 37.1 2,475,405 54.7
Cities, 300,000
and over 14 17.0
44,425 20.7
1.460,366
32.3
Cities, 250,000
to 499,999
23 5.9 17,175
8.0
547,735
12.1
Cities, 100,000
to 249,999 35 5-9 18,155
8.4 467,304 10.3
Source: Census of Business: 1939* Vol. IV, Construction.
1 Just.before the sixteenth census of 1940.
ro
25
37-1 per* cent of all United States construction establishments.
These latter performed work valued at $2,475*405,000 which was
54.7 per cent of total U.S. construction.
Table III provides evidence that much the same facts
prevailed for factory output. In 1939, there were 184,230
separate'establishments. More than half of these were in
the ninety-seven counties producing 60 per cent of that year's
added manufacturing value. Similar data are available in
census records for business, wholesale, retail and service
establishments.
Urban income fluctuations. A different aspect of the
economic base is its income stream. Comparing the wealth
concept with income stream concept is not unlike comparing
the content of a typical balance sheet with that of a typical
operating statement. Prom this income flow tax quantities
can often be taken to pay for city service. When the stream
is swollen, so too are the possibilities of city-financing;
but when the stream begins to fall special problems of taxation,
expenditure and debt arise. For if rising wealth sustains
property levies, declining income and employment increase
property tax delinquency and add to the responsibilities of
public relief and welfare. These tendencies are dramatically
demonstrated in industrial areas in depression.
In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, expenditures for relief more
TABLE III
Part 1
SUMMARY OF DATA FOR U.S. MANUFACTURING, INDUSTRIAL AREAS, AND
LOS ANGELES INDUSTRIAL AREA: 1939 AND 1929
Years
Number
Counties Population
Number
Establishments
Average Number Wage
Earners Per Year
United States
1939:
a
3,073 131,669,275
184,230
7,886,567
1929: 3,075
122,775,046 206,663
8,369,705
Industrial v .
Areas
1939: 97
46,578,504
98,377 4,311,567
1929: 97 44,116,053
108,374 4,775,241
Los Angeles
Area (Los Ange
les County)
1939:
1 2,785,643 5,594
126,391
1929:
1 2,208,492
4,797 101,383
Source: Bureau of the Census, Reports on Manufactures: 1939. Vol. I General Report -
Statistics by Subjects.
a: Campbell and Milton Counties, Ga,, were consolidated with Fulton County after
1929.
b: The independent cities of St. Louis and Baltimore are treated as counties.
ro
ON
TABLE III
Part 2
SUMMARY OF DATA FOR U.S. MANUFACTURING, INDUSTRIAL AREAS, AND
LOS ANGELES INDUSTRIAL AREA: 1939 AND 1929
Years
Cost of Materials
Fuel Purchased
Electric Energy
and Contract Work
Value of
Products
Value added by
Manufacturing
United States
1939:
1929:
$32,160,106,681
37,402,605,796
$56,843,024,800
67,994,040,824
$24,682,918,119
30,591,435,028
Industrial Areas
1939:
1929:
18,656,916,279
23,013,908,914
33,575,754,731
42,521,079,439
14,918,838,452
19,507,170,525
Los Angeles Area
(Los Angeles
County)
1939:’
1929:
706,906,903
670,926,902
1,219,433,652
1,165,169,333
512,526,749
494,242,431
Source: Ibid.
ro
-4
28
than doubled during each of two successive years in the early
'thirties.^ Conspicuous, was Detroit with its relatively high
income for prosperous years but with $10,846,557 expended for
relief arid welfare in 1931.
The incidence of economic cycles. In general when
business crises precipitate deepening depressions not all
enterprises are equally stricken. The most critical part of
the city's economy is that which may fluctuate most violently
What make these segments of industry crucial are the "boom
and bust" consequences of unemployment, reduced income, de
pressed capital values, increased relief rolls, tax delin
quency, reduced city services, mounting municipal debt,
increasing public works, and the like.
Conclusion. Whether heavy industry (cycle sensitive)
or a single industry bulk large in a city's economy may be
emphasized in analyzing its growth and probable future. In
general, those countries and those regions and cities fare
best whose economic components are most diverse. All eco
nomic activity may fluctuate some, but empirical data tends
to prove that, in general, producers goods and heavy pro
duction activity will fluctuate more violently than light
industry or trade and service industries. Whether city
governments can weather economy storms partly depends on
^ Prank Bance, "Public Welfare," What the Depression
Has Done to Cities (Chicago: The International City Managers'
Association, 1935], P- 16.
29
whether and how much business diversity characterizes the
economic area.
The issues. (1) Where inefficiency is a striking
trait, very often the city organization has merely failed
to adapt itself to the urgent needs of a bigger, more compli
cated urban living. (2) Where the issues of expenditure have
become crucial, the new circumstances of expanding or shrink
ing population are often the explanation. (3) Deficient city
revenues may be causing the greatest anxiety at the moment.
Here, too, however, the whole nature of urban and area economy
are generally reflected. If property tax yields decline,
general economic values have often fallen already. If delin
quency in property taxation grows, the market in real estate
has generally been depressed at an earlier time. (4) Where
debt has grown to alarming size other credit relations in the
business life of the city have often been strained or broken.
(5) Of course, not all the city's financial problems are
generated out of local economic disturbance. Untapped revenues
may remain untapped because of the limitations imposed by
state constitutions and statutes. (6) Borrowing capacity,
otherwise substantial, may be unused because of credit use
limitations imposed also from state levels. (7) Some expendi
tures may be largely correlated with national or world affairs.
They may be war generated. They may be born of depression or
other crises.
PART II
THE FINANCIAL PROBLEMS OF THE
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER III
ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OP THE CITY OP GLENDALE
General statement. Social economy sustains public
finance. The social economy of a city arises from: (1) The
economic character of its people and (2) from the consequences
of their economic behavior, (3) in relation to general re
sources .
The purpose of this chapter is to examine each of these
elements for the City of Glendale, since together they sustain
Glendale's municipal finance activity. Examined will be: (l)
Geographic circumstances, (2) resource and population trends,
(3) urban production, (4) employment and income fluctuations,
and (5) the cycle sensitive components peculiar to this urban
economy.
Glendale's geographic circumstances and municipal
finance. Certain physical elements associated with the
geographic, geologic and climatic events of a region tend
to limit the municipal possibilities of its cities and to
condition their finance problems. In Glendale these elements
will be identified as: (a) Water table level, (b) distance
from additional river resources, (c) surrounding mountains
and hills, (d) drainage features, (e) adjacency to deserts,
(f) adjacency to bodies of water, and (g) atmospheric con-
31
ditions, especially humidity and wind.
In general, these elements, more definitely specified
later on, have registered the following effects significant
for municipal finance: (l) They have limited the population
growth maximum, (2) directed or influenced the places of
population concentration, (3) controlled or influenced the
patterns of its general economic activity and especially its
transportation routes and manufacturing habits, (4) affected
its relations with other areas and their local governments, and
(5) presented special problems to city engineers and planning
groups. These latter are particularly associated with building,
maintaining and improving city facilities: Streets, sidewalks,
flood control conduits, "wash” drainage, water mains, sewerage,
earthquake resistant construction, and safety building to
minimize fire hazards.
(a) Water table level is a community resource. Falling
water table means less water supply for general purposes.
Glendale's present water resources are considered adequate
but over time her water table level has been falling (as it
has generally in Southern California). At a subsequent point
in the analysis more data will be examined relating to The
Metropolitan Water District and to Glendale's financial par
ticipation and benefits.
(b) Glendale's distance from the Owens Valley streams
32
and from the Colorado River makes her geographic position
again significant for her city finance problems. Distant
rivers can become supplementary sources of community real
income. Making them accessible, however, requires trans
mission conduits, pumping, canals, etc., which in turn re
quires municipal financing.
(c) In general, the territorial limits of Glendale
(the incorporated limits.) define an area which may be de-
*|
scribed as "spacious valley" surrounded by mountains.
Immediately south of the city is the valley of the Los
Angeles River. South east are the Santa Monica Mountains.
Eastward lie Eagle Rock Valley and Pasadena. North east
lie the San Rafael Hills, separated from the Verdugos by
2
Verdugo Canyon. The canyon itself leads northward to La
Crescenta Valley. North of the city are the Verdugo Hills.
On the north west and western sides extend the San Fernando
Valley and foothills.
(d) The City itself lies principally on the
gently-sloping plain formed by the meanderings
of the Verdugo wash. A large portion of it,
however, is in the Verdugo and San Rafael Hills.
The highest point in the City is in Brand Park,
2,995 feet. The lowest point is at Tyburn
Street and the Southern Pacific Railroad, 415
Office of the.City Planning Commission, Glendale,
Land Use Report, City of Glendale. (Existing uses as of June,
I9W. Published, MarchJ 194971
2 Ibid., p. 3.
33
feet above sea level.
(e) The city’s nearness to desert and semi arid regions
and (f) Its adjacency to the Pacific Ocean give It both tem
perate and more extreme climate as S.lternatlng possibilities.
(g) High velocity dry winds from the desert areas have
at times added important measures to the damage control
problems of the municipality. More equable temperatures
south of the Santa Monica Mountains make Glendale’s summers
and winters often fractionally more extreme than those for
the Los Angeles City area. Pire Department problems arise
in these circumstances. When heat and dryness coincide with
winds the conflagration hazard for Glendale becomes worse.
In addition, possible brush fires menace certain fringes of
residential Glendale. But neither the fire risks nor the
natural resources to combat fire make the Glendale situation
as adverse as it is for even more southerly cities at this
end of the state. San Bernardino, for example, has both a
worse hazard and less resources to offset the problem. Pire
Department financing is underlined.
Effects of these conditions are discussed in greater
detail as the same are registered in changes for population,
industrial and commercial location factors, inter city co-
3 Loc. cit.
operation (Sewerage, Step-up Fire Agreements), and city
engineering tasks, now to be interpreted.
Glendale’s resource and population trends and municipal
finance problems. The city's area has increased over nearly
forty years of expansion. The approximately 150 acres of
Glendale townsite of 1886 had become a total of i486 acres
at the time of incorporation in 1906. The present area (ca.
13,000 acres) has been reached after twenty-four separate
annexations beginning in October, 1911 and running up to the
last fully recorded year (1948).^ Annexation was most active
in the 'twenties and almost entirely inactive in the 'thirties.
Table IV exhibits the details of the city's annexation history.
18.4 per cent of Glendale's total land area is "unusable
This means in terms of analysis that it is too mountainous for
any but residential and very limited use.^
Usable land is thus 10,577*1 acres in extent. This is,
of course, the more significant area measurement for survey
and analysis purposes.^
^ Annexation of the presently debated Montrose Valley
area would add substnatially to the city's present size.
^ Glendale News-Press, "The Glendale Story," Section
"Business," p. 9*
g
The Land Use Report (p. 4) suggests that 18.4 per
cent is either completely unsuited to urban development, or
suitable only for low density type of development.
^ Ibid*, p. 5*
35
TABLE IV
GLENDALE'S ANNEXATION HISTORY1
Following are the original and subsequent areas which are pre
presently combined within the city. They are listed with the
dates of annexation.
1. February 16, 1906 City of
area of
miles.
Glendale incorporates with
i486 acres or 2.32 square
2. October 28, 1911 City annexed West Glendale, 399.00
(acres)
3-
March 12, 1912 Annexed
(acres)
Verdugo Anyon, 3,736.00
4. April 21, 1916 Annexed Pumping Plant, 21.50
5.
April 21, 1916 Annexed Remington St., 45.50
6. January 9* 1918 Annexed Tropico, 861.00
7.
May 22, 1918 Annexed Arden Ave., 14.00
8. May 22, 1918 Annexed Valley View, 43.50
9. August 7* 1918 Annexed Kenilworth, 475.00
10. March 11, 1919 Annexed Grand Ave., 605.00
11. July 22, 1921 Annexed Pacific Ave., 748.00
12. August 2, 1921 Annexed Viola St., 8.50
13.
September 15, 1921 Annexed Sierra Ave.,
1,321.65
14. December 19, 1921 Annexed Laurel Ave., 401.00
15. May 14, 1923
Annexed Flower St.,
194.59
16. March 31, 1924 Annexed Vine St., 306.45
17.
September 2, 1924 Annexed
(acres)
Mountain St., 94.32
18. August 24, 1925 Annexed Sparr Heights, 164.00
19.
November 21, 1925 Annexed Sycamore Canyon 164.00
20. April 17, 1926 Annexed Casa Verdugo
357.91
21. July 7, 1938 Annexed Brand Park 488.32
22. May 28, 1945 Annexed Glen Precinct 77.02
23. August 25, 1945 Annexed Oak Circle
12.35
24. December 31. 1945
July 12, 1948
Annexed Brand Park, No.
2, 50.55
25.
Annexed Glenmont Park 42.88
Source: Land Use Report, Glendale Planning Commission;
Glendale News-Press, "The Glendale Story," Section
"Business," November 26, 1948, p. 9*
1: By 1948 the City of Glendale had grown to ca. 13*000 acres.
36
What are the municipal finance consequences of these
land resource circumstances?
1. Usable land surface is a relatively limited eco
nomic factor and becoming yearly more scarce. Further
annexation doubtless is indicated, but the practical bounds
of annexation are already in sight. Further finance burden
is probable in connecting up with substantial areas north
of the city. Greater revenues and greater expenditures
are incated.
2. The most economic use of this land resource is
justified. Market testing accomplishes much of this best
allocation of economic factors. Nevertheless the city
financing of continuous planning activity with periodic
surveys of land use, zone reviewing and rezoning are suggested.
3. Land cover and conservation measures are needed
where road and reservoir building in the hills leave scarred
and mutilated surface contiguous with areas of predominantly
residential use.
Over this terrain surface in Glendale is distributed
a growing population. At the time of incorporation (1906)
the estimated number resident in the city was 1,186. The
first census showing Glendale*s size came in 1910 with a
growth registered at 2,746. By 1920 a substantial increase
is evident in a population total of 13*536. Glendaleis
37
present population growth has brought the estimated aggregate
o
to just under 105,000.
The period of greatest population growth was the
decade of the 'twenties, when population more than quadrupled.
Table V exhibits the detail of Glendale's growth in numbers.
Added are figures projecting the city's population increases
some years ahead.
The city planning authority estimates population for
I960 at 155,000 and ultimate population at 225,000 (with an
increase of the ultimate figure to 275,000 if Montrose,
La Crescenta, etc.* are annexed).
Prom the foregoing measurements and estimates of land
and people, densities for the city can be computed, as
follows:
1949 9*9 persons per usable acre
i960 14.7 persons per usable acre
(Ult.) 21.3 persons per usable acre
9
Says the Land Use Report;
This means that Glendale is 'filling up' and
that it is approaching its saturation point under
the existing types of development. It does not
® United States Census data and recent estimates of
the City Controller.
9 op, cit♦, p. 4. Densities for related areas in 1949
are: Pasadena 8.1; Burbank 9-7; Los Angeles County 5*8.
38
TABLE V
GLENDALE'S POPULATION GROWTH
Year Total Population Differences
1910 2,746
1920 13,536 10,790
1930 62,736 49,200
1931 63,779
1,172
1932 65,728
1,949
1933
66,461
733
1934 66,917
456
1935 67,245
328
1936 68,413 1,168
1937 72,318 3,968
1938 74,975 2,594
1939 78,113 3,138
19^0
81,803 3,690
1941 82,582
779
1942 90,000 7,418
1943 91,780 1,780
1944
94,065 2,285
1945
95,670
1,605
1946
96,495 825
1947 100,513
4,018
1948
102,703
2,190
1949 (Est.) 104,278
1,575
I960 155,000
Ultimately
Ultimately if city
annexes Montrose,
225,000
La Crescenta, etc. 275,000
Source: United States Bureau of Census; computations of the
Office of the City Controller, and of this writer.
Estimates of future population by the City Planning
Commission.
39
mean that Glendale will cease to grow. Glendale
cannot help growing. It is strategically too
well located not to grow. It does mean that
there Is danger unless properly guided, of a
maldistribution of the population that is destined
to come here. This means, in essence, the possi
bility of too much crowding in the wrong places
and not enough concentration of population in
those localities within the city that are logi
cally and economically suited to receive such
population.
Again,
. . .problems of growth and land utilization. . .
are certain to become increasingly more complex.
What are the municipal finance consequences of Glen
dale's population growth, trends, and usable land densities?
1. Some of the consequences are a reiteration of
previous statements and merely reinforce them. The financing
of continuous city planning is underlined. Programs of
periodic land use surveying must be sustained with a view
to periodic rezoning.
2. Municipal financing of programs of street improve
ment and of traffic control progress must be undertaken.
More off street parking and future free way construction
are indicated. Glendale needs more parks and recreation
facilities per capita. More will be said of this in another
connection. School and college expansion are indicated, and
perhaps the foundations for trade school extensions.
Beyond land aggregates and population increases,
howevep, are the categories of land use. These suggest
V*
40
the resource development of Glendale. For purposes of
exploring and appraising the economic achievement reflected
in land use the charts of the Land Use Report are reproduced
substantially as they appear in the original published
studies. First, however, Glendale must be related to other
American cities generally. This is an exercise in classi
fication.
Classifying American cities is already an advanced
technique and special preoccupation. The International
City Managers Association and their annual Municipal Year
Book have introduced scientific refinements of a high order
in achieving a rational and useful instrument for analysis
and for policy making.10 The norms and criteria therein
developed will be applied here. It is beyond the scope of
the present work to appraise merits and defects in their
basic assumptions. Of course it should be noted that in
much of their output the staff for The Municipal Year Book
rely on the data of the Census Bureau, thus reflecting its
strength and its limitations.
Classification Is a process of inclusion and of ex
clusion. Glendale Is not a metropolitan central city.
10 The Municipal Year Book, 1948, Clarence E. Ridley
and Orin F. Nolting, editors; Frederick C. Peitzsch, asso
ciate editor; (Chicago: The International City Managers
Association, 1948), pp. 33~39 and 52.
41
Reference must be made to the discussions of criteria in the
Year Book for accounts of what metropolitan city and central
city do mean. Appendix 12 summarizes part of that discussion.
Because Glendale is not a metropolitan central city certain
kinds of analysis and reasoning are restricted. It cannot
be legitimate or very meaningful thus to attempt comparisons
with the twenty-five largest cities of the United States.
This type of comparative study may be fruitful for certain
other communities but not for Glendale.H
Glendale is also not an independent city, according
to the census and Municipal Year Book concept. General
understanding of this concept is presumed, as in the previous
case. Appendix 12 again summarizes part of the census and
Year Book discussion. Because Glendale is not an independent
city it must be segregated from the great proportion of
12
American cities with populations over 10,000, for purposes
For example Milwaukee is metropolitan and may
correctly and perhaps beneficially make such comparisons
(within other limits): Report of the Commission on the
Economic Study of Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1948.
Cincinnati' also is such a city: State and Municipal Taxation
Systems,(Cincinnati: Cincinnati Bureau of Governmental
Research, Inc., 1947).
12
More than half of American cities over 10,000 in
population are independent cities. (16 per cent are metro
politan central; and 32 per cent are suburbs.)
i
42
of analysis. This restriction affects some of the comparisons
within distances not far removed from Glendale and which might
otherwise be made and made significantly.
Glendale is a suburb, but its special character must
be further distinguished. There are several types of suburbs,
again as per standard classification.
Glendale is not an (E) Employing suburb. There is
Justification, however, for explaining this category even
though it does not classify Glendale. The reason is worth
noting: Significant comparisons for Glendale are probably
limited very largely to other particular suburban municipali
ties and like type local administrations within Los Angeles
Metropolitan District, whatever their suburban difference in
character. Of course those of like suburban type or class
are going to make the clearest, most valid, least objection
able and most useful comparisons.
An employing suburb is one having an employment
residence ratio above 55 per cent.^3
Glendale is also not a (B) balanced suburb. A balanced
suburb has an employment residence ratio of approximately the
The Municipal Year Book, 1948 (p. 33) indicates
that employment residence ratio is a ratio expressing the
relation between the number of people who work in the city
and the number who live there.
^3
same as that for most independent cities (40 - 55 per cent).
A (D) dormitory suburb is a city with employment
residence ratio lower than most independent cities (below
40 per cent). Glendale is a dormitory suburb.
Glendale’s employment residence ratio is listed as
twenty-eight. In the region which the U.S. census calls
the west there are a total of 122 cities over 10,000 in
population. Twenty-five or 20.5 per cent are dormitory
14
suburbs.
Glendale’s rent level is indicated in the Year Book
as !*2, The rent level of a suburb is rated to indicate
whether the average rent of the suburb is low, medium, high
or exclusive in relation to average rent of the metropolitan
region of which it is a part. I! 2, , means intermediate or
medium, between the $5 level below and the $10 level above
average district rent. More complete description of rent
15
classes (1-4) is found in Appendix 12.
Glendale’s manufacturing ratio is indicated in the
Year Book as tt13,r. Land Use Report data and other evidence
Ibid., p. 38. Sixty-nine or 56.6 per cent are
independent. Seventeen or 13*9 per cent are central (metr.).
Three or 2.4 per cent are employing suburbs. Eight or 6.6
per cent are balanced suburbs. Year Book compilations for
333 suburbs (Appendix 12) show 49 per cent (D), 32 per cent
(E) and 19 per cent (B) types.
15 Ibid., p. 31.
44
corroborate this classification and suggest that in 1949
Glendale is still dormitory and suburban in type as her
earlier classification has demonstrated.
It should be noted that Appendix 12 summarizes, other
Year Book material showing that a dormitory suburb may not
be without significant industry, Maywood, Illinois, a sub
urb of Chicago, has an employment residence ratio of ca,
21 per cent but a manufacturing ratio of 49 per cent. Most
dormitory suburbs furnish some employment in retail trades
and service establishments.
What are the municipal finance consequences of Glen
dale's general metropolitan and economic classification?
1. Obviously, many of Glendale residents are part
of a "fluid” population moving in and out of Los Angeles
dity.
2. General income of Glendale residents is likely
to be drawn in significant amount from places of employment
outside the municipal limits.
3. Glendale commuter population may become subject
to an income tax levied by Los Angeles dity or by some other
local authority having jurisdiction over the place of their
employment. The possibility of a Los Angeles dity income
tax to make outsiders render tax assistance in support of
received city services, has already been expressly raised
45
by that city’s administration.
4. Glendale property values (basis thus for the city's
property tax) are significantly linked: (l) To the stability
of outside employing activities, (2) to the types of resi
dential use made of the city's land area, and (3) to the
increase and character of the manufacturing and commercial
activities that have entered Glandale, especially since the
period of World War II and after.
Glendale's production activity and city finance
problems. Evidences already examined and more that will
now be admissible indicate that the character of the Glendale
economy closely follows that suggested by Year Book classifi
cation. In the order of their contributions to general
economy, Glendale possesses three classes of significant
economic activity: (l) The provision of housing, (2) the
provision of general commodities via commercial, and service
establishments, and (3) the provision of particular products
of specialized manufacturing activity. Each of these classes
must be analyzed more carefully to discover the trends apparent
for long run and those for recent war time and post war changes.
It will be important, too, to emphasize the factors
that facilitate the city's present economic development,
including: (1) Location, (2) power and water supply, (3)
proximity to local markets, (4) accessibility to cheap trans-
46
portation connections with transcontinental, coastwise,- and
overseas market areas, (5) diversity in Industry, and (6) the
affirmative and consistent industry attraction and industry
screening or selection policies deliberately conceived by
municipal government.
These considerations will easily raise the question
posed now several times already: What municipal finance
consequences flow from these conditions?
First, Glendale’s economy provides significant sub
urban housing. In the language of economic theory, Glendale
produces significant quantities of the consumer durables and
producer or capital goods called ' ’housing'*. In the flow of
metropolitan resources geographic division of labor and
specialization of function have resulted in concentrating
these goods and their services in the municipal area.
Glendale does more than its share of generating housing
satisfactions and in maximizing total housing utility. It
must exchange Its offerings against the receipts from pro
duction elsewhere generally, and from other areas of differ
ing specialization (for example manufacturing eastern Los
Angeles and heavily commercial central Los Angeles).
The associated "living satisfactions" are well pro
vided also: Schools and a college, library facilities,
theaters, parks and churches are among the cultural Insti
47
tutions significantly related to a concentration of "housing”.
Table VI exhibits the data of residential land use in
Glendale.1^ These are the facts that demonstrate and illustrate
the preceding generalizations. The proportion of total usable
city area devoted to residential use is 37*30 per cent, and a
total of 3^950.1 acres. In view of census data this means
38.I acres per 1,000 population devoted to residential facili
ties .
Of the total residential area the significant part is
the relatively small dimension single family dwelling develop
ment. 108,380,059 square feet, or 2,483*0 acres supporting
15,881 dwelling units, make up this category (lot areas of up
to 10,000 square feet).
A substantial number (1,585) of single family residences
occupy areas of the second area size (10,000 to 20,000 square
feet).
The third area size for single family dwelling units
(above 20,000 square feet) is up to estate proportions. Not
unexpectedly, therefore, this class does not register any
spectacular number of such units (284). Even so, the pro
portion of area devoted to this use category is substantial
(more than 8,000,000 square feet as against more than 108,000,000
^ Land Use Report, Glendale Planning Commission, 1948.
48
TABLE VI
RESIDENTIAL USES 1
Use Square Peet Acres
Number of
Dwelling
Units
Single family residences
(Lot area up to 10,000
square feet)
108,360,059
2,483.0 15,881
Single family residences
(lot area 10,00 to
20,000 square feet) 22,452,120 515.4
1,585
Single - family residences
(lot area over 20,000
square feet) 8,409,010 195.4 284
Two family or duplex 17,304,586
394.9 4,798
Multiples
15,735,727 361.5
9,680
TOTAL 172,261,502 3,950.1 32,228
Source: Land Use Report, Glendale Planning Commission, 1948.
Total area devoted to this
Area per 1,000 persons . .
Proportion of city usable
residentially .........
u s e .........
area used
3950.1
38.1
37.30
acres
acres
per cent.
49
square feet for the first class).
All three classes of single family dwellings together
make up 30.2 per cent of usable area used in Glendale.1?
This predominance of single family homes exists: (1) Despite
the city's nearness to the center of the metropolitan district,
and (2) despite the fact that much more land than has been
elected for building is in fact zoned for multiple residential
18
purposes.
Established is a pattern of low density development.
Duplex residential units and area are a substantial part of
the remaining (other than single family) residence use.
17*304,586 square feet or 394.9 acres and 4,798 units compose
this class. Where the choice allowed (by zoning) was between
duplex and multiple type residence a larger area tended to be
chosen for the duplex or two family dwelling.
Certain implications are underscored by the planning
commission, however:1^
It does not mean. . .that there will be any
lessening in the demand for well located multiples
in Glendale. Glendale has always been high in its
percentage of multiple development and will con
tinue to be so because of its location with respect
to the metropolitan center.
17 Ibid., P. 5.
18 Loc. cit.
Ibid., p. 6.
50
Sustaining such a conclusion is the comparison of
Glendale's proportion of usable city area used for multiples
(3*^1 per cent) with the comparable average proportion for
thirty statistical areas surveyed by the Los Angeles County
on
Planning Commission: 2.45 per cent.
Table VII exhibits the allocation of the city's land
factor to "commercial uses". 3*20 per cent of total usable
area is devoted to this class of utilization (subject to the
objections noted below). This means 338.7 acres in sum or
3.3 acres per 1,000 population.
"Light commercial" use is further interpreted by the
planning commission.21 It includes mercantile establishments
broadly, plus professional offices, studios, carpenter shops,
laundry agencies, furniture storage, hospitals and sanitaria.
"Heavy commercial" is also further expanded in the
22
context of the Report. It includes wholesale establish
ments, bakeries with no more than ten employees, bottling
works, candy manufacturing, manufacturing of medical and
pharmaceutical products, toy manufacturing, etc.
20 "On the other hand,” says the Glendale Land Use
Report, "it is unlikely that the great area &f Glendale land
now zoned for multiple use will ever be entirely developed
for that purpose." (P. 6)
2l r
Loc. cit.
p p
Loc. cit.
51
TABLE VII
COMMERCIAL USES1
Use Square Feet res
Front
Footage
Light commercial
(typical C-3 uses) 11,651,169 267*3
122,852
Heavy commercial
(typical C-4 uses) 1,116,958 25*6
8,269.
Parking
(all commercial) 1,999,820 45*8
TOTAL
14,767,947 338.7
131,121
Source: Land Use Report, Glendale Planning Commission, 1948.
1 Total area devoted to this use .... 338.7 acres
Area per 1,000 persons 3.3 acres
Proportion of city’s usable area
used commercially................. 3*20 per cent.
52
For the purposes of the planning commission this type
of sorting is doubtless justifiable, but it obviously
departs from the economic criterion of marketing, (limited
to time, place and possession change utilities). In the
economic sense making pharmaceutical products is clearly
not merely marketing. Form utility is generated and would
seem to relate the activity to industrial use for land.
“Commercial” and marketing are thus not interchangeable
concepts here. In an economic sense many of these "commercial”
uses should be added, in part at least, to the proportion
subsequently analyzed as industrial use. Nevertheless the
entire "heavy commercial" category embraces only 25.6 acres
out of a total of 338.7 acres and thus this difference of
viewpoint does not vitiate the usefulness of these findings
even for economic and finance analysis purposes.
Evidence seems sufficient for the conclusion that In
the early ‘forties Glendale tended to lag behind the rest of
the county average in commercial development (measured In
land use).
It Is also evident that since the early ‘forties
there has been a rising demand for business property possibly
eliminating the lag.^3
23 Ibid., p. 7.
53
3-3 acres per 1,000 population Is apparently a
relatively high figure for "commercial use” of land, when
24
comparison Is made with adjacent communities.
Table VIII exhibits the data for "industrial uses"
of Glendale land. 2.5 per cent of the city's total.usable
area is devoted to these activities. Thie means 267*0 acres
or 2.6 acres per 1,000 population. The per 1,000 capita
figure is of special significance for comparative purposes
over time. The comparable figure for 1941 was 1.81 acres
per 1,000 persons. Glendale industrial activity has ex
perienced a substantial rise during the decade past.2^
"Light industrial" means light manufacturing in the
analysis of the planning commission. It includes such
operations as body and fender works, sheet metal shops,
cabinet shops, etc.2^
"Heavy industrial" means heavy manufacturing. It
includes such operations as die easting, junk yards, iron
works, etc.
Public utility installations were not included in
the industrial classification but were included in "public
Ibid., p. 7.
Loc. cit.
2^ Loc. cit.
54
TABLE VIII
INDUSTRIAL USES1
Use Square Feet Acres
Front
Footage
Light industrial
(typical M-l uses)
3,934,199
90.4 5,281
Heavy industrial
(typical M-2 uses) 7,226,187
160.1 17,464
Parking
(all industrial) 457,660
10.5
TOTAL 11,618,046 267.0
22,745
Source: Land Use Report, Glendale Planning Commission, 1948.
1
Total area devoted to this use ..... 267.0 acres
Area per 1,000 persons 2.6 acres
Proportion of city's usable area
used industrially 2.5 per cent.
55
and serai public use" grouping. This does appear to be
appropriate for the purposes of the planning commission,
and since the latter grouping rests on principles differing
significantly from the "industrial use" category one cannot
object to the inclusion in a separate group. In the economic
sense, of course, public utilities must be counted as partly
or largely in the industrial use class. When so included
they expand the totals and proportions in "industrial use"
considerably.
This circumstance, together with earlier exceptions
raised to the "commercial" classification, seem to support
this conclusion: Industrial expansion is avowedly making
a substantial increase in proportionate use of land re
sources in Glendale. The expansion, in fact, is even greater
than appears in the formal classification of the Land Use
Report.
References to other gauges of manufacturing increase
will, therefore, be added at a subsequent point.
Table IX exhibits "public and semi public uses" of
Glendale's land factor. 7*5 per cent of the total usable
land are devoted to these purposes. This means 768.7 total
acres, or 7*^ acres per 1,000 population.
We have already suggested that some items here in
cluded are distinct additions to manufactuting in the economic
56
TABLE IX
PUBLIC AND SEMI PUBLIC USES1
Use Square Feet Acres
Public building and sites 3,578,891 82.0
Public service 393,300 9.0
Public utilities 5,158,485 118.5
Schools - public 8,047,350 184.7
Schools - private 657,920
15.1
Churches
932,313
21.4
Hospitals and sanitaria 1,451,100
33.3
Other institutions 166,250 3.8
Parks and recreation, including
Brand Estate only (50.52 acres)
not undeveloped part 5,392,228 123.2
Quasi public, recreational and
social 4,676,040
107.3
Railroads and rights of way 3,072,220
70.5
TOTAL
33,526,097 768.7
Souree: Land Use Report, Glendale Planning Commission, 1948.
1 Total area devoted to this use .... 768.7 acres
Area per 1,000 persons 7-4 acres
Proportion of city's usable area
used for these purposes 7*5 P©*1 cent.
57
sense, but for analytical purposes there are other itmes to
note: Railroads and rights of way increase marketing use,
in the economic sense and would be added to the "commercial
use" category for reasoning in economy. Other significance
for this entire grouping of land uses will be noted below in,
considering the municipal finance consequences of Glendale's
"public and semi public use" of its land.
The further explanation of meaning for each item is
essential for good communication at this point
Public Buildings and Sites: City Hall, Libraries,
Fire Stations, Sites for Public Buildings, etc.
Public Service: Dumps, Service yards, Storage
yards.
Public.Utilities: Light, Gas, Water Lines and
Reservoirs, Rights of Way, and Utility Offices.
Schools - Public: Grade Schools, High Schools,
and Colleges supported by general taxation.
Schools - Private: Private Nursery Schools,
Academies, Parochial Schools, but not Business
Colleges, Beauty Schools, and Vocational Schools.
Hospitals and Sanitaria: (clear).
Other Institutions: Rest Homes, Homes for the
Aged, Orphanages, Mental Institutions, but not
those which are publicly owned.
Parks and Recreation: All publicly owned Parks,
Playgrounds, and Community Centers.
Ibid., p. 8.
58
Quasi Public Recreational and Social: Women's
Clubs, Elks, Masons, Boy Scout Cabin, Y.M.C.A.
Railroads and Rights of Way: Includes Station
and Baggage Facilities, Yards, Bus T e r m i n a l s .2o
"Miscellaneous uses" of Glendale land are exhibited
in Table X. 49.50 per cent of total usable city area is
within this category. That means 5*252.6 total acres, or
51.0 acres per 1,000 population.
It should be noted that vacant lots and vacant land
form an important segment of the totals registered. The
Land Use Report indicates 2,125 acres for unsubdivided land
alone. Approximately 310 acres is level or gradually sloping
land suitable for normal development. The remaining acreage
cannot be used for "normal" purposes, but might be adapted
to three or four dwelling units per acre.
References have already been made to much of the data
and material summarized (for more convenient comparison
purposes) in Table XI. It should be noted that 19*3 per cent
of total usable city area is devoted to streets and highways—
a very substantial proportion.
Table XII exhibits in summary form certain data already
used in part for the discussion of comparisons,of Glendale's
circumstances and performance with those; of comparable areas
Ibid., p. 9.
59
TABLE X
MISCELLANEOUS USES1
Uses Square Feet Acres
Rivers and washes 1,721,000 39-6
Cemeteries 4,921,200 112.8
Agriculture 552,600
12.7
Streets (est.) 88,818,304 2,048.4
Vacant lots - single family
(to 10,000 square feet)
17,520,017 402.0
Vacant lots - single family
(10,000 to 20,000 square feet) 7,938,790 182.2
Vacant lots - single family
(over 20,000 square feet) 3,300,350 75.8
Vacant lots - multiples 6,804,488 156.4
Vacant lots - commercial
(all kinds)
3,323,383
76.4
Vacant lots - industrial
(all kinds) 906,440 20.8
Vacant land (unsubdividedj est.) 92,586,780
2,125.5
TOTAL 228,393,352 5,252.6
Source: Land Use Report, Glendale Planning Commission, 1948.
1 Total area devoted to these uses .
Area per 1,000 persons ...........
Proportion of city usable area used
for miscellaneous uses..........
* City area: 10,577.1 acres (total area within corporate limits
minus unusable mountain land).
Note: Unsubdivided land: 2,125 acres (est.): Approximately
310 acres is level or gradual sloping land suitable for
normal development. Remaining acreage is hilly in
character, suitable for a more limited type of develop
ment --possibly not more than three.or four dwelling
units per acre— and does not include any of the unusable
mountain land noted above.
5,252.6 acres
51.0 acres
49.50 per cent.*
6o
TABLE XI
SUMMARY OF USES
Use Square Feet Acres
Acres Per cent
per of usable
1,000 total
Persons City Area
Per cent of
Total Area
including
estimated
Area of
Streets
serving
each Use
Residential 172,261,502 3,950 38.1
37.3
46.4
Commercial
14,767,9^7 338 3.3
3.2 3.96
Industrial 11,618,046 267
2.6
2.5 3.13
Public and
semi public
33,526,097
768.7 7.4 7.5
9.01
Miscellaneous
(including
streets) 228,393,352 5,252.6 51.0
49.5 37.50 •
TOTAL 460,566,944
10,577.
1 100 100
Streets
(est.) Square Feet Acres
Per Cent
of total
City Area
Acres per
1,000
Persons
88,818,304 2,048
19.3
19.8
Source: Land Use Report, Glendale Planning Commission, 1948.
61
TABLE XII
COMPARISON OP PRINCIPAL USES WITH AVERAGE OP THIRTY
STATISTICAL AREAS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY*
Per cent of Gross Area Used Acres per 1,000 Persons
Thirty
Statistical
Glendale Areas
Thirty
Statistical
Glendale Areas
Residential,
single family
(all sizes of
parcels), duplex
residences com
bined for purposes
of comparison 33-80 39.60 34.80
28.89
Multiple,
three or more
dwelling units
per parcel 3.41 2.45 3.50
1.79
Commerce,
light and heavy
and related
parking combined 3.20
3.73
3.30 2.72
Industry,
light and heavy
and related
parking combined 2.50 4.8 2.60
3.05
Source: Land Use Report, Glendale Planning Commission, 1948.
* 1941, Land Use Survey, Los Angeles County.
62
reliably surveyed and averaged for these purposes.
Since Glendale is predominantly a residential land
use city its present deficiency of per capita park acreage is
serious. Adequate park and playground area would complete
and make' more consistent the well identified residential
concentration. Table XIII exhibits the existing parcels
for parks and publicly owned recreation areas.
The total of 744*69 acres of parks when diminished
by subtracting the 666.82 undeveloped Brand Park acres leaves
only 77*87 acres of total park development for nearly 105*000
people. Glendale's twelve parks of a combined 77*87 acres
represent only 0.08 acres per 100 population.2^
When compared with adjacent municipalities this situ
ation shows how really acute the park scarcity has become.
The contrasts are sharp. Pasadena has 1200 developed park
acres or 1.09 acres per 100 population, more than thirteen
times Glendale's park resources per population rate.
Even Burbank, younger in development, and newer in
growth, has superior park development. Her 116 acres devoted
to these purposes represent 0.15 acres per 100 population,
or nearly twice the Glendale area per population rate.
Los Angeles city's 4,226 acres represent 0.21 acres
29 office of the Controller and planning commission.
63
TABLE XIII
PARKS AND PUBLICLY OWNED RECREATION AREAS
Parks Area (Acres)
Brand (undeveloped) 666.82
Central 5*70
Fremont 6.62
Glenoaks 1.70
Griffith Park Manor
2.87
Maple 1.72
Nibley 2.32
Pelanconi
3-17
Piedmont 0.52
San Rafael
1.15
Sparr Heights Community Center 0.50
Verdugo (including recreation
center and auditorium) 51.90
TOTAL 744.69
Source: Land Use Report, Glendale Planning Commission, 1948.
TABLE XIII (Continued)
PARKS AND PUBLICLY OWNED RECREATION AREAS
School Playgrounds
Estimated Area at each
School Location available
for Recreational Use (acres)
Balboa
1.97
Cerritos 2.36
Columbus 3.72
Edison 1.70
Field 2.17
Franklin 2.81
Glenoaks 1.68
Jefferson
1.25
Keppel
2.91
Magnolia 2.32
Mann 4.14
Marshall
1.69
Muir 1.50
Verdugo Woodlands
1.87
White 5-20
Roosevelt*
4.65
Toll
5-79
Wilson Glendale 4.98
Hoover 4.12
College 16.00
TOTAL 74.44
Total Parks and School Area
819.13 acres
less Brand Park (undeveloped) 666.82 acres
EFFECTIVE TOTAL 152.31 acres
Source: Land Use Report, Glendale Planning Commission, 1948.
* T.R., not F.D.R.
65
per 100 persons, or almost three times the comparable
Glendale result.
Even if Brand Park were completely developed, Glendale
would then surpass only Los Angeles and Burbank, at 0.71 per
100 population. It would still be behind Pasadena in relative
park facilities.30
Relevant, too,,, are the park and recreation standards
set by various cities and national authorities in the United
States. The National Recreation Association recommends
31
"neighborhood" type parks of 2.75 to 6.00 acres, suggesting
that if the neighborhood has more than 5*000 population, there
should be more than one playground with one acre per 800 popu
lation within one-fourth to one-half miles service radius.
The same association recommends "community" type
parks32 ten to £Werrty acres at one acre per 800 population
within one-half to one mile service radius. More will be
said of this in a subsequent analysis of Glendale expenditure
problems.
3° Office of the Controllery, City of Glendale.
31 Active recreation for ages, five to fifteen, and
passive recreation for adults and elderly persons. Located
within walking distance of people it is to serve.
32 Active recreation for older children and adults
fifteen years and older, located within walking distance.
66
Table XIV exhibits the data of a special survey to
ascertain the facts on off-street and on-street (curb) parking
within the city. The importance of this problem is clear,
considering Glendale's, position as. a purveyor-of general
commodities in commercial activity. Adequate parking facili
ties will enhance Glendale's special location advantages,
noted more in detail in the analysis below.
That more parking facilities are needed is further
emphasized by the ratio of automobiles to population.
Glendale has 2.8 per cent of Los Angeles county car regis
trations and 1.17 per cent of state registrations.
In automobiles per 100 population Glendale (at 41.6)
easily surpasses even Los Angeles city (34.5) which in turn
exceeds the average rate for the United States (25.6), the
average rate for all United States cities of over 100,000
(20.0) and such individual cities as New York (12.0) and
San Francisco (28.6). It will be evident from this density
of automotive vehicles that the congestion involved in inade
quate parking areas is substantial.
Preliminary estimates of parking needs in central
business district call for additional off-street spaces of
2,500. More detailed estimates are expected to raise the
33
first estimation figures.
33 Land Use Report, p. 13.
67
TABLE XIV
OFF-STREET PARKING
Parking in the Central Business District
(Lexington - Glendale - Colorado - Central)
Parking Areas
Area
Square Feet
Number/ Area/car
Cars Square Feet
Customer (free parking)
Employee and owner
(free parking)
Commercial lots
(self parking)
Commercial lots
(attendant parking)
Public employee parking
586,040
233,625
188,530
116,400
97,700
2,158 272
796 293
752 250
624 187
343 285
TOTAL
1,222,295 4,673 262
Total area of off-street parking in
central business district: 1,222,295 square feet
Total off-street parking spaces:
4,673
Area per car (average): 262 square feet/car
ON-STREET (CURB)
Time Limit Metered
PARKING
Unmetered
12 minutes
1 hour
2 hours
Unlimited time
200
743
355
24
131
614
(2,420-*
-422:
1,998
TOTAL 1,298 2,767
Total on-street parking spaces:
4,065
Total parking spaces in
central business district: 8,738
Source: Land Use Report, Glendale Planning Commission, 194£).
* 422 curb parking spaces in central business district are
located too far from existing business structures to be
useful.
68
Economic factors which facilitate Glendale's present
economic developments and which partly explain its character
and growth patterns, should be emphasized. These involve
the gross relationships of the.city as a whole to the metro
politan district as a whole, and to other metropolitan
administrative entities.
Within the metropolitan area the period of World
War II added new industrial establishments in amounts valued
at $232,000,000.^ Since 1945 within the same area the
estimated values added have amounted to $364,000,000 in
new industrial enterprises. In the first nine months of
1948 there were added to the same area 139 new factories
and 273 industrial expansion projects whose total value
approximated $58,133*500. These elements suggest the nature
of the general area of which Glendale is a part.
Data on Glendale's immediate neighbor, the City of
Burbank, further suggests the character of the gross economic
relations between the dormitory suburb and the more industri
alized suburb.
The data noted in footnote 35 give some sketch of
Burbank's changes over recent time.^
04
Glendale News-Press, nThe Glendale Story,” Section
"industry," p. 6.
35 Burbank was incorporated in 1911 with a population
69
1. In analyzing the economic factors reinforcing
Glendale's typical development, location is the first factor
to examine. The city's position is strategic for relation
ships with surrounding centers of population growth and business
progress. It is strategic also for general transportation and
c ommuni c at i on.
Its “fluid” population can move in and out with little
time expended via transit facilities often burdened but now
accelerating their improvements.
The local traffic authority estimates that approximately
20 per cent of the Glendale people travel downtown by bus or
streetcar. About 79 per cent use passenger cars. Only about
56 per cent of Los Angeles city's own people travel downtown
using passenger cars.
Glendale possesses ample communication developments
and continues to improve them. A.A. Pressnall, Glendale
Manager for Pacific T. & T., has indicated the extensiveness
(Footnote 35 continued) of 1500. Both World Wars gave
its manufacturing growth special impetus. In 1948 its popu
lation was ca. 75i000 and its economy included more than 300
diversified industries, conspicuous among which were some of
the world's chief aircraft and motion picture producing corpo
rations. Commercial activity included eight hotles, eighteen
auto courts and five theaters. Its fire department personnel
numbered fifty-five, its police department more than 100. Its
schools (fourteen) enrolled ca. 12,000. It possessed thirty
churches, two libraries, and seven parks. (ibid., p. 6.)
36 Even this figure is more than that for San Francisco
at 41 per cent.
70
of all Pacific coast additions. Construction expenditures
of the company on the Pacific coast during the present
expansion period are running at rates of $500,000 a day.^^
36,876 telephones are installed in this municipal
area. That means, populationwise, 35*2 telephones per 100
persons. The State of California claims 2,870,348 such
installations at 28.3 per 100 persons. The U.S. has 38,000,000
installations of telephones, or 26.0 per 100 population.
2. Glendale's utility circumstances, her abundant
supply of relatively cheap electric power and ample water
and gas resources are a second important factor in explaining
her character and growth changes. Appendix 6 "The Glendale
Public Service Department” sets forth the details of this
picture in so far as water, power and lights problems are
concerned.
Glendale has 32,861 meters measuring gas to the
community. This is 31»4 Pe3^ 100 persons.
Its electric rates and their relative significance
are already sufficiently set out also in Appendix 6.
As of January 31* 1949* Glendale had 24,395 water
meters or 23*3 P©** 100 population. The obvious attractive
ness of the utilities offered in Glendale account in an
37 Glendale News-Press, "The Glendale Story," Section
"Industry,T T ~lpI U~.-------1 ------
71
important way for the nature of its economic growth.
3* Proximity to vast local consumer markets is another
factor favoring Glendale’s commercial and industrial activity.
These are local outlets for local products. Glendale itself
offers metropolitan shopping facilities without the traffic
38
congestion of the "larger city". Glendale's city lines
operate buses serving an area with potential shopping popu
lation of 200,000. Its new investment since 1941 alone
amounts to about $400,000.
4. Glendale has ready access to transcontinental rail
lines and coastwise and international maritime facilities for
shipping. Appendix 9 "Transportation” exhibits the data
supporting this conclusion in detail. Suffice it to say
here that both the Southern Pacific and the Union Pacific
Railroads serve the city's railtransportation needs, both
passenger and freight.
Grand Central Air Terminal, recording in 1948 an annual
payroll of about $2,500,006 for ca. 750 employees, provides
substantial facilities for movement of air traffic, passenger
and freight, plus auxiliary maintenance, redesign, and air
personnel training installations.
Glendale is on U.S. Highway 99 which, from central
^ °P* sit«* "Transportation," p. 6.
72
Los Angeles to points north of San Francisco is now four
lanes or more in width.
5. Diversity marks Glendale's general economy and
especially its limited industry. It has never been a single
industry area. Rather it has tended to attract a certain
number of specialized processing and manufacturing plants.
Metals, machines arid vehicles are present, but so, too, are
ceramics, pharmaceuticals and toy manufacturing.
Glendale's banking institutions and credit facilities
are given special place in the subsequent discussion of
economic fluctuations and employment.
6. Glendale has deliberately conceived certain
policies of affirmative and consistent industry attraction,
together with industry selection policies. The city has
opposed any grants or subsidies to industrial and commercial,
enterprises trying to become established in the municipal
area. It has given no free sites for buildings or factories,
made no tax concessions or remissions, and has actively dis
couraged entry of “undesirable" industrial personnel.
Whatever may be said for the social philosophy of
these principles (and whether objectionable or meritorious,
we do not purport to analyze this, since it is beyond the
scope of the discussion) such policies have left a mark or
character imprint on the municipality.
73
What, then, are the city finance consequences that
flow from these production activity circumstances in the
Glendale area?
1. The distribution of land use and population con
centration is apparently related to the fact (later discussed
under "Revenue Problems") that the significant single revenue
source for Glendale still is the general property tax yield.
2. The result of Glendale's production and income
circumstances was that in the 'thirties, and despite delinquen
cies, the general property tax was still a relatively stable
revenue source and might be expected to continue so, compared
to the possible fluctuations of such means as the recently
adopted sales tax. More complete analysis of this point appears
in the later chapter on "Revenue Problems".
3. Nevertheless, limited use and limited success with
other revenue types would seem appropriate to this production
picture. Sales taxation constitutes one of several "other"
types.
4. Licensing revenues still seem thus appropriate as
cost covering (inspection and certification) services primarily.
5. Public service department revenues appear as appropri
ate partial contributions to municipal financing.
6. Significant for this picture, too, are State aids,
applied to school activity and to street and highway programs.
74
7. Finally, it appears from the utilization of land
area by public and semi public activities and authorities,
that an important part of the tax base is exempted from tax
levy and so from tax yield. An undetermined area should also
be added to represent veteran examption totals.
Glendale employment and income fluctuations and city
finance. A community's resources are more than climate,
land, people and enterprise. They must also include features
exhibiting resistance or the lack of resistance to unemploy
ment and extreme income fluctuations. These qualities must
now be considered.
No U.S. city lives in a business vacuum, of course,
but some have followed evener courses, while others have
followed patterns of rather violent economic change.
From much earlier decades, Glendale's income and
wealth changes have been influenced by general and especially
eastern U.S. business trends. Says a recent news account:39
A railroad rate war broke out between the
Southern Pacific and the Santa Fe railroads in
1886, and one could get a one way ticket from the
East to California for only $25* Indeed fares
fell far below that, and during one wild week,
one could travel from Kansas City to Los Angeles
for only $1. As a result of this, a perfect
flood of people came to Southern California,
and. . .many. . .made. . .for the site of Glendale.
From 1884 to 1887 the values and prices of land
rose no less than 300 per cent.
39 Glendale News-Press, "The Glendale Story," Section
"Education,1 1 p. 5.
75
The 1916 to 1922 population rush to Southern California
was shared by Glendale. The sharp rise in land values of
course represented important economic fluctuation, reverberat
ing in all business activity as a whole.
The fluctuations of the 'twneties, 'thirties and
'forties are the focus of interest for the purposes of this
analysis.
An important barometer of employment for economic
factors generally, because it generates “multiplier" effects,
is “value of business permits”. In Table XV the data for
this measurement is supplied for all years since 1907. The
record is thus complete since the first year after municipal
incorporation.
The years of World War I are the immediate background
for the 'twenties. In 1918* Glendale's value for building
permits measured a low point ($97*193) not since even
approached, nor duplicated since sometime before 1907.
Post World War I (1919 to mid-'twenties) exhibits
a spectacular rise in these totals, so great in fact that
during four consecutive years (1923 through 1926) permits
exceed $10 million. This was never again realized until
19^7 (and perhaps after) when permit values totalled
$10,629*215.
Steady decline in permit values marks the period,
76
TABLE XV
BUILDING PERMITS1
Following
Year
are the data for changes
Permits In Glendale,
Value of
Permits
in the value
by years:
Year
of Building
Value of
Permits
1907
$ 125,430
1927 $ 8,246,150
1908
219,879
1928
7,465,265
1909
218,658
1929 5,456,149
1910
3^5,325 1930 3,409,701
1911
416,210
1931 2,901,545
1912 669,556 1932
1,247,595
1913 646,727 1933 740,435
1914 464,920 1934 933,524
1915 222,705 1935 2,004,599
1916
235,907 1936 5,181,868
1917 287,360 1937 5,129,880
1918
97,193
1938 4,915,344
1919 591,439 1939
5,074,611
1920
3,137,269
1940
6,700,973
1921 5,099,201 1941 5,900,054
1922
6,305,971
1942 1,655,002
1923
10,047,694
1943 346,680
1924 10,169,761 1944
1,632,934
1925
10,224,020
1945
4,122,993
1926 10,027,798 1946
8,107,183
1947 10,629,215
1948
1949
1 Glendale News-Press, "The Glendale Story," Section "Business,"
November 26, 1948," P. 7*
77
1927 through 1933* and the recovery is steady and sustained
until the 1937 - 1938 decline. One can easily identify the
national and regional pattern of cyclical and employment
changes. To be sure., depression evidence is clear two years
before the 1929 break, but the low point is the year 1933*
and the minor break thereafter in the recovery occurs in the
1937 - 1938 period.
Pre-World War II years are marked by rather steady
and sustained increases in permit value level.
During World War II, of course, most categories of
non armament construction were limited and a few were nearly
extinguished.
Post-World War II values for permits, however, show
a spectacular rate of climb and some promise of sustainment,
although at the time of this writing, not enough is clear in
the 1949 picture nationally and regionally to be very much
reassured on this point. Great uncertainties attend the
immediate prospect of years.
As a whole, the building permit value evidence suggests
that in this class of employment, at least, Glendale has
experienced some extreme fluctuation as the business cycle
phases have passed. It leaves little evidence that these
changes might not be registered again, should business become
depressed generally in the metropolitan district.
78
Another barometer of employment for economic factors
and business income changes is postal receipts, although in
general, the changes in this column are perhaps less sensitive
to changes in real income than building permit values, just
reviewed.
Table XVI exhibits postal receipts from the year 1922
to the present. It thus covers substantially all the ’twenties,
'thirties, and 'forties, as do previous gauges of economic
change.
In the 'twneties postal receipts moved steadily upward
in each year until a peak was reached in 1930 at $329*508.68.
The decade thereafter is distinct but the lowest year
(1933) while easily identified with the depression low point,
is only slightly below the 1927 aggregate.
Recovery after 1933 Is again steadily upward without
decline or interruption to 1947 when the total reaches
$1,230,994.03.
Prom 1933 to 1941 aggregate postal receipts more than
doubled. Prom 1941 to 1947 these receipts more than doubled
again. Postal service is sustained activity come peace or
war and is even the goal of war time promotion since the
promotion result is likely to be sustained morale among
expeditionary forces and at home as well.
Two other thermometers measuring business income "fever"
79
TABLE XVI
POSTAL RECEIPTS 1
Year
Postal
Receipts
1922
$ 151,339.69
1923
185,686.61
1924
214,361.87
1925
217,740.26
1926 238,259.42
1927 264,236.39
1928 288,042.68
1929
308,703.62
1930 329,508.68
1931
302,231.46
1932 265,776.50
1933 260,723.67
1934 275,892.96
1935
322,986.14
1936 348,339.62
1937 392,341.78
1938 399,367.82
1939 433,744.63
1940 505,325.40
1941
578,355.93
1942
637,292.27
1943 736,029.43
1944 885,644.04
1945
984,454.70
1946
1,058,199.59
3.947
1,230,994.03
1948
1949
1950
1 Glendale News-Press, ’ ’The Glendale Story,'* Section “Business,M
November 26, 19487”p. . 7 •
80
or more "normal** activity are bank deposits and bank clearings.
Table XVII exhibits the data under both these heads since the
years 1924 and 1925- respectively.
Bank deposits in the late 1 twenties and early ‘thirties
show steady gains, slightly interrupted by one year only (1930,
when they dip from $15,817,968.65 in 1929 to $15,495,773.76).
The year 1931 is a distinct peak at $l6,6l4,532.08.
1932 is not only a clear decline but a drastic one from the
1931 figure (above) to $10,936,077.06. But comparable 1933
aggregate is hardly any worse; so that these years together
represent (and 1933 is slightly lower) a bottom period pre
ceding, also distinct, recovery.
The climb moves erratically but without decline and
without interruption to the 1936 register of $20,202,988.89.
In 1937 a slight dip of $872,154.07 brings bank deposits to
the first year of a new and unbroken rise (in every succeeding
year through 1947).
In sum, bank deposits on the whole (1924 to the present)
show relatively steady accumulations, but there are a few years
of the ‘thirties when they drop and do not immediately recover.
The absolute dollar height of 1931 was lost in the next year
and not reached again until 1938 although bank deposits in
1936 were nearly as high.
From the low points of 1932 - 1933, bank deposits more
81
TABLE XVII
BANK DEPOSITS AND BANK CLEARINGS1
Year Bank Deposits
1924 $11,523,758.19
1925
12,378,833.84
1926
12,908,532.39
1927 13,973,575.35
1928 15,072,973.67
1929 15,817,968.65
1930 15,495,773.76
1931
16,614,532.08
1932 10,936,077,60
1933
10,927,096.62
1934 12,704,704.62
1935 16,671,087.03
!936 20,202,988.89
!937
19,330,834.82
1938 20,898,023.74
!939 23,457,709.95
1940 25,251,000.00
1941 27,845,000.00
1942 36,988,000.00
1943
51,564,000.00
1944 66,457,000.00
1945
87,678,000.00
1946 94,798,000.00
1947
94,965,000.00
1948
1949
1950
Glendale News-Press, "The Glendale Story,1 1 Section
"Business," November 26, 1948, p. J.
82
TABLE XVII (Continued)
BANK DEPOSITS AND BANK CLEARINGS1
Year Bank Clearings
1925
$ 82,522,572.28
1926 101,613,478.38
1927
104,456,675.04
1928
105,733,520.29
1929 117,039,166.37
1930 112,711,248.44
3-931
127,444,430.16
1932 89,185,735.73
1933 70,478,410.35
1934 75,943,085.56
1935
98,858,297.06
1936 128,920,000.00
1937
149,483,000.00
1938 140,671,000.00
1939
143,685,000.00
19^0 159,633,000.00
1941 209,072,000.00
1942 221,851,000.00
1943
320,724,000.00
1944
408,245,000.00
1945
507,291,000.00
1946 755,898,000.00
1947
741,006,000.00
1948
1949
1950
1 Ibid., p. 7.
than doubled by 1943, and the 19^3 aggregate seemed close
to doubling by the end of 1947-
The second part of Table XVII exhibits bank clearings.
These are aggregate debits for each year.1 *0 A description
of Glendale's chief banking facilities at this point will
probably better clarify the city's circumstances.
There are six commercial banking establishments in
Glendale and one clearing house association. The six, how
ever, are not separate firms. Three are branches of the
Bank of America; two are branches of the Security First
National Bank of Los Angeles, and one is the First National
Bank of Glendale.
Together they have total deposits of approximately
$100 million, average annual clearings of about $750 million
, ill
or about $2,500,000 each bank day.
There has never been a bank failure in Glendale,
although some banks have been reorganized.
Savings and loan associations in Glendale have com-
Ilo
bined total assets of about $40,000,000. There are four
40
Albert G. Hart, Money, Debt and Economic Activity
(New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1948), pp"i 16-18.
41
As of November, 1948.
4p
As of November, 1948.
84
different firms: Glendale Federal Savings and Loan Associ
ation, Fidelity Federal Savings and Loan Association, Mutual
Savings and Loan Association, and United Savings and Loan
Association.
Bank clearings for Glendale show steady gains in the
late 'twenties. From 1925 to 1929 there are yearly increases
without decline and without interruption. From $117,039,166.37
in the latter year there occurs a dip of $4,327*917.93 in
1930, but a significant gain of $14,733*181.72 is registered
in 1931.
From $127*444,430.16 in 1931* clearings drop
$38,258,694.43 in the following year. Fluctuations of the
year 1929 to 1932 are thus sharp and erratic.
1933 represents bottom for this gauge as well (at
$70,478,410.35) with a drop of $18,707*325-38 from the
previous year.
After 1933* however, the gains again are relatively
steady and uninterrupted until after 1937. In that year
at $149*493*000 (1937) clearings had more than doubled their
1933 aggregate, but in the recession that followed some
ground was lost. 1937's high was not surpassed until 1940.
The 1938 record was a substantial dip from the previous
year ($8,812,000). Clearings in 1939 showed gains of
$3*014,000 over those of 1938.
85
1940's aggregate was more than $10 million in excess
of that for 1937, and $15,948,000 over the previous year.
But the rate of increase is still greater in 1941, when
(at $209,072,000) the increase is $49,439,000.
In the first complete year in which the United States
was at war (1942) clearings gained only $12,779*000. But
in the second such year the gain was almost $100 million.
All the other war years show clearings increases but
the rates of change indicate considerable difference. Be
tween 1943 and 1944 the gain is only $87,521,000. The 1944 -
1945 difference, however, is slightly above $100 million.
1946 is a peak year for clearings and the absolute
gain over 1945 is the most spectacular in the record (at
$248,607,000). The 1947 aggregate shows a slight decline
to $741,006,000.
There are other evidences of the extent to which
cyclical change was manifest in Glendale's employment and
income stream. The subsequent discussion of tax delinquency
is itself a measure of income and property value losses in
the 'thirties. Little would be added here by analyzing it
in duplication. The data accounting for the activities of
Glendale's Bond Committee, shows the substantial improvement
that followed the more serious delinquency. This evidence,
exhibited in Chapter VI, (page 238), will be analyzed in
86
greater detail when Glendale debt problems are considered.
The trend of recent activity by the committee suggests the
likelihood that the duties of this group are almost entirely
discharged and near an end.
What are the municipal finance consequences of
Glendale's income and employment position? The evidence
examined does not suggest an economy insulated against the
disturbing effects of outside cost price and production
fluctuations.
Glendale?s position within the metropolitan area is
one of highly specialized, sensitively dependent income and
employment. If Los Angeles experiences business depression,
Glendale as a dormitory suburb must almost inevitably re
flect that depression. Los Angeles unemployment or under
employment means some Glendale unemployment or under-employ-
ment and income recession or loss.
If Burbank's aircraft production is cut back and
employment becomes first uncertain, then eventuates in un
employment, Glendale will experience unemployment and income
loss.
The municipal finance meaning of this situation might
be indicated as follows:
1. To the extent that Glendale's income and employment
are closely linked with those of outside areas, especially
87
with those of Los Angeles and of Burbank, Glendale’s ability
to pay taxes of all kinds is qualified by the prosperity and
ability to employ, of those areas. Outside employment and
production sustain much of the Glendale economy.
2. To the extent that outside employment and income
maintain buying and selling activity within the city,
especially buying and selling related to housing and acces
sory services, outside economy will tend to sustain property
values and property tax yields in Glendale.
3. To a much greater extent than during the ’thirties
Glendale has industrial and commercial employment within the
municipal area. This is not yet great enough or different
enough to make a reclassification necessary for Glendale’s
dormitory suburban relationships.
4. Such employment within the city has experienced
important fluctuations in recent decades, especially during
the 'thirties, and especially when related to the building
trades, construction, and the like.
The last section of this chapter, now to be considered,
will treat the segment of the city's business, service, and
manufacturing activity especially sensitive to accelerated
prosperity and more abrupt depression.
Glendale's cycle- sensitive components and city finance.
In general, cycle sumptoms are not completely understood.
88
The symptoms of economic disorder in the last great depression
were not completely identified. Those that were identified
were not uniformly classified. Beyond that* the search for
diagnosis yielded high proportions of conflicting expert
opinion. The bewildering variety of cycle prescriptions
reflects the profound moral disorder of our time.
The task of the tax economist* however, is to find
therapy, remedy and policy measure despite the babble and
confusion. These propositions have general validity and
may also be given special application.
One of the apparently verifiable symptoms of the
last cyclical disorder was the locally concentrated downward
changes of employment and Income (and associated economic
deterioration) resulting from community dependence on single
Industries, or on depression sensitive industries. It is
not precisely clear which industries they were. But enough
is widely subscribed to allow formulation of certain general
advice. The doctors can recommend limited therapeutic pro
cedures or treatment reasonably reliable.
Obviously, this is not the place or the occasion to
summarize general economic findings on business cycles.
Suffice it to say that in this field of Inquiry we have
relatively lower degrees of probability and relatively less
certainty for a guide to policy.
89
In general, manufacturing activity tends to fluctuate
more than that of trade, especially of retail trade. In
this respect Glendale tends toward whatever greater stability
a relatively high proportion of commercial (over manufacturing
activity) functions can confer.
In general, too, manufacturing categories differ sub
stantially in their resistance to extreme fluctuations of
employment and Income. Metals, machinery, vehicles and
heavy durables generally tend to fluctuate in relatively
greater degrees. Pood processing, textile output and other
production processes closer to consumption tend to lesser
degrees of cyclical change. Building materials and con
struction generally tend to fluctuate more than does mercan
tile activity generally. In these respects Glendale's
economy tends to acquire over time (and especially since
World War II) a higher proportion of cycle sensitive elements.
As of February 10, 19^9* Glendale counted ninety-nine
firms in manufacturing and shop processing centering on
metals, machines, machine parts, rebuilding, etc., and
thirty-three firms engaged in producing for construction and
the building industry. Thirty firms produce tool and
measuring equipment.
The remaining sectors of Glendale's manufacturing
activity tended toward types less sensitive to violent
90
cyclical change. These included five firms in pharmaceutical
manufacturing, four producing business and office supplies,
twenty-three producing house, yard and office furniture,
fourteen making consumer items of textile class, three pro
ducing footwear, five engaged in food processing, and
fifteen producing specialized novelty output, such as toys,
43
individualized gifts, cosmetic accessories, etc.
The firms showing most difficulty in converting to
peace time production, since war's end have been clearly
in the sensitive classes: Metals and machines output, tools,
construction materials and supplies.
Commercial credit and finance sources in Glendale
emphasize that the proportion of expenditures (November,
1948) on industrial employment and payrolls account at
present for approximately 35 per cent of bank business,
compared with 65 per cent for retail and commercial establish-
4r
ments. J
K check of bank deposit classes indicates that in
dustrial firms run 40 per cent of such assets as against
^3 Glendale Industrial and Manufacturing List,
compiled by the Glendale Chamber of Commerce, February 10,
1949.
44
Glendale Industrial and Manufacturing List,
compiled by the Glendale Chamber of Commerce, April 1, 1948.
Glendale News-Press, "The Glendale Story,” Section
"Industry,” p. 8.
91
46
60 per cent for the retail and commercial institutions.
There is evidence of resourcefulness and multiple
skills in the Glendale working force. This may not prevent
crises in business, but it does introduce greater mobility
of factors into Glendale urban economy and greater recovery
47
possibilities when crises do occur.
Other elements characterizing the working force should
be underscored. These are hehlth and so called "cultural
elements".
The "cultural" data are often summarized in some such
classes as these:
42 Churches:
Schools: Public,
Parochial,
Privatei
Libraries: Public,
Law,
Public Meeting Places:
Recreational Centers:
22 (not including three special
nursery schools)
41 (trades and skills)
5
1
8 (with 1,000 or more capacity)
20 (private)
^ Lo£. cit.
^ Loc. cit.
92
The following data indicate the city's health
facilities and the services implied from their active use:
Hospitals; 5 (plus 1 Mental Hospital
and 1 Emergency Hospital)
Sanitaria: 14 (including Rest Homes and
Homes for the Aged)
2jQ
Doctors: 173 (or one per 605 population)^-0
Dentists: 120
The immediate results of these (and other) "cultural”
and health aspects may not be measured in debits or dollars
but they are unquestionably present in the examinable dollar
and debit aggregates. They are working force "invisibles".
The low crime rate, low delinquency for juveniles, the
general good health, and adequate health centers are unmis
takably economic assets, and not merely socially desirable
achievements.
The interest in civic affairs &nd in public welfare
generally sustains much more than the political relations
involved. Civic spirit and civic discipline are "going
concern" intangibles, but they show up on the city's balance
sheet when fiscal position is stated. It is evidently no
48
Significant comparisons for neighboring municipali
ties are these: Burbank, one doctor (M.D.) per 1,420 popu
lations Pasadena, one doctor (M.D.) per 380 population. No
data available for osteopaths and chiropractors.
93
accident that the city's bonds sell at a premium, and its
debt retirement has never been known to be in default.
Recently a three year old child wandered into the hills
at the city's edge and was lost for nearly fifteen hours be
fore being found. A Glendale police and firemen's team very
quickly became a 350 person party of volunteers, including
mayor and city manager working most of the night, combing
49
hills and canyons to recover the boy.
These are events that cannot be summarized in a time
series, in tables, or in rates of change but they speak
eloquently of municipal resources. If they do not exhibit
income totals they do at least suggest the behavior of
"economic man” and express the classic rationality of
"enlightened" self interest.
If they do not prevent fluctuation of employment
they hold promise, nonetheless, of reemployment resourceful
ness, initiative, individual responsiveness, intelligence,
high levels of skills, professional and trade and an abiding
spirit which assures the city's future.
Glendale is a city of many churches and of vigorous
programs of religious education. These data may not appear
in the Municipal Year Book nor in census statistics, but
^9 Los fingeles Times, March 28, 1949, p. 1.
94
these latter cannot do more than tabulate the verifiable
results substantially sustained by these "cultural”
activities. They speak of responsibility in economic affairs.
These latter propositions are not the conclusions
generated by some local "booster”, nor are they some original
insight of the writer, but they are the considered and sober
50
judgments of European and American scholars. They are
especially important for the cultural renewal of western man
in the American West. Municipal finance*is an important
witness of American spirit.
Conclusions. . What are the municipal finance con
sequences of Glendale*s cycle sensitive components being
what they are and increasing in the directions above
described?
1. It should be reiterated that cycle sensitive
components outside Glendale are linked via employment and
income relationships with Glendale’s total income and
employment position.
2.-The result of World War II was to bring into the
city a greater population often attracted by employment
cf. Herbert Agar, Land of the Free (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1935)3 and R.H. Tawney, Religion
and the Rise of Capitalism (New York: Harcourt, Brace
and Company, 1926).
95
rewards outside the city (Burbank's Lockheed). These have
been assimilated to peace time employment for the time
being but much of this is still outside Glendale.
3. With World War II came also special industrial
change. More firms arrived to produce metal, machines,
parts, subassemblies and the like for war industries.
Many of these have since tried reconversion to peace time
output, but the results yet are inconclusive. At this time
of writing there is significant evidence of business
failures and of reorganization in some firms. But even
present evidence is probably not sufficient to permit broad
generalization as to longer run industry endurance qualities.
4. To the extent that new industries stay they have
often been of the light industry type, less likely to
experience extremes of unemployment and income change.
Nevertheless, Glendale also has more manufacturing of
heavy durable goods than it had before the war. These
employ a working force far more subject to violent changes
in income and employment activity.
5. In municipal finance, the questions relevant are
theset Do recent changes in additions of cycle sensitive
manufacturing significantly affect revenue resources or
expenditure needs?
Are the effects such as to induce greater revenue
96
stability or less? Greater yields or less?
Are the effects such as to accelerate needs for new
expenditure?
These questions are answered more fully in the later
discussion of revenue problems and expenditure problems.-
Here let it be said, however, that Glendale1s economy still
seems to make some economic instability probable should
depression develop in the related metropolitan area.
Glendale is still partly insecure by reason of
regional specialization and partial economic dependence on
general area prosperity.
Glendale still seems likely to retain some financial
stability and this to the extent that it is related to the
character of Glendale’s own economy. Even this is relative.
It promises more financial stability than if heavy industry
were a primary activity for the city area, greater than if
manufacturing were more important than commercial and retail
trade, but probably less than if Glendale were an independent
city in a rural area.
CHAPTER IV
RECENT EXPENDITURE PROBLEMS OF
THE CITY OF GLENDALE
General statement. In the preceding chapter it was
suggested that certain municipal expenditure problems exist
now or are soon to arise. These became apparent from an
examination of Glendale’s general economic characteristics
and from a survey of the special data related to them,
bringing such economic traits down to date. The circum
stances of geography, area, population, production, employ
ment, income, and critical industries give rise to these
present demands for increased municipal services and functions.
They are partly an "extension” of older city practices, or
are a "revival" of suspended city activity. Occasionally
they are also the "addition of new functions", or the more
permanent exercise of powers and authority until recently
regarded as of uncertain, temporary or emergency status.
The expenditure problems so raised are doubtless
fundamental. They are solidly founded in the requirements
of economy. Other data must now be added.
The perspective of city services and expenditures
over past decades must be added to better illuminate present
municipal services and their monetary measure.
98
Present spending problems are an extension in time
of such past problems, now grown larger and more complex.
The trends of Glendale municipal expenditures.
General expenditures as _a pattern. Prom the viewpoint of
social economy municipal expenditures are a part of general
resource allocation via market and pricing processes. They
are not excepted from the general requirement (and over time,
the general tendency) to maximize utilities or satisfactions.
The services of the city are the social or public (contrasted
with the private) provision of individual and collective wants.
Total municipal expenditures reflect these provisions
in aggregates for each fiscal year. They are also the logical
beginning of the subsequent analysis of expenditure components.
Each component expenditure class must be examined.
These will include expenditures related to police and
fire protection, organized under the public safety department,
health and welfare services, parks and recreation'activities
and library services organized under the public welfare de
partment, general administration, and employee retirement,
related to the general government department.
The Glendale Unified School District is distinctly
separated from the rest of the city's common affairs both
in organization and financing. Some consideration of its
financing will be appropriate, however, for these reasons:
99
(1) Such discussion furnishes a more complete picture of
additional local government financing within the territorial
jurisdiction of the municipality, and (2) such discussion
allows or makes more possible further comparisons with other
city areas reporting their financing with school expenditures
included.
After school expenditures the discussion will include
highway and public works expenditures, certain non-budgeted
and miscellaneous aggregates and finally the permanent
improvements expenditures in the successive fiscal years.
Comparisons of total city expenditures among selected
years would have some meaning even if no allowance were
made for changes in purchasing power and population. For
most significant purposes, however, the results would con
tain important distortion. Far more valid comparisons are
possible when such price level changes are taken into con
sideration, and when population growth is then accounted for
by reducing the statistical result to a "deflated” per capita
basis.
Selection of an index number is involved in making
the purchasing power adjustment. This raises a special
problem. There is no all-purpose index number in existence.
There is also no special index number exactly tailored to
the needs of municipal expenditure analysis generally; and ‘
100
certainly none Is available for this special Glendale study.
Thus it is not possible to achieve the most acceptable
result without an adapted index series which is npt available;
yet results by using some index are likely to be superior to
the comparable results if none is used.
The bureau of labor Statistics cost of living index
has been used, therefore, to adjust total municipal expenditures
1
m each year.
Table XVIII exhibits the details of actual total expen
ditures and of actual per capital spending. These are compared
with "deflated” total expenditures and "deflated" per capita
spending. Total expenditures are thus shown adjusted for
population and price changes, by years.
The crucial comparison becomes that between the unad
justed and adjusted per capita data.
Appearances and realities could hardly be a clearer
contrast. Through 1930 - 1932 actual per capita.' expenditures
appear to be falling if undeflated per capita data be the
guide. Inspection of actual dollars spent seems to confirm
that view. Total actual dollars spent are fewer each year.
But the movement of aggregate- and of per capita spending when
No. 330. Consumers Price Index for Moderate Income
Families in Large Cities: I913 - 1947 (1935 - 1939: 100)
Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1948, p. 292.
Latest index numbers were furnished directly by the Los
Angeles Office for the Bureau.
101
TABLE XVIII
GLENDALE1S TOTAL EXPENDITURES, ADJUSTED FOR
POPULATION AND PRICE CHANGES, BY YEARS1
B.L.S. Cost
Fiscal Total Per of Living Deflated Per
Year Expenditures Capita Index Expenditures Capita
1930 $1,197,105.45
19.12 119.4 $1,002,616.10 16.02
1931 1,196,622.75 18.75 108.7
1,100,848.90 17.24
1932 1,174,792.72 17.89
97.6 1,203,669.80 18.30
1933 1,068,073.93
16.10 92.4 1,155,924.17 17.34
1934 927,548.48 14.00
95.7
969,225.16
14.47
1935 945,804.25 14.05
98.1 964,122.58 14.34
1936 953,585.41
13.93 99.1
962,245.62 14.05
1937
1,013,502.22 14.00
102.7
986,857.08 13.62
1938 1,098,689.71 14.67 100.8
1,089,969.95 14.55
1939 1,135,684.95
14.54 99.4 1,142,540.19 14.63
1940
1,158,012.97 14.15 100.2 1,155,701.56 14.12
1941
1,363,405.29 16.52 105.2 1,296,012.63 15.68
1942 1,453,986.06 16.14
116.5 1,248,056.70 13.86
1943
1,461,699.18 15.92 123.6
1,182,604,51 12.87
1944
1,521,133.03 16.19 125.5 1,212,058.19 12.88
1945
1,541,044.88 16.14 128.4 1,200,190.72 12.56
1946 1,912,359.20
19.11 153.3** 1,372,835.03 14.48
1947
2,311,597.20 23.00 167.0**
1,452,008.29 14.50
1948
2,959,522.69 28.78
172.7** 1,728,693.16 16.40
1949
3,459,647.62* 33.21
Source: Computations, based on data furnished by the Office of
the Controller, City of Glendale and Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
1 These totals do not include school expenditures, nor public
utilities. They do include all budgets, interest and retire
ment (debt), special projects, general, parks and recreation,
library, and retirement (employees).
* Estimated.
** Average of twelve monthly indexes as of December:
1946: 139.3; 1947: 159.2; 1948: 171.2.
102
TABLE XIX
COMPARISON OP GLENDALE1S UNADJUSTED AND ADJUSTED
PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE DATA
Year
Undeflated
Per Capita Yearly
Spending Change
Deflated
Rate of Per Capita Yearly Rate of
Change Spending Change Change
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
$19.12
18.75
17.89
16.10
14.00
14.05
13.93
14.00
14.67
14.54
14.15
16.52
16.14
15.92
16.19
16.14
19.11
23.00
28.78
33.21
-) -.37
.86
1.79
-) 2.10
(/]
;/
1
.05
.12
.07
.67
.13
.39
2.37
.38
.22
.27
.05
2.97
3.89
5.78
4.43
.01934
.04580
.1001
.1305
.0036
.0085
.0050
.0478
.0089
.0268
.1675
.0230
.0136
.0169
.0031
.1840
.2031
.2510
.1543
$16.02
17.24
18.30
17.34
14.47
14.34
14.05
13.62
14.55
14.63
14.12
15.68
13.86
12.87
12.88
12.56
14.48
14.50
16.40
W 1 -: *
4 1.06
:
/) 1.56
► ) *32
A i.92
/} *02
;/) 1.90
.0763
,0615
,0524
.1654
.0090
.0202
.0306
,0683
.0055
.0348
.1105
.1160
.0714
,0008
,0248
.1529
,0014
,1310
Source: Derived from data In Table XVIII.
103
price changes are considered, is really in the opposite
direction. More purchasing power is really being spent
in these years. More per capita is expended in each succes
sive year until the downturn in 1933*
The deflated per capita data then show that even in
decline the early changes were not as drastic as the uncon
verted figures suggest. Thus the undeflated per capita
change, 1932 - 1933 indicates more than a $1.75 decline.
The deflated change shows this was in reality less than
one dollar. This is not to deny the occurrence of some
abruptness.
Deflated per capita figures themselves show a dramatic
fall in the 1933 - 193^ changes when in one year the differ
ence was almost $3. Undeflated figures showed this change
at slightly more than two dollars.
193^ through 1937 changes are relatively smooth and
declining for deflated per capita spending. Undeflated per
capita spendings in the same years are erratic, moving both
up and down and changing direction in every successive year.
Low point in the actual per capita spending occurs in
1936 at $13*93* In the deflated per capita column 1937 is
the low year at $13.62.
Prom 1937 to the beginning of U.S. participation in
104
World War II deflated per capita spending shows yearly in
creases in every fiscal period but one. There is a slight
decline from 1939 to 1940, but the 1941 deflated per capita
expenditure rises higher than either 1940 or 1939 to mark
a peak year in the series. After 1941 begin the marked
decreases of the war years. During 1943* 1944 and 1945
deflated per capita spending never reaches $13*
In looking back these low points of the war are also
the lowest of the scores examined in the entire series.
Never in the years from 1930 to the present did deflated
per capita expenditure fall to a point equal to or lower
than the 1945 spending (at $12.56).
Highest registers in deflated per capita spending
occur in adverse business years, 1932 (at $18.30) and 1933
(at $17.3*0.
Significant low years are those of business recovery
and of local economy during World War II.
Undeflated per capita spending from 193^ through
1940, on the other hand, show relatively small changes from
something like a plateau for those years.
Undeflated per capita spending of 1941 through 1945
again shows a kinship as scores hover around about $16.
The post war inflation is clearly indicated in years
1946 through 1948 for unconverted per capita spending.
105
Deflated per capita expenditure in the same post war period
shows undoubted inflation, but of notably diminished yearly
increments and final height.
Table XIX (page 102) exhibits the details of a com
parison between undeflated and deflated per capita expenditures.
These are derived by the investigator from the data of Table
XVIII (page 101). Underscored is the tendency of deflated
per capita spending to relatively mild, smooth changes,
whether upward or downward in direction. Undeflated data
represent changes of the same years as more drastic and more
erratic.
Table XX exhibits certain general background data
significant for an interpretation of growing general expen
ditures for the city. Population changes have been previously
noted but never before in order to better understand city
personnel growth.
These totals of city employees registered yearly over
the ‘thirties and ‘forties are in themselves of perhaps less
significance than when considered (as subsequently) in
relation to expansion and contraction of particular city
departments. The total yearly changes over time, however,
give an important picture of the impact on municipal oper-
ations made by business prosperity, depression and war with
post war adjustments.
TABLE XX
GENERAL BACKGROUND DATA FOR GLENDALE’S
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
Year Population
Total
City
Employees
City Employees
Per 10,000
Population
1930 62,607
1931 63,779 745
116.81
1932
65,728
633
96.40
1933
66,461
549
82.70
1934 66,917 532 79-40
1935 67,245 547
81.50
1936 68,413 582 85.OO
1937 72,381 782 107.80
1938 74,975
622 83.OO
1939 78,113
*
1940
81,803
*
19^1 82,582
*
1942 90,000
597
66.40
19^3
91,780 552 60.20
1944 94,065 541 557.60
1945
95,670
547 57.30
19^6
96,495 679
70.40
1947 100,513
1948 .
102,703 823 80.20
1949
104,278 973 (est.) 93.30
Source: Computations based on data from the Office of the
Controller, City of Glendale.
Note: The above city employee totals include utility
personnel and consist of full time employees.
* Data not available.
107
Lowest total number in city employment was registered
in 193^ at 532. This corresponds very well with the lowest
number per 10,000 population (79*40, in 1934).
The drop from 745 in 1931 to 532 in 1934 is quite
substantial percentagewise (at 29 pen cent). Recovery of
personnel strength was slow immediately following 193^*
The spectacular rise of 1937 must be specially
interpreted at a later point in the discussion. It too
was substantial at 25*6 per cent.
Total employees number below 600 during each of the
war years (1942 through 1945). During these same years
personnel strength per population units was steadily de
clining.
Between 1945 and 1946 personnel strength rose sub
stantially (gain of 132). This was the beginning of the
significant upward trend for post war city employment.
At no time in the survey had total city employees numbered
as many as for 1948 (823) and (as estimated) for 1949 (973).
Considered per 10,000 population, of course, the highs were
not of these years. Even so, during only one year between
1932 (96.40) and 1949 (93*30) did city employment per 10,000
exceed 90.00. This was in 1937 when at 107.80 per population
unit city employment stood at second highest point in the
survey with regard to population change. (Highest was 116.81,
108
in 1930, never since equaled.)
With these general changes In mind we can now survey
the service activities and service costs of each of the
several city departments.
The public safety department. Police and fire pro
tection. The Glendale City Charter provides that the
"public Safety department shall have charge of the divisions
of police and fire protection." This department and these
divisions represent an important part in total city services
rendered. Not unexpectedly, too, they have required a sub
stantial part of its revenues to sustain their expenditures.
To what extent this is true can be discovered from an
inspection of Table XXI.
The first part of Table XXI exhibits the record
examined on growth of police and of fire divisions personnel
strength over the 'thirties and 'forties. This is measured
in each year as an absolute number of employees and also as
the per cent that such number is of total city employees.
In the years surveyed there is no evidence of police
personnel ever having been below seventy in number, nor below
12.03 per cent (1936) of total city employees except during
^ Article X, Section 4, Charter of the City of Glendale,
California (reproduced in part in Appendix 1).
109
TABLE XXI
THE PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT: ITS PROPORTIONS OF TOTAL
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AND OF TOTAL MUNICIPAL
SPENDING, BY YEARS
Year
Police Personnel,
Percentage of
Total City
Employees
Fire Personnel,
Percentage of
Total City
Employees
Combined Police
and Fire, Per
centage of Total
City Employees
Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent
1933 70 12.74 86 15.64 156 28.38
193^ 85
15.98
1935
84
15.33
1936 70
12.03
84 14.42 154
26.45
1937
70
8.97 85
10.86
155 19.83
1938 76 12.22
87 13.98 163
26.20
1939 87
1940
85 87
172
1941 86 88 174
1942 86 14.40 90 15.23 176
29.63
1943 94 17.02 90 16.48 184 33.50
1944
93
17.18
87
16.08 180 33.26
1945 98 17.90 83 15.16 181 33.06
1946
105
15.48 100 14.74 205 30.22
1947 107 99
206
1948
115 13.98 106 12.88 221 26.86
1949 133
13.66 120 12.34
253
26.00
Source: Office of the Controller, City of Glendale, plus
computations by the present investigator.
Note: Police personnel, actual number as of June 30th each
year and is not to be confused with authorized strength.
Does not include part time special officers.
110
TABLE XXI (Continued)
THE PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT: ITS PROPORTIONS OF TOTAL
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AND OF TOTAL MUNICIPAL
SPENDING, BY YEARS
Year
Police Protection
Expenditure, Total
and Per Cent of
All City Spending
Fire Protection
Expenditure, Total
and Per Cent of
All City Spending
Fire and
Police
Percentages
Combined
Total Per cent Total Per cent Per cent
1928 $139,020.00 $165,935.00
1929 158,357.92
170,920.79
1930
185,472.85 15.49 194,177.52 16.22
31.71
1931 195,515.51 16.34
203,513.71 17.09 33.43
1932 185,184.84 15.76
189,163.39
16.10 31.86
1933
164,085.30 15.36
172,525.55 16.15 31.51
1934 163,722.07 17.65 162,090.23
17.48
35.13
1935 163,524.27 17.29 162,916.76 17.23 34.52
1936 163,477.47
17.14
165,348.73 17.34
34.48
1937
193,682.81 19.10
187,722.69 18.49 37.59
1938 220,203.29 20.09 198,541.87
18.08
38.17
1939
225,874.61 19.90 203,018.12 17.89 37.79
1940
243,207.35
21.00
195,311.35 16.85 37.85
1941 273,083.61 20.04 227,595.32 16.70 36.74
1942 288,963.08
19.89 218,213.29
15.02
34.91
1943 293,512.07 20.10 254,588.52 17.41
37.51
1944 314,992.14
20.69
246,622.84
16.23 36.92
1945
334,613.60
21.69 274,987.31 17.83 39.52
1946
367,013.53
19.22 288,976.68 15.12 34.34
1947 451,764.53 19.55 379,509.09
16.42
35.97
1948
594,687.15 20.09 453,658.52
15.33
35.42
1949 642,703-31
18.60
497,738.67
14.40 33.00
Source: Office of the Controller,, City of Glendale, and
computations of the investigator.
Ill
1937* when although the absolute strength still was undi-
minished at seventy, this represented but 8.97 per cent of
total city government personnel.
Throughout the 'thirties the police strength seems
never to have reached above the seventy-six recorded for
1938* In the same years (except the one named above) its
percentage of total municipal personnel was of rather slight
fluctuation, and nearly always persisted at twelve and a
fraction per cent.
During the 'forties the absolute strength of the
police division grew (except in one year, 1944) without
decline and without interruption. Only recently (1946
through 19^9) have totals been above 100. 1949 marks the
highest total strength and highest net gain for one year
(at eighteen) of all the years surveyed. Even so in the
1946 through 19^9 period the percentage of total city
employees is relatively lower than in most recent prior
years. Percentages for 1948 and 1949 are below those for
all years from 1942 through 1946.
Gains in absolute police personnel strength have been
almost unbroken since 1933* but its relative size compared
to total city personnel has moved upward and downward with
successive periods of years. Highest of all percentages was
recorded for 1945 (at 17.90 per cent). However, nearly all
112
the war years show relatively high percentage strength.
Only In 1942 does this tend to be less true.
The absolute numbers of fire division personnel have,
over the years, fluctuated, but the changes are relatively
slight and on the whole the record shows sustained growth.
Through the ’thirties, year after year a member or two is
gained or lost, no more. In the 'forties the changes are
only a little more striking. During only three years
(1946, 1948 and 1949) is fire personnel membership at 100
or more. Most sudden or abrupt change in numbers occurs in
1949 with the addition of fourteen to the total for fire
division.
The per cent of total city employees represented by
fire division membership also fluctuated but slightly over
\
most years. Lowest score of all surveyed years was that of
1937 (at 10.86 per cent). Highest percentages occur during
World War II in the years 1943 and 1944 (at 16.48 and 16.08
per cent respectively).
Combined personnel for police and fire divisions
show much the same mild changes in strength as noted already
for police strength alone. Combined percentages of total
city employees are below 26 per cent in only one year (1937)
and never rise above the 33*50 per cent registered for 1943*
In sum, the service strengths for the department of
113
public safety show mild but sustained increases over the
’thirties and 'forties and beginning at 28.38 per cent in
1933 a-re at 26.86 per cent of total city personnel (and
less) in the two most recent fiscal periods.
The above analysis of personnel strengths is closely
detailed with deliberate purpose. Additions and subtractions
of fire and police organizations members constitute the bulk
of changes in total expenditures for this department. The
city buys largely professional personal services, mostly
incurs salary and wage costs, when it maintains police and
fire protection establishments.
Table XXI (Continued, page 110), exhibits the absolute
expenditures for both police and fire divisions, plus the
percentages that each were and that both together were in
each fiscal year since 1930.
Absolute dollar disbursements for each division will
become more significant in the later conversion of actual
totals to deflated totals. But deflated or not the per
centages remain unchanged. What do they mean?
Police protection in any year surveyed never requires
less than 15.36 per cent of the total city expenditure
registered in 1933* In only one other year (1930 at 15.^9
per cent) is this low point approached.
Highest percentage is recorded for 19^5 (21.69 per
114
cent), but In one other year (1940) the percentage is nearly
that high (21.00 per cent).
There is slight fluctuation in percentage scores for
the ’thirties generally. The secular trend is slowly up
ward, however, reaching the 21.00 per cent noted above as
the ’forties began.
The ’forties, too, register slight fluctuations and
appear to be moving downward from a 1945 peak in the four
most recent fiscal periods.
Percentage, thus for 1949 (18.60) is lower than any
recorded since the 17.14 per cent of the year 1936.
Percentages of all city expenditures recorded for
yearly fire protection also show slight fluctuations over
the ’thirties and ’forties but are never more than fraction
ally above eighteen nor less than the 14.40 per cent for
1949. In the entire series only the scores for 1937".and
1938 (18.49 and 18.08 per cent) seem to indicate distinctly
peaks.
Combined percentages for both police and fire expendi-
turees are more significantly fluctuating, but are, even so,
never below 31*51 per cent (1933) nor above the 39*52 per
cent for 1945*
After 1933 combined percentages are never below Sni
per cent during the rest of the ’thirties and most of the
115
succeeding decade. In the last year (estimated) for the
’forties, however, (19^9) this floor is lowered to 33*00
per cent. The most abrupt break in the sequence occurs
between 19^5 and 19^6 (39*52 to 3^*3^ pen cent). The
relative decline since 19^5 is persistent if irregular.
In sum, the per cent of total city expenditure
devoted to combined police and fire protection costs is
persistently at levels just above and just below one third
of such spendings.
Table XXII exhibits the combined expenditure data
for fire and police divisions, in selected fiscal years.
Such combined expenditures are first measured in actual
dollars spent with the per capita rates unadjusted for
price changes. Deflated expenditures are then compared
both as to aggregates for each year and as to per capita
rates as well. The deflated costs of each service, police
and fire, are next related to the growing number of sub
divided, occupied lots in the city. In the first four
columns the per capita data become especially significant.
Not only are undeflated per capita expenditures of greater
magnitude than deflated per capita spendings generally, but
the direction in which changes are registered between the
selected years is often quite opposite as between these
two sets of data.
116
TABLE XXII
PROTECTION EXPENDITURES, CITY OP GLENDALE,
SELECTED YEARS
Year
Total
Expenditures
Per
Capita
Deflated
Expenditures
Per
Capita
Deflated Costs
Per Occupied
Subdivided Lot
Police Fire
1930 $379,650.37 $ 6.07
$317,965.13
$5.08
* *
1940 438,518.70 5-37
437,643.41 5.36 $11.01
$8.85
1945 609,600.91
6.37 474,798.53 4.97
10.86
8.95
1946 655,990.21 6.56
470,919.03
4.88
IO.65 8.43
1947 831,273-62 8.27 522,156.80 5.18
11.23 9-47
1948
1,048,345-67
10.22 612,351.44** 5.96
13.73
10.48
Source : Computations by the investigator based on data from the
Office of Controller, City of Glendale. Protection
expenditures mean those for police and fire divisions.
* Occupied lot data not available.
** Computed using, not BLS index for the year, 1948, but the
average of BLS indexes for.twelve months of 1948. Year's
index not available. This substitute on advice of the depart
ment of commerce office at Los Angeles.
117
Undeflated per capita expenditures in the selected
years are never less than the $5-37 recorded for 1940.
19*1-8 records their highest mark at $10.22. Thus between
19* 1-0 and 1948 per capita expenditures seem almost to have
doubled.
Such conclusions must be seriously qualified after
an inspection of deflated per capita costs. If these are
taken as a guide, costs are not falling but rising slightly
between 1930 and 194-0. They reached a low point, not in
1940 but in 1946. Their movement between 1940 and 1946 was
not upward but downward in direction. By 1947 they had
reached an increase, not above all previous years (as the
first two columns seem to show) but still slightly below
the 1940 level. The 1948 deflated cost per capita then
indicates that such expenditures were higher than any previous
scores, but only fractionally. Between 1940 and 1948 costs
had not nearly doubled but increased 11.19 per cent.
Between 1940 and 1948 deflated police costs per occu
pied, subdivided lot had increased by 24.70 per cent, after
passing a low mark in 1946 (at $10.65). Between the same
terminal years deflated fire costs per occupied, subdivided
lot had increased 18.42 per cent after minor fluctuations in
the later years.
Table XXIII exhibits certain additional police service
118
TABLE XXIII
POLICE PROTECTION STATISTICS,
CITY OF GLENDALE
Total
Year Employees
Total Per
10,000
Population
Per
10,000 Accident
Accidents Vehicles Injuries
Per
10,000
Vehicles
1933
70 10.52
1940
85
IO.38
19^5 98 10.24 678 190 254
71
1946
105
10.88 944 238 468 118
1947 107
10.64
1,091 245 633 142
1948
115 11.19
1,061 221 507 106
Year
Annidpnf. Per 10.000 Personal Property
Fatalities Vehicles Stolen Recovered
Per cent
Recovered
1943
18
5
$110,937-48 $ 91,439.50 82.4
1944 10
3
151,422.08 100,397.29 66.4
19^5
16 4 205,588.07 129,480.78 63.2
1946
19 5
256,689.62 172,404.32 67.2
1947 7
2 288,177.31 166,760.48 57.8
1948 6 1
244,-169.31 142,310.99 58.3
Source: Office of the Controller, City of Glendale. Computations
by the Investigator.
119
data. Indicated first are the Increases of personnel in
relation to general population growth. Accidents and the
same per 10.,000 vehicles, together with total accident
injuries and fatalities (related to the growing vehicle
accumulation of the city) suggest the scope of the traffic
control and safety problems and the relative progress made
in dealing with them.
The record discloses also the yearly aggregates for
personal property stolen, amounts recovered and per cent
that recovery is of total stolen values. These suggest the
nature of another police protection problem and the extent
of its growth. Recoveries are relatively high in 1943 at
82.4 per cent and reach a low point in 1947 at 57*8 per cent.
Recoveries in 1948 (58.3 cent) show an improvement over
the previous year but are still below all other years examined.
Data for accidents per 10,000 vehicles, injuries per
10,000 vehicles, and fatalities per 10,000 vehicles suggest
both the rising magnitude and recent improvement in dealing
with these traffic control problems.
Table XXIV exhibits additional fire protection data.
In contrast with the police personnel totals per population
units (which increased slightly over the selected years) the
fire personnel totals per 10,000 persons have declined in the
late ‘forties. Thus, all the fire personnel rates of the
1 2 0
TABLE XXIV
FIRE PROTECTION STATISTICS,
CITY OF GLENDALE
Year
Total
Employees
Total Per
10,000
Population
Fire
Alarms
Fire
Losses
Per
Capita
Loss
1933
86 12.92 464
$ 25,945 $ .37
1936 84 12.26 623 103,224
1.47
1940
87
10.62 651 22,185 .27
1945 83
8.68
699 226,295
2.26
1946 100 10.38 822 358,662 3.58
1947 99 9.89
844 251,070
2.51
1948 106 10.32
909 129,310
1.27'
Source: Office of the Controller, City of Glendale, with the
investigator's own computations; 33rd Annual Report
of the Fire Department, Glendale, California, Year
ending June 30, 1948, P* 13*
* Average per capita loss for twenty years, 1.11.
121
'forties are below those of 1933 and 1936, selected for com
parison. Lowest score Is registered for 1945 (at 8.68) but
the three highest rates of the 'forties are progressively
lower, the score for 1948 being below that for 1940. Data
for fire losses and per capita loss suggest the rising
magnitude and recent improvement in dealing with the city's
fire and conflagration hazards.
Appendix 5* The Glendale Police Department, furnishes
other current evidence of the growth and capabilities of the
police establishment. Police service quality and in-service
improvement are abundantly evident.
Appendix J, The Glendale Fire Department, adds further
notes on the background of financing and organization for
this branch of city service. Modernized equipment indicated
therein points to greater efficiency and again the improvement
in quality of the services.
The public welfare department: Health and welfare,
parks and recreation, and library. The city charter provides
3 .
that:
The Public Welfare Department shall have charge
of the following divisions of City government:
Conservation and Preservation of Health, Promotion
of Cleanliness, Collection and Disposal of Refuse
3 Article X, Section 3j Charter of the City of Glendale,
California (noted in Appendix 1).
122
and waste Material, Charity and Welfare, Playground,
Entertainments, Forestry and Parks, and Library.
In the health and welfare expenditures of the city
over the past twenty years there has never been the pro
portionate bulk in total employment or in total spending
that prevailed rather typically for police and fire pro
tection. The vital necessity of maintaining these expendi
tures at adequate levels, however, requires little argument.
A recital of the included components sufficiently emphasizes
how indispensable they are. The city contracts with the
county of Los Angeles for health service, inspection, rodent
control, etc. Totals referred to below also include rubbish
and garbage pick-up and disposal costs.
Table XXV exhibits total health and welfare expendi
tures by years since 1928. These are measured in absolute
dollars spent and in per cent of total yearly expenditures
by the city.
From 1928 to 1932 the movement of changes is in an
upward direction. The gains are relatively steady, without
decline or interruption. The 1933 register is a spectacular
increase (over 1932) succeeded by an even more dramatic
fall (in 193*0 in total expenditure for this class. At
$117,303.60, 1933 registered a total not before encountered
in any previous year, nor yet to be matched or exceeded
until 1943.
123
TABLE XXV
GLENDALE HEALTH AND WELFARE EXPENDITURE
Fiscal Year
Total Operating
Expenditure
Per Cent of Total
City Operating
Expenditure
1927-1928 $ 62,823.00
1929
64,472.90
1930 65,415.93
5.46
1931 73,822.89 6.17
1932 80,695.39 6.87
1933
117,303.60 IO.98
1934 63,555.07 6.85
1935 91.386.03 9.66
1936 64,748.64
6.79
1937 54,669.25 5.38
1938 49,967.37 4.55
1939
43,867.74 3.87
1940
50,447.57 4.36
1941 48,775-90 3.58
1942 101,460.52 7.00
1943 138,004.39 9.45
1944
112,687.35
7.41
1945
98,739.26
6.39
1946 110,339.02
5.77
1947 159,331.36 6.90
1948 181,129.78 6.12
1949 199,982.35 (est.) 5.78
Source: Computations based on data furnished by the Office
of Controller, City of Glendale.
124
The years 1934 through 1941 are erratic, exhibiting
only one sustained movement (1935 through 1939) and that in
a downward direction.
The scores for 1940 and 1941 show kinship at
$50,447.57 and $48,775.90 respectively.
In all the years after 1941 health and welfare
expenditures drop below the yearly $100,000 level only once
and only slightly (1945 at $98,739.26).
The jump from 1941 at $48,775.90 to 1942 at $101,460.52
is the greatest single year's gain in all the years surveyed,
although other significant rates of change appear between
1942 and 1943 ($101,460.52 to $138,004.39) and between 1946
and 1947 ($110,339.02 to $159,331.36).
The peak in 1943 was not exceeded until 1947 (at
$159,331.36). Since 1942 (considering the estimated aggre
gate for 1949) health and welfare expenditures seem to be
nearly double. If the low point of 1941 were taken as com
parative beginning, the 1949 position is a gain of approxi
mately' four times.
Turning from absolute dollars expended, however, the
percentages of total city spending show occasionally signifi
cant gain but in general the relative position of this
segment of city expenditure seems stable.
During only five years out of the entire period
125
surveyed was the per cent for this class of expenditure above
six and a fraction. Three of these five years occur together
during World War II (19*1-2 - 19^). The other two are
scattered.
Apart from these five scores the percentages most
persisting are those of five or six plus a fraction. Only
four years in the entire series differ in falling below five.
Table XXVI exhibits the total health and welfare
expenditures by selected years, reduced to per capita terms
and then converted to deflated totals and their per capita
values.
As often before the deflated per capita changes are
relatively smooth and those of undeflated per capita values
relatively erratic and abrupt. Between 1930 and 19**0 unde
flated per capita expenditures appear to have fallen by
approximately 40 per cent. Deflated per capita spending
shows this period as a decline, but at about 30 per cent.
Between 19*1-0 and 19*5-5 the undeflated per capita gain is,
once more, substantial at approximately 66 per cent, while
the deflated per capita score registers a gain, to be sure,
but of only 31 P©*? cent.
Between 19*1-0 and 19*1-8 the gain per undeflated values
per capita is approximately a triple increase, while the same
years for deflated per capita spending register only a 66 per
126
TABLEvXXVI
DEFLATED HEALTH AND WELFARE EXPENDITURES
Year
Total
Expenditure
Per
Capita
Deflated
Expenditure
Per
Capita
1930
$ 65,415.93
$1.04
$ 54,787.21
$ .88
1940
50,447.57
.62 50,346.88 .62
19^5
98,739.26
1.03 76,899.74 .81
1946 110,339.02 1.14 79,209.63 • 79
19^7 159,331.36 1.59 100,082,51
1.00
1948 181,129.78 1.76 105,800.11
1.03
Source: Computations of the investigator based on data furnished
by the Office of Controller, City of Glendale.
127
cent gain.
Table XXVII exhibits the net total expenditures for
operations of the recreation division, by years. The same
are measured also as a per cent of total city expenditure
in each year.
Net yearly aggregates show relatively mild changes
in the late 'twenties and early 'thirties. 1932 records
a peak at $80,346.91. After 1932 persistent declines are
registered in each successive fiscal year reaching a low
mark at $40,683.46 in 1935- After 1935 increases are
evident for each year following without decline or inter
ruption, reaching $129,844.68 in 1941. The war years are
erratic. In 1942 the slight decline to $126,987.59 is
unspectacular, but in 1943 the recreation expenditure drops
to $107,991.53. An abrupt recovery in 1944 makes the aggre
gate for that fiscal year $181,452.23, the biggest single
net change for a year in any surveyed up to that time.
The last year of World War II (1945) registered a
drop to $121,762.69, but after 1945 the changes are steadily
upward without a break. The climb of approsimately
$55,000 (1945 - 1946) is significant in per cent but
eclipsed by later gains (1947 - 1948 and 1948 - 1949).
All this is in net unconverted dollar expenditures.
Recreation costs are a basic component in the total
128
TABLE XXVII
GLENDALE RECREATION EXPENDITURES
Year
Net Operating
Expenditure
Per Cent of Total
City Operating
Expenditure
1929
$ 78,290.21
1930 69,473.17
5.80
1931
77,711.62
6.49
1932 80,346.91
6.84
1933 71,126.95
6.66
1934
54,243.61 6.85
1935
40,683.46 4.30
1936
44,199.11
4.64
1937 57,627.53
5.68
1938 83,718.54
7.63
1939
104,798.88 9.24
1940
107,806.39
9.31
1941 129,844.68
9.55
1942
126,987.59 8.74
1943 107,991.53 7.38
1944
181,452.23 11.92
1945 121,762.69 7.91
1946
176,510.99
9.24
1947 197,466.13 8.55
1948
. 281,776.65* 9.54
1949 425,943.31* (est.) 12.33
Source: Office of the Controller, City of Glendale.
* Capital Improvements expenditures Included from funds
contributed by public utility as per charter amendment.
129
structure of city costs. For many years they roughly
paralleled the relative position of health and welfare
expenditures. In the most recent decade they have slightly
bettered that position.
The years 1944 and 1949 can hardly be considered as
other than atypical (at $11.92 and $12.33 respectively).
In all the years surveyed the lowest portion of total city
spending allotted to recreation was in 1935 (at 4.30 per
cent). The per cent of the next year is the only score
even close to that of 1935*
After 1937 the percentage that this aggregate is of
total city operations never fell below seven. Except for
the years 1944 and 1949 (already accounted) the highest
apparently normal year was 1941 at 9*55 par cent. All
fluctuations except the two years noted fall between this
high mark and 7*38 during all the years after 1937.
The persistent share for recreation would appear
to be between eight and nine plus a fraction per cent In
recent years. It is to be noted that the 1948 and 1949
aggregates are swelled by capital improvements outlays made
from funds authorized by charter amendment, to be contributed
by the public service department. Even so, the percentage
allotted to this class of city costs rises above nine and a
fraction in only one of these two years.
130
Table XXVIII exhibits the recreation expenditures of
the city reduced by considering the price level changes and
population growth. As before, the significant comparisons
develop between undeflated and deflated per capita costs.
Undeflated per capita expenditures in selected years
show almost unbroken gains from 1930 to 1948. Furthermore,
since 1940 the outlays per capita seem to have more than
doubled in extent.
When price index corrections are considered, however,
the picture is substantially altered. In the deflated per
capita expenditures it appears that 1945 did mark a low year
at $.99 but the increases that follow are not without inter
ruption, nor are they in percentages comparable to the un
deflated data.
Between 19^5 and 1948 the gain is 61.6 per cent and
not above 100 per cent as the unconverted scores Indicated.
The city library services and costs are connected
with this whole picture of the public welfare department,
but the analysis of library data is deferred to a later
position in the discussion where it can be related more
conveniently to school activities and expenditure.
The general government department. The city charter
provides that,^
4
Article X, Section 2, Charter of the City of Glendale,
(noted in Appendix 1).
131
TABLE XXVIII
DEFLATED RECREATION EXPENDITURES
Year
Total
Expenditures
Per
Capita
Deflated
Expenditures
Per
Capita
1930 $ 69,473.17 $1.11 $ 58,185.23 $ .93
1940
107,806.39
1.32 107,591.21
1.31
1945
121,762.69
1.27
94,830.76
• 99
1946
176,510.99 1.83
126,712.84
1.31
1947 197,466.13 1.97 124,036.51
1.24
1948
281,776.65 2.74 164,589.16 1.60
Source: Office of the Controller, City of Glendale.
Computations by this Investigator.
132
The Department of General Government shall
have charge of the following divisions of city
government: Elections, Legislation and Records,
Judicial, Legal, Treasurer, General Administra
tion, which shall include purchasing, assessing,
tax and license collection, Finance and Accounting,
Advertising and Promotion.
Table XXIX exhibits the total operating expenditures
of general administration during the past twenty years. As
before, these activities are also measured in the related
column recording the percentages that this allocation is in
each fiscal year’s total spendings.
In analyzing this data it must be remembered that
over the years surveyed certain new departments were created.
The civil service commission was added in 1937* The planning
commission was added in 1947* Also certain accounts previ
ously not included have been added. Such accounts as telephones,
insurance, and some public service payments accounts have been
combined into general administrative accounts. (From 1933 -
1934 on the public service department began sharing costs of
certain general administrative functions too, but this is
especially important for revenues.)
In the early 'thirties general administration expen
ditures moved from below $140,000 to a point above $200,000,
establishing a high year in 1932 (at $204,598.20). They then
declined steadily, without interruption, to a low mark in
1936 (at $112,112.49). This is also the lowest year in the
133
TABLE XXIX
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION EXPENDITURES, GLENDALE
Year
Total Operating
Expenditure
Per Cent of Total
City Operating
Expenditure
1930 $134,227.00 11.21
1931
136,995.00
11.45
1932 204,598.20 17.42
1933
175,185.61 16.40
1934
140,929.95 15.19
1935 117,637.07
12.44
1936 112,112.49 11.76
1937
125,766.18 12.56
1938 122,251.92 11.13
1939
188,974.42
16.63
1940
175,608.27 15.15
1941 167,770.28 12.30
1942 246,526.47 17.00
1943 237,111.99 16.23
1944
240,381.29 15.78
1945
253,728.18 16.46
1946 272,400.46 14.26
1947 374,288.69
16.18
1948
405,172.15
13.68
1949 463,827.79 (est.)
13.40
Source: Office of the controller; computations by this
investigator.
13^
entire series surveyed. Recovery was irregular and halting.
The 1931 level was not passed again until 1939* another minor
peak year. 1939 was followed by decreases in two succeeding
years and by 1942*s new high for these expenditures. The
1942 level was more than twice the height of that in 1936.
i
The war years are irregular, but the general adminis
tration cost of 1945 is slightly above that of 1942. After
1945 the increases are consistent and without interruption
up the 1949 estimated costs. The expenditures estimated for
1949 are somewhat less than double the aggregate for 1942,
more than double the total for 1941.
Turning to the percentages of the city’s yearly
spending, however, the relative allocations to general ad
ministration costs are actually less than in any year since
1941, and their present direction is downward. In fact this
relative position in 1948 and 1949 (13*68 per cent and 13*40
per cent respectively) is only slightly above the lowest
years of depression ‘thirties. In all the years since 1931
only four are lower than the two last years in percentages
allocated to this class of government services. The highest
year since 1932 was the percentage in 1942 (at 17.00). Prom
1942 onward the secular direction is downward to last
(estimated) fiscal period.
Table XXX exhibits the data of deflated operating
135
TABLE XXX
DEFLATED GENERAL ADMINISTRATION .EXPENDITURES
Year
Total
Operating
Expenditures
Per
Capita
Deflated
Operating
Expenditures
Per
Capita
1930 $134,227.00
$2;i5
$112,417.92 $1.80
1940
175,608.27 2.15 175,257.75
2.14
1945
253,728.18 2.54 197,607.62
2.07
1946 272,400.46
2.73
195,549.50
2.03
1947 374,288.69 3.74 235,105.96
2.35
1948
405,172.15 3.95 236,665.98 2.30
Source: Office of the Controller, City of Glendale; compu
tations by the investigator.
136
expenditures for this department. The unconverted per
capita spending shows a steady unbroken rise from $2.15
in 1940 to $3*95 i - n 1948,. a proportionate gain of 83*72
per cent.
Deflated per capita spending also shows the span,
1940 to 1948, as one of gain, but the proportion was highest
in 1947 (at 9.81 per cent) and has since declined to the
per capita of $2.30 of 1948, a position 7.48 per cent above
the 1940 level. From 1940 to 1945 these deflated per
capita expenditures actually fall, reaching a low year
in 1946 at $2.03*
Employee retirement. On July 1, 1945 the Glendale
city employees came into the California State Retirement
System. They entered membership on a 50 per cent prior
service basis, but this was subsequently amended to 100
per cent. In these circumstances only three years of
expenditures plus a fourth estimated period are of record.
Table XXXI exhibits these totals and their proportion
ate part of city spending per year. Retirement spending is
generally determined by the number of employees covered,
the wage levels and pension or benefit rates. In every
year thus far for Glendale this class of expenditure has
been rising. It is difficult, however, to see much definite
137
TABLE XXXI
GLENDALE RETIREMENT EXPENDITURE
Year
Total
Operating
Expenditure
Per Cent of
Total City
Operating
Expenditure
19^6
$114,077.71 5.97
1947
134,423.08 5.82
1948 193,147.66 6.54
1949
224,347.44 (est.) 6.50
Source: Office of the Controller, City of Glendale.
138
trend or pattern because of the limited evidence.
The per cent of total city expenditure devoted to
retirement spending seems to be relatively stable, never
more than 6.54 per cent (1948) nor less than 5*82 per cent
(1947). The 1949 estimate makes this year’s percentage
slightly lower than that of 1948 (at 6.50 per cent).
Table XXXII exhibits the retirement expenditures,
actual, actual per capita, deflated and per capita deflated.
The per capita undeflated costs rise from $1.18 (1946) to
$2.15 (1949) during the four years recorded. This appears
to approach twice the starting figure, but an examination
of deflated data corrects this impression. From $.85 de
flated per capita costs (1946) to $1.10 deflated per capita
spending (1948) is a rise, not of 100, but of 29-41 per cent.
Special non-budgeted expenditure. In each fiscal
year an irregular recurrence of special projects requires
greater or less of city spending. The record of all the
evidence is not quite as complete- as for some previous costs
surveyed. Even so, (Table XXXII) the data since 1938 is
sufficient in scope to allow discovery of the nature and
behavior of these expenditures.
Both the aggregates per year and the yearly per
centages of total city spending indicate the lack of
139
TABLE XXXII
DEFLATED RETIREMENT EXPENDITURES
Year
Total
Operating
Expenditures
Per
Capita
Deflated
Operating
Expenditures
Per
Capita
1946
$114,077-71
$1.18
$ 81,893.55 $ .85
1947
134,423.08
1.34
84,436.61 .84
1948 193,1^7.66 1.88
112,819.89 1.10
1949 224,347.44
2.15
*
Source: Office of the Controller, City of Glendale.
* No index available.
140
TABLE XXXIII
SPECIAL PROJECT NON-BUDGETED EXPENDITURES, GLENDALE
Year
Total
Operating
Expenditure
Per Cent of
Total City
Operating
Expenditure
1936 $ 9,833-76 1.03
1937 29,722.13 2.93
1938 15,409-41 1.40
1939
23,116.42
2.05
1940 10,166.74 .88
1941
73,023-51 5-37
19^2 57,292.81
3-93
1943 6,622.90 .45
1944
11.99
*
1945
0
1946
38,179.69 1.99
1947 3,029-32
-13
1948 8,117.32 (est.)
-27
Source: Office of the Controller, City of Glendale; compu
tations by the investigator; data for years, 1928 -
1935 were not available.
* Is less than 1/100 of 1 per cent.
141
stability in this expenditure category. Nevertheless the
evidence does show a maximum year (1941 at $73*023.51).
This is also the highest year for percentage allocation of
total spending (at 5.37 per cent). Rarely since 1936 is
there ancomplete absence of such spending, but in one year
such an absence does occur (1945). A second year indicates
that almost nothing was spent (1944 at $11.99).
Apart from these two war years the special non
budgeted spending never falls below $3*000, nor below .13
per cent of total expenditure for the city.
Table XXXIV again deflates the yearly totals and
reduces the results to per capita scores. In selected
years the evidence shows little additional in trends, except
that deflated per capita spending in this class is never
extremely high and still falls significantly below the
undeflated figures In certain years.
The public works department. The city charter pro
vides that,-*
The Public Works Department shall have charge
of: General Engineering, Flood Control, Street
Construction, Assessments,- Street Maintenance,
Building Inspection, and care of Public Buildings.
5 Article X, Section 5* Charter of the City of
Glendale, (noted in Appendix 1).
142
TABLE XXXIV
DEFLATED NON-BUDGETED EXPENDITURES
Year
Total
Operating
Expenditure
Same
Per
Capita
Deflated
Expenditure
Same
Per
Capita
1936 f 9,833.76 $.14
$ 9,923.07 $.14
1940 10,166.74 .12
10,146.45 .12
1946
38,179.69 • 39 27,408.25 • 29
1947 3,029.32 .03
1,902.84 .02
1948 8,117.32 .08
4,741.43 .05
Source: Office of the Controller, City of Glendale; compu
tations by the investigator.
143
As police and fire protection may have to develop
further and more war time plans in connection with more
permanent federal plans on internal security, so the city’s
engineering group will doubtless continue to be especially
needed in depression planning promoted by both federal and
state authorities.
The city’s more normal development, but also its
special crisis measures are thus significantly related to
these municipal branches.
A high proportion of the city’s needs as outlined
in the previous chapter must be met' by the public works
department, and sustained by this class of expenditures.
We have already considered that certain spending would be
expected to attend further important annexations. Also
noted were the needs for land cover and conservation
measures for hill fringes, programs of street improvement,
additional parking facilities, possible freeway construction,
sewer system extension, flood control improvement, drainage
extensions, and civic center development.
All these current and more or less pressing needs
should be seen against the background of prior services
and costs characterizing the public works department over
time.
Table XXXV exhibits the yearly expenditures for
144
TABLE XXXV
GLENDALE HIGHWAY AND PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURES
Year
Total
Operating ,
Expenditures
Per Cent of
Total City
Operating
Expenditures
1928 $201,669.00
1929 216,763.87
1930 237,438.39 21.51
1931
233,912.84
19.55
1932 220,391.56 18.76
1933
165,732.70 15.52
1934 156,483.53 16.87
1935 185,328.73 19.59
1936 207,084.28 21.72
1937
176,007.42 17.34
1938 217,437.84 19.80
1939 188,583.05
10.44
1940 186,411.95 16.10
1941
237,287.09
17.40
1942 217,913.60 15.00
1943 212,498.49 14.55
1944
219,678.89 14.42
1945 246,942.67
16.04
1946
321,379.29
16.80
1947 359,435.97 15.53
1948 535.075.28 18.08
1949 615,393.00 (est.)
17.83
Source: Office of the Controller, City of Glendale.
Computations by the investigator.
145
highways and public works since 1928. Measured also are
the proportions that each year's allocations are of total
city expenditures.
It should be noted that totals here include capital
expenditures, e.g., heavy equipment, office equipment, land
acquisition, etc. Expenditures here are also out of funds
beyond city collection. They include funds recovered from
the state'highway gasoline tax levy.
In 1930 highway and public works spending totaled
$257j438.39. This was a peak year, not thereafter matched
or surpassed until 1946, although the aggregate for 1945
approached this level.
After 1930 highway and public works expenditures
declined without interruption until a low mark was reached
in 1934. The low point was not repeated or lowered in any
subsequent year. It was the lowest, too, among the years
surveyed prior to 1934. From 1930 to 1934 marks a fall
of more than $100,000 and of more than 50 per cent. Yearly
totals fluctuate erratically after 1934. Their immediate
direction is upward, reaching $207,084.28 in 1936. In 1938,
however, the total surpasses that of 1936 by $10,000. Again
there follows brief decline in 1939 and 1940, but the recovery
of 1941 passes the high point of 1938 by approximately
$20,000.
146
All the war years except the last (194-5) fall below
the 1941 aggregate. The total for 1945 exceeds that of
1941 by just under $10,000. Thereafter the yearly changes
are unbroken increases up to the last year (estimated, 1949).
Percentages suggest that the relative place of these
allocations has fluctuated by as much as 100 per cent between
highest and lowest years. In all the fiscal periods sur
veyed the per cent for highways and public works has never
been higher than 21.72 per cent In 1936 (a recovery year).
The only other year in the entire series that is very close
is 1930 (at 21.51 per cent).
The place of these expenditures before 1939 tends to
be definitely higher than in all the years that follow. In
all years before 1939 only one percentage (15.52 per cent in
1933) is below the 16.87 per cent of 1934.
1939 is the lowest percentage rate among all years
examined (at 10.44 per cent). Thereafter, the relative
position of these expenditures recovers, but only three
times (1941, 1948 and 1949) in all the succeeding years
is the percentage above 16.80 per cent. Of these three
the highest was 18.08 per cent in 1948, the highest pro
portion allocated to these expenditures since 1938.
Lowest mark after 1939 is in 1944 at 14.42 per cent,
but 1943’s score is almost as low at 14.55 per cent.
147
The deflated per capita expenditures of Table XXXVI
again make a clearer picture of spending than the undeflated
totals or per capita scores. Between 1940 and 1948 the un
deflated per capita spending seems to have Increased more
than 100 per cent. Deflated per capita expenditure shows
that it did of course rise, but by only 3^ per cent.
Table XXXVII presents data making it possible to
mark the progress of one phase of public works (street
mileage) in relation to the expending area of used land
which is served by such ways and roads.. In the totals for
street mileage dedicated there are almost unbroken increases
(fractional declines are recorded in three years) from 1936
to 1948. This is a measurement of sustained performance.
The last published Annual Report of city engineer
J.C. Albers, is that made to city manager Charles C. McCall
for fiscal year, 1947 - 1948.^ The value of street improve
ments work in Glendale during that year was greater than that
of any year since the boom days of the 'twenties. It was
exceeded during only one or two years in the 'thirties when
W.P.A. assisted with street work, flood clean-up, soil
erosion, and check dam construction.
The value of work actually completed during 1947 -
6 Glendale News-Press, "The Glendale Story," Section
"Transportation," November 26,.1948, p. 15.
148
TABLE XXXVI
DEFLATED HIGHWAY AND PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURES
Year
Total
Operating
Expenditure
Same Per
Capita
Deflated
Operating
Exp enditures
Same Per
Capita
1930 $257,438.39
$4.12 $215,610.04
$3.45
1940
186,411.95
2.28
186*039.87 2.27
1945 246*942.67
2.58
192*322.95
2.01
1946
321*379.29 3-33 230*710.19 2.38
1947 359,435.97 3.59
225,776.48
2.25
1948 535,075.28 5.21
312,543.97
3.04
Source: Office of the Controller* City of Glendale;
computations by the investigator.
149
TABLE XXXVII
COMPARISON OP INCREASES IN OCCUPIED, SUBDIVIDED
LOTS WITH STREET MILEAGE DEDICATED
Year
Occupied,
Subdivided
Lots
Yearly
Increases
Street
Mileage
Dedicated
1936 17,818 250.38
1937
18,758 940 254.04
1938 19,314 556 253.90
1939
20,696 1,382 254.19
1940 22,058 1,362
254.17
1941 23,028 970 254.65
1942 23,508 480 255.02
1943
23,524 16
255.19
1944
23,639 115 255.04
1945
23,986
347 256.59
1946 24,682 696
257.15
1947
25,220
538 258.65
1948 25,220 000
259.19
1949
25,500 (est.) 280 260.00
Source: Office of the Controller, City of Glendale;
computations by the investigator.
150
1948 was $470,567.28. The types of activity Included were:
(1) Improvement of new streets, (2) Installation of new
sewers, (3) traffic signals, arid (4) parking meters, (5)
painting of bridges, (6) cleaning of lots, and (7) re
surfacing of city streets..
Under construction at fiscal year's end were pro
jects of a value of $340,179* These included road resurfacing
at $l6l,385 and the ornamental street lighting of Brand
Boulevard at $118,000.
The projects for the year, 1948 - 1949 a*1© described
by the city engineer as "one of the most ambitious" the
department has yet undertaken. The more certain projects
totaled $761,500 and included: (1) New street construction,
(2) resurfacing, (3) installation of traffic signals, (4)
construction of storm drains, (5) bridge painting, and (6)
lot cleaning. Other projects seemed likely to bring the
total to approximately $800,000.
A street resurfacing program was initiated in 1942.
The .cumulative total improved miles since then are 245.
Added in 1947 -1948 are 13.64 miles.
Certain sums already set aside are not yet expended,
pending the start of projects for which they were granted.
Completion of plans for a central drainage district project
were expected by late spring or early summer of 1949.
151
Within the plan for 1948 - 1949 are included: (l)
Installation of new traffic signals, and (2) replacement
of existing signals at a cost estimated at $179*000.
The library service. The writer has deliberately
deferred the library discussion until this later point
because it seems desirable to analyze the library services
and expenditures more in relation to those of the schools
(treated last in this chapter) than as library alone, or
as library in relation to any other branch of city service.
Table XXXVIII exhibits the yearly totals expended
for library services since fiscal year 1928. Added are the
proportions or percentages that library expenditures are of
total city outlays in each year.
Total operating expenditures for library service are
$81,144.43 in 1932. This is a minor peak year. In 1930
the aggregate was almost this amount (at $80,932.81) but in
general the years immediately preceding 1932 show gradual
increases to the height of that year.
After 1932 a decline sets in which persists until it
reaches a low mark in 1934 at $62,091.02. Only one other
score (1928: $42,355.09) in the whole series is lower than
that in 1934.
Recovery after 1934 is relatively slow but increases
152
TABLE XXXVIII
GLENDALE LIBRARY EXPENDITURES
Year
Total
Operating
Expenditures
Per Cent of
Total City
Operating
Expenditures
1928 $ 42,355-09
1929 67,683.29
1930 80,932.81 6.76
1931
74,855.42 6.26
1932 81,144.43 6.91
1933 71,592.47 6.70
1934 62,091.02
6.69
1935
62,431.18 6.60
1936 63,975.41
6.71
1937
68,837.44
6.79
1938 74,241.42
6.77
1939
76,844.01
6.77
1940
77,276.79 6.67
1941 96,813.11
7-10
1942 89,985.70 6.17
1943
107,295.01 7.34
1944
103,812.79 6.83
1945 112,279-41 7.28
1946 127,998.81
6.69
1947' 157,351.89
6.82
1948
184,094.15 6.23
1949 211,215.72 (est. ) 6.12
Source: Office of the Controller, City of Glendale;
computations by the investigator.
153
are uninterrupted in each successive year through 19^1
(at $96,813.11).
After 19^1 there is secular upward movement, but not
without minor fluctuations (19^1 to 19^2 and 1943 to 1944).
After 1944 the gains each year to the present have been un
broken and substantial. Highest year in the entire series
is that estimated for 1949 at $211,215*72.
Percentages of total operating expenditures allocated
each year to library service suggest the relative stability
of this class of expenditures. Only three years in the
whole series show percentages of more than six plus a
fraction. All three of these are below 7*50 per cent. No
per cent in all years surveyed is below six. All percentages
of seven plus occur in years since 1940. The highest of the
three scores above 6.99 is 7*34 P©*5 cent (19^3)* Since 1943
there is a secular movement in a downward direction despite
minor fluctuations.
Only one other percentage in all prior years was
lower (1942: 6.17 per cent) than the 1948 percentage
(6.23 per cent). But the per cent for 1949 estimated at
6.12 is the lowest year in all years examined.
Table XXXIX exhibits total and per capita spending
scores deflated as usual according to the cost of living
index. Unconverted per capita spending suggests a steady
154
TABLE XXXIX
DEFLATED LIBRARY EXPENDITURES
Years
Total
Operating
Expenditures
Same Per
Capita
. Deflated
Operating
Expenditures
Same Per
Capita
1930 $ 80,932.81
$1.29
$ 67,782.92 $1.08
1940
77,276.79 .95
77,122.54 .94
1945
112,279-41
1.17
87,445.02 • 92
1946 127,993.81
1.33
91,887.16
.95
1947 157,351.89 1.57 98,839.13 .99
1948
184,094.15 1.79 107,531.63 1.05
Source: Office of the Controller, City of Glendale.
Computations by the investigator.
155
rise in these costs between 1940 and 1948 with the greater
part of the gain registered since 1945* Unconverted per
capita scores make the gain between 1945 and ,1948 amount
to 53 cent.
Deflated per capita spending indicates that 1945
is the lowest of recent and selected years, and that the
gain between 1945 and 1948 is 14.13 per cent. It becomes
evident, too, that even the height estimated for 1949 is
below the level of 1930*
Table XL exhibits total, per capita and per borrower
circulation, the number of books yearly available and the
yearly increases. Sources here were the library’s annual
reports, themselves, through years 1936 - 1948 (except one
year not available, 1939)*
Circulation after the 1936 peak (at 718.,766)
declined somewhat as the ’thirties closed. The 'forties
witnessed both further decline and substantial recovery in
this performance category. Lowest year was 1943 (at 485,992).
The war years generally were low, but from 1943 on recovery
was definite and without interruption up through 1948, even
though in the last year it does not match nor surpass cir
culation for the years of the later 'thirties.
Per capita circulation in the late 'thirties shows
a performance substantially above per capita circulation
156
TABLE XL
GLENDALE LIBRARY SERVICE STATISTICS
Year Circulation
Per Capita
Circulation
Number of
Books
Available
Number
Added
Yearly
Per Bor
rower
1936 718,768
1937
655,078 10.4
25-9 87,309 5,963
1938 702,692 11.11 26.6
91,835
6,898
1940 674,366 8.2 24.2 95,920
4,413
19*1
614,564 7-4 22.0 98,784 6,030
1942 523,830 6.4 19.0
103,715 5,761
1943 485,992
5-9
18.6
108,171 5,793
1944 491,761
5-95
19.8 112,318 5,697
1945
507,908 5-44 20.0
118,263 7,570
1946 555,938 5-76 20.6 123,782
6,943
1947
604,630
5-07 19-7
130,442 8,018
1948 613,961 6.03
18.8
136,055
11,982
Source: Office of the Chief Librarian, City of Glendale.
Note: In 1938 the per capita circulation median in comparable
cities in the U.S. was 7-365.
157
TABLE XL (Continued)
GLENDALE LIBRARY SERVICE STATISTICS
Year
Number of
Borrowers
Per Cent of
Population
Number of
Branches
and
Stations
Number of Employees,
Total Professional
1928 30
1929
30
1930
31
1931
32
1932 34
1933
36
1934 39
1935 37
1936 39
1937 25,672
40.9 3
40
1938 26,960
42.9 3 40.5
1940 27,816 34.0
5 43 19
1941 27,961 34.0
5 43 19
1942 27,206 33.0
5 43 19
1943
26,016 31.0
5
44
19
1944 24,734 29.0
5
42 18
1945
24,806 26.0
5
i j .4
19
1946
26,939
28.0
5
50 21
1947,
30,690
30.9 5 44.5
*
1948
32,585
33-0 6
48.5
*
1949 47 (est. ) 24
Source: Office of Chief Librarian, City of Glendale. Office
of the Controller, City of Glendale. Computations by
the library.
* Not available.
158
median In comparable cities of the United States. But per
capita circulation in the 'forties is substantially lower
and shows secular downward, movement until at least 1947
(at 5.07). The per borrower rate is, in a similar way,
relatively higher toward the end of the 'thirties and both
lower and declining in the 'forties. No per capita rate in
the 'forties is as high as the top rate of 26.6 in 1938.
Highest rates of the 'forties occur at the beginning (l940:
24.2 and 1941: 22.0). Lowest point of the 'forties (and
of the series), occurs in 1943 (at 18.6). A mild advance
is registered after 1943 but a slight decline sets in again
after 1946. The 1948 rate (18.8) is only slightly above
the lowest rate examined.
Numbers of books' available have grown steadily as
absolute magnitudes. Without decrease or interruption in
a single year the totals are 56.32 per cent higher in 1948
than in 1937-
The numbers of volumes added yearly fluctuate slightly
in the fiscal years surveyed. Lowest year was 1940 (at
4,413). After 1938 (6,898), no succeeding year seems (1939
data not available) to have been as high until this level
was passed in 1945 (at 7*570). Highest year examined was
the last complete year of 1948, (at 11,982). More than
twice as many were added as between the 1940 and 1948 totals.
169
TABLE XLIV
GLENDALE TEACHER EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
Kinder Ele Junior Senior Evening City
Year garten mentary High High School College Total
1937
16
223
156 161 40 38 634
1938 16 220
163 175
44
43
661
1939 17
210 162 178 40
45
652
1940
17
202 161
179 39
48 646
1941 18 198
153
182 56 49 656
1942
17 203 145 180
67 45 657
1943 17
200
139
166
65
48
635
1944
17 197
145
165 52 26 602
1945
18
197 147 158 50 28 598
1946
23 199 145
160 40 40
607
Average Daily Attendance
in Selected Years
1945 13,627
1946 14,448
1947
16,678
1948
17,265
Source: Statistical Facts.
170
TABLE XLV
GLENDALE TOTAL NET EXPENDITURES PER PUPIL
School Level Expenditure Class
1946-1947
1947-1948
Elementary Schools TOTAL
$133-27 $176.63
Teachers' salaries
Instructional
95.42 128.86
expense 6.32
8.63
Operation of plant
13.35 15.79
Maintenance of plant 3.12 4.89
Auxiliary agencies
4.51
4.02
Fixed charges 2.82 4.45
Miscellaneous
7.73 9.94
High Schools TOTAL
230.63 288.36
Teachers 1 salaries
Instructional
161.68 201.38
expense 17.54 21.72
Operation of plant-
21.63 26.34
Maintenance of plant 7.74 12.09
Auxiliary agencies
6.07 5.85
Fixed charges
4.75
6.90
Miscellaneous 11.22 14.08
City College TOTAL 156.18 204.15
Teachers' salaries
Instructional
109.34 144.41
expense 17.90 23.12
Operation of plant
15.67 18.70
Maintenance of plant 3.58 4.20
Auxiliary agencies .74
1.37
Fixed charges
2.95 5.07
Miscellaneous 6.00 7.28
Source: Statistical Pacts, 1946-1947, 1947-1948.
171
All levels of schools were experiencing rises In total
outlays per pupil. For all levels, too, teacher salaries were
the outstanding single expenditure class.
Expenditures so far discussed have occasionally included
permanent improvements, but these are more extensively analyzed
in a later chapter on the public debt policy of Glendale.
Expenditures for the public service department are
intentionally omitted, not because this city operation is
less important, but because it is the general purpose of the
present study to survey city operations most like the great
proportion of comparable cities. Appendix 6, however, treats
some of the outstanding features relating to the operations
and financing of the utility department.
■ The issues of Glendale municipal expenditures. In
this chapter we have attempted to deal with the municipal
circumstances involved in these questions:
1. What amounts have been expended by school and city
authorities for operations in recent years?
2. In what direction have expenditures been changing?
3. How much have they been changing?
4. What have school and city beneficiaries received in
exchange for the revenues and funds expended?
5- In what direction did school and city performance
change in this period?
6. How much did it change?
172
All these questions can be answered In part. Not all
of them can be answered equally well. Amounts expended,
direction of change, and degree of change can be measured
for the most part in monetary terms. Evidence is direct and
fairly comprehensive. Many distortions in the lines and
distinctions can be corrected. Thus far high degrees of
probability characterize the conclusions.
What school and city beneficiaries (tax payers)
receive cannot be stated without greater uncertainty.
Direction of change in governmental performance is also
partly uncertain. The amount of change in performance is
perhaps the most uncertain. The findings of this study are
made only within the limits suggested by these propositions.
Such findings will suggest the need of expanding
certain expenditures, and the further need to secure other
spending against recession. In general, there is little
evidence to clearly justify expending less. Evidence of
occasional and minor amounts of organization streamlining
currently do not substantially contradict this conclusion.
The years of the 'thirties furnish significant back
ground for analyzing the more crucial problems of the
'forties. Developments of the 'forties are in general, the
center of interest.
Appraisal of trends in the 'thirties and 'forties
173
must constantly note the impact of changing phases of the
business cycle* and of war and post war influences.
Prom 1940 to 19^7 the cost of living index computed
by the bureau of labor statistics shows unmistakable and
substantial increases for such costs.. The difference between
the levels of the two years amounts to a 59 per cent increase.
At the time of writing the 1948 index number is not
available, but each month of the year is reported. An average
of these months is of course not the same as the index will
be. However, it is the most suitably close datum in lieu of
that index. When applied to the difference in cost levels
of 1940 and 1948 the latter year registers a 70.9 per cent
increase.
Contrasted with these increases in critical costs the
changes for municipal expenditures are relatively low.
Between 1940 and 1947 deflated per capita operations for
city rise only 2.97 per cent. Between 1940 and 1948 (with
qualifications indicated above) they rise 16.15 per cent.
Undeflated total expenditures (without considering
population change) increased 156 per cent between 1940 and
1948. The rise in expenditure of absolute dollars occurred
for several reasons:
1. The population of Glendale increased (1940 - 1948)
25.5 per cent.
174
2. The land area of the city grew from 19*973 square
miles to 20,259 square miles.
3. City employee wages and salaries have increased
approximately 16 per cent.
4. The number of vehicles in Los Angeles county in
creased more than 40 per cent.
5. Many projects have been postponed from the depres
sion years and postponed again during the war
shortages, and again in the post war boom of
building costs. They have been undertaken in the
last two years with more readiness.
6. Total city and school personnel have increased
significantly. City personnel has increased more
than one third.
Deflated costs per capita in all branches of city
service are notably lower than nearly all other classes of
business costs between 1940 and 1948. Between those two
years the relatively small deflated per capita expenditure-
increases may be summarized for each branch as follows:
1940 1948
Fire and police
Health and welfare
Recreation
General government
Non-budgeted
Public works
Library
School (1945)
5.36 5.96
.62 1.03
1.31 1*60
2.14 2.30
112 .05
2.27 3*04
.94 1.05
18.48 22.30
175
The following conclusions seem to follow:
1. In general Glendale tax payers cannot assert with
any justification that their city or school authorities are
extravagant or inefficient.
2. City and school services provided in 1948 are in
general as good as or better than in 1940. Adequacy and
efficiericy evidence leaves little foundation to question this.
3. Operational costs of municipal government generally
did not rise as fast as the cost of living in the period,
1940 - 1948.
4. In the same period, wages and salaries of public
employees did not rise as fast as the cost of living.
5. Wages and salaries of public employees did not
rise as fast as the average industrial wage, nor as much as
per cent increase per capita income in California (104 per
cent between 1940 and 1947* U.S. Department of Commerce).
6. City and school expenditures of operations are
thus a lighter cost burden in 1948 than in 1940.
7. Some classified wage and salary increases in
current and immediately prospective periods, for the purpose
of reducing more equitably the disparities between income
and living costs, will continue to be justified.
8. Part of Glendale’s earnings flow into the suburb
from more central Los Angeles. Glendale, like other suburban
176
cities, may expect some kind of tax levy on population
earning its income in Los Angeles and using services pro
vided by that city’s residents without contributing much
to their support.
CHAPTER V
RECENT REVENUE PROBLEMS OF
THE CITY OF GLENDALE
The nature of Glendale1s revenue Issues. In the two
preceding chapters we have tried to show that: (1) The social
economy of the suburban Glendale area, plus (2) the growing
functions and activities of the city and school authorities
give rise to increasing needs for public operating expenditure.
In decades past the property tax has been a chief
revenue source. It has not been without weaknesses nor
without criticism, but it has nonetheless persisted in
yielding the bulk of city funds. Whether it should be
expected to produce a larger proportion of total city revenues
in the future, or a lesser proportion (as the last few years
have witnessed) is an issue that policy makers must meet and
resolve.
Glendale has received substantial State aids and con
tinues to so receive. Whether this source of funds should
be looked to in the future for a still greater proportion of
spendable funds, or should be depended on for a constant or
a lesser proportion constitutes another important revenue
issue. Together, the property tax and State aids were prin
cipal supports of city government, through depression, recovery
and war.
178
Other revenues sources have been tapped by Glendale
either de novo or merely more vigorously in recent years.
Some are primarily cost recovering levies, involving licens
ing fees for inspection and certification services. At least
one is a distinctly new method (for Glendale) in gaining
municipal income (the sales tax). Whether these and like new
levies should be expected by policy makers to furnish a con
stant, diminishing, or increasing amount of city income and
proportion of total city revenues is a third important revenue
issue in Glendale.
There are subordinate revenue problems in Glendale.
The contributions to city income made by the public service
department have been governed by several rather clear but
differing policy approaches. The wisest choice of relation
ships with other neighboring or overlapping local governments
involves important gains or losses of revenue. Possible new
relationships with federal levels of financial might again
become an urgent revenue problem should business at a subse
quent time become more deeply depressed.
The purpose of this chapter is to examine each of
these problem areas successively and finally to indicate
which seem to take higher priority as critical or urgent.
General revenues of the City of Glendale. Table XLVI
exhibits the yearly general revenues of the City.of Glendale
179
TABLE XLVI
GENERAL REVENUES OP THE CITY OP GLENDALEl
Fiscal Year Total Revenues Per Capita
1927 - 1928 $1,098,754.12 $18,838
1929
1,196,277.12 19,618
1930 1,195,140.13 19,090
1931
1,228,377.66 19,260
1932 1,192,321.07 18,140
1933
985,574.92 14,830
1934
901,929.66 13,478
1935 927,307.87 13.790
1936 1,008,222.24
14,737
1937
1,187,565.00 16,407
1938 1,293,565.00
17,253
1939
1,287,590.00 16,484
1940 1,338,478.00 16,362
1941 1,751,843.00 21,213
1942 1,692,193.30 18,802
1943 1,675,439.63 18,255
1944 1,511,631.78 16,070
1945 1,663,860.21 17,392
1946 1,686,135.44 17,474
1947
1,920,040.24 19,102
1948
2,864,306.99
27,889
(est.) 1949 3,301,560.68 31,66l
Source: Office of the Controller, City of Glendale.
These are the totals of city revenues from all sources
(excluding public utility operations).
180
TABLE XLVI (Part 2)
GENERAL REVENUES, YEARLY DIFFERENCES
AND RATE OF CHANGE
Fiscal
Year
Total
Revenues Differences
Rates of
Change in
Per cent
1927-
1928 $1,098,75^.12
1929 1,196,277.12
1930 1,195,140.13
1931 1,228,377.66
1932 1,192,321.07
1933 985,574.92
1934 901,929.66
1935 927,307.87
1936 1,008,222.24
1937 1,187,565.00
1938 1,293,565.00
1939 1,287,590.00
1940 1,338,478.00
1941 1,751,843.00
1942 1,692,193.30
1943 1,675,439.63
1944 1,511,631.78
1945 1,663,860.21
1946 1,686,135.44
1947 1,920,040.24
.1948 2,864,306.99
1949(est.) 3,301,560.68
;/) 97,523.00
-) 1,136.99
\A 33,237.53
36,056.59
206,746.15
> . 83, 645.26
./} 25,378.21
■ * 80,914.37
179,342.76
106,000.00
5,975.00
50,888.00
313,365.00
59,649.70
16,753.67
163,807.85
152,228.43
22,275.23
233,904.80
944,266.75
437,253.69
8.42
.10
2.78
2.94
17.34
8.47
2.81
8.73
17.79
8.93
.46
■ 3.95
23.41
3-40
.87
9.78
10.07
1. 34
13.87
49.17
[/) 15.27
Source: Office of the Controller, City of Glendale.
181
for the period from fiscal year 1928 to fiscal year 19^9*
the last year being completed by estimation. Total revenues
in absolute numbers of dollars show a consecutive rise through
1928 and 1929, a slight dip in 1930 (so slight as to be hardly
more than a pause in the climb), and a peak year in 1931 at
$1,228,377.66.
This four year span corresponds in changes rather
closely to the per capita total revenue for the same years.1
To be sure the correspondence is not exact. The peak year
of the group for per capita revenue was 1929 (rather than
1931). While it is true that per capita revenues during
1929 through 1931 were fluctuating, actually the changes
were so fractional as to represent in effect something closer
to a brief plateau.
For both total revenue and per capita revenue the year,
1931* Is the last high year preceding a definite decline.
The years of decline for total revenue are 1932 through 193^*
Table XLVI,(Part 2, page 180), exhibits the same yearly
general revenues coupled with computed yearly differences and
rates of change, whether the latter be positive or negative.
While the declines in revenue totals for 1932 - 193^
1 Total revenue data are presented exactly as furnished
by the city controller's office. The writer computed per
capita data.
182
consecutive and steady, rates of decline are erratic.
In the critical year 1933 the rate of revenue decline
thus reached 17.3^ pe** cent. For the previous year it had
been just under 3 P©** cent. In the succeeding year it
dropped to less than half the 1933 rate.
Table XLVII exhibits general property tax levies,
current collections and delinquencies. At a later point
more complete analysis of this information will be made,
but it should be noted in passing that within the three
years, 1932 - 193^* the highest magnitudes for delinquency
occur, higher than all other years in the twenty years sur
veyed. But the explanation for declining revenues was not
entirely related to tax delinquency. Steadily falling levies
mark the same period. The taxing authority was seeking
steadily less revenue from property. In only one other year
of the twenty were they to ask still less. This was 1935 *
for many other purposes included in the distinctive recovery
period.
Table XLVI next demonstrates that the years,'1935
through 1938 register uninterrupted increases in absolute
dollar revenues. Population is increasing in the same period
but revenue rises exceed population increase rates. So that
per capita revenues made steady gains in exactly the same years.
Rates of yearly total revenue increase again are erratic
reaching 17*79 per cent in 1937> but preceded and followed by
183
TABLE XLVII
GLENDALE GENERAL PROPERTY TAX LEVIES,
COLLECTIONS AND DELINQUENCIES
Fiscal Current
Year Total Levy Collections Delinquencies'1
1927-
1928
$ 877,801.91
$ 827,452.18
$ 50,349.73
1929 959,053.85
874,720.61 84,333-24
1930 953,470.12 870,575.42 82,894.70
1931
1,001,257.82
900,292.17 100,965.65
1932 1,015,838.83 873,036.11 142,802.72
1933
820,670.94 684,262.74 136,408.20
1934 718,096.57
601,058.84
117,037.73
1935 684,934.39
601,130.60
83,803.79
1936 736,544.00 677,539.10 59,004.90
1937 718,384.65 676,302.13 42,082.52
1938 758,317.30 710,294.04 48,023.26
1939
782,500.60 740,491.06 42,009.54
1940 789,668.70
747,169.55 42,499.15
1941
779,174.17
751,076.01 28,098.16
1942
798,916.53
772,270.60
26,645.93
1943
819,477.60 793,236.72 26,240.88.
1944 835,325.20
809,574.53 25,750.67
1945 905,254.59 880,486.89 24,767.70
1946
1,007,362.89 978,291.64
29,071.25
1947 1,133,075.42 1,089,008.28
44,067.19
1948 •1,096,145.02 1,065,765.74 30,379.28
1949(est. ) 1,150,914.61
1,064,595.99
86,318.62
Source: Office of the Controller, City of Glendale.
1 Delinquencies given herein are as of June 30th each year
of current levy and should not be confused with delinquent
collections. The aggregate total of all accumulated
delinquency balance as of June 30, 1948 was $81,381.46.
>
184
TABLE XLVII (Part 2)
CURRENT COLLECTIONS, PROPERTY TAX, YEARLY DIFFERENCES,
YEARLY RATES OF CHANGE, AND PER CAPITA COLLECTIONS
Fiscal
Year
Current
Collections Differences
Rates of
Change•In
Per Gent
Per
Capita
Col
lections
1927-
1928 $ 827,452.18
1929 874,720.61 (/I
1930 870,575.42 (-
1931 900,292.17 (/
1932 873,036.11
1933 684,262.74
1934 601,058.84
1935 601,130.60
1936 677,539.10
1937 676,302.13
1938 710,294.04
1939 740,491.06
1940 747,169.55
1941 751,076.01
1942 772,270.60
1943 793,236.72 (/]
1944 809,574.53
1945 880,486.89
1946 978,291.64
1947 1,089,008.28
1948 1,065,765.74
1949 1,064,595-99
47,268.43
4,145.19
29.716.75
27,256.06
188,773.37
83.203.90
71.76
76,408.50
1,236.97
33.991.91
30,197.02
6,678.49
3,906.46
21,194.59
20,966.12
16,337.81
70,912.36
97.804.75
110,716.64
23,242.54
1,169.75
5.71
.47
3.41
3.03
21.62
12.16
.01
12.71
.18
5.03
4.25
• 90
.52
2.82
2.71
2.06
8.76
11.11
11.32
2.13
.11
$14.19
14.34
13.91
14.12
13.28
10.30
8.98
8.94
9.90
9.3^
9.47
9.48
9.13
9.09
8.58
8.64
8.60
9.20
10.14
IO.83
10.38
10.21
Source: Office of the Controller, City of Glendale; compu
tations are those of the investigator.
;i85
rates of less than 9 per cent.
Total property taxes asked in most of these years are
rising consecutively. The excepted year, 1937* does not help
to explain the 17.79 per cent rate of change for that terra.
Slightly less property taxes were asked in 1937- Yet the
per capita revenues are distinctly higher and rate of total
revenue increase is unmatched since before 1928 and will not
be approached until 1941 (when the rate is above 1? per cent).
Property tax delinquency falls steadily from 1932
through 1937- The slight increase in 1938 delinquencies is
a momentary and minor interruption in a general downward
movement.
Table XLVI now shows that the fiscal years, 1939 to
1941, inclusive, register steady gains in total city revenues,
though. 1939 had begun by dipping slightly below the previous
year. Per capita revenue, however, scores a small downward
move. In 1939 and 1940 per capita revenue differ only
fractionally at $16,484 and $16,362 respectively.
1941 per capita revenue, however, not only is sub
stantially higher at $21,213* hut higher than in any prior
year surveyed and not exceeded until 1948 and 1949.
During these three years rates of change in total
revenues are erratic again. The 1941 rate at 23.41 per cent
is preceded and followed by rates of less than 4 per cent.
186
Also it is exceeded by only one other rate in the entire
twenty years studied, namely the 49.18 per cent rate increase
of 1948.
These years of steady gains in total revenue are
marked by almost uninterrupted increase in property taxes
asked or levied. The exception in years is 1941, when
slightly less (than for 1940) was planned. Delinquencies
register a significant drop to $28,098.16 in 1941. This is
the lowest figure for any year since before 1928, but was
the beginning of still lower delinquency years immediately
to follow.
As Table XLVI shows, the war years are distinctive.
By these we mean especially 1942, 1943* and 1944. Hostilities
actually persisted during all of the fiscal year, 1945* but
the characteristics of the first typical years did not con
tinue into the last war year. What are those characteristics?
Balling total revenue and falling per capita revenue. At
the bottom of the move total revenues were still greater in
1944 than they had been in 1940, but per capita revenue in
1944 was at $16,070, lower than in any prior year since 1936.
Again there is no evenness in rates of change, but- 1944, highest
of the three in this respect is still under 10 per cent.
The same years mark out increasing claims (levies) by
the tax authority against property. Delinquencies continue
187
to fall and are less in each year, although no fall is as
substantial as that registered between 1934 - 1935 ($117*037*73
to $83,803.79) or between 1940 - 1941 ($42,499*15 to $28,098.16).
In the post war years general revenues have been rising
steadily. The more recent totals have been of unprecedented
magnitude for this municipality, far surpassing the relatively
good yield years of the late 'twenties. Per capita revenues
not only registered gains but the estimated 1949 figure is
approximately twice that for 1944 (moving from $16,070 to
$31,661). The most substantial gains were between 1947 and
1948 (moving from $19,102 to $27*889).
Rates of change are still uneven but in only one year
is the rate spectacular. The 49.18 per cent for 1948 has
already been noted. It was preceded and followed by rates
near 15 per cent.
In only one post war year, 1948, did the tax authority
levy less on property than in the preceding year. The lesser
amount was a relatively small change and followed in 1949 by
a property levy higher than either 1948 or 1947* thus main
taining a secular upward trend in these levies since 1944.
Property tax delinquencies since war's end have been
increasing but not sharply and not consistently. The 1949
estimate at $86,318.62, however, is higher than for any year
since 1934.
188
The property tax Issue In Glendale. Table XLVII
exhibits a twenty-one year record of general property tax
levies, collections and delinquencies.
In the interpretation of total general revenues we
have already discussed delinquencies and total levies. It
remains now to analyze yearly collections data.
Table XLVII (Part 2, page 184), exhibits yearly
collections coupled with certain other derived Information,
yearly differences, rates of change, and per capita col-
2
lections. What significant revenue events do these reflect?
The first matter worth noting is that over the score
of years surveyed, property tax collections are much smoother
and evener in flow, much less violently fluctuating than are
general revenues. Despite depression and war, and while
fluctuations are admitted to be very real in both categories,
property tax collections are plainly more predictable than
are general revenues. This is bound to be significant for
planning and critical for budgeting.
In twenty-one years (1929 to 194-9 inclusive) the mean
average rate of change for current collections of property
tax is 5*29 per cent.
2 The investigator takes entire responsibility for
all the derived data. Collections totals are as reported
by records of the city controller.
189
The years 1929 to 1939 inclusive, embrace a significant
economic change: The movement of general business activity
from prosperity’s last year through the bottom of the ensuing
depression, through the reluctant and halting recovery, brief
recession ans subsequent first stage of another upward pros
perity movement which was borne on armament contracts for
World War II, in other words, from prosperity back to
prosperity.^ During this whole difficult period of eleven
years the mean average rate of change for current collections
of property tax is 6.23 per cent.
The years from 1940 to 1949 form at least two, possibly
three, identifiable economic periods (not cycle phases). The
war years must be considered as from 1940 to 1945 inclusive,
although years, 1942 - 1945* might be especially tagged because
of our active war participation. The years, 1946 through 1949
are distinctly post war. In this entire turbulent span (1940-
1949) of ten years the mean average rate of change for current
collections of property tax is 4.24 per cent.
The median rate of change in the entire twenty-one
years for current collections, property tax, is 3*03 per
cent (Table XLVIII). In the same years for general revenues
median rate of change is 8.47 per cent; mean average rate 3s
10.00 per cent.
■ 3
We do not at all suggest that this is a complete
cycle.
199
TABLE XLVIII
COMPARISON OF DISTRIBUTIONS, RATES OF CHANGE FOR
CURRENT COLLECTIONS AND FOR GENERAL REVENUES
Current Collections
(Property Tax) General Revenues
21.62 49.18
12.71
23.41
12.16
17.79
11-32 17.34
11.11
15.27
8.76 13.87
5-71 10.07
5.03
9.78
4.25
8.93
3-41
8.73
3.03 (median) 8.47 (median)
2.82 8.42
2.71 3.95
2.13
3-40
2.06 2.94
• 90 2.81
.52 2.78
.47
1.34
.18
■ .87
.11 .46
.01 .10
Source: Office of the Controller, City of Glendale.
191
Mean average rate of change for 1929 to 1939 general
revenues Is 7-16 per cent.
Mean average rate of change for 1940 to 1949 general
revenues is 13-11 per cent.
In only seven of the twenty-one years were there
absolute declines in current collections. In five of these
seven less taxes were in fact levied (asked). Once again
the main characteristic of the city property tax appears to
be clear: It Is relatively stable, relatively manageable,
even when other economic elements in the community fluctuate
severely.
When population growth is considered we arrive at
per capita current collections. Our conclusions regarding
this revenue source are sustained. Per capita collections
while not unaffected by depression and war register rela
tively mild changes for the entire period.
Highest of all per capita collections are in the late
’twenties. Never in all the subsequent years after 1931 do
per capita receipts reach a point above $14.
Lowest of all per capita collections occur, not. in the
'thirties, but during Second World War. In 1942, lowest per
capita figure was reached at $8.58* The other war years are
scarcely higher at $8.64 and $8.60 for 1943 and 1944 respec
tively. 1945 registered a more substantial gain at $9-20.
The descent in depression was about the same Jump as
that registered by per capita general revenue. Biggest drop
was nearly $3. per capita between 1932 and 1933*
During 1934 and 1935 per capita property tax receipts
hover near $9, at $8.98 and $8.94 respectively. And during
the next six years only fractional changes appear. During
all six, the per capita figure was nine dollars and some
odd cents.
The post war climb was gradual. Biggest Jump was
approximately a dollar per capita between 1945 and 1946,.
Table XLIX exhibits: (1) General property tax total
assessed values and (2) total rates applied, by years. The
first will show a continuing tax base over the whole period
surveyed. However, because assessment is commonly below
true market value the base for taxing purposes is less than
the real economic base actually sustaining the tax.
. Later in the discussion true value can be shown and
the relation of yearly amounts levied to true value will
give effective rates applied (as the total rates referred
to above are, instead, the nominal rates only).
Assessed values given are net after exemptions and
include personal property taxable at previous years rates.
They do not include solvent credits. True values later
should show comparable totals also net after exemptions.
193
TABLE XLIX
GENERAL PROPERTY TAX TOTAL ASSESSED VALUES AND1
TOTAL RATES APPLIED, BY YEARS
Fiscal
Year
Total
Assessed Value
Total Rate Applied
(Per $100 Assessed
Valuation, Tax
District No. 1
1927-
1928 $ 73,507,400 $1.1900
1929 74,424,860 1.2600
1930
78,244,775
1.2100
1931
r 78,400,394 1.3500
1932 79,339,528 1.3500
1933 65,637,659
1.3500
1934
56,119,337
1.3500
1935
53,657,272 1.3500
1936 54,882,110 1.3200
1937
54,562,130 1.3200
1938 57,765,230 1.3200
1939
59,366,900 1.3200
1940
61,111,475
1.2906
1941 61,181,620 1.2691
19^2 63,582,180
1.2557
19^3
66,757,270 1.2246
1944 68,014,900 1.2242
1945
73,802,640
1.2233
19^6
74,022,755 1.3658
1947 82,377,975
I.3658
1948
108,831,535
.9800
1949 114,795,135
1.0000
Source: Office of the Controller, City of Glendale.
1
Assessed values are net after exemptions and includ<
personal property taxable at previous years rates. Do not
include solvent credits. Prior to 1935* automobiles were
taxed as personal property. Subsequently they were taxed
and collected by state as "Motor Vehicle in Lieu". Tax rates
are for tax district no. 1 (which has the highest rate) tax
rates on personal property are always at previous year's rates.
194
Prior to 1935.» automobiles were taxed as personal
property. Subsequently they were taxed and collected by
the state as "Motor Vehicle in Lieu" taxes.
What significant revenue events do these assessed
values suggest? The first striking fact presented is the
lag of assessments behind certain other more sensitive
economic changes.
For example, although after 1929 other economic
elements in the community tend to move downward, assessed
values do not even hold constant, but continue to climb
upward. Assessed values reach, a peak in 1932, the year
in which the country generally is believed to be at bottom
of the depression.^
The second striking fact is perhaps the sudden nature
of the breaks represented by the years 1932 - 1933 and 1933-
1934. Decline continues into 1935 bat the change is not as
abrupt as the two changes immediately preceding.
The values for 1936 and 1937 are both above that of
1935> bat the gains are relatively minor and irregular.
With other economic elements in the community registering
some recovery, municipal assessment thus makes little increase
until 1937.
4 Gf. the Glendale data: Bank Clearings and Permits.
195
Subsequent fiscal years, 1938 through 1949 reinforce
the first impression of property assessment changes behavior.
Assessments have an insensitive or less sensitive quality in
the presence of economic fluctuations generally. .Thus every
year beginning with 1938 registered an increase over the next
preceding year. The recession of 1937 - 1938 which shows
definitely in the economic gauges of Glendale (noted) business
activity make almost no impression here. At most the rate of
increase is slowed (19* 1 -0 - 19* 1 - 1) but the increase continues.
The greatest absolute increase occurs in fiscal year
1948 when at $108,831,535* assessments rise by an amount of
$26,*+53j560 over the previous year.
Table L exhibits the division of total property tax
rates by years, according to different authorities and pur
poses. All together they are significantly related to total
rates applied, exhibited in Table XLIX. It should be noted
that these latter are rates for tax district no. 1 (which
has the highest rate). Tax rates (note also) are always at
previous years rates for personal property.
Until recently there have been only four components
in the total rates applied. These were general budget, parks
and recreation, library, and interest and retirement, bonded
debt. Beginning in 1946, however, and in every subsequent
year the.re has been a fifth component: Retirement (employees).
196
TABLE L
GENERAL PROPERTY TAX: TOTAL RATE DIVIDED BETWEEN
DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES AND PURPOSES1
Fiscal General Parks and
Year Budget Recreation Library Retirement I. and R.
1927-
1928 $.8240 .0900 .0860 .1900
1929 .8955
.1024 .0810 .1811
1930 .84805
.08636 .09679 .1788
1931 .9529
.0986 .1078
.1907
1932 .9389
.1201 .1014 .1896
1933
.9022
.1159 .1147
.2172
1934
.8910 .1050 .1140 .2400
1935
.8981
.0929
.1060 • 2530
1936 .8820 .0798 .1145 .2437
1937 .9065
.1007 .1198 .1930
1938 .9006 .1341
.1095 .1758
1939
.8830 .1461
.1133 .1776
1940 .9014 .1434 .1322 .1136
1941 .8422 .1429 .1195 .1645
1942 .8275 .1280 .1346 .1656
1943
.8265
.1045
.1454 .1482
1944 .7811 .1481 .1488 .1462
1945 .7935 .1493 .1493 .1312
1946 .8083
.1485 .1500
.1445 .1145
1947
.8402
.1417 .1409 .1312 .1118
1948 .4608 .1320 .1314 .1769 .0789
1949
.5147 .1500 .1500 .1226 .0627
Source: Office of the Controller, City of Glendale •
1 Charter tax rate limits: General budget: $1.00;
parks and recreation: $0.15; library: $0.15; retirement
(employees) and interest and retirement of bonded debt,
amount necessary.
197
Prom an Inspection of Tables XLIX and L, what signifi
cant revenue events may be derived?
Total rates applied are per $i00 assessed valuation
tax district no. 1; city charter tax rate limits exist* it
should be noted. They are for general budget $1, for parks
and recreation, $0.15; for library, $0.15- Amounts necessary
are authorized for retirement (employees) and for interest
and retirement of bonded debt.
It is clear from the tables that throughout the twenty-
one years surveyed, general, budget rates have been greater
than any other single rate. During almost all the years sur
veyed the general budget rates have been greater than all
other rates combined.
Never in the entire period has total rate been above
$1.3658. In only two years (19^6 and.19^7) was the rate that
high although during five years of the ‘thirties total rate
was almost that high at $1.3500 (1931* 1932, 1933* 193^* and
1935).
In every year except three (1928, 19^8, and 19^9) total
rates have been above $1.2000. Even in one of these three
(1928) the rate was close to that level ($1.1900). In the
other two years (19^8 and 19^9) the rates were substantially
less (at $.98 and $1.0000 respectively).
Thus relatively little fluctuation, mild changes,
198
have been the tendency for total rates over the entire
period until in the last two fiscal years some real pressure
was taken off this source.-
During eleven of the twenty-one years general budget
rates have been at or near the $.9000 -level. During only
four years were these rates below the $.8000 level. Two of
these four were very close (1944 at $.7811 and 1945 at
$•7935). The remaining two were substantially less (1948
at $.4608 and 1949 at $.5147). Two rates might be considered
as substantially above the $.9000 level (1931 at $.9529 and
1932 at $.9389).
Thus over the entire period much the same observations
may be made for general budget rates as those already made
for total rates applied. In general they have been fairly
stable., exhibiting little fluctuation, mild changes and no
drastic rises, although the years 1948 and 1949 might be
called rather drastic declines.
Over the entire period surveyed there is somewhat
greater fluctuation for both parks and recreation and for
library rates, greater, that is, than for either general
budget or for total rates applied. Even so, the changes
are perhaps not spectacular. For parks and recreation
rates there is no lower year than 1936 at $.0798, nor any
higher than 1949 at the charter limit of $.15. During at
199
least three other years rates here approached the limit
(1944 at $.1481, 1945 at $.1493 and 1946 at $.1485). The
high point between 1928 and 1938 (between $.0900 and
$.1341) was the year 1932 ($.1201). The years that approach
1932 are relatively minor in fluctuation. Those moving on
toward 1938 are also without violent fluctuations.
Biggest single change between 1928 and 1938 occurs
between 1937 and 1938 (from $.1007 to $.1341). Beginning
with 1938 and through all subsequent years only two fiscal
years show a rate below $.1300. One of these is relatively
close to the level (1942 at $.1280). The other is more
definitely below (1943 at $.1045).
As between the first decade and the second the latter
was by far the more stable for parks and recreation rates.
Persistence at or near the charter limit for so many fiscal
periods suggests that in the foreseeable future the present
ceiling may have to be lifted.
As between the parks and recreation rates and those
for the library the latter are clearly the more stable,
and register mild transitions between high points and low.
Only three years show rates below $.1000 (1928 at
$.0860, 1929 at $.0810 and 1930 at $.09679). One of these
three (1930) is relatively close to the level.
Highest rates have been registered in two years at
200
the ceiling (1946 and 1949 at $.1500). At least three other
years approach the top (1943 at $.1454, 1944 at $.1488, and
1945 at $.1493)* Seven years after 1930 have registered
rates above or near $.1100.
Pressures upward of rates since 1937 suggest that
here, too, as in the case of parks and recreation, a higher
ceiling on charter limits may be called for in the fore
seeable future.
Rates on retirement (employees) are a short story.
Four years are hardly enough to become the basis for much
insight or generalization. They have never'been below
$.1200, nor above the level of $.1770. Only the highest
rate (1948 at $.1769) stands apart. The other three are
relatively close in magnitudes (1946: $.1445, 1947:
$.1312, 1949: $.1226).
The rates for interest and retirement of bonded debt
tell their own story only in part. The picture will be more
complete when supplemented by an account of Glendale's debt
policy in general over the years. As a part of the levy on
property, however, how does this interest and retirement
rate behave?
From 1928 to 1938 there is not rate below the $.1700
level, nor any higher than that in 1935 $.2530. Biggest
change in those years was between 1936 and 1937 when rates
201
dropped from $.2437 to $.1930.
After 1938* however, there are two more changes of
equal or greater scope. (Between 1939 and 1940, from
$.1776 to $.1136; and between 1940 and 1941, from $.1136
to $.1645.)
Between 1938 and 1949 rates for Interest and retire
ment of bonded debt gradually decline until in 1948 and
1949 the rate that In many years over the past twenty-one
was equal to or greater than either library or parks and
recreation alone, is now less than $.08 (1948: $.0789;
and 1949: $.0627).
It should be noted here that the rate imposed by
the school district is later tabulated but not related
here because of the separate identity of this administrative
unit of government. Other cities over the United States
have sometimes handled this differently. For purposes of
comparisons, therefore, this series of rates may be added
later.
The question of state aids in Glendale. State aids
for the school authority will be discussed at a later point.
The municipality benefits by shares in three state levies
on motorists, one on alcoholic beverages, and one on retail
sales. These will be considered in that order.
Gasoline tax funds are collected by the State of
202
California and allocated to cities according to statutory
provisions of law. Gasoline tax allocations are divided
by the state into two classes: Highways and major streets.
A word should be added here to complete the picture
of streets improvement financing. Sources for funds to
defray costs of projects for street improvement are thus
three: State, county, and city. Under the Collier - Burns
bill, recently enacted by the California legislature, funds
are allocated for expenditures on streets of major importance
and other designated city streets.
Funds from the county are allocated for repair and
construction of city streets, installation or repair of
traffic signals, etc. Allotment of city funds is budgeted
for street maintenance.
Funds allocated by state and county are drawn in
both cases from revenues received from gasoline tax funds.
State funds are pro rated on the basis of population. County
funds are pro rated on the bases of population and street
mileage. City allotments are provided according to the
annual municipal budget formula.
Estimated allotment for the year, 1948 - 1949 is from
state: $200,000; from county:' $50,000; and from city $40,000.
Table LI exhibits a group of motorists' taxes imposed
both by the City of Glendale, and by the State of California
203
TABLE LI
MOTORISTS' TAXES: PARKING METERS, GASOLINE TAX FUNDS,
MOTOR VEHICLE IN LIEU, COUNTY SPECIAL ROAD IMPROVEMENT,
AND MOTOR VEHICLE FINES - TRAFFIC SAFETY
County
Motor Special Motor
Fiscal Parking Gasoline Vehicle Road Im- Vehicle
Year Meters Tax Funds In Lieu provement Fines
1927-
1928 $
$ $ %
$ 18,049.00
1929 28,533.00
1930 17,580.00
1931
13,249.50
1932 12,348.50
1933
10,551.16
1934 15,400.00 118,115.50 19,665.50
1935 27,454.87 6,270.14
21,072.25
1936 44,635.70 38,164.00
31,000.35
1937 38,091.69 64,353-76 33,066.15
1938 52,000.00 39,780.48 102,372.16
46,013.17
1939
58,350.00 37,765.86 68,730.44
1940 60,561.26 45,911.32 45,368.05 60,864.09
1941 71,135.01 69>765-22
48,132.63 65,827.58
1942 80,258.62
77,072.49
48,322.64 91,196.02
1943 65,375.83 53,670.75
51,960.64 37,291.50
1944 57,000.50 70,451.04
83,952.75
38,624.34
1945 55,407.92 73,215.28 61,886.93 31,697.00
1946 64,756.86 33,087.48 64,395.40 89,801.50
1947
88,756.98 115,936.98 32,553.62 116,044.50
1948 23,110.61 185,398.22 181,108.54 81,812.59 106,231.00
1949* 103,633.70 242,700.00 163,000.00 130,865.46 96,000.00
Source: Office of the Controller, City of Glendale.
Gasoline tax allocations are divided by the state into
two classes: Highway and major streets. The Collier - Burns
Act (1947 - 1948; changed the method somewhat.
* Estimated.
204
partly for the benefit of this city. These Include the
yearly city Income from the gasoline tax allocation.
Since the first years of record the funds from the
gasoline tax share have never been less In any year than
$15,400 (1934 share).
Their greatest amount has been recently registered
in 1948 and 1949 ($185,398.22 and $242,700.00). Prom the
first year of city benefits the amounts of each year have
increased with the exceptions of five years (1937, 1943,
1944, 1945, 1946). The years 1943 through 1946 easily
reflect the lesser fuel use of war years.
Motor vehicle in lieu taxes are state collected, but
allocated to cities in lieu of a property tax levy on auto
mobiles (automobiles were included in the regular property
tax in the years before the coming of motor vehicle in lieu
levies). Their yearly contributions to Glendale are ex
hibited in Table LI.
In magnitudes the yearly shares have always fluctuated
more than fractionally and often have changed extremely. It
is not always easy to interpret some of these relatively
sudden and drastic differences between years.
The smallest amount ever received by Glendale was
registered in 1946 ($33,0^7*48) and greatest amount was
received in 194-8 ($181,108.54) .
The years 1947 through 1949 doubtless reflect in
205
their dramatic increases over 1946 (1947: $115,936.98;
1948: $181,108.54; and 1949: $163,000.00) both the in
creasing production of vehicles (all classes) and rising
values of used vehicles, especially of used cars, although
it is not quite clear why the 1946 share should have been
so much less.
While it is true that general values were rising,
of course in 1946 relatively few new cars were reaching
new owners yet.
The fairly steady shares of 1941 ($69,765*22), 1942
($77,072.49), 1943 ($53,670.75), 1944 ($70,451*04) and 1945
($73,215*28) are readily associated with fairly constant
numbers and values of vehicles generally.
The decline from the 1937 share ($64,353*76) to the
more closely related shares of 1938 ($39,780.48), 1939
($37,765.86), and 1940 ($45,911.32) seem more detached
from values generally than would seem likely unless the
shares are diluted or in part diminished because of partial
diversion to other uses.
County special road improvement funds are received
yearly by Glendale in amounts exhibited by years in Table LI.
They are clearly more related in yearly amounts and in
yearly changes of amounts to needs for spending, than to
such influences as affect yields of income and ad valorem
206
levies generally.
Here mostly seem to be increases (in the ’thirties
at least) to increase employment (1934r $118,115.50,
1938: $102,372.16) amounts diminished perhaps because of
lack of sufficient funds available to the taxing authority,
or because spending, however important to employment, had
not sufficiently justified itself to the public policy
makers (1935: $6,270.14; 1936: $38,164; 1937: None; and
1939: None).
It is notable, however, that after the gap in fiscal
year 1939, the amounts shared with Glendale are both con
tinuous and, except for the war years, steadily increasing,
and highest of all in the latest year reported (1949:
$130,865.46).
It is understandable that in the war years less was
allotted. The wonder perhaps is that these amounts in the
1942 through 1945 period are not by greater amounts less
than in the fiscal years before and after.
The decline of 1947 ($32,553*62) and the spectacular
jumps in 1948: $81,812.59, and 1949: $130- , 865.46 are harder
to understand except in terms of delayed repairs and road
extensions, now finally maturing.
Table LII exhibits the yearly revenues contributed
by sales tax and the alcoholic beverage tax. The record on
207
T A B L E L I I
C O N S U M P T I O N T A X E S : S A L E S T A X A N D
A L C O H O L I C B E V E R A G E S T A X
Fiscal
Year Sales Tax
Alcoholic
Beverages Tax
1927-
1928 Prohibition's Era
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934 $ 5,477-18
1935 533-33
1936 12j.Q46.82
1937
14,400.00
1938
12,813.27
1939 15,835.14
1940
15,011.09
1941
14,457.97
1942
13,358.75
1943 14,699.13
1944 13,583.50
1945 16,505.37
1946
18,549.43
1947
$251,843.01
27,732.25
1948
532,263.87 26,863.73
1949 (est.) 470,000.00 26,000.00
S o u r c e : O f f i c e o f t h e C o n t r o l l e r , C i t y o f G l e n d a l e .
208
the latter levy begins almost immediately after the end of
prohibition. For 1931 ! - Glendale finances benefited to the
extent of $5,477.18 from this source. In 1935 the yield
from this levy was less than $1,000, but in all subsequent
years including the return estimated for 19^9. » the totals
are substantial. Downturns are rare and of minor amplitude.
The secular trend is upward from beginning to the present
year. Between 1936 and 19^7 the amount df this tax more
than doubles. Highest year is 19^7 at $27,732.25, but both
19^8 and 19^9 show only small decreases. Post war years
are uniformly above war and pre war returns from this source.
Table LII also exhibits the yearly totals contributed
to Glendale revenues by the sales tax, reported since its
first returns in 19^7* Trends can hardly be established
from such meager data, but the general proportions of the
yield are apparent even this early. Returns above the two,
three and four hundred thousand dollar levels are bulky in
the total revenues of this municipality. This is the sales
tax record so far. What it might do' under long years of
use, more especially under crisis conditions of business, can
only be guessed. It would seem generally to be a cycle
sensitive tax means, with revenues expected to be higher in
good times and lower in depression. The scope of changes
probable for this business area are relevant for planning
209
and critical for budgeting. When property levies are not
fully collected later years tend to compensate somewhat by
bringing in delinquent taxes. In this sense the property
tax may yet prove more budgetable. The sales tax* on the
other hand, introduces far more possibility for errors in
predicting revenues ahead. The subjects of sales taxation
are highly perishable.
The issue of new revenue sources in Glendale. Al
though the .5 per cent sales tax added by Glendale to the
state sales tax is collected by California and returned to
the city it is not generally regarded as a new state '
assistance. Rather, in the literature of municipal finance
controversy it is identified as among the "new" sources of
municipal revenue.
The issue of new revenue sources in Glendale should
be examined against a background analysis in Glendale * s
continuing non property tax revenues. Some are of very old
standing. Each must be considered.
The old and new could hardly be better contrasted
than in the remaining two motorist taxes exhibited in
Table LI and not yet considered. Parking meters and motor
vehicle fines are the youngest and oldest respectively, of
all five types listed.
Parking meters have registered revenue returns during
210
approximately two fiscal years. This is hardly enough time
for them to become the basis for much judgment on their merits.
One can easily demonstrate, of course, that they have
been almost constantly controversial. Best evidence perhaps
is the field of city elections. The successful recall
election of the fall of 19^8 plus the return of all incumbents
to their councilmanic posts in the April 19^9 election gave
sufficient evidence of a vigorous contest. Rejection at
the polls of a particular candidate (not an incumbent)
making his opposition to the meters a principal issue, has
not prevented him from recently resolving to continue his
fight against them.
As for the two years of revenue yields (one estimated)
so far recorded, one can hardly say more than that a jump
from $23,110.61 to $103j633*70 is substantial, and that the
latter amount is in itself a total of revenue receipts
probably of great enough scope to make persisting opposition
to meters either unlikely or less likely.
However, the meter installation is not a fiscal policy
only or mainly. Rather it is mainly regulatory in ihteht
and only a revenue means as instrumental to these other ends.
It must be judged and defended thus on its merits in relation
to parking and traffic regulation problems. In addition, the
ease or difficulty, expensiveness or economy of its adminis
211
tration are relevant for appraising either its regulatory
or its fiscal aspects and regardless of which of these
possesses primacy.
Motor vehicle fines over the period of years studied
have never been less than $10,000.00, nor more than their
total amount in 1947 ($116,044.50)•
Like many another resource they tended to decline
from a prosperity peak through years of depression, and to
increase often abruptly in subsequent years.
Between 1933 ($10,551.16) and 1942 (inclusive) only
one year shows a decline from the preceding year in total
fines.
The gain of the year 1942 ($91*196.02) over 1941
($65*827.58) is surely spectacular as a change; as is also
the abrupt fall from the 1942 figure to that of 1943
($37*291.50).
The war years are a period of automobile and traffic
safety campaigns, fuel rationing, and vehicle conservation.
The relatively low but quite connected magnitudes of 1943*
19.44 and 1945 reflect the circumstances of these times.
When the absolute number of vehicles being driven is sig
nificantly less the number of punishable traffic misde
meanors must be expected to decline.
The return of unrationed gasoline, liberation of
212
motorists from war restrictions and trip limitations, and
the multiplication again of vehicles (as post war vehicle
output moved into high,gear) are all reflected in the fines
of fiscal years 1946 ($89,801.50), 1947 ($116,044.50), 1948
($106,231.00), and 1949 ($96,000.00) estimated.
If parking meters and motor vehicle fines are the
newest and oldest of the city's levies on motorists the
revenues of licensing are the most varied of Glendale's
revenue sources.
Authoritative studies indicate that west coast cities
are notable for the use of these devices. Says a recent
publication of the Municipal Finance Officers Association,5
Wider usage of the business and occupational
license taxes by the Pacific coast cities is a
newer development accelerated by the war. This
type of tax is a feasible way for a city whose
population has been swelled by a cantonment or a
boora--new revenues sorely needed because of
added burdens on the city due to the increased
population.
In California the cities of San Diego, Richmond,
Alameda, South Pasadena, Huntington Park and Sacramento
are listed as having overhauled their license schedules
or codes since 1942.^
5
A.M. Hillhouse and Muriel Magelssen, Where Cj ties
Get Their Money (Chicago: Municipal Finance Officers
Association, 1945), p. 19.
6 Ibid., pp. 19-20.
213
Table LIII exhibits the revenues provided for
Glendale since 1928 by building permits and by business
licenses generally.
Income for the city from building permits of course
relates directly to the fluctuations in local building and
construction. The pattern business cycle change for this
segment of market activity is clearly made out in the record.
Building permits reach a peak in 1929 at $36,118.56.
The next year's drop is almost $10,000 and more than 25 per
cent (at $26,955.27). Following 1930 are years of further
declines running through 1933* Again the trough of general
depression corresponds with this low mark.
After 1933 recovery begins slowly in this business
activity and in building permits totals. Even the recession
of 1938 is evident in the slight dip of revenues after the
peak year 1937 ($42,425.03).
The drop of 1938 is followed by gradual recoveries
again through three successive years (1939 - 1941).
The 1941 level of $42,512.10 is higher than that of
all previous years surveyed. (it should be noted, moreover,
that even the recession year of 1938 was higher in absolute
dollars totaled than the 1929 peak.)
After 1941 came the war years for urban building.
They were seen ready to halt before the crisis was over.
214
T A B L E L I I I
L I C E N S E S R E V E N U E : B U I L D I N G P E R M I T S
A N D B U S I N E S S L I C E N S E S
Y e a r s B u i l d i n g P e r m i t s B u s i n e s s L i c e n s e s
1928 $34,966.24 $20,847.00
1929
36,118.56 22,060.02
1930
26,955.27
24,345.96
1931 24,505.07 26,168.53
1932 19,224.70 30,927.40
1933
11,120.70 29,407.75
1934 12,506.43 29,399.94
1935
16,180.32 31,048.80
1936 28,548.40 35,574.72
1937
42,425.03 40,218.59
1938 36,365.00
40,499.17
1939
41,199.20
41,554.35
1940
40,070.55
43,238.24
1941 42,512.10 43,120.34
1942
28,390.25 39,233.95
1943
6,444.20
35,670.79
1944 9,864.10 36,782.96
1945
15,741.40
39,572.03 ,
1946 38,680.88 40,916.30
1947 56,546.03 54,546.85
1948 101,843.90 60,696.65
1949(est.) 75,600.00 56,000.00
S o u r c e : O f f i c e o f t h e C o n t r o l l e r , C i t y o f G l e n d a l e .
215
Permits dropped drastically to the lowest levels surveyed
in 19^3 and 1944. Nevertheless in 1945 with war still not
over until August, the total registered was ($15,741.40)
more than double that of 1943 ($6,444.20).
Then in one year permits more, than doubled ($38,680.88,
1946). The increase of 1947 was just under 50 cent, but
the 1948 yearly gain was almost double for a second time
($101,843.90).
This was the highest year recorded in all the period
studied for building permits. Estimated revenues from the
same source for 1949 were approximately 25 per cent less.
The city's income from business licenses is exhibited
by years in the second column of data for Table LIII..
Both its absolute changes and its changes relative
to those for building permits are significant. As a revenue
means this source never yields as high nor in any year falls
as low as the totals for permits. Business licenses, for
example, are never, in all the years examined, below $20,000.
Their highest year is 1948 and is nearly triple the
return for the earliest year examined, 1928. But though
triple the 1928 score it is still far (approximately $40,000)
below the spectacular height of permits (in the same year).
Stability and reliability mark this revenue means.
When permits decline in the 'thirties business licenses
216
(except for two mild decreases in 1933 and 193*0 make
relatively sustained increases, not interrupted (except
1933* 193*0 until the beginning of the war years.
19*4-0 was a peak year at $43*238.24. The changes
of the declining years, however, (19*4-1 through 19* 1 -3) are
neither long in occurrence, nor of great magnitude.
Beginning in 19*1*4-* a period of yearly increases reaches
out to include 1948. The decline of the 19*4-9 estimated
total is still above all other scores prior to 1948.
Table LIV exhibits the yearly revenues attributable
to dog licenses and bicycle registrations. Dog licenses
revenues run from the first year examined. 1928 is the
lowest, also, of these years, at $5,260.50. Steady, almost
uninterrupted gains mark the following fiscal years through
1933. Two years’ (1931 and 1932) recessions are mild. In
the same span yearly returns are uniformly a fraction above
the $7,000.00 level.
Mild increases mark all the remaining 'thirties.
1940's return of $14,403*25 is followed by a slight recession
in 1941 and by greater gains in 1942.
The slight dip of 1943 is followed by consistent
increases in the two years reaching 1945. The 1945 return
of $15,366.00 is highest in the series. The following
recent years show only relatively small declines, however.
217
T A B L E L I V
L I C E N S E S R E V E N U E : D O G L I C E N S E S
A N D B I C Y C L E R E G I S T R A T I O N S
Y e a r s D o g L i c e n s e s B i c y c l e R e g i s t r a t i o n s
1928 $ 5,260.50
$
1929 7,241.50
1930 7,735.50
1931 7,642.75
1932 7,674.00
1933
7,856.00
1934 10,697.75
1935
11,456.25
1936 12,004.75 672.OO
1937 13,326.25 762.75
1938
13,791.25 678.75
1939
14,346.00 683.OO
1940
14,403.25 925.75
1941 14,237.00 1,024.50
1942 15,321.24 1,256.76
1943
14,566.00
1,059.75
1944 ■ 15/340.50 " 892.25
1945
15,366.00
945.75
1946 14,992.50 942.50
1947
15,042.00
987.75
1948 15,201.00 1,078.00
1949 ( e s t . ) 15,000.00 1,000.00
S o u r c e : O f f i c e o f t h e C o n t r o l l e r , C i t y o f G l e n d a l e .
218
1948 registered a return of $15,201.00 and was
followed by the last year in evidence (by estimate) at a
slight decline again. In all this record there is either
relative stability, or relatively mild gains plus slight,
orderly declines.
The revenues of bicycle registrations begin in the
mid-1 thirties. They are never lower than the return of 1936
(at $672.00), nor higher than in 1942 (at $1,256.76). Like
the dog licenses they are either relatively stable, or
mildly fluctuating. During only five years are returns
above the $1,000 level. All these five years occur after
1940. The remaining four years (1944 through 1947) show
returns of approximately $100 and less below the $1,000 level.
Table LV exhibits yearly city income from the only
other license revenue class, privileges, franchises, and
wires. In the first year examined (1 9 2 8) this levy is
relatively substantial in yield and tending to rise.
Through 1930 and the next three years this return
is fractionally above the $20,000 level. The last two of
the four years show increases reaching the peak score of
$20,590.71 in 1933-
1933 is followed by two successively declining years,
but in 1936 this return at $21,195*72 surpasses all previ
ously examined levels. Two years of gains follow the 1936
219
TABLE LV
L I C E N S E S R E V E N U E : P R I V I L E G E S , F R A N C H I S E S , W I R E S
F i s c a l Y e a r P r i v i l e g e s , F r a n c h i s e s , W i r e s
1927-
1928 $15,718.80
1929 17,657.38
1930 20,066.30
1931
20,046.08
1932 20,526.26
1933 20,590.71
1934 19,884.25
1935
18,903.74
1936 21,195.72
1937 21,905.05
19 38 23,872.80
1939 10,762.65*
1940 9,177.21
1941 9,136.96
1942
9,685.15
1943 10,572.75
1944 . 11,146.50
1945
12,512.61
1946 12,858.96’
1947 13,609.18
1948
15,342.17
1949 ( e s t . ) 15,000.00
S o u r c e : O f f i c e o f t h e C o n t r o l l e r , C i t y o f G l e n d a l e .
* P e n d i n g s u i t t o e n f o r c e f r a n c h i s e p a y m e n t s f r o m
T e l e p h o n e C o m p a n y . J o i n t s u i t w i t h m a n y o t h e r S o u t h e r n
C a l i f o r n i a c i t i e s .
220
score, reaching the highest return of the entire series in
1938 (at $23,872.80).
Prom 1939 on, the receipts continue at less than
half the 1938 aggregate. This low year marks the first
evidence of a pending law suit in which the City of Glendale
is joined with certain other Southern California cities to
enforce franchise payments from the Telephone Company.
The receipts of 194-0 - 1942 are fractionally above
the $9,000 level, but in 1943 they again pass $10,000 and
in each year thereafter until 1948 they achieve -an uninter
rupted gain. The estimated 1949 return is slightly below
this 1948 total.
The score for 1948 is highest since 1938, but every
single year before 1938 is at a level above the 1948 total.
Last of the non property taxes to be listed for
Glendale are the special charges. In general surveys over
the nation at least four classes of special charges are
commonly included. These are: (1) Sewer charges, (2)
garbage and refuse collection charges, (3) charges for
services rendered outside the city limits, and (4) special
assessments for current operating purposes.7
Glendale has apparently never used the first (sewerage)
7 Hillhouse and Magelssen, op. cit., pp. 142 ff.
221
type of levy. The records show receipts from the second
class, however from the Initial year surveyed. Table LVI
exhibits these yearly receipts.
For approximately thirty years some cities in the
United States have made this charge. A survey reporting'
in 1945 indicated that California was one among the three
states having the most cities so charging.^
A measure of stability is often reported with this
class of city receipts but the Glendale record does show
some substantial fluctuation in occasional years.
The 1928 total ($6,663-00) suggests an already moving
trend toward the peak year of 1930 ($7,9^0.75). In the de
clining years of the early 'thirties this yearly return
sinks finally to $5,251-50 in 1935- This is the lowest
year examined and more than 30 per cent below the receipts
for 1930.
After 1935 this part of city income recovers with
unbroken Increases each, year reaching 1939 ($12,641.69)*
at more than twice the 1935 level.
Two years after 1939 register slight declines from
the peak, but the level of 1942 again shows the secular move
ment to be upward. Rather significant percentage changes
® Ibid., p. 146.
222
T A B L E L V I
S P E C I A L C H A R G E S
Fiscal Year
Rubbish Dump
and Garbage
and Refuse
Collection
Special
Assessments
for Operations:
Weed Taxes
1927 - 1928 $ 6*663.00 No Record
1929
7*020.75
1930 .7,940.75
1931
7,370.44
1932 6*879.16
1933
5*796.00
1934 5*688.00
1935
5,251.50
1936 7,398.90 No Record
1937
11*012.10 $15,866.61
1938 11,412.10 11*698.03
1939 12*641.69 10* 382.86
1940 12,078.02 12*700.74
1941
12*389.35 9,212.89
1942 14*998.80 13,026.76
1943 17,579.15 10*436.23
1944 26*030.48 11*897.98
1945 35,459.50 15,443.87
1946 35,709.80
14*489.03
1947
50*230.05 10,521.76
1948 58*332.50
12*009.91
1949 (est.) 47*500.00 12*000.00
S o u r c e : O f f i c e o f t h e C o n t r o l l e r * C i t y o f G l e n d a l e .
223
occur In succeeding years. The 1944 level is more than
double that of 1939* The 1944 level is not a peak year,
however, but a stage on the road up. Every successive
year reaching 1948 is still higher.
1948*3 receipts from this class are more than twice
those of 1944. But 1948 is a peak year ($58,332.50). The
estimated return for 1949 is a drop of more than $10,000,
but still above every other year prior to 1947*
Glendale's other evidence of special charges shows
the receipts from special assessments for removing weeds
from lots.
There is apparently no record of amounts received
before 1936, but it seems clear that this probably is a
loss of detail. Certain amounts, doubtless were being
received by levy.
In 1937 $15>866.61 were received from this source.
Such total represents the greatest amount contributed by
these revenues in all years examined. In one other year
(1945) the total is almost as high ($15,443-87).
Between 1937 anc* 1941 there are mild fluctuations
reaching the lowest year of record, 1941 ($9,212.89), a
fall of approximately 40 per cent from the 1937 level.
Fluctuations again mark the totals of years after 1941.
1945 is again a peak year at $15,443-87. The
remaining years of the 'forties register mildly lower
224
a m o u n t s r e a c h i n g t h e e s t i m a t e d 1949 r e t u r n s o f $12,000.
T h e s u b o r d i n a t e r e v e n u e p r o b l e m s o f G l e n d a l e . C e r t a i n
s p e c i a l p r o b l e m s o f m u n i c i p a l r e v e n u e a r e o f t e n t r e a t e d o u t
s i d e t h e c l a s s e s n o w c o m p l e t e d . B e y o n d p r o b l e m s o f p r o p e r t y
t a x r e v e n u e s , o f s t a t e a i d s , g r a n t s a n d s u p p l e m e n t s , a n d ' o f
n e w r e v e n u e s o u r c e s l o c a l l y a d m i n i s t e r e d , a r e c e r t a i n o t h e r
s p e c i a l r e v e n u e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s .
O n e o f t h e s e s h o u l d b e a t l e a s t m e n t i o n e d i n p a s s i n g ,
a l t h o u g h n o g r e a t a m o u n t o f e x a c t d a t a s e e m s a v a i l a b l e t o
i t s a n a l y s i s . I f f e d e r a l i n t e r n a l s e c u r i t y m e a s u r e s b e c o m e
m o r e p e r m a n e n t a n d m o r e i n t e n s i v e t h e y w i l l i n v o l v e s o m e
s p e c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , u n d o u b t e d l y r e
q u i t i n g f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t . I f t h e p r o g r a m s h o u l d b e e n t i r e l y
p a i d f o r b y f e d e r a l a u t h o r i t i e s , t h e c i t i e s m i g h t s t i l l f i n d
m e a s u r e s o f c o o p e r a t i o n d e s i r a b l e a n d p o s s i b l e w h e n f i n a n c e d
b y t h e m s e l v e s .
M o r e I n t e n s i v e p e a c e t i m e e c o n o m i c p l a n n i n g a t t h e
f e d e r a l l e v e l , t o o f f s e t b u s i n e s s c y c l e c h a n g e s , m a y i n v o l v e ,
i n a s i m i l a r w a y , s p e c i a l c o o p e r a t i o n i n m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , a n d
p o i n t t o m o r e d e f i n i t e f i s c a l r e q u i r e m e n t s . A t t h e t i m e o f
t h i s w r i t i n g , s u c h a d e v e l o p m e n t d o e s n o t s e e m a t a l l r e m o t e ,
a s u n e m p l o y m e n t a n d b u s i n e s s p r o b l e m s g r o w .
O n e r e v e n u e p r o b l e m , h o w e v e r , c a n b e s p e c i a l l y a n a
l y z e d h e r e . T h a t i s t h e p r o b l e m o f t h e p r o p e r r e l a t i o n s h i p
225
between an earning city enterprise such as the Glendale
public service department and the rest of city activities.
In practice, such earnings may be taken by cities
in an amount unwisely impairing the financial position and
operations of such utilities. Conceivably, too, almost
nothing might be taken, for the purpose of thereby allowing
the utility to perfect its performance and reduce its con
sumer charges to a minimum. Between these two different
and rather extreme positions a variety of compromises is
possible.
The story of public utility contributions to city
revenue in Glendale indicates that the city has passed
through three phases historically. In the earliest stage
too much was taken, apparently, from this source.
Later law and policy prevented any amounts being
taken during a few years.
Since 1941, however, moderate and limited contri
butions may be taken for municipal finance purposes. Table
LVTI exhibits the record of yearly receipts since 1941.
In that fiscal year the total of $280,051.74 was the
lowest amount for all years surveyed. The 1942 contribution
was slightly higher, but in all years after 1942 the level
of receipts here was above the $3 0 0 ,0 0 0 line.
The years, 1944 through 1946 show relatively mild
226
TABLE LVII
REVENUES FROM PUBLIC UTILITIES1
Fiscal Year Public Service Department
1928 - 1939
1940
1941 $280,051.74
1942 282,156.89
1943
301,285.48
1944 336,917-5B
1945 329,737.49
1946 335,783.20
1947
673,549.82
1948
643,706.57
1949
Source: Office of the Controller, City of Glendale.
1 Charter amendment in 19*1-1 allowed 12 per cent of
operating revenues to be transferred. Amended in 1946 -
1947 to allow 25 per cent upon council resolution, excluding
surplus sales. The council may authorize any amount up to
25 per cent. In 1947 the proportion was 22 per cent; in
1948, 20 per cent. 1949 estimate can be made only if
council action can be anticipated.
fluctuation. The 19^7 increase in contribution is signifi
cantly higher both in absolute and in per cent terras (more
than 100 per cent rise). This is the highest year examined.
The contribution of 19^8 registers a decline of almost
$30,000.
Appendix 6 evidences the fact, however, that the
performance of this department is both productive and
singularly effective in consumers' rate reductions.
Conclusions: Glendale 1s critical revenue needs. The
revenues of a city should not be like an awkward fitting
army uniform. They should rather be like a custom tailored
suit. A given city's traits may be partly like those of
another city in a common class. But none of the comparable
characteristics, nor all of them together will quite allow
a full prescription from a form book. There are acceptable
standards, adaptable to practice. The uniqueness of a city
must be studied, however, ' in order to make its fiscal system
better harmonize with its special character.
In appraising Glendale's revenue features the general
criterion should be this: Are their qualities appropriate?
Are they appropriate, that is, considering the general
classifications in which this dormitory suburb falls? Are
they appropriate considering Glendale's revenue circumstances
A more particular criterion is equity. One must ask
228
whether the municipal revenue structure as a whole is just
and fair? Each component should be submitted to the same
test. In a complex system it might often happen that one
tax alone is unduly regressive or extremely progressive,
but the tax structure as a whole might weigh with a fair
balance on the differences of ability to pay and on the
beneficial recipients in the community.
Another more limited criterion is stability,
especially for total city income. Stability is a relative
thing, of course, but the chief anxiety has been that
revenues would be deficient in depression and fugitive in
recovery. Cities generally have been harrassed by falling
income and by severely limited revenue remedies as the
successive phases of eoonomic cycles have passed; And
beyond the problem of whether yields will be manageable
enough to make the cities1 incomes adequate for the long
run Is the occasionally more urgent problem of whether
they will be stable enough in a given year to make budgeting
a feasible and efficient process. If yields cannot be pre
dicted within margins of error which are themselves calculable,
the difficulties of budgeting and of orderly financing
generally may become overwhelming. Some cities, like
Glendale, undertake by deliberate policy to maintain a cash
basis for operations. For these cities violently fluctuating
229
total revenues might impair budgeting and planning to the
point of making them almost entirely nominal.
Revenue means must also be administratively acceptable.
Heavy costs in collection, evasion, inconvenience and un
certainty must vitiate otherwise unobjectionable claims of
high yields.
In the order of their listing, what can be said of
Glendale’s revenue components and structure, tested by these
standards?
How appropriate are its taxes, grants, non property
levies and special sources of funds? Most of the data rele
vant to this question have been detailed in the chapter
analyzing Glendale's economic characteristics.
Glendale is not, even in prospect, faced with the
burdensome scale of unemployment expenditures of a Chicago
or a New York, or even of a Los Angeles. These and like
large centers are the cities loudest in complaining of the
evils of the property tax.
It is also not a central city, but suburban as we
have already described. Thus, though central Los Angeles
may lose population and industry to the fringe areas, Glendale
is likely to gain in these elements and to acquire value
increments and property rises incident to this flow of
community resources.
230
Glendale is still a relatively young city. It will
(estimates already specified)•continue to grow and its
prospective size is likely to be substantially larger.
Its performance record and expenditure annals,
analyzed in the preceding chapter, demonstrate the high
level of municipal services demanded by its residents.
Real estate is an important form of wealth in
Glendale, but so also, apparently, are the intangible forms
of wealth. The percentage of home ownership is relatively
high. Vehicle ownership per capita is relatively high.
The general economic character of Glendale has been
detailed already. Its transition from a more purely dormitory
type suburb'to post war character with additional commercial
and light industrial activity, make understandable background
for the city’s drift from a main reliance on property tax to
a greater use of non property tax revenues. This substantial
but receding reliance on the real estate tax seems appropriate.
The greater diversity of tax types seems appropriate also.
There Is no final authority to guide this appraisal.
At most one can only select authorities for reference that
are relatively widely accepted. The Municipal Finance Officers
Association Is such an authority. In a study published by
them, and already cited the following revenue sources are
listed as being especially adaptable -to the "suburban city
231
residential"^
1. Business and occupational license
2. Gross recepts franchise tax on bus companies
3* Motor vehicle license tax
4. Parking meters
5. Property tax
6 . Recreation fees
7. Street lighting assessments for current operating
purposes
8 . Tax equivalents upon city owned utilities (results -
higher rates to consumers)
9* Vehicle inspection fees
It should be noted that this list does not include
state grants, aids and supplements. It should be emphasized,
too, that no income tax is included, nor even a sales tax.
If Glendale’s revenue means were gauged for appropri
ateness by these "especially adaptable" types it would rate
relatively high without much doubt.
Business and occupation licensing it has long possessed.
Telephone franchise payments have been exacted (at least until
the current contest with the company).
It does not administer a motor vehicle license tax,
but it does participate in the proceeds of state collected
9 Hillhouse and Magelssen, op. cit., p. 205. The
enumeration is supplied.
232
motor vehicle in lieu taxation. No evidence appears of any
vehicle inspection fee.
Parking meters it has installed. Some recreation
department charges have been administered in the past.
The property tax is still the main, even if less
central, revenue reliance.
Special assessments it has administered, even if
not regularly for street lighting.
Certainly the contributions from the public service
department to defray municipal costs have been both regular
and very bulky proportions in total city spending for
particular years.
In addition to these Glendale has enacted a sales
tax and the special charges already noted. Its allocation
from the county for roads and from the state for related
purposes, are both beyond the authoritative list.
In an age of moral confusion multiplied by pragmatism
it is difficult to judge the equities of given circumstances.
If equity means general public acceptability, these Glendale
levies are fairly equitable. Recent elections confirm the
general acceptability of even the parking meters.
If equity means reasonable classification the judg
ment of the revenue system is not made much more certain.
This is commonly interpreted to mean equal treatment for
233
those in circumstances classified as different by the policy
makers. Even the Supreme Court of the United States has'
difficulty in drawing the lines between fair discrimination
and active oppressive discrimination.
If equity means legality then all these components
and total city revenues structure are equitable.
If equity means balance of progression and regression
in rates within a total structure Glendale’s system is still
fairly balanced. The property tax is generally regarded as
proportional. The business licenses, sales tax, motorist
levies and special charges contain both proportional and
regressive elements. Whether state assistance be Judged
progressive or proportional (or regressive) depends on the
application of these criteria to the gasoline tax. When
all these are set against the steeply progressive federal
and the moderately progressive state tax components the
result for Glendale is still probably a balance, however
rough.
As for stability, we* have already examined each
component for this quality. In sum, now we must say that
in good times and bad the property tax levy for Glendale
still yielded substantial revenue and coupled the returns
of the depressed years with the later payments for back
delinquencies discharged.
: 234
Two other bulky components must be weighed: Public
service department contributions have been both substantial
and relatively stable. The sales tax has been rich in yield
but its cycle stability can be judged only in terms of sales
tax performance in comparable cities. Selection of comparable
cities is treacherous, but in general the outlook for sales
tax includes the likelihood of important fluctuations in yield.
It has been suggested that ultimately the stab11ty of
municipal economies must be brought about by state or federal
allocations, but the Glendale study does not suggest that
this must ever be very substantial in a given case.
Only two revenue sources require testing for adminis
trative acceptability. These are the parking meters and the
sales tax. The evidence to date suggests relatively low cost
administration of the parking meters. Permitting state col
lection and return to the city of the .5 pe^ cent sales levy
is authoritatively described as the most efficient method
for cities to follow for this revenue.
The prospect for Glendale’s revenues suggests need
for relatively little change. It may wisely continue to
rely on its chief existing income sources.
Assessment improvement is both possible and desirable
for property taxation, but In this case the change must come
in county machinery since Glendale pays for this service by
contract.
235
State assistance for the city may need incremental
growth in periods of cyclical change.
Sales taxes may need rate adjustment as the current
primary post war depression develops.
Parking meters should doubtless be retained until
sufficient offstreet parking justifies a less intensive
regulation of this scarce downtown commodity. They should be
removed then.
The small dimensions of Glendale’s revenue problems
are reassuring.
APPENDIX
REVENUES OP THE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Table LVIII exhibits comparative assessment valuation
and tax rate data for the Glendale Unified School District
for the years since 1 9 3 7*
Assessed valuations in all the years here surveyed
show annual increases with only one exception (1945 - 1946
registered a decline of more than $3 million). Rates of
change are relatively smooth during most years. Between
1937 - 1938 and 1947 - 1948 the aggregates increased nearly
100 per cent. The most sudden change was registered between
1946 - 1947 and 1947 - 1948 at more than $29 million or more
TABLE LVIII
COMPARISON OP ASSESSED VALUATION AND TAX RATES
OP THE GLENDALE CITY SCHOOLS
Year
Assessed
Valuation
Total
Tax Rate
General
District
Bond
Junior
College
Interest
High :
Schools
and Redemption
Elementary Unified
Schools Schools
1937 - - 1938 | 59*425*172
2.1900 1.69 00
.03
.21 .26
1938 - • 1939
6 1, 080,270
2.2353 1.7295
.0089 .2236
.2733
1939 -
- 1940 6 2, 912,885
2.2785 1.7449 .0192 .2320 .2824
1940 - - 1941 6 3,061,885
2.2333
1.7368 .0207 .2089 .2669
1941 - - 1942 6 5* 093*010 2.2370 1.7441 .0188 .
.2095
.2646
1942 -
- 1943
68,047,380 2.1624
I.7283
.0172 .1858
.2311
1943 -
- 1944 69*047*910
2.1475
1.7281 .0169-
.1815 .2210
1944 - ■ 1945 76,554,615
2 .1 6 2 3 1.7998 .0144 ,1576 .1905 ■
1945 -
- 1946
73*286,515
2.3100 I.85OO .0147
.1565
.1886 .1002
1946 - - 1947 84,449*195
2.3016 1.8974 .0125 . .1339 .1534 .1044
1947. -
- 1948 113, 7 46,185 2 .1788 I.8756
.0087 .0908 .1050
.0987
1948 - - 1949 122,400,640 2.5468 2.2664 .0045 .0890 .0921 . 0948
Source: Statistical Pacts, Glendale Unified School District, 1944 - 1945* 1945 - 1946
and the current issue, 1946 - 1947**1947 - 1948.
ro
u>
ch
than one,third increase over the prior fiscal year.
Total tax rates register only relatively small changes
over the years examined. The lowest total rate was for 19*1-3 -
1944 ($2.1475)* The highest rate was registered in 1948 -
1949 ($2.5468).
The war years are relatively lower than years of the
late ’thirties and post war years are fairly sustained
(except possibly one year, 1947 - 1948: A drop from 2.3016-
to 2 .1 7 8 8).
The general district rate is of course the bulk of
each year’s total rate. The general district rate maintains
a relative stability during most of the earlier years and is
never above 1 .7 9 9 nor below 1 .7 0 0 in any year from 1938 -
1939 to 1944 - 1945* Relatively mild changes (increases) in
the general district rate characterize the post war fiscal
years.
Bond interest and redemption rates are classified by
school categories. Nearly all categories show consistent
declines in rate after 1940 - 1941. The Junior college rate
of 1947 - 1948 approximates (.0 0 8 7) that of 1938 - 1939
(.OO8 9). However, rates for both the high schools and
elementary schools in 1947 - 1948 are substantially below
those for 1938 - 1 9 3 9.
CHAPTER VI
RECENT DEBT AND CREDIT PROBLEMS
OP THE CITY OP GLENDALE
General statement. In the preceding chapters we have
shown: (l) That the economic character of the city has
given rise to certain expenditure needs., (2 ) that these
expenditures have over time taken a certain form In payments
for specified functions and activities of the city* and (3)
that most of such expenditures have been made from classes
of revenues which, already detailed, have generally been
balanced, stable and adequate.
■ Some expenditures, however, have reflected the cost
incurred for more permanent improvements. For these the
means of paying fully out of current city income have not
always been adequate. Occasionally we have already made
some reference to these classes of spending. Most of such
categories, however, we have omitted to analyze until this
point.
The credit problem of the 1 twenties in Glendale. The
cause of extraordinary growth in the 'twenties have already
been considered. It should be emphasized that in this period
annexations were active and population increases spectacular.
In one decade the city's numbers grew from 13*536 to 6 2,7 3 6.
239
Like hundreds of other American cities in that post
war period Glendale borrowed, electing to pay for certain
long term benefits by extended installments on bond obli
gations. Glendale expenditures for more permanent installations
were thus provided by using the city’s credit.
The years of the later depression were to be without
any further bonding, but in the ’twenties the debt grew to
be more than 1 1/2 million dollars. The last bond issue
floated by the city was in 1928 for the amount of $200,000.
The debt problem of the ’thirties in Glendale. As
the previous decade had shown steady debt accumulation, so
the ’thirties witnessed uninterrupted yearly discharges of
the city's general obligation's.
Table LIX exhibits the data of these declining net
liabilities. A parallel column, unfilled except for the
first and last years listed, suggests the length of time
in which all proposals of further borrowing were being re
jected. Similar rejections were experienced in this period
by the school district finance authority.
In 1930 general obligations of the City of Glendale
amounted to $1,667,000.00. By regular payments for debt
retirement the total has declined by nearly one third in
1940 ($1,156,500.00). The city's general obligations fell
below 1 million dollar after 19^3. In 19^9 the city's
240
TABLE LIX
GENERAL OBLIGATIONS, CITY OP GLENDALE,
AND PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS
Y e a r
I m p r o v e m e n t
E x p e n d i t u r e s
G e n e r a l O b l i g a t i o n s
C i t y o f G l e n d a l e *
1928 $200,000.00 $ **
1929
- * *
1930 1,667,000.00
1931
1,612,500.00
1932 1,558,000.00.
1933
1,503,500.00
1934 1,452,000.00
1935
1,401,500.00
1936 1,351,500.00
1937
1,302,250.00
1938 1,253,000.00
1939
1,203,750.00
19^0 1,156.500.00
1941 1,109,250.00
19^2 1,060,000.00
1943
1,010,750.00
1944 971,500.00
1945 910,250.00
1946 861,000.00
1947 812,750.00
1948
400,000.00***
764,625.00
1949 716,500.00
Source: Office of the Controller, City of Glendale.
* Balance outstanding as of June 30th, by years.
** Totals not available.
*** This amount has been voted in 1949, but its exact
time of use is uncertain, hence the failure to add it to
general obligations.
241
electorate voted bonds to the extent of $400,000 to pay for
Glendale's further share on its participation in the Hyperion
sewage disposal improvement. Before the voting of these
bonds Glendale's general obligations had reached a level
($716,500.00) approximately 38 per cent below that of 1940.
Table LX exhibits the data for yearly total payments
making the debt retirement, above described, possible.
Total expenditures, by years, in this class, show
that in all the period surveyed, the peak fiscal year was
1929 - 1930. In that year the aggregate was $138,760.50,
composed of principal and interest payments in the amounts
exhibited in parallel columns for this year ($54,500*00
and $84,260.50 respectively).
By 1940 the total expenditure in this class was
$111,780.56 and 19 per cent less than the level of ten years
before. These total expenditures fell below $100,000 after
1944 and reached their lowest (the. 1950-period will be
higher) point in the series ($85*831.24).
Principal and interest payments have never been
interrupted or in default. Principal in these years examined
is never higher than $54,500 in a single year, nor ever less
than $48,125.00 (1949).
Interest payments for the entire period examined are
highest in 1930 at $84,260.50 and lowest in 1949 at $37*706.24,
a level of charges less than half that in the first year noted.
242
TABLE LX
PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST COMPONENTS, AND
YEARLY DEBT EXPENDITURE TOTALS
Year
Interest
Payments
Principal
Retirement
Total Yearly Debt
Expenditures
1930 $84,260.50 $54,500.00 $138,760.50
1931
81,514.25 54,500.00
136,014.25
1932 78,768.00 54,500.00 133,268.00
1933 76,021.75
54,500.00
130,521.75
1934
73,433-00 51,000.00 124,433.00
1935 70,896.75
51,000.00 121,896.75
1936 70,805.52 52,000.00 122,805.52
1937 68,236.77
51,250.00
119,486.77
1938 65,668.05
51,250.00
116,918.05
1939
63,099.26 51,250.00 114,349.26
1940 60,530.56 51,250.00 111,780.56
1941
57,961.79
51,250.00
109,211.79
1942 55,393.00 51,250.00 106,643.00
1943
52,824.28 51,250.00 104,074.28
1944 50,255.50 51,250.00 101,505.50
1945
47,741.76 50,250.00 97,991.76
1946 45,233.02 50,250.00 95,483.02
1947
42,724.28 50,250.00 92,974.28
1948 40,218.02 50,125.00 90,343.02
1949 37,706.24 48,125.00 85,831.24
Source: Office of the Controller, City of Glendale. Note
that the above principal and interest redemption
annual payments do not include utility bonds which
are payable from earnings.
243
Table LXI exhibits the per cents that yearly debt
expenditures have been of total yearly expenditures, both
for the aggregate and for the principal and interest com
ponents .
The highest percentage for total debt expenditures
occurs in 1934 (13.42 per cent). Years before 1934 fluctuate
mildly in approaching this peak.
After 1931 ! - every successive year including 1949 has
been consistently less even though reductions in particular
years are relatively minor.
The lowest point in this series is therefore 2.49 in
the current year (1949).
Interest payments are uniformly a higher proportion
of total city spending than principal retirements between
1929 and 1 9 3 9. In all the succeeding years except three
(1941, 1942, 1943)* interest payments are a smaller per cent
of such total.
The highest per cent spent for principal retirement
in any year surveyed was 5*50 per cent in 1931 * - . Lowest was
1.39 pen cent in 1949- Nearly all years since 1934 have
been of consistently lower percentage.
The highest proportion of city spending that interest
payments have been in any examined year was 7 .9 2 per cent in
1934. The lowest was 1.10 per cent in 1949* Every year
244
TABLE LXI
P E R C E N T S T H A T Y E A R L Y D E B T E X P E N D I T U R E S H A V E
B E E N O F T O T A L Y E A R L Y E X P E N D I T U R E S
Y e a r
T o t a l Y e a r l y D e b t
E x p e n d i t u r e s
P e r c e n t a g e s
P r i n c i p a l
R e t i r e m e n t
P e r c e n t a g e s
I n t e r e s t
P a y m e n t s
P e r c e n t a g e s
1930 11.59 4.55
7.04
1931 11.37 4.55
6.82
1932 11.34 4.64 6.70
1933
12.22 5.10 7.12
1934
13.42 5.50 7.92
1935 12.89 5.39 7.50
1936
12.88
5.45 7.43
1937 11.77
5.04
6.73
19 3S
10.64 4.96 5.66
1939
10.08 4.52 5-56
1940 9.66
4.95 4.71
1941 8.03 3.76 4.27
1942
7-35 2.59
4.76
1943
7.12
3.51
3.61
1944
6.69 3.37
3.32
1945 6.35
3.26
3.09
1946 4.96
2.63 2.35
1947
4.02
2.17
I.85
1948
3.O5 I.69 1.36
1949 2.49 1.39
1.10
S o u r c e : C o m p u t a t i o n s b y t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r b a s e d o n a b s o l u t e
d a t a f u r n i s h e d b y t h e c i t y c o n t r o l l e r ’ s o f f i c e .
245
since 1934 except one (1942) was lower as a per cent than
the next preceding year.
The task of the bond committee. Before analyzing
Glendale’s present credit and debt circumstances a brief
inspection of the city’s condition respecting recently held
delinquent bonds is necessary.
The Glendale City Council created a bond committee
in 1 9 3 8* It consisted of two members of the council, plus
the city manager, city attorney, city controller, city
engineer and city treasurer. Its purpose was to liquidate
a list of investments the city had made.^
The city had purchased a number of street improvement
bonds as an investment, at 7 per cent interest. These
instruments numbered II38 and applied to 9 1 3 separate parcels
of property.
At the time of committee formation there were
apparently 449 bonds delinquent on 301 properties. The
principal balance on delinquent bonds was $174,397-19* The
entire or total principal balance on all bonds was $2 8 1,9 2 7. 9 7.
In August, 1948 the committee reported that its work
was about finished. The August 31st (1948) report shows a
total unpaid balance of $2 5,6 9 8. 0 3.
^ Glendale News-Press, "The Glendale Story," Section 1,
November 2 6, 1948, p. 7 .
246
Glendale1s post war credit standing and new debt
prospects. The conclusions In Chapters I I I and I V pointed
to the possibility of new debt. The city's relatively good
revenue condition does not negative this possibility although
for such reason the choices of the policy makers may be
broader. The new bond issue for the Hyperion project might
conceivably be just the beginning of a period of debt
expansion. Possible annexation of the Montrose area could
become the occasion for other urgent obligations to spend.
If new debt accumulation should become the prospect,
what can be said of the municipality's bond capacity.
Glendale's report on finances for June 30, 1948 is
the last complete yearly statement testing this capacity.
Property valuations are presented as follows:
1948 - 1949 1947 - 1948
1. Actual or full valuation $229,590,270 $217,663,070
[Est. (2) x.(3)]
2. Assessed or taxable 114,795^135 . 1 0 8,8 3 1 ,5 3 5
valuation
3. Assessed valuation is
, approximately 50 per cent
of actual valuation.
The further datum is emphasized: This municipality has
never defaulted on debt obligations.
Its bonded debt as of June 30, 1948 is reported as
follows:
247
Purpose of the Issue Outstanding Sinking Funds
General (include all purposes
not listed below) $764,625 .0
Special assessments, payable
also from general taxation 0 0
Utility debt, payable also
from general taxation:
>) Water 82,000 18,826.99
^b) Light and power 3*000 1,500.00
c) Other (specify) 0
TOTAL
General obligation bonds 849,625 20,326.99
Special assessments only 30,000 11,316.26
Utility revenue only
(a) Water 4,440 9 7 1 .2 6
(b) Light and power 0
(c) Other (specify) 0
TOTAL
Other than general
obligation bonds 34,440 1 2,2 8 7 .5 2
The further datum is emphasized: Utility bonds are fully
supported by earnings of the property. No proportion of
general taxes is necessary to such sustainment. The legal
debt limit of the municipality is 15 per cent of assessed
valuation.
The following "overlapping debt" is reported: *
* G l e n d a l e U n i f i e d S c h o o l D i s t r i c t i n c l u d e s e l e m e n t a r y ,
h i g h , a n d j u n i o r c o l l e g e . M e t r o p o l i t a n W a t e r D i s t r i c t
i n c l u d e s a p o r t i o n o f d i s t r i c t l y i n g w i t h i n a n o t h e r c o u n t y .
248
Gross Debt This
Name of Debt Limit Less City's
Overlapping Entity in Per Cent Sinking Fund Share
Los Angeles County
5
$ 9 7 ,2 0 8 $ 2,304
Los Angeles County
Flood Control 0 1 7,8 2 9 ,7 8 6 437,382
Glendale Unified
School District
15 4,642,531
4,100,900
Metropolitan Water
District
15
1 7 1,8 3 6 ,0 0 0 5,079,988
The report on finances further specifies the
"principal requirements for next five years" as follows:
Authorized Source
of Payment 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952*
General 'taxation $48,125 $48,125 $48,125 $48,125 $48,125
Special assessments
only 4,000 3 ,0 0 0 3 ,0 0 0 3 ,0 0 0 3 ,0 0 0
Special assessments
and also general
taxation 0 0 0 0 0
Utility revenues
and also general
taxation 2 3 ,5 0 0 2 3 ,5 0 0 2 0 ,0 0 0 1 8 ,0 0 0 1 0 ,0 0 0
Utility revenues
only 2 ,2 2 0 2 ,2 2 0 0 0 0
The report specifies also, inter alia:
Total general property or
ad valorem tax for
current year composed of:
(Rate per each $100 of
assessed valuation)
City
School
Flood
County
$1.0000
2.5468
.1945
1.7578
TOTAL
5.4991
* Fiscal year beginning July 1.
249
Since the bonding capacity is based on a legal
limitation (1 5 per cent of assessed valuation for the fiscal
year) it appears that the rise in assessed valuation for
1948 - 1949 also allows greater bonding capacity. The
increase amounted to $894,540. Net bonding capacity before
the voting of $400,000 for bonds in April of 1949 was thus
$1 6,3 6 9,6 4 5. The new bonds when issued will still leave
unused capacity of slightly below $1 6,0 0 0,0 0 0.
The conclusion is unavoidable: The amount of bonds
that Glendale has outstanding is relatively low compared to
our capacity. The reasons, in sum, are three: (l) Until
April, 1949> Glendale had not authorized a bond issue for
about twenty years; (2) Glendale electorate had by bond
rejections from time to time indicated that it supported
a pay-as-you-go policy for obligations and expenditures; and
(3) there has been opposition, too, because long term bonds
add greatly to ultimate cost of the original issue.
APPENDIX
DEBTS OP THE SCHOOL DISTRICT
Table LXII exhibits the data showing total yearly
maturities for the bond obligations of the Glendale Unified
School District, by school class. Bonds outstanding show
totals with a peak year in fiscal 1951 - 1952 (at $249,000.00).
250
TABLE LXII
BONDED DEBT OP GLENDALE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
(July, 1948)
Maturity Elementary
Years Bonds
High School
Bonds
Glendale
College
Bonds
Total Bonds
Outstanding
1948-49
1949-50
1950-51
1951-52
1952-53
1 9 5 3 -5 4
1954-55
1 9 5 5 -5 6
1956-57
1957-58
1 9 5 8 -5 9
1959-60
1 9 6 0 -6 1
1 9 6 1 -6 2
1 9 6 2 -6 3
1963-64
1964-65
1 9 6 5 -6 6
1 9 6 6 -6 7
1 9 6 7 -6 8
1 9 6 8 -6 9
1 9 6 9 -7 0
1970-71
$ 8 9,0 0 0 .0 0
8 3,0 0 0 .0 0
100,000.00
102,000.00
100,000.00
9 7.0 0 0 .0 0
97. 000.00
9 4. 0 0 0 .0 0
9 4.0 0 0 .0 0
9 2.0 0 0 .0 0
9 2.0 0 0 .0 0
9 0.0 0 0 .0 0
9 2.0 0 0 .0 0
9 3.0 0 0 .0 0
9 2.0 0 0 .0 0
8 0.0 0 0 .0 0
8 0.0 0 0 .0 0
7 7.0 0 0 .0 0
42.000.00
42.000.00
42.000.00
42.000.00
42.000.00
$ 101,000.00
1 0 6.0 0 0 .0 0
1 1 9.0 0 0 .0 0
1 1 9.0 0 0 .0 0
1 1 9.0 0 0 .0 0
1 1 9.0 0 0 .0 0
1 1 6.0 0 0 .0 0
116. 000.00
1 1 6.0 0 0 .0 0
1 1 7.0 0 0 .0 0
1 1 7.0 0 0 .0 0
1 1 7.0 0 0 .0 0
1 1 7.0 0 0 .0 0
1 1 7.0 0 0 .0 0
1 1 5.0 0 0 .0 0
1 2 8.0 0 0 .0 0
1 2 8.0 0 0 .0 0
1 2 8.0 0 0 .0 0
1 2 9.0 0 0 .0 0
1 2 3.0 0 0 .0 0
5 7.0 0 0 .0 0
57.000.00
57,000.00
$2 8,0 0 0 .0 0
2 8.0 0 0 .0 0
2 8.0 0 0 .0 0
2 8.0 0 0 .0 0
2 8.0 0 0 .0 0
2 8.0 0 0 .0 0
2 8.0 0 0 .0 0
2 8.0 0 0 .0 0
2 8.0 0 0 .0 0
2 8.0 0 0 .0 0
2 8.0 0 0 .0 0
2 8.0 0 0 .0 0
2 8.0 0 0 .0 0
20.000.00
20,000.00
1 5.0 0 0 .0 0
1 5.0 0 0 .0 0
1 5.0 0 0 .0 0
1 5.0 0 0 .0 0
1 5.0 0 0 .0 0
1 5.0 0 0 .0 0
1 5.0 0 0 .0 0
1 5.0 0 0 .0 0
2 1 8.0 0 0 .0 0
2 1 7.0 0 0 .0 0
2 4 7.0 0 0 .0 0
2 4 9.0 0 0 .0 0
2 4 7.0 0 0 .0 0
244.000.00
241.000.00
2 3 8.0 0 0 .0 0
2 3 8.0 0 0 .0 0
2 3 7.0 0 0 .0 0
2 3 7.0 0 0 .0 0
2 3 5.0 0 0 .0 0
2 3 7.0 0 0 .0 0
2 3 0.0 0 0 .0 0
2 2 7.0 0 0 .0 0
2 2 3.0 0 0 .0 0
2 2 3.0 0 0 .0 0
220. 000.00
186,000.00
1 8 0.0 0 0 .0 0
114.000.00
114.000.00
114.000.00
TOTAL 1,854,000.00 2,538,000.00 524,000.00 4,916,000.00
Source: Statistical Facts, op. cit.
251
Most years approaching 1951 - 1952 are years of increasing
totals, as most years thereafter are terms of decreasing
absolute magnitudes. The only exceptions in succeeding
years are for years (six) in which the total is constant
compared to the preceding fiscal year.
Total payments for bonds outstanding by 1971 a^e
to be nearly 5 million dollars.
In each year of total maturities, those for high
school bonds are highest of the three component classes.
Elementary bond maturities decline generally in years after
1951 - 1952 (a peak year). Most yearly changes are mild
and only two reverse the direction. The greatest proportion
ate -fall is for 1966 - 1967 (over the previous year) at
$35,000 or almost 50 per cent.
High school bond maturities move at a plateau of high
years 1950 - 1951 to 1952 - 1953 and also 1963 - 1964 to
1966 - 1967* Between these plateaux the lowest year is
1962 - 1963 at $115,000.00. During the last three years
examined high school maturities drop to a level more than
50 per cent below the previous ten year average.
Glendale College Bond Maturities are least in absolute
magnitudes and most constant in yearly totals. None of the
years following i960 - 1961 show increases in maturities.
Of the total prospective payment of nearly 5 million
252
dollars, high school totals are more than 50 per cent,
elementary totals less than 40 per cent and college totals
slightly over 10 per cent.
PART III
MUNICIPAL FINANCE ALTERNATIVES
AND THEIR APPLICATION TO THE CITY OF GLENDALE
CHAPTER VII
RECENT MUNICIPAL FINANCE ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives for expenditures. Glendale’s place
in the general pattern of municipal finance is perhaps best
shown by a comparison of her recent behavior in spending,
taxing and borrowing with the like activity of American
cities generally.
Much of the very recent data are fragmentary in the
most reliable reporting media. However, while the most
recent year or two (depending on the research staff) are
not completely reported by the authoritative investigators
in the U.S. (U.Sh Census, Municipal Yearbook, etc.) a fairly
clear picture of the trends since World War II can nonethe
less be made out.
Table LXIII exhibits the data summarizing American
city finance for 397 of the largest cities in the period,
19* 1-2 through 1946.- 1 -
Its columns show the alternatives presented for
American municipal expenditure and the direction generally
taken in the choice of alternatives.
Municipalities may elect to spend more or less in
absolute dollars. The evidence of total general expenditures
1 Municipal Yearbook, 19*1-8, p. 195*
TABLE LXIII
SUMMARY OF CITY FINANCES, 1942 - 1946
(397 Cities)
In Millions
•
Per Cent Change
Account of Class 1946*
1945
1944
1943
1942 1945-46 1942-46
Total general revenue
and new borrowings
$3,093
$2,821 $2,712
$2,639
9.6
New borrowings
177
106
49 48 66.4
Total general revenue 2,916 2,714 2,663 2,591 2,589
7-4 12.6
Taxes, total
2,063 1,971 1,971
1,946
1,930 4.7 6.9
Property only 1,762 1,712 1,726
1,711
1,678
2.9
5.0
Aid received from
other governments 542
485 453 437 447 11.7
21.1
From state govern
ments only 511 450 422 402
419 13.5
22.0
Charges and miscel
laneous
311
258 238 209-
211 20.4
47.1
Source: Municipal Yearbook, 1948, p. 195.
* Preliminary.
ro
V J l
-fr
TABLE LXIII (Continued)
SUMMARY OF CITY FINANCES, 1942 - 1946
(397 Cities)
In Millions Per Cent Change
Account of Class 1946 1945 1944
19^3
1942 1945-46 1942-46
Total general
expenditures
$2,939
$2,685 ■$2,620 $2,61.4
$2,677 9.5
9.8
Provision for debt
retirement 272
293
320 320
293 -7.3 -7.3
General expenditures
less provision for
debt retirement
2,667 2,392 2,300 2,294
2,383
11.5 11.9
Operations 2,150 1,962 1,901 1,863 1,896 9*6 13.4
General control 185 171 163 157
158
8.3
16.8
Public safety
529
481 472 464 454 10.0 16.6
Highways 165
154 140
136- 135 7.3
22.6
Sanitation 180 162 151 139 134
11.5 34.4
Health and hospitals 188
167
158 142 142 13.0 32.8
ro
ui
ui
TABLE LXIII (Continued)
SUMMARY OP CITY FINANCES, 19*1-2 - 1946
(397 Cities)
In Millions Per Cent Change
Account of Class 1946 1945 1944
1943
1942 1945-46 1942-46
Public welfare $ 204 $ 183
1 >-
co
1 —1
$ 210 $ 264
11.7 -22.7
Schools
00
457 453
452 448 6.0 8.0
Capital outlay 166
91 77 93
158 83.4
5-5
Aid paid other govern
ments
9 5
4
7
1 91.0
Interest
129 137 147
161 170
-5.9
-24.0
Contribution to trust
funds and enterprises
213 197
170 170
159 7.9
Debt at end of fiscal
year (general and
enterprise) gross 7,164 7,326
7,497
7,820
8,155
-2.2 -12.2
General
3,673
3,780
' 3,995
4,251 4,568 -2.8 -19.6
Enterprise
3,491
3,546 3,502
3,569 3,587 -1.5 -2.7
Net long term total
5,831 5,978 6,175
6,488
6,823 -2.5
-14.6
TO
U1
Ch
257
is that they tended to spend more after the low point of
193^ was passed. Even so, the increments were at first
relatively small. Comparison of per cent changes between
1945 - 1946 (9.5) and 1942 - 1946 (9.8), however, reinforces
this view.
For operations these cities in 1942 spent
$1,896,000,000. From that time until 1946 only one year
was less (1943). Most of the increase, reaching
$2,150,000,000 in 1946 was registered in the last year of
change (9.6 per cent). In 1946 operations were almost
three fourth of general expenditures.
For general controls the cities surveyed spent $158
million in 1942. The amount was only slightly less in 1943*
After 1943.; however, every year registered gains in this
class. Approximately one half of the gains for the span
of years were registered in the last year of change.
For public safety '(fire and police) cities were
spending almost three times as much as for general controls
In 1942. By 1946 the proportions for public safety were
only slightly less. Most of the gains for this class were
registered in the last year of change (10.0 per cent).
Schools spent only 8 per cent more in 1946 than in
1942, and most of that increase was registered between 1945
and 1946. It is currently predicted by one recent study
258
that hy 1952 local - governments (cities are not separated
out) would probably be spending $4,255 million or more than
one third more than the amount for 1946.
Capital outlays were sprinting ahead between 1945
and 1946 (83-4 per cent) but their total increase between
1942 and 1946 was less than for schools (5*5 per cent).
Lowest year for capital outlays was war year 1944 (at
77 million dollars).
Interest declined 24.0 per cent over the period., the
greater of the two declines, and the third greatest change
(in either direction) recorded here.
In 1942 highways ($135 million) and sanitation ($134
million) incurred almost the same costs, but highway
expenditures were 22.6 per cent higher in 1946 while sani
tation spending was up 3^*^ P ^ cent. Approximately one
third of the gains in sanitation were recorded in the last
year of change.
In 1942 health and hospitals were slightly more than
half the amount spent for public welfare. But by 1946 the
first of these expenditure classes had gained not only
32.8 per cent over its earlier position, but was less than
20 million dollars under the public welfare expenditure
^ Lewis H. Kimmel, Government Costs.and Tax Levels
(Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1948), p. 11.
259
total, which in the same period declined 22.7 per cent.
In the entire period only public welfare and interest
costs, declined. Every other expenditure gained more or less.
The greatest increases for the last year of changes
were for public safety, schools and public welfare (in that
order).
The alternatives for municipal revenues. Table LXIII
also exhibits the data of recent: yearly changes In American
municipal revenues. In this area of controversy the greatest
intensities, perhaps, are recorded. Diverse opinion among
the experts is of such character as to merit some special
attention being given to the conflict of authorities.
First, however, we must consider the revenue changes
of the period surveyed. For these 397 largest American
municipalities, total general revenues plus new borrowings
were $3*093 million in 1946, an increase of 9.6 per cent
over the previous fiscal year. New borrowings alone were
$177 million or 66.4 per cent over fiscal 1945*
Total revenue with new borrowings omitted increased
in every surveyed year but the bulk of gains were recent at
7.4 per cent In the last year of change.
Total taxes were $2,063 million in 1946, or 6.9 Per
cent above the total for 1942. 4.7 Per cerit of the increase,
however, was for the last year of change.
260
Property taxation alone returned $1,762 million in
1946, or more than three fourths of total taxes. This major
revenue source made absolute gains in every year except one,
and secular gains for the period of 5*0 per cent. Almost
3 per cent was contributed by the last year of change.
Aid received from other governments was up approximately
half of its total 1942 - 1946 rise during the change between
1945 and 1946.
State governments alone contributed $511 million of
the $542 total aids received from other governments, obviously
the bulk of such received total.
Special charges and miscellaneous revenues gained
47.1 per cent between 1942 and 1946. This was, by far, more
than any other percentage changes recorded for revenues.
Less than half the full gain was contributed by the last
year of change. These increases are to be borne in mind
when considering the minutiae of data exhibiting details
of new revenue sources recently being developed by cities
over the nation generally.
How do the schools of authority divide over the
issues of: (1) Property tax reliance, (2) state aid
resource development, and new local revenue elaboration?
It should be noted that in general, more distant
goals of tax action are less controverted. It is more
261
■ w i d e l y a g r e e d t h a t t h e I s s u e s o f r e v e n u e g r o w o u t o f t h e
e f f o r t t o m a k e c i t y I n c o m e a d e q u a t e I n a m o u n t a n d s u i t a b l e
i n m e t h o d .
U p t o t h e p e r i o d o f W o r l d W a r I A m e r i c a n c i t i e s m a d e
t h e p r o p e r t y t a x t h e i r m a i n r e v e n u e r e l i a n c e . T o t a x a l l
p r o p e r t y , u n i f o r m l y a n d u n i v e r s a l l y , w i t h o u t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n
a n d w i t h p r e s u m p t i o n s a g a i n s t m u l t i p l i e d e x c e p t i o n s , b e c a m e
t h e g e n e r a l r u l e .
A s t h e e x p e n d i t u r e r e v e n u e d i s p a r i t i e s o f t h e
• t w e n t i e s b e c a m e c r i t i c a l t h e s t a t e s t e n d e d t o m e e t r e v e n u e
d e f i c i e n c i e s w i t h : ( l ) M o r e e f f i c i e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,
(2) i n c r e a s e d r a t e s o n e s t a b l i s h e d t a x b a s e s , a n d (3) n e w
r e v e n u e s o u r c e s . A t t h e s a m e t i m e a n i n c r e a s i n g n u m b e r o f
t h e m m o v e d g r a d u a l l y t o r e l i n q u i s h p r o p e r t y t a x a t i o n f o r
t h e l a r g e r o r e n t i r e u s e o f l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t s , i n c l u d i n g
c i t i e s . I n t h i s p e r i o d t h e l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t s c o n t i n u e d t o
i n c r e a s e t h e i r c o l l e c t i o n s f r o m t h e p r o p e r t y t a x s o u r c e .
M u n i c i p a l r e v e n u e a l t e r n a t i v e s o f t h e ' t h i r t i e s
i n v o l v e d , f i r s t d e p r e s s i o n , t h e n r e c o v e r y m e a s u r e s . C i t i e s
g e n e r a l l y w e r e s t i l l m a i n l y d e p e n d e n t u p o n c u r r e n t y i e l d s
f r o m p r o p e r t y t a x a t i o n . A s v a l u e s s h r a n k t a x b a s e s
g e n e r a l l y c o n t r a c t e d , d e l i n q u e n c i e s i n c r e a s e d a n d t o t a l
p r o p e r t y t a x r e c e i p t s w e r e s i m p l y I n s u f f i c i e n t f o r s u s t a i n
i n g m u n i c i p a l a c t i v i t i e s . E v e n s o , t h e p r o p e r t y t a x y i e l d s
262
were less elastic than those of income and business taxes,
levied at the upper levels of government. Cities drew
larger amounts from the increasing local shares of state
revenues.3
T h e e v e n t s o f t h e ’ f o r t i e s s a w g o v e r n m e n t s i n c r e a s i n g l y
p l a c i n g t h e i r r e l i a n c e o n o t h e r t h a n p r o p e r t y l e v i e s . S u c h
i s t h e b a c k g r o u n d f o r t h e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e c u r r e n t i s s u e .
Recent policy makers for city revenue have tended to
follow the trend. In effect it has been resolved in many
cities that the property tax should not be increased sub
stantially as a proportion of total city income (relative
to its own past percentages, and relative to the percentages
attributable to other revenue classes). But whether this is
the best resolution is the issue. Those who affirm that it
is contend that: (1) The experience of -the depression makes
this view clear, (2) that business cycle studies make a
similar result probable in property tax delinquencies should
business crisis again develop, (3) that increasing property
burdens would be unwise in view of the movements of population
to suburban places, (4) that other revenue alternatives have
proved both Just and effective. Denying this proposition,
3 W i l l i a m J . S h u l t z a n d M . R . C a i n e , F i n a n c i a l D e v e l o p
m e n t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ( N e w Y o r k : P r e n t i c e - H a l l I n c . ,
1937)3 PP- 665-666 and pp. 7I8-719.
263
its opponents argue: (l) That the net performance of
property tax, even in depression, leaves the choice far
from certain, (2) that depression studies show also that
other revenue types are difficult to stabilize, unreliable,
hard to budget, (3) that property tax increases are yet
possible without making burdens excessive if administrative
improvements be adopted, and (4) that other revenue alter
natives are not without comparable perhaps equal objections.
T h e q u e s t i o n o f s t a t e a i d s . T h i s d i s c u s s i o n a s s u m e s
t h a t t h e e x i s t e n c e o f s t a t e a i d s i s g e n e r a l l y a d m i t t e d a n d
t h e i r n a t u r e k n o w n . I t w i l l n o t s e r v e a n y s u f f i c i e n t
p u r p o s e t o d e s c r i b e t h e s e i n g r e a t d e t a i l . ^ S u f f i c e i t
t o d i s t i n g u i s h t h e m f r o m s h a r e d t a x e s . G r a n t s i n a i d a r e
c o n s i d e r e d a d i s b u r s e m e n t o f t h e g r a n t i n g a u t h o r i t y r a t h e r
t h a n t h a t o f l o c a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . S h a r e d t a x e s , s u c h a s
" m o t o r v e h i c l e i n l i e u " i n G a l i f o r n i a , a r e m e r e l y s t a t e
c o l l e c t i o n s r e t u r n e d t o t h e l o c a l u n i t .
T h e d e c a d e o f t h e ' t h i r t i e s e x h i b i t e d a n i n c r e a s i n g
u s e o f g r a n t s i n a i d r u n n i n g f r o m s t a t e s t o t h e i r l o c a l
g o v e r n m e n t a l u n i t s . I n f a c t a s t h e d i s p a r i t y b e t w e e n
r e c e i p t s a n d e x p e n d i t u r e s b e c a m e m o r e c r i t i c a l t h e s t a t e
^ A l m o s t a n y s t a n d a r d t e x t i n t a x a t i o n d o e s t h i s
c o m p e t e n t l y .
264
aid remedy was and became increasingly a chief reliance for
city administrations. In the 'forties state aids persisted.
This is the background of the second significant revenue
issue.
Many municipal policy makers in 1949 have not clearly
evidenced that they intend to continue their general tendency
to seek ever increasing state aids.
In effect, during the post war years, they have re
solved that ever increasing state aids are not preferable
as the chief revenue reliance of municipalities in this
period. Aids are often still substantial,' of course. But
the evidence grows of a trend to seek other than state aid
revenue to meet new and pressing fiscal needs.
Affirming that other than state aid resources are
preferable, these policy makers and their advisers content
that: (l) State aids tend to diminish the strength of
self government and of "home rule", (2) state aids tend to
scatter financial responsibility rather than to fix it,
(3) they introduce relatively more rigid financial means
into total taxation, (4) experience has shown that other
means to making local revenues more adequate have proved
just and sufficient, (5) experience has suggested that
state aids do not stimulate a desirable local interest in
government, (6) equitable distribution formulas are neces-
265
sary to state aid administrations; yet the actual formulas
are less often reasonable and more often pressure produced,
and (7) that instability of tax sources at state level plus
the consequences of instability accompany the state aid
remedy.
Denying that other than state aid measures are superior
the opponents of change assert that: (1) New local taxes
tend to increase trade barriers, already an aggravated problem,
(2) new taxes involve duplication of compliance and of ad
ministration costs, (3) many local units ought to be con
solidated; some should be eliminated; these at least ought
not to be assigned to administer new taxes, (4) state school
systems in the long run will be detrimentally affected by
a rash of local taxes, both unsystematic and uncoordinated,
(5) measurement of the need for state aids, though difficult,
is susceptible of improvement, and (6) that state super
vision is an essential to general progress in local finance
processes.5
The issue of new revenue sources. What has already
been written will evidence that this is the significant
5 Tax Institute, "More State Aid or More Local Taxes,"
Forum Pamphlet Four, December, 1948, "The Over-All Picture,"
Harold L. Henderson, pp. 22-28; and cf_. Harold M. Groves,
Financing Government, pp. 532-53*1-•
266
recent issue. Most of the events that pose the problem
reach back but a few years for their beginnings.
The question may now be asked, "Why did new revenue
sources not arrive in significant numbers and variety until
the 'forties?" Answers are perhaps clearer now than ever
before. They involve an interpretation of municipal tax
legislation as a whole down to data, and especially during
the last nine years. What elements have been lacking until
recently but have since proved essential to the coming of
this "revolution" in city financing? In the view of this
writer such elements are at least eight in number:
1. States generally failed to grant authority in the
decades prior to the 'forties. Municipalities' financial
activities were commonly limited at the points of: (a)
Borrowing or credit, (b) total current tax rate, and (c)
permissible tax class. State governments became more secure
in their own household affairs after 1939* Their.stabilized
finances of the later 'thirties became prosperous finances
of the war years. This seems to be an influence in the
liberating statutes of the post war. The basis of multiplicity
in new city revenue sources is multiplied enabling legislation.
2. Some municipal authorities lacked the inclination
to embark on new fiscal policies and measures. It is apparent
now that enabling legislation alone does not usher in the
267
new tax period. Thus Pennsylvania grants broad local tax
power and finds it seized and used almost immediately by
hundreds of local governments; while New York State grants
liberal, though more limited, local tax authority and finds
that her cities and counties do not experience even a
complete use of that which the state offers. The inclination
to tax has not always followed the enabling law, although it
has become more general.
3. The new taxes are doubtless related to the social
repercussions of war. The capacity of wars for stirring up
new thought is notable in history. This war was no exception.
At such time the conservative reexamines his premises and
may even swing to the "left". The reformer reassures him
self, renews his spirit in the light of war sacrifices, and
reinforces his courage with, bold deeds. Public decisions
previously only contemplated, often postponed, now mature.
4. The new taxes are unmistakably related to a re
established prosperity in the general affairs of commodity
and factor markets. In depression the tendencies to tax
change must be followed with moderation or with caution.
With the return of genuinely prosperous business the for
mation of claims by government to levy and collect become
more difficult to oppose in policy making. The ability to
pay of those newly taxed may not be denied. Their income
268
is a public record, and their economic incentives are common
knowledge. They may complain and “view with alarm", but
their outcries will be weighed with other events: Second
and third rounds of wage increases, unprecedented earnings,
unquestionable dividends and unexampled governmental
guarantees.
5. Another element doubtless sustained the new tax
movement: The acquisition of a minimum of "new tax"
experience. For a brief time the "new taxes" were an uncharted
fiscal sea. After a few cities had brought their financial
ships back to port new fiscal navigation became a city
management resource.
6. Important city models may be a stimulus for later
city taxation, and certainly may guide later ordinances.
This is especially important for such new sources as the
income levies. The first steps were hesitant, reluctant and
halting. New York City in 193^ passed an income tax measure
but repealed it after questioning its constitutionality and
productiveness. Four years passed before Philadelphia
embarked on her now historic income tax experiment. Dyring
a number of years, however, she was alone and not merely
conspicuous. When the rush of new taxation began the
"Philadelphia story" of an income tax was widely known,
easily followed, and its lessons readily learned.
269
7- National professional associations often give
sponsorship to, and sometimes initiate, social change. The
nation’s mayors meeting in annual sessions, sometimes in
Washington with federal blessings, have given communication
and encouragement to the new tax policies. Few cases are
more striking perhaps than that of the mayor of Los Angeles,
himself president for a term of the national organization of
mayors. His proposals to council follow a pattern easily
traced in the tax proposals advocated in national conferences.
One may mention the beginnings of the Los Angeles city sales
tax, the recommendation that its rate be increased, and the
proposal of increases in particular excises in support of this
view.
8. Finally, price cost pressures on city administra
tions, i.e., "inflation", have been the acknowledged circum
stances making the "cause" of meeting increased city costs
acceptable and indeed unrejectable.
'Having briefly considered some of the causes of the
new tax movement among cities a second question may now be
raised.
Into what qualitative classes do the new tax
enactments fall? This should include state enabling acts,
as one group, state sharing statutes as a second, and city
tax ordinances as a third.
270
For these purposes the reporting of the Municipal
Finance Officers Association is invaluable in the compiling
of facts, though less useful in classifying and interpreting
some of them. Much the same comment must be made on the
findings of the Tax Institute.- They have been extremely
valuable for “facts1 ', more questionable for interpretation.
More useful in interpretation have been:* such special
city reports as the Report of the Commission on the Economic
Study, of Milwaukee.
It well suits the type of encyclopedic and informative
publication represented by Tax Policy to use alphabetical
classes in dealing with tax types. These must be reclassi
fied and analyzed to be useful to economic appraisal.
Says the research staff report inthe Milwaukee study,
There is no'mystery about tax revenues.
Stripped of political and psychological con
siderations, there are two primary sources of
all taxation--property and income. No matter
how much covering up is done, now what labels
are conceived, all taxes come back to these
sources. In the last analysis it is better
to approach these sources directly than through
subterfuges that only deceive the taxpayer.
Exactly these are the beginnings of proper and useful
economic classification: The concept of property tax and the
Report of the Commission on the Economic Study of
Milwaukee, Harold M. Groves, Director of Research Staff,
Bruno V. Bitker, Chairman of the Commission, Milwaukee:
City of Milwaukee, 19^8, (237 pp.), p. 9-
271
concept of income tax. (1) Taxing property is taxing
economic position at a given time registered in money terms;
(2) to tax income is to tax the net change of economic
position for a period of time and measured in money terms.
(3) All other taxes are applied to market or economic activity:
The traffic in goods, the trading in economic factors, the
claim of economic privilege and its exercise. Sales taxes
typify this third group.
From 19^5 to 1948 state enabling legislation tends to
fall into class three (above). Three more states passed acts
enabling cities to impose income taxes, but the terms of
authorization were sometimes restrictive.7
Appendix 13 shows the details of state enabling
legislation for city tax purposes as reported by Tax
Institute in a series of yearly summaries.
During fiscal years 1946, 1947* and 1948 twelve states
made special new statutory provisions for sharing revenues
with cities. Several more made moves to alter prevailing
schemes. Most shares to be advanced to cities rested on
class three type taxes (above described). The sales tax
7 Minnesota gave limited authorization (to Minneapolis)
provided such tax was approved by the voters. Although the
voters defeated the tax, June 9* 1947* such a tax can be re
submitted. Pennsylvania authorized cities to levy any taxes
which the state has power to, but does not now levy (Act 48l)
Missouri authorized an earnings tax.
272
o
or some special commodity sale were dominant forms.
Appendix 14 shows the details of state statutes making these
new sharing provisions.
Beyond state enabling acts and state sharing statutes
{
were the floods of city ordinances providing for new tax
revenues. Appendices 15 through 27 furnish the details of
most of these new levies.9 Evident is their conspicuous
variety. Apparent too is the fact that largely they fall
into class three above * as a levy on market activity.
Most significant perhaps were two more groups of
taxes: Those on income and those on sales. In Table LXIV
the details of this first set are exhibited. Dwarfing all
other city income tax developments are those of Pennsylvania
and of Ohio. In Table LXV the features of the new city
sales tax ordinances are shown. Especially noticeable are
the California developments. Here more than a hundred
cities had adopted some form of sales tax by 1948, either
o
Following are the specific forms used and number
of states adding them: Sales tax: 2; motor vehicle
registration: 2; gasoline tax: 2', cigarette tax: 2; liquor
tax: 2; liquor store sales: 2; state liquor store profits:
1; and general revenues: 1.
9 Appendices 15 through 27 inclusive deal successively
with taxes on admissions, amusements, airlines, airports,
alcoholic beverages, gasoline, hotels, classified licenses,
motor vehicles, heads (per capita), property, public utility
services, services of city, severances, and tobacco.
273
TABLE LXIV
INCOME TAXES
' 1945 - 1946
1. San Diego, California: Annual business license
fee of $12 for the first $15,000 of income and $1
for each additional $1,000.
2. St. Louis, Missouri: One fourth of 1 per cent on
earnings of individuals to be withheld by employers,
and on net profits of both resident and non-resident
corporations and other associations. (Legality
contested in Circuit Court--see below.)
3. Toledo, Ohio: Annual tax of 1 per cent on all
earnings of residents and such earnings of non
residents as arise from work done in Toledo, to be
withheld by employers, and on the net profits of
business conducted by residents, and by corporations
located in Toledo to the extent that they are earned
as result of activities performed in Toledo (tax
approved by referendum, effective March 1, 1946 to
December 31> 1950)-
1946 - 1947
1. Columbus, Ohio: Levied: a one half of 1 per cent
tax on salaries, wages, and personal compensation of
residents- and of non-residents to the extent arising
from work done in Columbus, on net profits of unin
corporated businesses carried on by residents, and
by non-residents to the extent attributable to
activities carried on in Columbus, and on net profits
of corporations having a place of business in the
city. Tax to be withheld by employers, and effective
January 1, 1948 to December 31* 1952. If a referendum
petition which has been filed proves to be in proper
form, an election will be held in February, but the
tax will be withheld until such election.
Source: Tax Institute, Tax Policy, Vol. XIII, No. 11;
Vol. XIV, No. 12; Vol. XV, No. 10.
274
TABLE LXIV (Continued)
INCOME TAXES
1946 - 19^7
2. Coraopolis, Pennsylvania: (School district)
adopted income tax of 1 per cent on -wages, commissions,
and fees of residents, and on net profits of business
and industry, dependent on passage of a special local
tax law by the school board, effective January 1, 1948.
3. Missouri Supreme Court upheld the Circuit Court
of St. Louis^in Carter Carburetor Corp. vs. City of
St. Louis, in declaring the St, Louis income tax
illegal, and a rehearing was denied.
4. A 1 per cent income tax was defeated by Minneapolis
voters at a general election on June 9, 1947.
1. In Pennsylvania at least fifty communities imposed
income taxes in accordance with Act 481 of 19^7* They
were as follows (with rates):
1947 _ 1948
(3) Canonsburg Borough
(4; Canonsburg Borough
1) Aliquippa Borough
2; Avoca Borough
4/10 of 1 per cent
1 per cent
1/2 of 1 per cent
(5)
School District
(5) Cecil Township School'
1/2 of 1 per cent
District
(6) Clarke Summit Borough
(7) Clarksville Borough
(8) Clarksville Borough
5/10 of 1 per cent
1 per cent'
3. 1/2' mills
School District
(9) Dickson City
(10) East Lackawannock
3 1/2 mills
1 per cent
11) Ebensburg Borough
12) Farrell School District
13) Hickory Township School
Township School District 7/10 of 1 per cent
1 per cent
7/10 of 1 per cent
District
(14) Hopeville Township
7/10 of 1 per cent
4/10 of 1 per cent
275
1947
TABLE LXIV (Continued)
INCOME TAXES
1948
(15)
(i?i
18'
20
21 '
(22'
(23!
(24)
(28)
29;
30,
31,
32,
(33,
(34.
(35)
(36)
(37)
(3s;
(39,
(40
(^l]
(42
School District 4/10 of 1 per cent
Jeanette 1/2 of 1 per cent
Jefferson Township
School District 7/10 of 1 per cent
Johnsonburg Borough
1/3
of 1 per cent
Johnstown
1/2
1 per cent
Monessen of 1 per cent
Monessen School District 1/2 of 1 per cent
Mount Union Borough 1/2 of 1 per cent
Mount Union Borough
1/2 School District of 1 per cent
Nanty-Glo Borough
!/2
School District of 1 per cent
Penn Borough
1/2
of 1 per cent
Portage Township i/2 of 1 per cent
Portage Township School
1/2 District of 1 per cent
Pymatuning Township
7/10 School District of 1 per cent
Scranton
1/2
1 per cent
Scranton School District of 1 per cent
Sharon 7/10 of 1 per cent
Sharon School District 3/10 of 1 per cent
Sharpsville Borough 3 1/2 mills
Sharpsvl116‘Borough
School District 3 1/2 mills
Shenango Township School
District 7/10 of 1 per cent
South Pork Borough
1/2 School District of 1 per cent
South Pymatuning Township
7/10 School District of 1 per cent
State College 3 mills
Taylor Borough 1 per cent
Throop Borough
1/2
1 per cent
Trafford Borough of 1 per cent
West Middlesex Borough
School District 7/10 of 1 per cent
276
TABLE LXIV (Continued)
INCOME TAXES
1947 - 1948
(43) Wheatland Borough School
District 7/10 of 1 per cent
C44) Borough of Blakely
(45; Borough of Duryea
(46) Olyphant School District
(47; Taylor School District
(48) Williamsport School
District
(49) W i n t o n B o r o u g h
(50) W i n t o n S c h o o l D i s t r i c t
2. Newcastel, Pennsylvania, adopted an income tax of
7 1/2 mills but dropped it after reducing the budget
and raising the real estate tax.
3. Columbus, Ohio, voters in referendum, June 8, 1948,
approved 1/2 of 1 per cent income tax which has been
in effect since January 1, 1948.
4. Portsmouth, Maine, imposed a 1 per cent withholding
tax effective October 1, 1948 to December 31j 1951
(Ord. 60)--later repealed the 1 per cent tax and
levied a similar tax of 1/2 of 1 per cent effective
January 1, 1949 to January 1, 1954 (Ord. 8l). This
tax also was later abandoned.
5. Springfield, Illinois, levied tax of 1 per cent
on salaries, wages, commissions and other compensation
earned by residents and by non-residents for work
done or services performed in the city; on the net
profits of businesses and professions carried on by
residents and by non-residents to the extent attribut
able to activities carried on in"the city, and on net
profits of corporations having a place of business in
the city to the extent attributable to activities
carried on in the city. Tax is effective July 1, 1948
to June 30, 1953; employers are required to withhold
tax from employees. Incomes below $20 a week are
exempt.
* D a t a for (44) to (50) I n c l u s i v e not a v a i l a b l e .
277
TABLE LXIV (Continued)
INCOME TAXES
19^7 - 1948
6. Youngstown, Ohio* levied 3/10 of 1 per cent on
salaries wages, commissions and other compensation
earned by residents and by non-residents to the
extent derived from work done or services performed
In the city; on net profits of businesses and pro
fessions carried on by residents and by non-residents
to the extent attributable to activities carried on
In the city; and on the net profits of corporations
having a place of business in the city, to the extent
attributable to activities carried on In the city.
The tax Is effective from July 1, 1948 to December
3 1, 1949 and employers are required to withhold the
tax from employees.
7. Louisville, Kentucky, imposes a 1 per cent tax on
salaries, wages and commissions and other compensation
earned by persons in. the city for work done or services
performed in the city; and on the net profits of all
businesses, professions or other activities conducted
in the city; and required employers in the city to
withhold the tax from employees. Tax effective, July
1, 1948 to June 30, 1950* Constitutionality of tax
was sustained by Kentucky Court of Appeals in Louis
ville v. Sebree et al., August 6, 1948.
'8 . Minneapolis, Minnesota, proposed to amend city
charter to provide for imposing a graduated income
tax on estates, trusts, and resident and non-resident
individuals, and a flat rate income tax on domestic
and foreign corporations, but the required vote was
not held within the specified time and the amendment
was killed.
9- Saginaw, Michigan: City Council approved an
income profits tax, subject to referendum.
10. St. Louis, Missouri, levied a tax of 1/2 of 1
per cent on salaries, wages and other compensation
earned by resident individuals and by non-resident
individuals for work done or services performed
TABLE LXIV (Continued)
INCOME TAXES
19^7 - 1948
within the city; on net profits earned by associations,
businesses and other activities conducted by residents
and by non-residents to the extent carried on in the
city; and on net profits earned by all corporations
as a result of work done or services rendered and
business or other activities conducted in the city.
Tax is effective September 1, 19^8. Employers in city
are required to withhold the tax from employees, and
may retain 3 P©r cent as compensation for collecting
and remitting the tax.
279
1945
TABLE LXV
SALES, GROSS RECEIPTS AND USE TAXES
1 9* 1 -6
1. Following California cities have imposed a tax of
1 / 2 of 1 per cent on retail sales of personal
property with exemptions following those allowed by
the state sales tax. (All city sales taxes in Cali-
fornia are collected with the state tax and returned
to the cities on the basis of the amount of sales:
Bakersfield Ord. 716 NS
Berkeley Ord. 2 7 8 9 NS
El Cerrito Ord.
Glendale Ord. 2107
Hawthorne Ord. 430
Hermosa Beach Ord. NS 35
Huntington Park Ord. 1099
Los Angeles Ord. 3 0 3 6 0
Martinez Ord. 123 C.S.
Oakland Ord. 2264
Ontario Ord. 7 6 3
Orange Ord. 434
Pittsburgh Ord. 84 C.S.
Redondo Beach Ord. 1090
San Bernardino Ord. 1 7 6 3
San Diego Ord. 3201
San Fernando Ord. 437
Santa Ana. Ord. Il8l
Santa Monica Ord. 1327
Upland Ord. 360
2. Los Angeles (city) added exemptions of sales to
the state and its subdivisions from the retail sales
tax, and amplified exemptions allowed by the state law
(Ord. 9 0 3 6 0 and 90451); and exempted from taxation
sales of property shipped to purchasers within city
from outside, and transported outside the city to be
used or consumed before being used in the city, and
property sold to be used on common carriers and water
borne vessels, principally outside the city (Ord. 90711)
Source: Tax Institute, op. cit.
280
TABLE LXV (Continued)
SALES, GROSS RECEIPTS AND USE TAXES
1945 _ 1946
3. Retail sales taxes of 1 per cent were imposed by
four other Californian cities: Oxnard Ord. 295
Needles Ord. 210
Santa Paula Ord. 209
Santa Rosa Ord. 6 2 7.
Referendum defeated San Buenaventura’s 1 per cent tax.
4. Santa Rosa exempted from tax the gross receipts
• from the sale of goods for principal use or consumption
outside the city* and delivered there by the retailer.
(Ord. 6 3 1).
5. Four of the cities imposing retail sales taxes
also imposed use taxes of 1 / 2 of 1 per cent:
Berkeley Ord. 2 7 8 9 NS
Los Angeles Ord. 2281
Oakland Ord. 2281
San Diego Ord. 3201
6. (Atlantic City’s 3 per cent ratail sales tax was
declared unconstitutional by the N.J. Supreme Court.)
7 . Los Angeles (city) taxed the gross receipts from
the manufacture and sale of goods., wares, and
merchandise at the follovtfing rates:
Wholesalers, $8 for first $20,000
40^ per $1 ,0 0 0 thereafter
Retailers, $7*50 for first $15^000
50< f > per $1 ,0 0 0 thereafter
(Ord. 90357 and 90358).
8. Los Angeles (city) imposed a license fee on
contractors fixed at $ 1 2 on the first $1 ,0 0 0 of gross
receipts, and 40^ per $1 ,0 0 0 thereafter; and imposed
a manufacturer’s tax of $1 for each $7 ,0 0 0 of gross
receipts, with a minimum of $1 2, and imposed an
occupation or profession tax of $1 for each $1 ,0 0 0
of gross receipts on individuals.
281
1945
1946
TABLE LXV (Continued)
SALES, GROSS RECEIPTS AND USE TAXES
- 1946
9. New York City exempted from tax the sale of auto
mobiles to World War II veterans under provisions of
Public Act 663, 79th Congress, 1946 (L.L. 27);
increased retail sales tax (L.L. 17) and compensating
use tax (L.L. 16) from 1 per cent to 2 per cent and
extended them to June 30j 1949* and increased gross
receipts tax on businesses other than financial from
1/20 to 1/10 of 1 per cent, and on financial busi
nesses from 1/10 to 1/5 of 1 per cent (L.L. 14).
10. Salt Lake City: Gross receipts tax of 1/5 of 1
per cent on persons engaged In manufacturing, and
selling, or selling at retail, tangible personal
property, effective from January 1, 1947 to January
1, 1948.
11. Vancouver, Washington, levied a local business
tax of 1/10 of 1 per cent of annual gross income
above $10,000 plus a $10 annual license fee.
- 1947
1. California cities: Forty-seven more adopted
sales taxes at rate of 1/2 of 1 per cent.
A l b a n y
A n t i o c h
A v a l o n
A z u s a
B e l l
C h i n o
C h u l a V i s t a
C l a r e m o n t
C o n c o r d
C o r c o r a n
C o r o n a d o
C o v i n a
13) C u l v e r C i t y
14) D e l a n o
15; D i n u b a
E l C a j o n
E l P a s o d e R o b l e s
E x e t e r
G l e n d o r a
H a n f o r d
I n g l e w o o d
L a H a b r a
L a M e s a
L a g u n a
L i n d s a y
L y n w o o d
M a n h a t t a n B e a c h
M a y w o o d
M i l l V a l l e y
N a t i o n a l C i t y
282
1946
TABLE LXV (Continued)
SALES, GROSS RECEIPTS AND USE TAXES
1947
(3 1) Pomona
(32) Reedley
(33) Rialto
34) Richmond
35) San Francisco
(36) San Jose
(37J San Leandro
(3 8) San Louis Obispo
(39) San Rafael
(40) Sanger
(41) Selma
(42) Torrance
(43) Tulare
(44) Visalia
(45; Walnut Creek
(46) Wasco
(4 7) Woodlake
rate: 1 per cent:
(!) Beaumont
(2) Brawley
(3)
Calexico
(4) CoSona
2. Nine Californian cities imposed dales taxes at
(5) El Centro
’6) Palm Springs
' 7 ) Petaliima
8) Riverside
( 9) Santa Barbara
3. These Californian cities imposed use taxes at same
rate as sales taxes:
Richmond
San Francisco
San Leandro
Petaluma
4. In these cities voters approved the sales tax:
Berkeley
Huntington Park
Lynwood
Santa Barbara
Riverside tax must be approved by referendum or it
will be repealed.
5. Alexandria, Virginia: Imposed a business license
tax of l8${ for each $100 of gross sales up to $100,000
and 1 5^ per $100 above $100,000.
283
TABLE LXV (Continued)
S A L E S , G R O S S R E C E I P T S , A N D U S E T A X E S
1946 - 1 9 4 7
6. Birmingham, Alabama, imposed a gross receipts
business tax.
7. Cheyenne, Wyoming, imposed a tax of 1 per cent of
the first $1 5 ,0 0 0 gross revenue, and 1 1 / 2 per cent
above $1 5,0 0 0.
8 . Columbus, Georgia, levied a business license tax
with rates ranging from 1 /2 0 of 1 per cent to 1 /2 of
1 per cent.
9 . Denver, Colorado, imposed a municipal sales tax
which was defeated by the voters, and later imposed
a 1 per cent tax on retail sales and upon meals and
cover charges, effective January 1, 1948.
10. Fredericksburg, Virginia, imposed a retail
merchants' license tax of a minimum of $ 2 0 plus a
graduated scale.
11. Jasper, Alabama, taxed gross proceeds from retail
sales within city at 1 per cent, without city but
within police jurisdiction of city at 1 /2 of 1 per
cent, sales of automotive vehicles made within city
at 1/4 of 1 per cent, and without city but within
police jurisdiction of city at 1 / 8 of 1 per cent.
12. Montebello, California, increased business license
fees.
13- New York City exempted from sales tax hearing aids
and artificial limbs sold on a physician’s prescription,
although their component parts remain subject to tax.
14. Phenix City, Alabama, levied 1 per cent gross
receipts tax on retail and wholesale businesses.
284
TABLE LXV (Continued)
SALES, GROSS RECEIPTS AND USE TAXES
1946 - 1947
1 5. Philadelphia School District imposed a new mercan
tile tax at rate of 1 mill per dollar on retail sales
and 1 /2 mill on wholesale sales.
16. Pittsburgh imposed a mercantile license tax on
wholesalers of 1 mill and on retailers and persons
conducting restaurants and places of amusement of
2 mills per $1 of gross annual business. In addition,
the Pittsburgh School District imposed a similar
mercantile license tax of 1 / 2 mill on wholesalers and
1 mill on retailers.
1 7. Richmond, Virginia, increased gross receipts tax
on retailers from 1 7^ to kOd per $1 0 0, and on whole
salers from l6$ £ to 2 5$ per $1 0 0, and set the profes
sional and service rate at 1 per cent.
18. Roanoke, Virginia, increased license taxes from
$40 plus 2 2^ per $ 1 0 0 for sales over $4,000 for re
tailers, to $ 5 0 plus 5 0^ per $ 1 0 0 on all sales; from
2 0^ per $ 1 0 0 on first' $1 0 0 ,0 0 0 of sales of wholesaler's
to 2 5^ per $ 1 0 0 on all sales; to 1 per cent for taxes
on dry cleaners, and 3/4 of 1 per cent on hotels, and
levied 1 per cent tax on real estate transfers, to be
paid by purchaser, the revenue to be paid Into the. . ,
sinking fund.
19. Salt Lake City repealed the 1 /5 of 1 per cent
gross receipts tax and imposed a license fee on persons
engaged in manufacturing and selling tangible property
at wholesale or retail, based on a combination of the
average number of employees in and the total gross
sales from each place of business in 1946, ranging
from $2 .5 0 for 10 or less employees to $ 2 5 0 for over
1 ,0 0 0 employees, and from $5 for gross'receipts of
$1 0 ,0 0 0 or less to $ 5 0 0 for receipts over $2 0,0 0 0,0 0 0.
285
TABLE LXV (Continued)
SALES, GROSS RECEIPTS AND USE TAXES
1946 - 1947
20. Syracuse imposed a 2 per cent tax on gross receipts
from retail sales of personal property, effective March
1, 1948.
21. Erie County, New York, in which Buffalo is located,
levied 1 per cent tax on gross receipts from retail
sales of personal property, or on the sales price of .
personal property used, effective July 1, 1947* Under
terms of the state enabling legislation, tax must be
passed on to the consumer, and the revenue must be
returned to school districts on the basis of the
average daily attendance for the preceding school year.
22. Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, levied a 1 per cent
tax on gross receipts from retail sales of personal
property and 1/4 of 1 per cent on gross receipts from
automobile sales.
1947 - 1948
1. In Pennsylvania mercantile license taxes adopted by
cities of Blairville and Titusville. Both laws apply
to retail and wholesale merchants. Blairville ordi
nance also applies to persons conducting restaurants
and places of amusement.
2. These California cities adopted sales taxes at
1/2 of 1 per cent rate: Chico, Fowler, Kingsbury,
and Santa Cruz.
3. Following Californian
(and rates):
(1) Alhambra*
(2) Banning
(3) Beverly Hills
(4) Bishop
cities adopted sales taxes
1 /2 of 1 per cent
1 / 2 of 1 per cent
1 /2 of 1 per cent
1 /2 of 1 per cent
* Denotes use tax at same rate as sales tax.
286
1947
TABLE LXV (Continued)
SALES, GROSS RECEIPTS AND USE TAXES
- 1948
24'
Burbank 1/2 of 1 per cent
Calipatria 1 per cent
Ceres
4/2
of 1 per cent
Escondido 1/2 of 1 per cent
Eureka 1/2 of 1 per cent
Fresno 1/2 of 1 per cent
Hayward 1/2 of 1 per cent
King x/2
of 1 per cent
Lemoore 1/2 of 1 per cent
Lodi 1 per cent
Lompic
1/2
1 per cent
Merced of 1 per cent
Modesto 1/2 of 1 per cent
Napa 1 per cent
Newport Beach*
i/2
1 per cent
Oceanside of 1 per cent
Orange
i/2
of 1 per cent
Orange Cove 1/2 of 1 per cent
Pasadena* 1/2 of 1 per cent
Port Hueneme 1/2 of 1 per cent
Porterville 1/2 of 1 per cent
San Burenaventura 1/2 of 1 per cent
San Pablo*
1/2
of 1 per cent
Santa Maria 1/2 of 1 per cent
Shafter 1/2 of 1 per cent
Sonora 1/2 of 1 per cent
Stockton* 1/2 of 1 per cent
Vallejo 1/2 of 1 per cent
4. Nineteen Pennsylvanian communities (see above also)
adopted sales or gross receipts taxes:
(1) Altoona: Mercantile license tax of 1/2 mill
per dollar on gross business of wholesalers, 2 mills
per dollar on gross business of retailers and oper
ators of places of amusement, and on gross receipts
for professional services.
(2) Ambridge: Tax of 2 mills per dollar of gross
business on wholesalers; 3 mills per dollar on re
tailers and persons conducting restaurants and places
of amusement.
* Denotes use tax at same rate as sales tax.
287
TABLE LXV (Continued)
SALES, GROSS RECEIPTS AND USE TAXES
1947 - 1948
(3) Blairsville Borough: Tax of 5 mills on retailers
and 2 1 / 2 mills on wholesalers.
(4) Blairsville Borough School District: Taxes re
tailers and wholesalers: Same rates.
(5) Braddock Borough: Tax of 2 mills on gross
receipts of retailers and 1 mill on wholesalers.
(6) Butler: Annual license tax based on gross
volume of business ranging from $5 for less than
$1 0 ,0 0 0 to $ 1 0 0 for $2 0 0 ,0 0 0 and over for retailers,
and $5 for less than $1 5 ,0 0 0 to $ 1 0 0 for $400,000
and over for wholesalers.
(7) Clairton: Mercantile license tax of 1 mill per
dollar for wholesalers; 1 1 / 2 mills per dollar for
retailers and operators of places of amusement
based on gross volume of business' in 1947.
( 8) Eden Park Borough and Glassport Borough taxed
sales of scrap metal at 1 0^ a ton.
(9) Geistown Borough: 1 per cent gross receipts tax.
(10) Harrisburg: A mercantile license tax of 3/5
dollar on wholesalers and 1 mill per dollar on re
tailers with minimum of $ 1 0 and a maximum of $ 5 0 0
for each place of business.
(11) McKeesport, Pennsylvania: Mercantile license
tax of 1 1/4 mills per dollar for wholesalers and
2 1 / 2 mills per dollar for retailers and for
operators of places of amusement based on gross
volume of business between March 15 and December 31*
1947.
288
TABLE LXV (Continued)
SALES, GROSS RECEIPTS AND USE TAXES
19^7 - 19^8
(12) Masontown Borough: Mercantile license tax of
1 mill per dollar on wholesalers and 3 mills per
dollar on retailers.
(13) Monogahela, Pennsylvania: Mercantile license
tax of 1/2 mill per dollar on wholesalers, with
$3 0 * 0 0 minimum and 1 mill per dollar on retailers
and $20 minimum.
(14) Mount Pleasant School District: 1/2 mill per
dollar tax on gross receipts of wholesalers, 1 mill
per dollar on retailers and persons conducting
restaurants and places of amusement.
(1 5) Uniontown, Pennsylvania: Mercantile license
tax of 1 mill per dollar on wholesalers, 2 mills
per dollar on retailers and operators of places of
amusement.
(16) Williamsport: 1/2 mill per dollar tax on
gross receipts of wholesalers and 1 mill per dollar
on retailers.
(1 7) Franklin and Burgettstown Borough also levied
gross receipts taxes.
5. New York City raised the gross receipts tax on
financial businesses from 1 /5 to 2/5 of 1 per cent
and on other businesses from 1/10 to 1 / 5 of 1 per cent,
and set no expiration date (L.L. 44).
6. In New York State, Syracuse decreased its sales and
use tax rate to 1 per cent, effective March 1, 1949*
7 . Monroe County,'New York, containing Rochester,
levied a gross receipts tax of 3/5 of 1 per cent on
financial businesses and 3/10 of 1 per cent on other
businesses, effective May 1, 1948 to April 3 0, 1949*
Tax is based on gross receipts for calendar year, 1947.
289
TABLE LXV (Continued)
SALES, GROSS RECEIPTS AND USE TAXES
1947 - 1948
8 . Two Washington cities imposed gross receipts taxes:
(1) Aberdeen: A business privilege tax at rates:
Extractors, manufacturers, wholesalers, ratailers
and others 1/10 of 1 per cent of value, gross pro
ceeds or gross Income; and the business of buying
wheat, otas, corn and barley, 1/100 of 1 per cent
of gross proceeds (Ord. 4051).
(2) Hoquiam, Washington: Occupation tax on ex
tractors, based on value of products extracted;
on manufacturers based on value of products manu
factured; on wholesalers 'and retailers based on
gross proceeds of sales; on printers and publishers
of newspapers, periodicals, and magazines; builders,
repairers or Improvers of public owned streets,
based on gross Income; and on other business,
based on gross income; ranging from $15 on $2 0 ,0 0 0
or less to $5,000 on over $12,500,000 (Ord. 1753 as
amended by Ord. 1 7 5 6).
9 . Alabama:
(1) Eufaula voters approved a 1 ( j , sales tax.
(2) Florence: Tax of 1/2 of 1 per cent on retail
sales of personal property; and 1/8 of 1 per cent
on gross proceeds from business of selling auto
motive vehicles, effective January 1, 1948.
(3) Tuscaloosa County was upheld in imposition of
a sales tax in Newton City of Tuscaloosa et al.,
Alabama Supreme Court, July 31j 1948".
10. Atlantic City’s 5 per cent tax on cigarettes,
amusements, hotel and beach accomodations, drinks and
night club checks, was declared constitutional by the
N.J. Supreme Court, July 15* 1948.
290
1947
TABLE LXV (Continued)
SALES, GROSS RECEIPTS AND USE TAXES
1948
11. O c e a n C i t y , N e w J e r s e y , p r o p o s e d a d o p t i o n o f a
s i m i l a r s e l e c t i v e s a l e s t a x .
12. Baltimore, Maryland, taxed gross receipts of bus
companies.
13. Denver's 1 per cent sales tax was declared con
stitutional in Hedgcock et al. v_. City and County of
Denver et al., District Court, City and County of
Denver, June 5, 1948. Denver exempted food, beverages,
and medicines sold on prescription, and all sales under
44^ from the sales tax and provided for termination of
the tax on December 31* 1948.
14. East St. Louis, Illinois: 1/2^ tax on local sales,
but the measure was rejected in a referendum in April.
1 5. Gainsville, Georgia: Gross receipts occupation tax,
16. New Oreleans, Louisiana, reduced its sales and use
tax from 2 per cent to 1 per cent effective July 28,
1948, as required by action of the state legislature,
and broadened the tax base to include everything taxed
by the state, to compensate for the lower rate.
1 7. Ogden, Utah:. Tax of 20< £ . per $1,000 of gross
receipts on each place of business, with a minimum of
$5 and maximum of $7 0 0.
18. Paducah, Kentucky: The following license taxes
based on gross recepts,
from J1 5O on $2 5 ,0 0 0 to $5 0 0 ,0 0 to
$ 3 7 5 on $ 1,2 5 0 ,0 0 0 and over on wholesalers
selling food;
from $ 5 0 on $2 5 ,0 0 0 to $3 0 0 ,0 0 0 to
$ 6 2 5 on $1,2 5 0 ,0 0 0 and over on other whole
salers; and
291
TABLE LXV (Continued)
SALES, GROSS RECEIPTS AND USE TAXES
1947 - 1948
from $ 15 on $5.>000 to
$2,500 on $1,250,000 and over on retailers, and
provided for crdditing the $ 50 on each vehicle used to
unload wholesalers merchandise against the gross re
ceipts tax.
19. Richmond, Virginia: New gross receipts license
tax rates of 34^ per $100 of receipts for retailers;
2 5^ per $100 of purchases for wholesalers; $1 per
$100 of receipts for professional men; 3^ P©r $100
of receipts for hotels, laundries, and dry cleaners;
$1 per $100 of fees for fix-fee jobs, and 10^ per $100
of other gross receipts for contractors.
20. Trenton, New Jersey: License tax based on total
annual gross receipts ranging from $5 for gross
receipts under $10,000 to $1,000 for gross receipts
of $1,000,000'plus $1,000 for every additional
$1,000,000.
292
•with 1 per cent or 1/2 of 1 per cent rates.
Thus it appears that recent city policy makers have
established a new trend. In effect they seem to have
resolved that future reliance on needed revenue increments
will henceforth be placed on new local tax sources rather
than on substantial property tax increases or on ever- in
creasing state aids. Whether this is desirable policy is
still in issue. Affirming that it is, the proponents of a
broader local revenue base assert that: (1) It is a means
of overcoming paternalistic tendencies, (2) local responsi
bility revived is vital to democratic self government,
(3) local units have not fully utilized present revenue
sources, (4) most communities seem inclined to join in a
trend toward such broadening of local base, (5) Pennsylvania
experience shows the new law capable of arousing a desirable
added interest in the local governments’ affairs, and (6)
abuses thus far experienced are not decisive and can be
10
overcome.
Denying the wisdom of broadening municipal revenue
sources other fiscal specialists Insist that: (l) The
state can and should set minimum standards of service to
be state supported, (2) broadening the local revenue base
Welles A. Gray, "Preservation of Local Self-Govern-
‘ ment,” In Tax Institute's "More State Aid or More Local Taxes,”
Forum Pamphlet Four, December, 1948, pp. 1-5*
293
opposes the wider application of this principle, (3) more
revenue will be generated on the basis of ability than of
need (as the above principle requires), (4) tax collection
machinery will become more duplicated and inefficient, and
(5) the result probably will be more general fiscal con-
~ . 11
fusion.
In the analysis thus far for this chapter we have
tried to show the choices and trends for municipal expendi
tures and for municipal revenues.
The alternatives for municipal debt. Table LXIII
also exhibited the data summarizing recent trends in
American municipal debt activity. It is notable that
debt in all classes has been declining in each of the
years surveyed. Gross municipal debt in 1942 was $8 ,1 5 5
million. Its decline to $7,154 million in 1946 was 12.2
per cent, achieved steadily as a regular cumulative effect.
General debt which substantially surpassed enterprise debt
in 1942 was only slightly higher in 1946. General debt
had declined 1 9 .6 per cent, contrasted with 2 .7 per cent
decline for enterprise debt.
Wet long term municipal debt was $6,823 million in
Laurence B. Johnson and Robert D. Bole, "No
Panacea Here," in Tax Institute’s "More State Aid or More
Local Taxes," op. nit., pp. 6-11.
294
1942. By 1946 It had declined 14.6 per cent to reach a
total of $5*831 million.
Whether debt aggregates are constant, falling or
Increasing Is an essential datum In the appraisal of fiscal
resources for any level of government. In the war and
immediate post war years American municipal debt has tended
to decline by regular and substantial repayments.
In the post World War II business recession noi^
being experienced certain municipalities ma.y yet experience
a need to reverse the debt choice and change this trend in
support of long postponed construction and of public wel
fare, and public works reemployment activity. The impact
of declining business may be expected to have differential
effects on municipalities, and to be especially burdensome
to those with high proportions of cycle sensitive manufactur
ing and building. Other cities are likely to be affected
less soon, less deeply and for shorter net periods.
CHAPTER VIII
THE APPLICATION OF MUNICIPAL
FINANCE POLICIES FOR GLENDALE
Expenditure policy conclusions. The general purpose
of this Investigation has been to compare and contrast the
municipal finance behavior of one city with the municipal
finance activity of American -cities generally. Where does
the City of Glendale fit in the larger pattern of municipal
expenditure policy?
In general, (a) population movements, (b) dollar
inflation are variables which must be analyzed in any
adequate and acceptable explanation. In post war America
rising city expenditures have become a fundamental response
to changes in these factors.
City costs rise from inflationary causes: (1) Even
when current city benefits are held constant, (2) rise more
from the same causes when current services are added, and
(3) when capital goods are replaced, (4) or added, and (5)
when any or all of these events happen to a larger population.
In general the post war issues of expenditure grow
out of an effort to make municipal services adequate in
scope and rationally adapted to proximate economic circum
stances. In general the issues involve "more expenditure"
296
against a background of revenue preferences. The conditions
limiting the application of "more" in the expenditure formula
are as follows: "More" (1) without increasing the general
property tax burden significantly in most communities, (2)
whether assistance from states increases or not, (3) without
excessive variety in new taxes, (4) appropriately to the
particular community’s resources, (5) mostly according to
ability to pay principles, (6) without too great a disturbance
for general business activity (without accentuating booms and
depressions}, (7) without too great an administrative cost,
(8) without dangerous reliance on income of excessive fluctu
ation in yields (planning requires the possibility of pre
diction within margins), and (9) even though greater
efficiency in government organization and behavior (elimi
nation of duplication, development of central purchasing,
etc.) achieves better use of tax dollars. These statements
of tendency may be applied to the City of Glendale as follows:
1. The post war standards of municipal services de
manded by Glendale's citizenry are relatively high and there
is little evidence to suggest the desirability or likelihood
of any immediate diminution in such standards.
2. The expenditures for maintaining those standards
have been rising recently. They have not been rising as
fast as the costs of living, however.
297
3. Numerous causes have contributed to the rise in
this city’s expenditures: (1) Growth of population re
quiring city services, (2) rise in costs of personnel and
of materials and equipment required to sustain city
services, (3) rising costs of more intensive land use,
(4) pressing requirements of a number of postponed con
struction and building programs.
4. Some of these causes seem likely to persist:
(1) Much greater population increases are anticipated,
(2) some material and equipment costs may decline slightly
in the near future, but rising personnel costs may well
offset such cost decreases. Often the wage and salary
costs ought to be higher.
5. The recent survey of ’ ’ Land Use" by the City
Planning Commission suggests the nature of certain more
urgently needed improvement expenditures. These include:
(1) Streets and highways improvements, (2)’ flood control
and drainage installations, (3) city park additions and
development, (4) more off-street parking facilities by
means including city subsidy and city investment, and
(5) civic center development.
6. A review of post war school district needs
suggests the urgency of improving certain school plant
units and of adding others to meet the prospects of rising
298
future enrollments.-
7. In sum, the provision of municipal services in
Glendale tends to be a process with increasing unit cost
character. This is well within the broad pattern for
growing cities.-*- Some of these expenditures cannot be
postponed much longer without impairing the prevailing
standard of municipal services.
8. The resources of this city in a given year,
however, are not unlimited. Their dimensions preclude
the achievement of all desirable municipal objectives
unless these can be reached in some consecutive order
and over time.
There is not enough labor, material, or
money to do everything that everyone would
like to have his city do.2
9. The need is thus presented for establishing
some criteria by which it may b.e determined which city
needs shall be judged as first, which shall be ranked
-*-"The per capita cost of government is greater in
large cities than in smaller ones and tends to increase
in each population bracket. No scheme of financing urban
government will be successful unless it recognizes this
fact." Carl H. Chatters, "Priorities and Balance in
Municipal Finance," 19*1-8 Proceedings of the Forty-First
Annual Conference on Taxation', by the National Tax
Association. (724 pp.), p. 9.
8 Ibid., p. 8.
299
second, etc. Insisting that rational preference is
desirable does not mean that it .will occur. However,
in default of such rational use of criteria the determ!.-?
nation is likely to become a settlement of priorities by
pressure groups or by neglect.
10. The use of such criteria becomes ultimately the
test of democratic statecraft.
Perhaps the question is simply this] ’Does
the community. . .have statesmanship enough
to raise and spend its money for the greatest
good of the greatest number of people?13
11. It Is beyond the scope of this study and in any
case would be presumptious to specifically nominate certain
projects and attempt to rank them absolutely for such ex
penditure priority purposes. When the standards have been
outlined the further interpretation will not purport to do
more than suggest. Those in positions of long city service,
intimately familiar with the city’s progress, can be heavily
relied upon to give specific recommendations. On the other
hand, these latter recommendations ought not to constitute
in themselves the priority scheme. Elected and responsible
policy makers must still distinguish and select, ma.king
clear the nature of their judgments and the reasons for
their decisions.
3 Loc. cit.
300
12. The Report of the Commission on the Economy Study
of Milwaukee, already referred to, furnishes a model of such
standardsThese or like questions should be framed:
I . What gains can be anticipated if the improvement
is built?
A. Higher standard of living? for some? for all
citizens?
B. Improved economic health for Glendale?
attraction of industry? (what kinds?) more
conventions? more mercantile establishments?
more families? increased property values?
land additions?
C. Richer cultural life? or more healthful? or
more educational? or more recreational?
D. More efficient governmental? industrial?
mercantile? or personal operations?
I I . What consequences might follow if the improve
ment is not built?
A . Loss of lives? or health of citizens? or
greater family instability?
B. Excessive depreciation of valuable equipment?
C. A declining Glendale? migration of families
and businesses? smaller trade area, etc.?
III. How can it be financed?
A. Self liquidating?
B. "Pay as you go?" taxes? special assessments?
C. Permanent improvement fund? other already
appropriated money?
D. Borrowing? short term? long term?
^ 0]c. cit., pp. 212-213.
301
E. Private donations of subscriptions?
F. Aids from other governments?
IV. Is public opinion solidly behind the improve
ment? Does it have only a fair support?
Are there great differences of opinion?
V. Is it possible that the county or another
government T-fill build or can be induced to
build this Improvement or another Improvement
to serve or partially serve the same purpose?
VI. Are the necessary physical elements available?
A. A suitable site? on which reasonable agree
ment can be had?
B. Necessary materials?
C. Contractor? at fair price for today? to be
secured for stipulated sum? cost plus fixed
fee? or cost plus percentage?5
Among a number of tests surveyed these framed for
Milwaukee seem the most definite and acceptable. They are
a means of arriving at some conception of "the greatest
comparative need".
13. The following expenditures are tentatively
suggested:
(l) An incinerator plant is urgently needed. Building
it will add to employment and improve rubbish disposal.
Failure to build it involves community health. Three city
5 Consistent with counter cyclical fiscal policies at
federal and possibly state level, one might ask also, "is
this a less urgent expenditure project which could be de
ferred until a time when the need for public works employment
would be greater?"
302
income sources will be used: (a) Currently ear marked city
funds, (b) public service department surplus, and (c) state
aid (anticipated).
(2) A new jail is needed. Building now will add to
critical construction employment. Failure to build soon will
leave the present facility as a sole resource and below
standard. The cost is estimated at $300,000 and probably
would require bonds.
(3) Central city drainage and flood control is urgently
needed. Building it would make flood control measures
adequate and, later , grade separations on San Fernando Road
possible. Beginning to build now or soon will give employ
ment in construction and add substantially to public safety.
Failure to begin may involve the city in serious flooding
in the next more normal rainy season. Initial cost Is
estimated at $1.8 million. Final cost is indeterminate be
cause construction-costs would vary over five to ten years.
County contribution and state aid can probably be relied
upon. Bonding is probable.
Revenue policy conclusions. Glendale’s selected
expenditure schedules must be related to Its revenue policies
1. Glendale's property tax does not furnish as great
a proportion of total municipal revenue as it did twenty
years ago, but it is far from collapse.
304
and phone hills seem remote from the fiscal circumstances
of this city. The suggestion that three or four annual
installment payments should be adopted, instead of the
present two, has some merit perhaps, but the change does not
seem critical just now.
7. California has, in general, extended municipal
grants in aid to cover four purposes: Education, highways
and streets, public works, and civilian defense. This state
financial assistance for Glendale has proved both needed
and desirable.
It has been insisted that to be effective state aid
should fulfill a threefold purpose:^
(l) To stabilize local revenues, (2) to return
to municipalities tax money which the state can
collect more advantageously than the cities, and
(3) to maintain reasonable minimum standards of
service for local activities in which the state
has an appropriate interest and which cannot be
financed entirely from local funds.
In Glendale the state assistance program has contributed
to greater local revenue stability, to more efficient
handling of gasoline tax levies for the benefit of local
governments, and to the maintenance of city service
standards.
8. The Glendale Sales Tax is relatively recent.
Judgments of its ultimate performance must therefore be
6 Chatters, op. cit., p. 10.
305
restricted by the minimum of available evidence. Its
administration follows the pattern of a state collected,
city returned supplement to the established state sales
tax. This method is generally admitted to conform to
widely acceptable standards of the "one best way". Its
yield thus far has been relatively high, but it is
sensitive to cyclical fluctuations of business, and may
well prove to be less budgetable than the property tax when
both are considered as revenue sources. Business volume
in declining markets may well prove to be notably perishable
as a tax base. Beyond a general instability which might be
anticipated, Glendale's difficulties with it may be
accentuated or complicated: (1) By reason of the city's
dormitory suburb circumstances, making it subject in part
to the greater income fluctuations of Los Angeles city,
(2) by reason of the requirement that Glendale's operations
be maintained on a cash basis, and (3) by reason of the
possibility of increasing state sales tax rates.
9. Glendale has never had and does not currently
contemplate the use of an income tax. In this respect it
differs from an increasing number of local governments in
certain eastern states, but conforms (in this way) with
the stronger trend of western cities.
10. Glendale has long participated in the use of
306
those levies classed as special charges. In this respect
the city follows a recent trend. However, such revenue
source is no novelty for Glendale.
11. Glendale’s revenue problems are of relatively
small dimension and likely to continue so.
Debt policy conclusions.
1. To meet the capital improvement needs which.
Glendale confronts the city should anticipate the possible
adoption of a rational debt extnesion scheme. Such needs
are In part a two decade accumulation, and In part a war
accelerated product of population and land use changes.
2. The last bonds floated before 19^9 were issues
of 1928. No debt extensions were authorized In the
’thirties and none in the ’forties until 1949.
3. The $400,000 bonds voted in April of I949 will
Illustrate the sort of credit use that might and perhaps
should be expected. The alternatives in such cases make
borrowing the only reasonable course.
To have attempted to pay that $400,000 by current
tax increases: (1) Would have introduced an Inequity
between current taxpayers, bearing the entire monetary
burden, and future taxpayers enjoying improvement services
without paying for them.
4. Some of the capital outlays now in prospect may
307
well prove to be of the same class, presenting the same
alternatives plus a third perhaps. In April, 19^9 the
$400,000 for Hyperion had to be paid somehow. Since
Glendale already had a commitment, declining to pay was
not an alternative. For other now prospective capital
outlays, however, a refusal to borrow may mean that
residents actually quite able to sustain credit obligations
would have to forego the satisfaction of legitimate and
genuine needs which the community's resources are ample to
command.
5. Such a recommendation is not to be construed as
a proposition advocating debt as in itself superior to a
npay as you go” policy. If the latter were adequate to
very rapid municipal changes it would still be the superior
"way". But Glendale is likely to be currently entering
another great expansion period in which, as in the 'twenties,
she may need to utilize prudently but affirmatively, her
credit resources. Her bonding capacity has been demonstrated
to greatly exceed her current or recent use of credit.
-6. The best practice calls for certain money saving
borrowing procedures.7 Bond issues can be more carefully
prepared, better publicized, and offered to previously well
7 "Cities lose more money through poor borrowing pro
cedure than they do in any other way.” Chatters, op. cit.,
p. 10.
308
notified investors. The inclusion of the call feature is
o
recommended for certain bond classes. The rationale for
such a feature is clear. The advantage given is avowedly
associated with debtor choice. In certain periods it may
be deemed wise to discharge the entire bond obligation of
a previous issue by issuing another like obligation that
may be serviced at lower interest rates.
7. Many circumstances will now tend to increase
interest rates. They will probably become substantially
higher than they were in 19^6 and 19^7*
More prompt action at federal and state levels,
designed to counter the effects of cycle change, may make
the need for extending the city’s debt either less immediate
or less intense. In any case this city seems not to have
been recently addicted to borrowing excesses.
In Glendale the municipal debt policy exhibits
certain qualities already noted in the analysis of its
economic characteristics: Prudent thrift tempered by
considerations of charity and the public interest.
® "Collable bond. A type of bond which permits the
issuer to pay the obligation before the stated maturity
date by giving notice of redemption in a manner specified
in the bond contract. Synonym: Optional bond." Carl H.
Chatters and Irving Tenner, Municipal and Governmental
Accounting (New York: Prentice-Hall Inc.l 19^7*593 PP.),
P. 3»7.
BIB LI OGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I. PRIMARY SOURCES
A. BOOKS
Charter of the City of Glendale. California Statutes 1921,
p. 2204; Stats. 1923, p. 1646; Stats. 1931, p. 2693;
Stats. 1933, P . 2728; Stats. 1937, p. 2865; Stats. 1941,
P . 3365; Stats. 1943, P . 3284; Stats. 1945, p. 3026;
Stats. 1947, (July, 1946 and January, 1947).
Cincinnati Bureau of Governmental Research, Inc., State and
Municipal Taxatinn Systems. Cincinnati, 1947. 146 pp.
Groves, Harold M., and Staff, Report of the Commission on
the Economic Study of Milwaukee. Milwaukee, 1940.
237 PP.
Ridley, Clarence E., Nolting, Orin F., and Peitzsch,
Frederick C. (Editors), The Municipal Year Book, 1948.
Chicago: The International City Managers Association,
1949. 550 PP.
United States Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract
<3f the United States, 1940.
, Bureau of the Census, Sixteenth Census of the
United States.
, Census of Business, 1939, "Construction".
, Reports on Manufactures, 1939, Volume 1, "General
Report - Statistics by Subjects".
B. PAMPHLETS, TRACTS AND SPECIAL DOCUMENTS
City of Glendale, Minutes of Council, January 6, 1949 to
June 23, 1949.
City of Glendale, Office of the Controller, Questionnaire.
3io
City of Glendale, Planning Commission, Land Use Report, 1949.
24 pp-.
Glendale Chamber of Commerce, Glendale Industrial and
Manufacturing List. February 10, 1949.
, Glendale Industrial and Manufacturing List. April 1,
1948.
Glendale Library Department, Annual Reports, 1937* 1938, and
1940 through 1948.
Glendale Unified School District, Statistical Facts. 1944 -
1945, 1945 - 1946.
______ , Statistical Facts. 1946 - 1947* and 1947 - 1948.
Hoy, Eugene F., So This Is Glendale. Glendale: Glendale
Merchants, 1939* 30 pp.
C. INTERVIEWS
California Taxpayers Association. Mr. N. Bradford Trenham,
Manager, Los Angeles and Mr. Richard Winters, Associate.
Interviewed in February, 1949-
Glendale Branch, Security First National Bank of Los Angeles.
Mr. Roland Bush, Assistant to the President. Inter
viewed in March,- 1949-
Glendale Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Ernest M. Colburn,
Assistant Manager, Glendale. Interviewed in December,
1948 and in March, 1949.
Glendale City Administration. Mr. Charles R. Briley,
Assistant City Manager. Interviewed in February, 1949-
Mr. Charles C. Sherrod, Assistant Controller. Inter
viewed in February, three times in March, and twice in
June, 1949.
Mr. J.J. Ritch, Associate, Office of the Controller.
Interviewed in February and twice in March, 1949*
311
Mr. J.A. Mellen, Planning Director, City of Glendale.
Interviewed in June, 1949.
Mr. George H. Roe, Office of Glendale City Engineer.
Interviewed in June, 1949.
Mr. William L.O. Martini, Office of Glendale City
Engineer. Interviewed in June, 1949-
Miss Dorothy Getz, Assistant Chief Librarian, City
of Glendale. Interviewed in April, 1949.
Glendale City College. Dr. Elmer T. Worthy, Director.
Interviewed in February, 1949-
Glendale Unified School District. Mr, John T. Cate,
Assistant Superintendent in Charge of Business Affairs.
Interviewed in March and in June, 1949.
D. NEWSPAPERS
The Glendale News-Press, "l8l Liquor Licenses;in Glendale,"
October 2W, T948, Section B, Page 1.
, nThe Glendale Story," Special Sections, November
26, 1948.
______ , "City to Battle Telephone Company Rate Increase,"
December 24, 1948, Section A, Page 1.
______ , "Parking Meter Fight Renewed Before Coundil,"
December 24, 1948, Section B, Page 1.
______ , "Bank’s Analysis Shows Southland Trade Trend,"
December 25, 1948, Section A, Page 8.
, "Civic Leaders Analyze Value of 1948 Events,"
December 31* 1948, Section B, Page 1.
______ , "Merger Would Make City Third in County," December
31, 1948, Section A, Page 1.
______ , "Brand Lighting," January 7, 1949, Section B, Page 1.
______ , "City Council Gets 12 Bids on Reservoir," January
15, 1949, Section B, Page.l.
, "Cities Warned of Financial Trouble Ahead,"
January 15, 1949* Section A, Page 1.
, "Population May Hit 200,000," January 15, 1949,
Section A, Page 5-
, "266 Raise Objections in Petition," January 17,
1949* Section B, Page 1.
, "Ordinance Limiting Parking on City Lot Ruled
Invalid," January 26, 1949* Section A, Page 4.
, "Problem of Sewage Nears Critical Stage,”
January 26, 1949* Section A, Page 8.
, "Glendale Urges Rapid Transit Bill Changes,"
February 12, 1949* Section B, Page 1.
, "Sewer Cost Decision Up to Voters," February 15
1949* Section A., Page 1.'
, "Wickham Asks Reelection to City Council,"
February 15, 1949* Section A, Page 3-
, "increase in Population Stressed," January. 19,
1949* Section B, Page 1.
, "Teams Set Debate on Annexation," February 24,
1949, Section A, Page 12.
, "Nominating Petitions Taken Out," February'26,
1949* Section B, Page 1.
, "$57*577 Transferred for Brand Park Work,"
March 1, 1949, Section B, Page 1.
, "Electric Conduit Installation Starts on Brand,
March 3* 1949* Section B, Page 1.
, "illumination To Increase 250 Percent," March 4
"1949* Section B, Page 1.
, "Logan, Council Clash over Parking Meters,"
March 4, 1949, Section B, Page 1.
, "Construction Activity Eases," March 4, 1949*
Section A, Page 7.
313
, "Huge Amounts Spent to Boost State Industry.,"
March * 1 - , 1949* Section A, Page 2.
, "$69*565*000 for State Flood Control Asked,"
March 4, 194-9* Section A, Page 12.
, "Glendale Takes Priority in Annexing Strip,"
March 4, 1949* Section A, Page 4.
, "City Charter Revamping Discussed," March 8,
1949* Section B, Page 1.
, "Problem of Traffic in Area Eyed," March 12,
1949* Section B, Page 1.
, "Ordinance Up to Streamline 3 Departments,"
March 16, 1949* Section B, Page 1.
, "Businessmen Back Proposed Water District,"
March 16, 1949* Section A, Page 10.
, .."Bill Drawn to Speed up Annexation, " March 17,
194-9* Section A, Page 1.
, "New Schools Already Filled To Capacity," March
17, 1949* Section B, Page 2.
, "Cities Urged to Back State Loan Fund Bill,"
March 18, 1949* Section A, Page 2; and Section B, Page 1.
. , "Sewer Bond Alternative Explained," March 22, 1949,
Section B, Page 1.
* "Series of City Charter Changes Proposed," March
23* 1949* Section B, Page* 1.
, "U.S. Mayors Ask Stiffer Rent Curbs," March 23,
1949* Section A, Page 1.
* "Legislation on Valley Merger Goes to Senate,"
March '24, 1949* Section A, Page 1.
, "Council Asked to Correct Wage Inequalities,"
March 24, 1949* Section B, Page 1.
, "Needs of Glendale Cited at Town Meeting," March
25* 1949* Section B, Page 1.
314
, "Permits Bring 1949 Total to $1,579,578," March 26,
1949, Section B, Page 1.
, "Start Urged on Glenoaks Widening," March 29, 1949,
Section B, Page 1.
, "Cities to Hold Rent Control," March 29, 1949,
Section A, Page 1.
, "Leader of Tax Group Defines Modern Trend," March
29, 1949, Section A, Page 7.
, "Outlay of $2,150,000 Held Vital," March 30, 1949,
Section A, Page 4.
, "independent Water Plan Criticized," March 31,
1949, Section B, Page 4.
, "Bill to Boost School Funds in Glendale," March 31,
1949, Section A, Page 1.
, "Municipal Court Issue Presented to Council,"
April 1, 1949, Section B, Page 1.
, "City Council Appropriates $500 for ’Days of
Verdugos’," April 1, 1949, Section A, Page 5- -
*
, "Civic Use of College Increasing," April 2, 1949,
Section B, Page 1.
, "Employment Takes Jump in March," April 2, 1949,
Section A, Page 2.
, "'Yes’ Vote on Sewer Bonds Urged to Avoid 35-Cent
City Tax Boost," April 6, 1949, Section A, Page 1.
, "School Board to Determine Cafeteria Issue,"
April 6, 1949, Section B, Page 1.
, "Bonds to pay Sewer Fee Backed," April 7, 1949,
Section B, Page 1.
, "Council Delays Laundry Levy Amendment," April 8,
1949, Section B, Page 1,
, "Views Given by Wickham on City Election," April
11, 1949, Section B, Page 1.
315
, "Annexation Bill Okayed," April 12, 1949* Section A,
Page 1.
, "All Incumbent Reelected; Wian to Resign as Mayor,"
April 13, 1949* Section A, Page 1.
, "Glendale Bright Spot in County Retail Sales,"
April 14, 194-9* Section A, Page 1.
, "Budget Pleas Threaten Hike in County Tax," April
15, 1949* Section A, Page 1.
, "CAA Offers Plan for 28 Port Sites," April 15, 1949,
Section A, Page 3*
, "Factory Zone Shift Ordered," April 16,- 1949* Section
B, Page 1.
, "Reservoir to be Completed in September," April 16,
1949* Section B, Page 1.
, "Wickham Appointed as Glendale Mayor," April 19*
1949, Section A, Page 1.
, "Mayor Terms Election Result 'Civic Mandate',"
April 19* 1949* Section B, Page 1.
, "Change in Zone Backed At Hearing," April 20, 1949*
Section B, Page 1.
, "Revised Plans Ordered for City Hall Annex," April
21, 1949* Section B, Page 1.
, "Council to Hold Forum on New Court Proposal,"
April 23, 1949, Section B, Page 1.
, "Central Park Auditorium Plans Bared," April 27,
1949* Section B, Page 1.
* "86 on City Staff Cited," April 27* 1949* Section A,
Page 1.
, "Glendale Municipal Court Project Studied by City
Manager," April 28, 1949* Section A, Page 4.
, "$12,742 Fee Due Glendale," May 2, 1949* Section B,
Page 1.
316
, ”$948,500 in New School Work Voted,” May 6, 1949,
Section B, Page 1.
, "Laundry License Pees Hearings to Continue," May 6,
1949, Section A, Page 1.
, "Auction Sale Rule Tightened," May 6, 1949, Section
A, Page 7.
, "Glendale Enrollment May Stabilize at 1700," May 11,
1949, Section A, Page 5.
, "Los Angeles County Wins Flood Control Fund Boost,"
May 11, 1949, Section A, Page 5-
, "Glenoaks to be Improved," May 12, 1949, Section A,
Page 14.
, "Glendale Population Estimated at 104,820," May 13,
1949, Section A, Page 1.
, "Passage of Auctioneer Law Delayed," May 14, 1949,
Section B, Page 1.
, "Opposing Views of Wa.ter Issue Given," May 17, 1949,
Section B, Page 1.
, "Glendale 4th Lowest in U.S. for Low ElectMc Cost,”
May 18, 1949, Section A, Page 6.
, ”273,000 in Gas Tax Funds Sought for Brand,” May 21,
1949, Section B, Page 1.
, "Southland Funds Up," May 23, 1949, Section B, Page 8.
, "Brand Surface-Funds Sought," May 23, 1949, Section
A, Page 1,
, "$2,150,000 Set as Cost of Project," May 25, 1949,
Section A, Page 9.
, "Government Views Given By Wickham," May 26, 1949,
Section C, Page 1.
, "New 1Drunkometer1 To Tell Police How Much Motorist
Has Imbibed," May 26, 1949, Section C, Page 1.
317
______ , "Council Okays Extension of U.P. Franchise," May 27.,
1949, Section B, Page 1.
, "Financing of Public Works Jobs Sought," May 27,
1949, Section A, Page 2.
______ , "Bid Made for $8,750 Allocation," May 28, 1949,
Section B, Page 1.
______ , "Four-Story Annex Idea Given Study," May 31, 194-9,
Section B, Page 1.
Los Angeles Daily News, "Glendale Officials Reelected;
Bond Win," April 13, 1949, Page 19.
______ , "California Legislature," May 12, 1949, Page 11.
Los Angeles Independent, Glendale Edition, "Sewer Bond
Cost Hikes Valuation 2 Cents Per $100," April 18, 1949,
Page 1.
______ , "Councilman Seeks City Action on Underground Jail,"
April 21, 1949, Page 1.
______ , "Meters Foe of 61 Minute Parking Hour," April 21,
1949, Page 1.
______ , "City-Owned Rail System Proposed," April 28, 1949,
Page 1.
______ , "Brand Light Assessment Hearings End," May-2, 1949,
Page 1.
______ , "New Auction Law Introduced," May 9* 1949, Page 1.
, "Youth Activity Survey Asked By BUrkhard," May 12,
1949, Page 1.
______ , "New Ordinance Termed Unfair," May 16, 1949, Page 1.
______ , "Council Okehs Baby Laundries," May 23, 1949, Page 1.
______ , "You Can't Budge McCall Unless You Can Budget,"
May 23, 1949, Page 1.
______ , "Zoning Factor In Annexation," May 26, 1949, Page 1.
318
* "Contractor Faces $^*000,000 Loss in Sewer Project*"
May 30* 19^9, PaSe 1-
Los Angeles Times* "Taxation Trend Continues Upward*"
January 14, 1949* Part I* Page 19.
______ * "Transit Plan O.K.'D By Mayors," January 27* 1949*
Part I, Page 1.
* "About the Billion Dollar State Budget*" March 21*
1949* Part I* Page 23.
* "Residents of Glendale Join All-Night Hunt*" March
25* 1949, Part I* Page 1.
E. MISCELLANEOUS
News-Letter* City of Glendale* Volume 1* Number 2* March 30*
lSPuT
______ * Volume 1, Number 3* April 26* 1949.
319
I I . B A C K G R O U N D M A T E R I A L
A . B O O K S
Agar, Herbert, Land of the Free. Boston: Houghton,
Mifflin Company, 1935* 305 PP*
Bates, Frank G., and Oliver P. Field, State Government.
New York: Harper and Brothers, 1939* 561 PP*
•Pp. 522-555*
Buehler, Alfred G., Public Finance,' New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, 1948. 740 pp. Pp. 72-88.
Chatters, Carl H., and Albert M. Hlllhouse, Local Govern-
ment Debt Administration. New York: Prentice-Hall
Inc., 1939: 52b pp. Pp. 351-397*
Chatters, Carl H., and Irving Tenner, Municipal and Govern-
mental Accounting. New Yrok: Prentice Hall. Inc.,
W T 593 PP.
Chatters, Carl H., "Priorities and Balance in Municipal
Finance" 1948 Proceedings of the National Tax Association.
Sacramento, 1948. 724 pp. Pp. 8-12.
Groves, Harold M., Financing Government. New York: Henry
Holt and Company^ 1945 • 653 PP*
, Postwar Taxation and Economic Progress. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1946. 432 pp.
, Viewpoints on Public Finance. New York: Henry
. Holt and Company, 1947* 724 pp.
—______, Trouble Spots in Taxation. Princeton: Princeton
University Press for the University of Cincinnati, 1948.
105 pp.
Hansen, Alvin H., Economic Policy and Full Employment.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1947. 340 pp.
Pp. 183 ff.
Hart, Albert G., Money, Debt and Economic Activity. New
York: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1948. 558 pp.
320
Hicks, Ursula K., Public Finance. New York: Pitman
Publishing Corporation^ 19W- 392 pp.
Hlllhouse, A.M., Municipal Bonds, A Century of Experience.
New York: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1936. 579 pp.
______ , Defaulted Municipal Bonds. Chicago: Municipal
Finance Officers Association, 1935* 78 PP*
______ , (and Muriel Magelssen), Where Cities Get Their
Money. Chicago: Municipal Finance Officers Association,
1945. 229 pp.
Homan, Paul T., and Machlup, Fritz (Editors), Financing
American Prosperity. New York: The Twentieth Century
Fund, 19451 SOB pp. Pp. 244-246.
Hodges, Henry G., City Management. New York: F.S. Crofts
and Company, 1939* 759 pp.
Howe, Frederic C., The City. New York: Charles Scribner’s
Sons, 1905. 319 PP* Pp* 262-279.
Kimmel, Lewis H., Governmental Costs and Tax Levels.
Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1948.
153 PP.
Macdonald, Austin F., American City Government and Adminis
tration. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell "Company, 1944.
661 pp. Pp. 22-29.
■MacCorkle, Stuart A., American Municipal Government and
Administration. Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1948.
630 pp.
Mumford, Lewis, The Culture of Gities. New York: Harcourt,
Brace and Company^ 1938. 586 pp.
Neff, Philip, "Government Services and Costs as Affected by
Rapid Groxuth in Population, n 1948 Proceedings of the
National Tax Association. Sacramento, 1948, pp. 387-
39*51
Shultz, William J., and M.R..Caine, Financial Development
of the United States. New York: Prentice-Hall Inc.,
1937* 757 PP*
321
Simons, Henry C., Personal Income Taxation, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1938• 238 pp. Pp. 205 ff.
Smith Adam, The Wealth of Nations, 1776. New York:
Random House, 1937* 976 PP* Book III, Chapters 1 and 3*
Tawney, R.H., Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. New
York: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1926. 2 ' 8 ' 0 pp.
The International City Managers’ Association, Municipal
Finance Administration. 1946. 427 PP* Bp"I 16-360.
Vickrey, William, Agenda For Progressive Taxation. New
York: The Ronald Press Company, 19^7^ 496 pp. Pp.
321-328.
Zueblin, Charles, American Municipal Progress. New York:
The Macmillan Company, 1922. 522 pp.
B. PERIODICAL ARTICLES
Business Week, "America’s Needs and Resources," Number 921:
55-70, April 26, 1947.
______ , "Blueprint for Prosperity,Number 1016:65-70,
February 19, 1949*
Tax Institute, "City Tax Legislation in 1946," Tax Policy,
XIII (November, 1946), 1-10.
, "The Disintegration of American Cities," Tax Policy,
XIV (June-July, 1947), 1-12.
, "Taxing the Fluid Population,” Tax Policy, XIV
(August, 1947), 1-7.
, "City Tax Legislation in 1947," Tax Policy, XIV
(December, 1947), 1-12.
, "Forces Affecting Metropolitan Patterns," Tax Policy,
XV (January, 1948), 1-14.
______, "City Tax Legislation in 1948," Tax Policy, XV
(October, 1948), 1-17.
Time, "Business in 1948," LIII (January 10, 1949), 73.
United States News and World Report, "Hard Times for
American Cities7Tr"XXV (December 24, 1948), 58.
, "Tax Increase or Deficit: The Choice in New Year,"
XXV (December 31, 1948), 7-
______ , "The Economic Report," XXVI (January 14, 1949), 78.
, "Whose Taxes Can Be Raised?," XXVI (January 28,
1949), 52.
, "Further Into The Red Is Prospect for Treasury,"
XXVI (March Id, 1949), 58.
, "Excise Cuts: Help for Sales?," XXVI (March 25,
1949), 46.
, "Inflation Takes a Back Seat," XXVI (April d, 1949)
4b.
, "Less Chance for Tax Increase," XXVI (May 20, 1949)
58.
C . P A M P H L E T S
Bane, Frank, "Public welfare," What the Depression Has Done
to Cities. Chicago: The International City Managers’
Association, 1935* (Edited by C.E. Ridley and O.F.
Bolting.) 57PP.
Bemis, George W., and Nancy Basche, Los Angeles County As
An Agency of Municipal Government. Los Angeles: The
Haynes Foundation, 1946. 95 PP.
League of California Municipalities, Financial Reports of
Municipalities, League Report Number 13, February, 1938
"Municipal Accounting Terminology," pp. 62 ff.
Ridley, Clarence E., and Herbert A. Simon, Measuring
Municipal Activity. Chicago: The International City
Managers Association, 1938. 62 pp.
323
Tax Foundation, Facts and Figures on Government Finance,
1948-1949.
______ , Facts and Figures on Government Finance, 1946-1947.
Tax Institute, "More State Aid or More Local Taxes,”
Forum Pamphlet Four, December, 1948, 28 pp.
The International City Managers' Association, Government
in Smaller American Cities. Chicago: I.C.M.A., 1938
"(August).
The National Municipal League, Forms of Municipal Govern
ments, 1935. New York. 20 pp.
A P P E N D I C E S
APPENDIX 1
CHARTER OP THE CITY OP GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
(As Amended January 14, 1947
ARTICLE I
SECTION 1, The territory of the City of Glendale
shall be that contained within its present boundaries as
now established with the power and authority to change the
same in the manner provided by law.
ARTICLE II
SECTION 1. (This section makes the City of Glendale
after this charter identical In obligations and interest
with the City of Glendale before said Instrument.)
ARTICLE III
POWERS OP CITY
SECTION 1. The City of Glendale, a municipal cor
poration, shall after the adoption of this charter, continue
its existence as such municipal corporation, and under the
corporate name, CITY OP GLENDALE, shall have, possess and
exercise all powers and rights vested in said City of
Glendale, under this charter and the Constitution of
California and the laws of the state, and all powers which
a municipal corporation may lawfully possess or exercise
under the Constitution of this State. The City of Glendale
shall have the right and power to make and enforce all laws
and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject
Stats. 1921, p. 2204; Stats. 1923i P. 1646; Stats.
1931, P. 2693; Stats. 1933, P- 2728; Stats. 1937, P. 2865;
Stats. 1941, p. 3365; Stats. 1943, p. 3284; Stats. 1945,
p. 3026; Stats. 1947 (July, 1946 and January, 1947). The
portions reproduced here are selected for their relevance
to the study. Other parts are merely labelled and described
or digested.
3^5
only to the restrictions and limitations provided in this
charter, provided, that nothing herein shall be construed
to prevent or restrict the City from exercising or
consenting to, and the City is hereby authorized to
exercise any and all rights, powers and privileges hereto
fore or hereafter granted or prescribed by the general laws
of the State; provided, also, that where the general laws
of the State provide a procedure for the carrying out and
enforcement of any rights or powers belonging to the City,
said procedure shall control and be followed unless a dif
ferent procedure shall have been provided in this charter
or by ordinance.
SECTION 2. Without In any way or to any extent
limiting or curtailing the powers hereinbefore conferred
or mentioned, and for the purpose of removing all doubt
concerning the exercise of powers hereinafter expressly
mentioned, the City of Glendale shall have power:
1. To have and use a corporate seal;
2. To sue and be sued In all courts in all actions
and proceedings;
3. To levy and collect taxes, and to levy and
collect license taxes for both regulation and revenue;
4. To borrow money, incur municipal indebtedness,
and issue bonds or other evidence of such indebtedness;
5. To acquire by purchase, bequest, devise, gift,
condemnation or other manner sanctioned by law, within
and without the limits of said City, property of every
kind and nature for all purposes;
6. To acquire by said means, and to establish, main
tain, equip, own and operate, either within or outside of
the City, telephone and telegraph systems, street railways,
or other means of transportation, warehouses, free markets,
water-works, filtration plants, gas works, electric light,
heat and power works, underground or overhead conduit systems
or any other works necessary to a public utility; and to
join with any other city or cities or county in the acqui
sition, construction, and maintenance of same;
7. To Improve the streams and channels flowing
through the City or adjoining the same, to widen, straighten
and deepen the channels thereof, and remove obstructions
326
therefrom* to construct and maintain embankments and other
works to protect the City from overflow and storm waters;
8. To furnish the City or its inhabitants or persons
without the City* any public utility service or commodity
whatsoever;
9. To lease* sell* convey and dispose of any and all
property herein mentioned for the common benefit;
10. To acquire* construct* operate and maintain
parks* playgrounds* markets* baths* public halls, audi
toriums* libraries* museums* art galleries* gymnasiums
and any and all buildings* establishments* institutions
and places whether situated inside or outside of the City
limits* which are necessary or convenient for the transaction
of public business or for promoting the health* morals*
education* care of the indigent or welfare of the inhabitants
of the City or for their amusement* recreation* entertain
ment* or benefit;
11. To acquire* construct and maintain all works
necessary for the disposition of sewage, garbage and waste*
to construct* own* maintain and operate incinerating or
garbage reduction plants* and to j ’oin with any other city
or cities or county in the acquisition* .construction and
maintenance of any such works or plant;
12. To define and abate nuisances;
13. To provide for the care of the indigent;
14. To establish boulevards and regulate traffic
thereon;
15. To equip and maintain a fire department and to
make all necessary regulations for the prevention of fires;
16. To grant permits to use the streets or public
property revocable at any time without notice;
17. To regulate and establish rates and charges to
be imposed and collected by any person or corporation for
commodities or services rendered under or in connection
with any franchise* permit* or license heretofore or here
after granted by the City* or other authority* provided*
that the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution of
the State of California;
327
18. To receive devises, bequests, gifts and donations
of all kinds of property, in fee simple, or in trust, for
charitable or other purposes and to do all acts necessary
to carry out the purposes of such devises, bequests, gifts
and donations with power to manage, sell, lease, or other
wise dispose of the same in accordance with the terms of
the devise, bequest, gift or donation or absolutely in case
such devise, bequest or trust be unconditional;
19. To regulate and limit the height and bulk of
buildings hereafter erected, and to regulate and determine
the area of yards, courts and other open spaces and for
said purposes to divide the City into districts. Such
regulations shall be uniform for each class of buildings
throughout any district, but the regulations in one or more
districts may differ from those in other districts. Such
regulations shall be designed to secure safety from fire
and other dangers, and to promote the public health and
welfare,•including, so far as conditions may permit, pro
visions for adequate light, air and convenience of access,
and shall be made with reasonable regard to the character
of the buildings erected in each district, the value of the
land and the use to which it may be put, to the end that
such regulations may promote the public health, safety and
- welfare;
20. To regulate and restrict the location of trades
and industries and the location of buildings designed for
specified uses, and for such purposes to divide the City
into districts and to specify for each such district the
trades and industries which shall be excluded or subjected
to special regulations and the uses for which buildings may
not be erected or altered. Such regulations shall be
designed to promote the public health, safety and welfare
and shall be made with reasonable consideration, among
other things, to the character of the district and to its
peculiar suitability for particular uses.
(The City has the power to purchase stock in a private
company to furnish a water supply to its citizens - Smith vs.
City of Glendale et al., 1 Cal. App. [2d] 463; 36 Pa~ f2dl
1^ 3.1^
328
ARTICLE IV
OFFICERS, DEPUTIES AND. EMPLOYEES
AND THEIR COMPENSATION
SECTION 1. (Provides for a Council of five members,
City Assessor, City Tax Collector, City Manager, City Con
troller. City Clerk, City Treasurer, City Attorney, City
Engineer, Street Superintendent, Superintendent of Buildings,
a Police Judge, a Chief of Police, a Fire Chief, and a
Health Officer; other offices to he provided f,as they deem
necessary" by Council ordinance. Elected members are The
Council, members of the Board of Education, City Treasurer,
City Clerk. Election is from city at large. All others
appointed per the Charter or by ordinance of Council.
Appointment and removal is by 3/5 vote of the appointing
power, Council or Commission.)
SECTION 2. (All elective officers are subject to
recall as per Charter.)
SECTION 3* (Provides terms of compensation for
members of Council: $10 a meeting for not more than six
meetings per month. Board of Education members serve without
pay. All other compensated per ordinance of The Council.)
-ARTICLE V
ELECTIONS
SECTION 1. (Provides general city elections on the
second Tuesday in April every second year after 1923.)
SECTION 2. CALLING THE ELECTIONS: (Provides that
this is duty of Council.)
SECTION 3- FILING THE RETURNS: (Provides specific
procedures and duties.)
SECTION 4. NOTIFYING THE SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE:
(Provides that this is duty of Clerk.)
SECTION 5. PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW TO APPLY:
SECTION 6. TERMS OF ELECTIVE OFFICERS: (Provides
that term is four years.)
329
ARTICLE VI
LEGISLATIVE
THE COUNCIL: POWERS AND DUTIES
SECTION 1. The legislative power of the City of
Glendale shall be vested in the people through the initiative
and referendum, and in a body to be designated The Council.
Each candidate for member of the Council shall have been an
elector of the city for at least one year next preceding the
date of election at which he is candidate.
SECTION 2.
SECTION 3.
SECTION 4.
SECTION 5.
SECTION 6.
MEETINGS: (At least once a week)
QUORUM: (Three members of Council)
GENERAL POWERS OF THE COUNCIL
CERTAIN POWERS AND DUTIES ENUMERATED
ORDINANCES (Form and notice requirements)
SECTION 7- W H E N ORDINANCES GO INTO EFFECT (After
thirty days except by 4/5 vote during emergencies)
SECTION 8. AMENDING ORDINANCES
SECTION 9. CONTRACTS
POWER TO DO PUBLIC WORK DIRECT
ADVERTISING
COUNCILMEN INELIGIBLE TO OTHER CITY
SECTION 10.
SECTION 11.
SECTION 12.
POSITIONS
SECTION 13.
SECTION 14.
VACANCIES IN ELECTIVE OFFICES
COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL
SECTION 15. SALE OR LEASE OF CITY PROPERTY
SECTION 16. EXPERT ACCOUNTANT (Audit and report to
Gouncil)
SECTION 17. OFFICIAL BONDS
330
SECTION 18. (Officers take oath of office)
SECTION 19- CITY CLERK (His duties and powers)
ARTICLE VII
POLICE COURT
SECTION 1. POLICE COURT (Scope of jurisdiction)
SECTION 2. (Powers and duties of the Police Judge)
SECTION 3« (Disqualification or disability of Police
Judge)
SECTION 4. (City Council may appoint, etc.)
SECTION 5. (Transfer of older Recorder’s Court
cases to new Police Court)
ARTICLE VIII
CITY ATTORNEY
SECTION 1. (His qualifications)
SECTION 2. (His duties)
SECTION 3. (His compensation)
SECTION 4. (Actions in which City is a party In
interest)
ARTICLE IX
CITY MANAGER
SECTION 1. (His powers and duties)
SECTION 2. (His disability)
SECTION 3* PURCHASES: All purchases of material
and supplies by any department or officer of the City of
Glendale shall be by requisition signed by the City Manager.
(En. 1921, am. 1947).
331
SECTION 4. (An Assistant City Manager, his appoint
ment and removal)
ARTICLE X
DEPARTMENTS OF GOVERNMENT
SECTION 1.- (The provision of departments)
SECTION 2. THE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL GOVERNMENT
shall have charge of the following divisions of city govern
ment: Elections, Legislation and Records, Judicial, Legal,
Treasurer, General Administration, which shall include pur
chasing, assessing, tax and license collection, Finance and
Accounting, Advertising and Promotion.
SECTION 3. THE PUBLIC WELFARE DEPARTMENT shall have
charge of the following divisions of City government: Con
servation and Preservation of Health, Promotion of Cleanli
ness, Collection and Disposal of Refuse and Waste Material,
Charity and Welfare, Playground, Entertainments, Forestry
and Parks, and Library. (En. 1921, am. 194-7)
SECTION 4. THE PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT shall have
charge of the Divisions of Police and Fire Protection.
SECTION 5. THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT shall have
charge of: General Engineering, Flood Control, Street
Construction, Assessments, Street Maintenance, Building
Inspection and care of Public Buildings.
SECTION 6 . THE PUBLIC SERVICE DEPARTMENT shall have
charge of the construction, maintenance and operation of
all public utilities owned or operated by the City. .
SECTION 7* Except as otherwise provided in this
charter, or by authority thereof, the City Manager shall
be executive head of the division of general administration
and of the departments of public welfare, public safety,
public works and public service.
ARTICLE XI
FISCAL ADMINISTRATION
SECTION 1. CONTROLLER. The Controller shall be the
general accountant of the City. He shall receive and pre-
332
serve in his office all accounts* books* vouchers* documents
and papers relating to accounts and contracts of the City*
its disbursements* revenues and other financial affairs.
He shall keep an account of all moneys paid into and out of
the Treasury* and shall draw and sign all warrants on the
Treasurer for payment of money out of the Treasury* except as
otherwise provided in this charter or by general law. The
City Clerk shall furnish the Controller with copies of all
ordinances* resolutions and orders of the Council making
appropriations or authorizing expenditures of money for any
purpose. All orders for the purchase of goods* materials or
supplies* and all orders or contracts proposed to be entered
into by the City by virtue of which any money shall or may
become payable by the City* except contracts* the expense
of which is to be paid by assessments upon properties
benefited or affected thereby* shall before becoming effective*
on behalf of the City* be presented to the Controller and
have endorsed thereon his certificate that there remains
unexpended and unapplied in the City Treasury as provided
by this charter* a balance of the appropriation or fund
applicable thereto sufficient to pay the estimated expenses
to be incurred during the then current fiscal year under
said order or contract as estimated by the Board or officer
making the same* or that adequate provision therefor has
been made in the tax levy* or by other revenues to be received
by the City as estimated in the budgets. It shall be the.
duty of the Controller to make such indorsement upon every
such contract or order so presented to him if there remains
unexpended and unapplied the said levy* or other estimated
revenue applicable thereto* and thereafter he shall hold
and retain the said amount to pay the expense to be incurred
under said order or.contract until the same is fully per
formed and expense paid.
SECTION 2. TREASURER: The City Treasurer shall
receive and safely keep and pay out as directed in this
charter all moneys belonging to the City and all moneys
received by or coming into the hands of any officer* board*
department or employee of the City and shall keep an exact
account of receipts and disbursements.
SECTION 3- PRESENTATION OF DEMANDS
SECTION k. WARRANTS ON TREASURY
SECTION 5. ACTIONS AGAINST CITY
333
SECTION 6. ESTIMATE AND BUDGETS: The fiscal year
of the City shall begin on the first day of July. On or
before the first day of June each year, the City Manager
shall submit to the Council a proposed budget for the
Public Service Department and a proposed budget for all
other departments to be known as the general budget. Said
budgets shall include estimates of the revenues and expendi
tures of the City departments for the ensuing year. These
estimates shall be compiled from detailed information, ob
tained from the several departments on blanks to be furnished
by the City Manager. The classification of the estimates of
expenditures shall be as nearly uniform as possible for all
departments, and shall give the following information:
1. A. detailed estimate of the expenses of each de
partment;
2. Expenditures for corresponding items for the
last and for the current fiscal years, including adjust
ments due to transfers between appropriations plus an
estimate of expenditures necessary to complete the current
fiscal year;
3. Such information as may be required by the Council
or as the Manager may deem advisable to submit;
4. The recommendation of the Manager as to the amounts
to be appropriated, with reasons therefor, in such detail as
the Council may direct. Sufficient copies of such proposed
budgets shalT be prepared and submitted, that there may be
copies on file in the office of the Clerk for the inspection
by the public and one copy of each budget furnished each
member of the Council. The Council shall have poi^er to
revise, correct or modify'said proposed budgets' in any
particular.
SECTION 7* APPROPRIATIONS: After considering said
proposed budgets, the Council shall fix a time for holding
a public hearing upon the same and shall publish a notice
of the time fixed for said hearing once in the official
newspaper at least ten days before the time for the hearing.
After said hearing the Council may further correct or modify
said proposed budget and shall by resolutions, adopt a
Public Service budget and a general budget. Such resolution
shall operate as an appropriation of funds to the amounts
and for the purposes set forth in the budgets so adopted.
SECTION 8.. TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS.
334
SECTION 9* TAXATION: The Council shall have power by
ordinance, to provide a system for the assessment, levy, and
collection of all City taxes, which system shall conform as
nearly as may be to the general laws of this State, provided
for the assessment, levy and collection of county taxes.
All taxes levied, together with any penalties imposed for
delinquency and the cost of collection, shall constitute
liens on the property assessed and every tax upon personal
property shall be a lien upon the real property of the owner
•thereof. The said liens shall attach as of the first Monday
of March of each year. The Council may provide that the City
Clerk shall be ex-officio assessor and that the City Treasurer
or other officer selected by them, shall be ex-officio tax
collector.
SECTION 10. (Provision authorizes the transfer of
assessment and collection functions to officers of County
of Los Angeles.)
( O f f i c e s o f C i t y A s s e s s o r and C i t y Tax C o l l e c t o r a r e
deemed s u s p e n d e d . )
SECTION 11. TAX RATE: The total tax rate for any
one year shall not exceed one per cent of the assessed valua
tion, unless a special tax be authorized, as provided in
this charter; and the proceeds of any such special tax shall
be used for no other purpose than that specified for which it
was voted; provided, however, that in addition to said one
per cent, there shall be included in every annual levy, a
sufficient amount to cover all liabilities of the City for
principal and interest of all bonds or judgments due and
unpaid or to become due during the ensuing fiscal year and not
otherwise provided for; provided, further, that in addition
to the taxes above mentioned there shall be levied a tax not
exceeding fifteen cents on each one hundred dollars.of assessed
valuation for the Library Fund; provided further, that in
addition to the taxes above mentioned, the Council may levy
a tax not exceeding fifteen cents on each one hundred dollars
of assessed valuation for parks, playgrounds and recreation
centers; provided, further, that in addition to the taxes
above mentioned, there shall be levied a tax not exceeding
fifteen cents on each one hundred dollars of the assessed
valuation for the Pire and Police Retirement System. If the
Council shall fail to fix the tax rate at the proper time,
the rate for the preceding fiscal year shall be adopted and
used. (En. 1921 am. 1931> 1937)
335
SECTION 12. SPECIAL TAXES AND BONDS: Whenever the
Council shall determine that the public interest demands an
expenditure for municipal purposes, which cannot be provided
for out of the ordinary revenue of the City, it may submit
to the qualified voters at a regular or special election,
a proposition to provide for such expenditure, either by
levying a special tax, or by issuing bonds, but no such special
tax shall be levied nor any such bonds issued unless authorized
by the affirmative voters of two-thirds of the electors voting
at such election. No bonds shall be issued to meet current
expenses.
(Procedure here per general law)
SECTION 13. LIMIT OP BONDED INDEBTEDNESS: The total
bonded debt of the City shall at no time exceed a total of
fifteen (1 5) per cent of the assessed valuation of all
property taxable for City purposes.
SECTION 14. GENERAL BUDGET FUND: A fund to be known
as the General Budget Fund is hereby created. All receipts
from the general tax levy, licenses, fines, permits, and
interest on bank deposits, all other receipts except those
from the Public Service Department, and those which are col
lected for a specific purpose, or are herein ordered to be
credited to some other fund, shall be credited to said fund,
and all disbursements, on account of General Budget appropri
ations, excepting such appropriations as are payable out of.
special funds, shall be charged to said General Budget Fund.
The credit balance, if any, in said General Budget Fund, at
the end of any fiscal year, the amount of which is in excess
of the amount of all outstanding demands and liabilities
unpaid on account of General Budget appropriations for said
fiscal year, shall be transfered to the General Reserve Fund.
SECTION 15. GENERAL RESERVE FUND: The Council shall
maintain the permanent revolving fund now established and
known as the General Reserve Fund, for the purpose of keeping
the payment of the running expenses of the City on a cash
basis. Said fund shall be maintained in an amount sufficient
to meet all legal demands against the Treasury for the first
four months, or other necessary period of each fiscal year
prior to the collection of taxes. The Council shall have
power to transfer from the General Reserve Fund to any other
fund or funds, such sum or sums as may be required for the
purpose of placing such fund or funds, as nearly as possible,
on a cash basis. It shall be the duty of the Council to
provide that all money so transfered from the General Reserve
336
Fund be returned thereto on or before the end of the fiscal
year in which said transfers are made; provided, that in any
fiscal year in which the total balance in said General
Reserve Fund exceeds thirty per cent of the total amount of
the General Budget for that year, the Council may appropriate
such, excess for any City purpose without returning the same.
SECTION 16. ENTERTAINMENTS; (Council may spend but
not to exceed in any one year two cents on each $100 of
assessed valuation within the City.)
SECTION 17. DEPRECIATION FUND: The Council shall
annually set aside from the income of the Public Service
Department a fund which, according to the estimates of the
City Manager, shall be sufficient to meet the normal depre
ciation of all public utilities owned by the City. Such
Fund shall be used only for the repair, replacement, better
ment and extensions of the plants and equipment of said public
utilities. All such replacements and repairs shall be made
from said fund or other funds of the Public Service Depart
ment; provided, that nothing herein contained shall limit the
right to vote and issue bonds of the City for said purposes.
(En. 1921, am. 1931; am. 1941)
SECTION 18. SPECIAL-DEPOSIT FUND: There is hereby
created a fund to be known as the Special Deposit Fund, where
in shall be deposited all moneys received by the City or any
department, officer or board thereof, for the purpose of
guaranteeing the. payment of-any costs, charges or damages
accruing or liable to accrue, to the City from the depositor
and all moneys deposited as bail' to secure the liberation of
a person accused of a public offense and all moneys required
to be deposited for the purpose of indemnifying persons whose
property is in danger of being damaged or destroyed by the
operation of the depositor. The money so deposited may be
returned to the depositor, should he become entitled to the
return thereof, in such manner as the Council may, by ordinance,
prescribe, or upon default being made in the payment of such
costs, charges, or damages, or in the performance of any of
such conditions, acts or things, may be declared forfeited in
whole or in part and be disposed of as the Council may direct.
SECTION 19. GENERAL SERVICE FUND: The Council shall
maintain the permanent revolving fund now established and
known as the General Service Fund. All expenditures for lot
cleaning, for engineering, and other incidental expenses in
connection with street opening and improvement proceedings and
all other expenditures which are in the nature of advancements
337
by the City and are to be repaid to the City, shall be charged
to said fund. All receipts on account of the matters above
mentioned shall be credited to said General Service Fund from
the special fund created for such proceedings, if any, when
available therein. All amounts expended for purchase of
general supplies, which for any reason cannot be charged
directly to the account or accounts for which such supplies
are purchased, shall be charged against said General Service
Fund, and when said supplies are used by the various depart
ments, the cost thereof shall be charged against the proper
fund and credited to said General Service Fund.
SECTION 20. PUBLIC SERVICE BUDGET FUND: A fund to
be known as the Public Service Budget Fund is hereby created.
All receipts, not otherwise ordered credited to other funds,
from the sale of water and electric energy and any other
commodity furnished, and for any services rendered by the
Public Service Department of the City, shall be credited to
the said Public Service Budget Fund. All disbursements on
account of Public Service Budget appropriations shall be
charged to the said Public Service Budget Fund. The credit
balance, if any, in said Public Service Budget Fund at the end
of any fiscal year, the amount of which is in excess of the
amount of all outstanding demands and liabilities unpaid on
account of Public Service Budget appropriations, shall be
transferred to the Public Service Surplus Fund.
SECTION 21. PUBLIC SERVICE SINKING FUND: A fund to
be known as the Public Service Sinking Fund is hereby created,
to which fund shall be credited from the receipts of the
Public Service Department a sufficient amount each year to
cover the total amount of payments falling due that year for
principal and interest of all Glenda-le City or Municipal
Improvement District Bonds issued for the acquisition, improve
ment or extension of Public Utilities operated by the City.
The Council shall fix from time to time the percentage of
receipts of the Public Service Department required to cover
principal and interest of such bonds and such percentage of
said recepts shall be credited by the City Treasurer to the
said Public Service Sinking Fund; provided, however, that
if in the opinion of the Council the total amount necessary
for said Sinking Fund cannot conveniently be taken from the
receipts of said Public Service Department, nothing in this
section shall affect or impair their power, after so declaring,
to levy such taxes as may be necessary to provide for interest
and principal of such bonds.
338
SECTION 22. PUBLIC SERVICE SURPLUS FUND: A fund
to be known as the Public Service Surplus Fund is hereby
created, to which fund shall be credited from the receipts
of the Public Service Department any amounts in excess of
the requirements of the several funds as hereinbefore set
forth. Except as otherwise provided in this section, dis
bursements from said Public Service Surplus Fund may be
made by the Council by special appropriation for public
service purposes only, which shall include payment of all
or any portion of the tax of The Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California, or its successors in interest, which
the Council may elect to pay out of the funds of the City of
Glendale.
At the end of each fiscal year, an amount equal to
twenty-five percentum (2 5$) of the operating revenues of the
Public Service Department for such year, excluding receipts
from power or water supplied to other cities or utilities at
wholesale rates, shall be transfered from said Public Service
Surplus Fund to the General Reserve Fund; provided, that the
Council may annually, at or before the time for adopting the
general budget for the ensuing fiscal year, reduce said amount
or wholly waive such transfer, if, in its opinion, such re
duction or waiver is necessary to insure the sound financial
position of said Public Service Department and it shall so
declare by resolution. (En. 1921, am. 1931J ara* 19^1; am-
1946).
SECTION 22.1 With a view to assisting the State of
California in carrying out the purposes of the "Construction
and Employment Act of 19^6 as well as providing for needed
public improvements in the City of Glendale, and notwithstand
ing any provision of this Charter to the contrary, the Council
may expend not to exceed the sum of $1,0 0 0,0 0 0 .0 0 from the
Public Service Surplus Fund for the purpose of constructing
or acquiring capacity or ownership in or right to use out
fall sewers and sewage treatment facilities, and not to
exceed the sum of $3 5 0,0 0 0 .0 0 from said fund for the purpose
of constructing or acquiring capacity or ownership in or right
to use an incinerating plant. In the event that the Incinerat
ing plant is sold, before or after completion, there shall
first be repaid from any cash proceeds accruing to the City
of Glendale any amount which may have been paid for con
struction or acquisition out of General Government funds and
the balance of such cash proceeds shall be repaid into the
Public Service Surplus Fund. (En. 19^6).
339
SECTION 22.2 Notwithstanding any provision of this
Charter to the contrary, the sum of $350,000.00 is hereby
appropriated from the Public Service Surplus Fund for the
purpose of improving parks and playgrounds, and the Council
may also expend not to exceed the sum of $2 5 0,0 0 0 .0 0 from
said fund for the purpose of constructing a memorial
stadium. (En. 19*1-6)
(Appropriations from the general fund may be made
for particular objects in excess of the amount of the special
tax that may be levied for those objects. City of Glendale
vs. Arthur H. Haak, 62 Cal. App. (2d) 426, 144 Pac. (2d) 8 6 6.
(Interest received on money from sale of assessment
bonds pending action to test validity of assessment may be
paid into the general fund of City. Marr vs. So. Calif.
Gas Co., 198 Cal. 2 7 8, 245 Pac. 179-
(Ornamental street lighting system of City is a
governmental function falling within police powers; it is
not part of public utility and may therefore be financed by
assessment. Logan vs. City of Glendale, 132 Cal. App. 169*
22 Pac. (2d) 5 5 2.
(The provisions of section fisre are not applicable
to claims against the school district. Kelso vs. Board of
Education, 42 Cal. App. (2d) 4l8, 109 Pacl ^2d) 30*
ARTICLE XII
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
ARTICLE XIII
LIBRARY
ARTICLE XIV
PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS AND RECREATION CENTERS
ARTICLE XV
CITY PLANNING
ARTICLE XVI
SOCIAL SERVICE COMMISSION
ARTICLE XVII
FRANCHISES
ARTICLE XVIII
INITIATIVE y REFERENDUM AND RECALL
ARTICLE XIX
PUBLIC WELFARE DEPARTMENT
ARTICLE XX
PUBLIC SAFETY
ARTICLE XXI
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
ARTICLE XXII
PUBLIC SERVICE DEPARTMENT
■ ARTICLE XXIII
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
ARTICLE XXIV
CIVIL SERVICE
ARTICLE XXV
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
APPENDIX 2
CITY GOVERNMENT: THE MAYORS OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE1
Presidents of the Board of Trustees:
1906 - 1908: Wilmot Parcher
1908 - 1910: T.W. Watson
1910 - 1912: J.R. White
1912 - 1916: T.W. Watson
1916 - 1918: Joseph S. Thompson
1918 - 1919: G.B. Woodbury
1919 - 1920: Frank L. Muhleman
1920(6 mos.): Hartley Shaw
1920 - 1921: D.W. Stevenson
Glendale adopted Mayor and Council System, 1921:
1921
-
1 9 2 5* .
Spencer Robinson
1925
- 1 9 2 9: Harry Mac Bain
1929
-
1931:
C.E. KImlin
1931
-
1 9 3 3:
F.P. Taggart
1 9 3 3
-
1 9 3 5:
Joseph F. Baudino
1935
-
1 9 3 7:
Lawrence E. Olson
1 9 3 7
-
1 9 3 9:
Joseph F. Baudino
1939
-
1941: William J. Goss
1941
-
1943:
Archie L. Walters
1 9 4 3
—
1944: Lawrence E. Olson
1944 -
1945:
Archie McWilliam
1945
-
1947;i
Albert C. Lane
1 9 4 7 (6 mos, ) : Dr. George A. Campbell
1947
- 1948: -Joseph F. Baudino
1948 -
1949:
Robert C. Wian
1949
- George R. Wickham
1 Glendale News-Press, ’ ’The Glendale Story,” Section
Old and New," November 26, 1948, p. 2.
APPENDIX 3
CITY GOVERNMENT: STRUCTURE AND OFFICIAL PERSONNEL^"
1. Pursuant to its Charter Glendale has five City Council-
men. They are at' present:
Robert C. Wian
Paul Burkhard
George Campbell
Harold E. Wright
George R. Wickham (Mayor)
2. Besides five councilmen, Glendale elects a City Clerk
and a City Treasurer. These are at present:
Glenn E. Chapman, City Clerk
Blanche Gartley, City Treasurer
3. The Glendale City Council appoints a City Manager and
an Assistant City Manager. These are at present:
Charles C. McCall, City Manager2
Charles R. Briley, Assistant City Manager
4. The Glendale City Council appoints nine city commissions
and posts. These are at present: (with membership)
The Planning Commission:
Harry H. Hall, Chairman
Rose K. McNally,
W.S. Althouse,
D.H. Smith,
Guy Carlton
^ Glendale News-Press, "The Glendale Story,” Section
"The Old and New,” November 26, 1948, pp. 2 ff.
^ Hired at $12,000 a year. Background: Civil
engineer; and formerly City Manager of Salinas, California,
and of Las Vegas, Nevada.
The Civil Service Commission:
Don McNerney
Herbert Moe
Mrs. Sadyee Hoopes
Earl Geer
Roland Bush
The Parks and Recreation Commission
Stephen C. Chase* Chairman
Homer J. Wellman
E.L. Paggi
Rev. 0. Wilbur Fix
Clarence Gregg
The Board of Censors:
Mrs. Derrick Paine
Ramon L. Peterson
Mrs. Maria E. Lawson
Merritt E. Brown
Mrs. Dorothy Jellison3
A Police Judge:
Charles R. Dyer
A City Attorney:
Henry A. McClernan
Chief Deputy:
John H. Lauten
A City Prosecutor:
John W. McElheny
Deputies:
Joseph Roark*
Emmerson Rhyner
3 Member until recently.
344
5.
The Electrical Examiners:
Bill Krueger
Harry Hamilton
Harry Bournique
The Plumbing Examiners:
Francis McCall.,
Emil Carlson,
Leo Hunner
A number of other appointive offices are filled by the
City Manager with Council approval. Included are the
following:
City Physician,
Director of
Purchases,
Chief Civil Service
Examiner,
Planning Director,
Fire Chief,
Police Chief,
Superintendent of
Buildings,
City Engineer,
Assistant, City
Engineer,
General Manager and
Chief Engineer,
Public Service
Department,
Assistant,
Dr. C.M. Conkling
Don Magi11
Ted Sharp
J.A. Mellen.^
Edward H. Aiman
Walter E. Hegl
A.T. Brown
Jack C. Albers
Charles Ament
Peter Diederich
John H. Sheahan
Works with The Planning Commission.
City Controller, A.H. Haak
A s s i s t a n t , C i t y
C o n t r o l l e r ,
C o m m e r c i a l A g e n t ,
C h i e f L i b r a r i a n ,
C h a r l e s C . S h e r r o d
G e o r g e D . H a s t i n g s ^
D o r o t h y G e t z
Superintendent, Parks
and Recreation, William A . Burr
6. The City of Glendale has had nine city managers since
1914.
7 . The City was incorporated in 1906 with no provision for
the office of Manager.
8. In 1914 the City's Board of Trustees created the office
of City Manager by ordinance.
9 . Thomas W. Watson was a member of the Board of Trustees
at that time. He resigned from the Board to accept
appointment as the first City Manager, serving from
1914 to 1 9 2 1.
10. In the City Charter of 1921 the office of City Manager
became Charter-authorized, as a post to be filled by the
appointment of Council. Those serving in as City
Manager since then are as follows (in the order of their
tenures):
W.H. Reeves,
V.B. Stone,
J.W. Charleville,
C.E. Douglas,
William V. Anderson
Edwin A. Ingham (1937 to 1945: The longest single
term)
Charles A . Baird,r
Charles C. McCallb
Note: The more than 900 city staff members are re
presented by the Glendale City Employees Association. (William
Martini, President).
5 in charge of the finances of utilities.
6
Op. cit., Section "Business", p. 2.
346
APEENDIX 4
THE COURTS1
1. The City of Glendale does not at this writing possess
a Municipal Court. Instead it is served by two justice
courts and a police court.
2. The two Justices of the Peace for Glendale Township's
two Class A Justice Courts are:
Kenneth A. White (since May, 1945)
Bert P. Woodard (since 1930)
3. A bill was pending in the California Legislature during
March, 1949* which if passed, would establish a ‘ Munici
pal Court in the City of Glendale. If the measure proposed
becomes law the Municipal Court would supersede the two
justice courts and the police court.
If the bill passes, the reorganized court system would
take effect in 1 9 5 2.^
Glendale News-Press, "The Glendale Story,n Section
’ ’ The Old and New," November 26, 1948, pp. 3 ff. The
Superior Court Judge for Glendale is John G. Clark.
2 Glendale News-Press, Section B, March 18, 1949, p. 1.
347
APPENDIX 5
THE GLENDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT1
1. The Police Department of the City of Glendale includes
(as of November* 1948) a Police Chief* .Walter E. Hegi*
2 Captains
5 Lieutenants
6 .Sergeants
16 Detectives
4 Policewomen
8 Motorcycle officers
33 Crossing guards (schools).
2. Its total personnel are reported to number 135•
3- The Police Court* presided over by Judge Dyer since
July* 1945* heard 31*108 cases during the last reported
year* (1947 - 1948).
4. The Police Department claims a low crime rate for the
City and a high percentage of crimes solved.
^ G l e n d a l e N e w s - P r e s s * " T h e G l e n d a l e S t o r y * " S e c t i o n
" T h e O l d a n d N e w * " N o v e m b e r 26* 1948* p. 7 .
348
1. New personnel in Glendale Police Department include (as
of November, 1948) 95 veterans since World War'll.
2. In-service training and improvement:
In the last 3 years (1945 - 1948) 25 have taken pre
scribed training courses, with some city financial
assistance but largely at their own expense.
Included on the Department: (following numbers certified
by special training centers)
National Police Academy 1
Northwestern U. Police
practice Courses 2
S.C.-sponsored Southern
California Academy of
Juvenile Control
5
U.S.C. School of Government 17
3. Department has placement-per-choice policy.^
^ Op. cit., Section B, p. 1.
349
APPENDIX 6
THE GLENDALE PUBLIC SERVICE DEPARTMENT1
1. Basing its assertions on statistics published recently
by the Federal Power Commission and other sources, the
City of Glendale claims that its residents have the
lowest rate of electricity of any city in California.
2. In October, 1948, based on same sources, Glendale was
fourth among all cities in the United States of 50,000
or more population, in low rates for electric power.
3. Glendale reached this rank only after some years of
excelling. In 1946 Glendale was not fourth but fifth
for the nation. In 1937 it had been 23nd nationally.
4. In 1948 Glendale's city power system provided residential
users with 1 0 0 kwh. of electricity at an average cost of
$2.50. Consumers in Glendale paid $3-30 for the same
100 kwhs, in 1 9 3 7-
5 . In the year in which Glendale was fourth In low rates,
Tacoma, Washington was first in the nation with lowest
of all rates, at fl.7 0 per 1 00 kwh.
In second place were Lansing, Michigan and Madison,
Wisconsin, each with $2.40 per 100 kwh.
In third place is Lincoln, Nebraska at $2.45 pen 100 kwh.
6 . Sharing fourth place with Glendale (at $2.50) in 1948
were 6 other cities. They were Cincinnati, Ohio;
Covington, Kentucky; Chattanooga, Knoxville, Memphis
and Nashville, Tennessee. All except one of these six
have populations above 100,000. Electric facilities of
Covington, Kentucky, Cincinnati, Ohio, and of Madison,
Wisconsin are the only one (of this group) not municipally
owned.
^ Glendale News-Press, "The Glendale Story," Section
"The Old and New," November 2 6, 1948, pp. 2 and 5.
350
7.
8 .
9-
10.
Highest rate of all cities of 50,000 or more were
Mt. Vernon, New Rochelle and Yonkers, New York, with
rates of $5-10 each.
In lowest power rates by states were the following with
their specific averages:
1} Washington $4.84 per 100 kwh.
2) Tennessee $5*- per 100 kwh.
3) Oregon $5.29 per 100 kwh.
’ 4) California $5*45 per 100 kwh.
In highest rank by states were the following:
1} Nevada (ave.) $8.15 per 100 kwh.
2) New York $7*95 per 100 kwh.
3; Florida $7.84 per 100 kwh.
Federal Power Commission schedules show also these rates
for other cities in Los Angeles County:2
Los Angeles City $2.77 (All per 100 kwh.)
Burbank $2 .8 7
Pasadena $3*-
Beverly Hills $3-20
Alhambra
Huntington Park and
South Pasadena $3*39
A r c a d i a ,
C o m p t o n ,
C u l v e r C i t y ,
E l M o n t e ,
H a w t h o r n e ,
H e r m o s a B e a c h ,
M a n h a t t a n B e a c h ,
M o n r o v i a ,
M o n t e r e y P a r k ,
R e d o n d o B e a c h ,
S a n G a b r i e l ,
T e m p l e C i t y ,
T o r r a n c e ,
W i l m a r $3.81
2 Los Angeles City, Burbank and Pasadena are all city-
owned. All the others are privately supplied services.
351
La Canada,
La Crescenta,
Loraita $4.15
11. The City of Glendale has 36,295 electric meters in oper
ation, divided among classes as follows:
Domestic use 29,882
Com'l. lighting 4,442
Com’l. power 2,971
12. Glendale’s rates are based on average consumption.
For householders:
Minimum charge of $.60 for 13 kwhs, or less,
And for next 22 kwhs. 3*3 cent rate,
For next 65 kwhs. 1.8 cent rate,
From 100 - 200 kwhs. 1.4 cent rate,
For all above 200 kwh. 1.2 cent rate.'
For heating water tanks:
Separate meters at base rate of .7 cents.
13- Reporting the financial condition of the Public Service
Department the statement for 1947 - 1948 shows that as
of June, 1948 Assets of the Department totaled $26,814,000.12.
Major items included were:
Fixed assets $19,779,829.71
Cash ' 1,024,895.36
Bond investment 4,6 9 8,0 1 9 .3 6
14. Glendale joined The Metropolitan Water District in 1931
with 12 other cities; voted bonds in the amount of -
$220,000,000; paying maturities out of Department revenues.
15. Yet the Public Service Department has been able and has
in fact reduced rates four different times:
(commercial and domestic rates) in 1 9 3 6,
1937,
1941, and
1944
16. The current payment (1948 - 1949) to the Metropolitan
Water District is $391,008.30.
352
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Admission of more members to the District has added to
costs for the District.
Glendale drains a certain amount of electric power from
the Hoover Dam but also has its own municipal sources.
According to Mr. Herman Nelson,3 Glendale’s director on
the Metropolitan Water District Board, Glendale has been
fourth in the amount of its assessed valuation, among
members of the District.^'
Recently, however, two admitted units have come into
the District with valuations higher than that of Glendale,
These are:
(Valuation)
San Diego County and Water Authority: $3 3 8,8 8 6,8 9 0.-
West Basin Municipal Water District: 115,530,370.-
Total assessed valuation of the Metropolitan Water
District for fiscal year, 1948 - 19*1-9: $3,8 8 3,0 8 1 ,2 2 5
Within this total are the following:
Los Angeles City: $2,306,8l8,400
Long Beach: 319,086,465
Pasadena: . 1 3 6,6 8 5 ,0 5 5
Glendale: 114,795,135
Glendale's assessment for the current fiscal year
(1948 - 19^9), including interest, redemption, and
other charges: $3 9 1,0 0 8 .3 0
This is paid out of revenues of the City’s Public
S e rv i c e Dep artment.
History of Public Service Department includes the early
beginnings:
In April, 1915 City of Glendale purchased the four water
companies then operating, paying a total of $1 6 9,9 3 5 .7 4
in these portions: (for)
Consolidated Water Company $79,663.94
Verdugo Springs Company 5 1,1 5 7 .8 0
Miradora Water Company 25,114.00
Verdugo Pipe and Reservoir Company (ca.)l4,000.005
5 Op. cit., Section "Transportation," p. 13.
353
APPENDIX 7
GLENDALE FIRE DEPARTMENT1
1. Significant financing for Glendale’s Fire Department
begins very early. The City's first bond issue (May.,
1907 for $5*000} was floated to buy equipment for this
group.2
2. Modernized equipment later seems to have followed other
bond issues. In 1912 the City borrowed $20,000 and
Glendale's first motorized fire engine was acquired in
1913.
3. Glendale did not discontinue its volunteer system,
hence system of irregular pay, until July, 1922.
4. By October 1, 1927 Glendale had17 complete fire stations.
5 . In 1948 its personnel strength is reported at 120.
Equipment is modern. Nine girls operate an efficient
fire alarm system. Three-way radios are furnished on
all apparatus and chief's cars.
6. The Department is now under Civil Service.
7. Recently it has developed a retirement plan'.
8. No organization is merely machinery and equipment. The
last Fire Chief to retire (Chief Lankford) had served
for 34 years.
Glendale News-Press, "The Glendale Story," Section
"The Old and New," November 2b, 1948, pp. 5 and 9 .
2 Equipment then meant wagon, horse and hose.
35^
APPENDIX 8
GLENDALE PARKS1
1. Glendale has a total of 10 parks.
2. Largest Is Verdugo Park (35 acres)^ located on Canada
Blvd. The area Is furnished with certain park facilities,
including picnic equipment. A new, recently erected
stadium (cost of $7 0*0 0 0), has made this the site for
training the Oakland Oaks ball club.
3. Next two largest (ca. 8 acres (/) each) are:
Verdugo Recreation Center, which includes the
municipal auditorium and swimming pool;
Fremont Park, which provides picnicing and play
equipment.
4. Central Park has ca. 6 1/2 acres.
5. Three other parks have about 3 acres each:
Nibley Park
Pelanconi Park
Griffith Manor Park
6. Other parks are:
Maple Park
Glenoaks Park, and
A small park near ,Casa Adobe de San Rafael.
Glendale News-Press, nThe Glendale Story," Section
nThe Old and New,” November 26, 1948, p. 6.
355
APPENDIX 9
GLENDALE URBAN ECONOMY: TRANSPORTATION1
1. Southern Pacific began operating through Tropico (later
Glendale) June 1, 1876.
Change (of name) to Glendale Station, August 10, 1918.
2. Southern Pacific now runs two main lines through this
station, numerous sidings and interchange tracks serving
station buildings and local industries.
3. The present station was opened in June, 1924.
4. Trackage is laid to:
Glendale City Street Department,
Public Service Department properties,
and such industrial firms as
Gladding McBean,
Los Angeles Basket Co.,
Smart and Pinal,
Standard Oil,
Mitchell Camera
3* Grand Central Air Terminal has an annual payroll of ca.
$2,500,000 for ca. 750 employees.
6. Glendale is served by Pacific Electric Interurban street
cars and busses.
7. Glendale has a Branch Office of State Department of Motor
Vehicles.
8. Glendale is on U.S. 99 Highway.
9. In 1947 the California Legislature passed the Collier-
Burns Act for highways. The act, sponsored by Governor
Earl Warren, made available increased gasoline funds.
Glendale News-Press, "The Glendale Story," Section
"Transportation,“ November 26, 1948, Vol. XLIV, No. 88,
pp. 2 ff.
356
U.S. 99 has benefited greatly says C.H. Purcell, Cirector
of Public Works.
10. State Budget, 1949 - 1950, includes a project for con
tinued widening of Bakersfield to Los Angeles (U.S. $9)
route.
U.S. 99j from the central area of Los Angeles to points
immediately north of San Francisco, is now four lanes or
more wide.
11. Lockheed Aircraft Corporation is in Burbank, but near
Glendale.
At peak of World War II production it employed more than
100,000.
Now reports employment of ca. 15,000 (1948).
12. Cal-Aero Technical Institute at Grand Central Air Terminal
is now (1948) in its 20th year.
Enrollment of ca. 1,000 students with plans for expansion.
13. Glendale City Lines operate buses serving an area with
potential shopping population of 200,000.
Its new investment since 1941 is C. $400,000.
14.. Tanner Motor Livery (branch in Glendale since 1938) and
Yellow Cabs.
Employs 50*
15. Union Pacific serves Glendale with freight terminal and
daily schedule in Glendale for industrial and business
firmsj and with passenger connection to Los Angeles
Terminal by bus.2
2 Op. cit., p. 14.
357
APPENDIX 10
CITY OF GLENDALE: PERMANENT IMPRQVEMENTS1
1. One current problem in permanent improvements expenditure
is Glendale participation in Los Angeles City's joint
Sewage Disposal system. (The Hyperion Sewage Disposal
Plant)
2. Glendale's participation follows the terms of agreement
with Los Angeles.2
3. Glendale's first problem was financial: How to pay for the
needed rights.
a. Need for this facility decided in 1944.
b. Participating cities: Los Angeles, Beverly Hills,
Glendale, Vernon, Burbank, Santa Monica, Alhambra,
and other smaller communities.
c. Estimated total cost: $42,707,600.00
d. Glendale's total share of costs: 4.9 per cent or
$2,139,466.77.
e. Payment of this amount has been possible out of three
sources:
(1) $1,000,000 have been set aside from municipal
funds in the Public Service Department surplus.
(2) $739*466.77 ha,s been set aside in Glendale's behalf
by State of California.
(3) Balance of $400,000 seemed to present alternatives
of bond issue or an increase in municipal taxes.
f. At the polls in April, 1949* the voters of the City
authorized the bond issue.
1 Glendale News-Press, "The Glendale Story," Section
"Transportation," November 26, 1948, p. 10.
^ City of Glendale News Letter, Vol. I, No. 2, March
30, 1949* p. 1.
358
g. This decision accorded generally with the position
publicly taken by the Municipal Administration.
h. It was argued that to pay the $400,000 in one year
out of taxes really meant a drastic increase in rate
on assessed valuation (property tax).
i. "An increase in the tax rate of 35^ per $100.00 of
assessed valuation, to raise the $400,000 in one year
for the fiscal year 1949~50j is not sound municipal,
financing. A better method of financing would be to
amortise the cost of the project over the next twenty
years. This method would require only a 2 < f , increase
in the tax rate for each $100.00 of assessed valuation
until redemption of the bond issue. This method also
requires that those using the service in future years
will pay their proportionate share. With the tre
mendous growth and expansion of Glendale, it is also
quite possible that in a few years, the 2^ increase in
tax rate could be materially reduced.n3
"The passage of the proposed bond issue is necessary
both from the standpoint of requiring future users of
the sewer system to bear a portion of the cost, and to
prevent a severe financial shock to our community
through a substantial increase in municipal taxes."
4. Annexation issues are involved, too:
Montrose wants to connect up with Glendale to participate
in the Los Angeles Sewage Disposal System.
Glendale’s agreement with Los Angeles City rigorously
regulates Glendale's capacity.
5- Improved flood con trol of the "wash" area, especially
since 1933 (New Year's Eve) flood (1933-1934). Flood
made worse because season of rain preceded by season
with two brush fires.
Federal (financing) allocation was made to construct a
flood control system, administration by L.A. Flood Control
District, engineering handled by U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
No serious floods since 1933.
3 Ibid., p. 2.
APPENDIX 11
GLENDALE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT1
1. Chief administrative officer, Superintendent N.C. Hayhurst.
2. District serves a total residential population of 125,000
or more.
3. Glendale public schools consist of:
1 City College
2 Senior High Schools
4.Junior High Schools
19 Elementary Schools and number of Kindergartens
4. Enrollment, 1947 - 1948:
Total 16,640
College
2,235
Senior High 3,378
Junior High 2,882
Elementary
6,657
Kindergarten 1,488
Adults at Two
Night High Schools: 3,289
5. Staff: Teachers and Principals:
Total
629
College 90
High (Senior) 156
Junior Highs 132
Elementary 220
Kindergarten
31
6. Private Schools:
Two Catholic Schools with total enrollments of 1,000 or
more.
Seventh. Day Adventist (Glendale Union Academy): Enroll
ments of 512.
1 Op. cit., Section "Culture and Education," p. 2,
and Section 1, p. 2.
360
7.
8.
9-
10.
11.
12.
13.
Largest school enrollment In the history of this school
system,, in the Pall of 1948.
Elementary schools generally: Filled to capacity, but
a. No half day sessions, except in La Crescenta Valley
at the Lincoln School where half day sessions are con
ducted for all grades and the kindergarten has a
waiting list.
b. Even these will be eliminated relatively soon when
Dunsmore School'with six rooms and kindergarten will
open.
Construction: Additions to schools (1947 - 1948):
Lincoln School: 2 rooms
Franklin School: 2 rooms
Fremont School: 2 rooms
Verdugo Woodlands: A Kindergarten building
New School: Monte Vista, consists of administrative
offices, six classrooms and kindergarten.
a. Meets building requirements of the Field (State
Legislature) Bill on reinforced concrete.
Temporary bungalows to be built at these schools:
Balboa 1
Keppel 2
Verdugo Woodlands 1
Per the decision of School Board, La Crescenta School
will be demolished and contract let for new plant:
Consisting of administrative offices and 13 rooms and
kindergarten (to be ready by September, 1949).
Pupils from La Crescenta are using other schools, other
facilities:
Clark Junior High,
Montrose Elementary, and
Monte Vista
14. Enrollments in Junior and Senior High Schools have not
increased. Total number decreased (Fall, 194#) by ca.
250 students.
361
Students of bth to 12th grades are of depression years
(by birth). Birth-rate was lower then.
This low enrollment gives time to build for the increase
known to be ahead.
15. In 1947 - 1948 a large addition has been made at Clark
Junior High in La Crescenta Valley.
Other additions soon to be complete (1948 - 1949).
16. Board voted to close one. Junior High: Roosevelt School.
This is to be for a year. (194b - 1949) (Est. cost:
$353*000, funds voted,, 1945).
Pupils here will be distributed to four other schools:
Toll Junior High
W. Wilson Junior High
Thomas A. Edison School
Horace Mann School
(Modernization will in
clude measures for earth
quake resistance, elimi
nation of fire and other
hazards.)
17. Glendale College:
Plant expension:
1946: A number of temporary buildings were received
from the government for classroom use.
’ 1948: Mew auditorium completed. Cost:- $625,000.
362
APPENDIX 12
CITY OF GLENDALE: STANDARD CLASSIFICATION1
1. Much of the work of the International City Managers1
Association is based on data of the Census Bureau.
2. Within the frame of Census classification they have
developed other significant classes resting on surveys
and statistical summaries of municipal data.
3. Following is the Glendale classification in relation
to categories defined by the Association. Explanations
of each economic classification appear below:
GLENDALE:
1940 Census
Population:
% Increase,,
1930 - 1940
Metropolitan
Status,
Rent Level
Economic Base
Employment
Resident and
Manufacturing
Ratio
Form of Govern
ment
Mayor, Selection
Term, and Veto
83,000
32 f o
d2
D
28 - 13
Mgr
c2n
Number of
CounciImen 5
At Large 5
Type of Election N
and Term of Office P i j .
Salary,
Councilmen 720
Other Elective
Offices T K
Utilities Owned
and Operated AEW
1 Based on The Municipal Year Book, 1948, Editors:
Clarence E. Ridley and Orin F. Noltingj Associate Editor:
Frederick C. Peitzseh. Chicago: The International City
Managers' Association, 1948. 558 pp. Pp. 33-39 and 52.
363
4. "Classification of Cities by Metropolitan Status".
Five types of cities are distinguished by use of the
census classification of cities by metropolitan status.
These are:
(I) Independent city is not part of a U.S. Census
Metropolitan District.
(C) Central city in a Metropolitan District.
(D) Dormitory or residential suburb.
(B) Balanced suburb.
(E) Employing suburb in a Metropolitan District.
5. (D) suburbs:
Cities that have a lower employment residence ratio
than most independent cities (below 40 per cent)
are termed dormitory or residential suburbs.
6. (B) suburbs:
Balanced suburbs have employment residence ratio
approximately the same as that for most independent
cities (40 - 55 per cent).
7. (E) suburbs:
Have employment residence ratio above'55 Per cent:
Employing suburbs.
8. Rental Level (Classification): Related to average rental
for the Metropolitan District.
(1) Low: $5 less than the average rental of the Metro
politan District* or lower.
(2) Intermediate: Between the $5 below (not including $5)
and $10 above (not including $10) average district rent.
(3) High: $10 or more above average and less than twice
the average.
(4) Exclusive: Twice the average.
364
9- Classification of Cities by Major Economic Base: (By
use of data on employment in the city, per Census of
Manufactures and Census of Business):
M a n u fa c tu r in g : (Mm)
Manufacturing employment: 50 per cent or more of
aggregate employment in manufacturing, trade and
service establishments, and retail trade less than
30 per cent.
Industrial (M)
Dominance of manufacturing is balanced by substantial
retail trade.
Manufacturing employment: More than 50 pe** cent.
Retail trade employment: More than 30 per cent.
Wholesale (W)
Wholesale trade: At least 25 per cent of aggregate
employment..
Retail (Rr)
Retail trade: Greater than employment in any other
category, and
Manufacturing employment: Less than 20 per cent.
Diversified (Mr and Rm)
Mr: Balanced city, with
Manufacturing predominant,
but Retail trade (empl.) second
Rm: Balanced city, with
Retail trade predominant, and
Manufacturing employ, more than
20 per cent, but less than 50 per cent.
Dormitory (D)
Includes both the suburbs which have employment
residence ratio of less than 40 per cent, and a few
(All cities in which
(Mfg. employ, is less
(than 50 per cent,
(but greater than
(employ., retail trade.
365
.independent cities (not in Met. Dist. as per Census
definition) which have employment residence ratio of
less than 40 per cent and in which, the included
employments (transp., mining., and government) were
not large enough to bring the ratio up to 40 per cent.
Dormitory city is not necessarily without industry:
(Example: Maywood, 111., suburb of Chicago
Met. Cist.) has employment residence
batio of ca. 21 per cent but manufacturing
ratio of 49 per cent.)
Most dormitory (D) suburbs furnish some employment in
retail trade outlets and service establishments, but
this number is negligible as compared with the number
of residents who find gainful employment elsewhere.
Note:
1. More than one half of the cities over 10,000 In the
UsS. are (i) independent, 16 per cent are (C) central,
while 32 per cent are suburbs.
2. Of the 333 suburbs tabulated here by the Year Book:
49 per cent are (D) suburbs
32 per cent are (e) suburbs
19 per cent are (B; suburbs
10. The Municipal Yearbook of 1948 reports (p. 38) the
following for Metropolitan Status of Cities over
10,000 (by Geographic Region):
Region: The West
Total: 122
Number
Independent b9
Central 17
Suburbs:
Employing (E) 3
Balanced (B) 8
Dormitory (D) 25
Per cent
55-b
13.9
2.4
6.6
20.5
Note: The Total for the entire U.S. excluded Washington,
D.C.; and 35 urban places for which data are not
available.
366
11. The Municipal Yearbook, 1948 reports (p. 39) the
following for the Economic Base of American Cities
over 10,000:
METROPOLITAN STATUS
Inde- Suburbs Suburbs Suburbs
West Total pendent Central (E) (B) (D)
Mining
3 29
20 2 1 6 0
Transpor
tation 2 12
9 3
0 0 0
Manufactur
ing
3 267
112
47
88 20 0
Industrial 0
89 55 13
10 11 0
Div. Mfg.
5
98
57
30 4
7
0
Div. Ret. 21
163
106
47
2 8 0
Retail 36 135
111
13 3
8 0
Wholesale
7 13
11 0 1 1 0
Resort 6 20
15 5
0 0 0
Education 8
31
28 1 0 0 2
Government 6 18
13
4 0 1 0
Dormitory 25 166 6 0 0 0 160
TOTAL 122 1,041
545 163 109
62 162
367
12. From the Municipal Yearbook, 1948 the following cities were
selected from lists for the entire U.S. These are Cali
fornia cities only, classified in five standard categories
for comparative purposes:
C i t y
P o p u la t io n
1940
C en su s
(a d d 000)
P er c e n t
I n c r e a s e
M etro .
S t a t u s
and
R en t
L e v e l
E con om ic
B a se
Em ploym ent
R e s id e n c e
and Manu
f a c t u r i n g
R a t i o s
(1 ) (2 ) (3 ) (4 ) .(5)
Los A n g e le s 1 ,5 0 4 22 c Rm 50
—
28
San F r a n c is c o
635
L c Rm 56
- 21
O ak lan d 302 6 c Rm 46
-
30
Long B ea c h 164 16 d2 D 36
- 14
S a c r a m e n to 106
13
c G 44 -
19
San D ie g o
203 37
c G
33
_
22
B e r k e le y 86 4
D l
S 26 -
31
F r e s n o 61 16 c Rm 64
-
23
GLENDALE
83
32
D2
D 28 -
13
P a sa d e n a 82 8
b2
Rr 41 - 8
San J o s e 68
19
c Rm 60
*
38
S a n ta M onica 54 44
b2
Mr 48 -
45
S t o c k t o n
55
14 c Rm 54
-
20
A lam eda 36 4
d2
D 18
-
36
A lham bra
39
32
02
D
33
-
36
B a k e r s f i e l d
29
12 I Rr
51
__
8
B e l v e d e r e (tw p )
37 13
( n o t i n c o r p . )
B e v e r l y H i l l s
27
54
B4
Rr
53
- 8
B urbank 34 106
e2
M m 56
-
75
H u n tin g to n Park
29 17
b2 Rm 46 -
31
I n g le w o o d 30
55
D2
D
23
_
20
R i v e r s i d e
35 17
I W 36
-
7
San B e r n a r d in o 44 16 I Rr 38
-
6
S a n ta Ana 32
5 B l Rr 42
-
9
S a n ta B a r b a r a
35
4 I X 40 — 4
368
12. (Continued)
City-
Population
1940
Census
(add 000)
Per cent
Increase
Metro.
Status
and
Rent
) Level
Economic
Base
Employment
Residence
and Manu
facturing
Ratios
(1)
• (2) (3)
w (5)
South Gate
27 37
D D
25
—
44
Albany 11 34
^2
D 8 ~
83
Anaheim 11 L
B1
W
47
-
16
Bell 11
43
B1
D 21 -
19
Brawley 12 12 I D
29
-
7
Burlingame 16 20
B3
D 24
—
4
Compton 16 29
D1
D 30 —
25
El Centro 10
19
I W
51
- 10
Eureka
17
8 I Rm
51
-
35
Fullerton 10 -4 E W 62 -
23
Lodi 11
6 3
I Rm 5 4
_
25
Lynwood 11 50
D1
D 20 -
38
Maywood 11 58
D1
D
15
- 8
Merced 10
43
X 44 - 8
Modesto 16 18 I Rm 70 - 24
Monrovia
13
18
D1
D 28
_
13
Monterey 10 10 I G
59
-
51
National. City 10 42
D1
D 18
-
32
Ontario . 14
5
D1
D
39
-
34
Palo alto
17 23
d3
S 32 - 14
Pomona 24
13
b i
Rm 44 20
Redlands 14 1 1 W 42
-
4
Redondo Beach
13
40
Dl
D
19
-
3
Redwood City 12
39
d2
D 28 -
19
Richmond 24 18
- ■ £2
E1
Mm
65
-
73
Salinas 12
13
I M 78
_
10
San Buenaventura
13
14 I Mg 40
—
5
San Gabriel 12 64 Dp D 14 6
San Leandro
15 28 d| D 26
-
52
San Mateo
19
44
3
D 20 -
3
Santa Cruz
17 17
I X 40
9
Santa Rosa
13 19
I Rr
58
-
11
South Pasadena 14
5
d2
D 14
-
14
Vallejo 20
25 d2 D 24
-
11
Whittier 16
9
B2
D 38
— 11
369
APPENDIX 13
STATE LEGISLATION ENABLING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
TO IMPOSE TAXES, BY YEARS1
Years The State: Nexv York
1945 - 1946 , 1. Authorized cities generally to tax gross
incomes or gross operating incomes of corpo
rations and persons furnishing utility
services for general city fund purposes.
(Expiration: June 30* 1947.)
2. Authorized New York City to levy tax of
5 per cent on occupancy of rooms in hotels,
apartment hotels, and lodging houses where
rent is $2 or more a day and the room is
occupied by a transient.
3. Extended authority of Nex'? York City to
impose utility taxes at rates previously
fixed.
4. Authorized Nexv York City to double the
rates on retail sales and use taxes and gross
receipts taxes, and other than financial
businesses. (Expiration: July 1, 1949*)
5. Exempted material or equipment ^lsed or
purchased for constructing veteran's emergen
cy housing from all city sa-les taxes.
1946 - 1947 1. Authorized counties, except counties in
which New York City is located, to impose a
2 per cent retail sales tax, a 3 per cent
tax on. food sales In luxury restaurants, a
5 per cent tax on admissions, and a tax of
not more than $10 on the use of passenger
cars and trucks.
Source: "City Tax Legislation In 1946," Tffx Policy. Vol. XIII.
No. 11, November, 1946; "City Tax Legislation in 1947* '
Tax Policy, Vol. XIV, No. 12, December, 1947; "City
Tax Legislation In 1948," Tax Policy. Vol. XV, No. 10,
October, 1948.
370
APPENDIX 13 (Continued)
Years .The State: New York
19^6 - 19^7 2. Authorized cities of 100,000 to 1,000,000
to tax 1 /1 0 of 1 per cent of business receipts,
except for baks, cooperatives, real estate
sales or rents, and public utilities.
Authorized same cities to impose any of the
county-authorized taxes not imposed by the
county in which the city is located.
3. Authorized New York City to impose a 3 per
cent tax on meals in luxury restaurants, 5 per
cent tax on admissions, and tax of not more
than $10 on the use of passenger vehicles or
trucks in the city.
4. Authorized counties and New York City to
impose local taxes of not more than 25 per
cent of the state license fees on retail
liquor licenses. (Ch. 2 7 8, effective after
July 1, 1947)
1 9 4 7 - 1 9 A d 1 . A u t h o r i z e d c o u n t i e s a n d c i t i e s o v e r
2 5 ,0 0 0 population to levy sales and use taxes
not exceeding 2 per cent; 3 per cent on sales
of food and drink In restaurants if total
check is $1 or more; 25 per cent of state
alcoholic beverage license fee on retailers;
3 per cent on sales of utility services;
5 per cent on admissions, dues, and member
ships; $25 on coin-operated amusement devices;
$5 on small pleasure vehicles; $ 1 0 on large
pleasure-vehicles, busses and trucks; 3 /1 0
of 1 per cent on businesses other than
financial, and 3 /5 of 1 per cent on financial
businesses; 5 P®f cent on hotel rooms.
(Ch. 6 5I)
2. Required cities and counties imposing
sales taxes to exempt sales to the United
Nations or other world-wide organizations of
which the U.S. is a member, or to refund
sales taxes paid by such organizations.
371
APPENDIX 13 (Continued)
Years The State: New York
1947 - 1948 3* Extended time within which cities may tax
for general fund purposes gross incomes or
gross operating incomes of corporations and
persons furnishing utility services.
(Ch. 412) Expiration: June 30* 19^9•
4. Authorized New York City to tax coin
operated amusement devices (Ch. 6 5 1); to levy
taxes on consumption and use of utility
services; to tax gross receipts of financial
businesses at 2 / 5 of 1 per cent instead of
1 /5 of 1 per cent; and gross receipts of
other businesses at 1 /5 of 1 per cent instead
of 1/10 of 1 per cent (Ch. 489) Period:
Unlimited.
5. Extended authorization of New York City
to levy parimutuel taxes. (Ch. 612)
Expiration: July 1, 1951*
6. Permitted city of Schenectady to exclude
75 per cent of education costs from the 2
per cent tax limit.
The State: Maryland
1945 - 1946 1. Authorized Baltimore to levy any tax
levied by the state for 1 9 ^ 6 and 1947 •
19*1-6 - 19^7 1. Authorized Baltimore, beginning 1948, to
levy any tax the state may levy, except taxes
on gasoline, income, motor vehicle registra
tion and titling, horse-racing, pari-mutuel
betting, corporation franchise, corporate
document recording, savings bank deposits,
insurance premiums, inheritances, estates,
and commissions of executors and administra
tors. (Ch. 1, Special Session) Expiration:
1951.
372
APPENDIX 13 (Continued)
Y e a r s T h e S t a t e : M a r y l a n d
1946 - 1947 2. Authorized counties and incorporated towns
and cities to levy admissions taxes, to be
collected by the state comptroller and re
turned to the locality less the cost of col
lection. (Ch. 601)
Other States: Virginia
1945 - 1946 1. Authorized Norfolk to tax amusement,
exhibition, and sports admissions, to be
collected with price of admission.
2. Revised law to permit all cities and
towns with branches of city banks to tax bank
stock at a maximum rate of 40 per cent of the
state rate.
O t h e r S t a t e s : A l a b a m a
1946 - 1947 1. Authorized greater maximum amounts of
privilege or license tax cities may levy on
telegraph companies, companies operating
telephone exchanges and long distance tele
phone lines, and public utilities. (H.B. 510)
O t h e r S t a t e s : G e o r g i a
1. Authorized Boards of County Commissioners
to collect a fee not exceeding $1,000 on
fortune telling, palmistry, astrology, etc.
within county limits and outside city limits.
(Act 294)
Other States: Idaho
1. Authorized Boise to impose a sales tax,
motor vehicle license tax, and license fees
on trades, businesses and professions, the
city’s total revenue including ad valorem
taxes, not to exceed $1,000,000 per year.
373
APPENDIX 13 (Continued)
Years Other States: Illinois
1946 - 1947 1. Authorized municipalities to impose, with.
approval of voters, a retail sales tax not
exceeding 1/2 of 1 per cent to he collected
and administered by State Department of
Revenue which would retain 6 per cent to
cover costs. (S.B. 6 3 1)
Other States: Minnesota
1. Authorized first class cities with popu
lation of 450,000 or more (only Minneapolis
is in this category) to levy, with the
approval of the voters, an annual tax of 1
per cent on salaries, wages, commissions,
and other compensation, and on net profits,
earned after July 1, 1947, by residents and
nonresidents; tax to be withheld by employers.
(Ch. 608). The tax was-defeated by Minneapolis
voters, June 9, 1947. It can be resubmitted.
Other States: New Jersey
1. Authorized seaside or summer resort
cities on the Atlantic Ocean to levy a 3 per
cent selective sales tax. (A.B. 343)
Other States: North Carolina
1. Imposed new schedule of rates on moving
picture shows and vaudeville.
2. Authorized cities and towns to levy taxes
from $12.50 to $212.50 based on population,
and a tax not in excess of 1/2 the new rates
on such shows within city limits, at resorts,
or where a show is operated three days a week
or less, and
3- Authorized cities and towns with a popu
lation of 25,000 or more to levy a tax of not
more than $100 on such shows more than two
miles from the business center. (H.B. 25)
374
APPENDIX 13 (Continued)
Years Other States: North Dakota
1946 - I9 4 7 1. Authorized greater maximum fee cities
and villages may levy for a retail liquor
license from $1,000 to $2,000.
Other States: Ohio
1. Authorized cities to levy admission taxes
on amusements.
Other States: Oklahoma
1. Authorized municipalities, in case of
major catastrophe, to levy a 1 per cent
consumers’ sales tax on sales and services
taxes by the state, with voter-approval.
(H.B. 342).
2. Authorized city corporations to impose
license fees not exceeding $20 on retailers
of alcoholic beverages. (H.B. 254)
Other States: Pennsylvania
1. Authorized cities of the second class,
cities of the second class A, cities of the
third class, boroughs, towns,- townships of
the first class, and school districts of the
second, third and fourth classes, to levy
and taxes which the state has power to, but
does not now levy. (Act 481)
2. Imposed for school districts of the
first class (Philadelphia and Pittsburgh),
for 1948 and 1949* a mercantile license tax
of 1/2 mill per $1 of annual gross business
on wholesale dealers and brokers, and 1 mill
per $1 on retail dealers and persons con
ducting restaurants and places of amusement
(Act 320), and an intangible personal
property tax of not less than 1 mill or more
•than 4 mills per $1 (Act 319);
375
APPENDIX 13 (Continued)
Years Other States: Pennsylvania
1946 - 1947 3* Provided for a poll tax of $1 to $5 in the
Pittsburgh School District.
4. The tax on employees and the wives of
employees is to be deducted by the employer
(Act 318)
5. Raised the maximum poll tax to be levied
on all inhabitants over twenty-one by third
class cities from $1 to 15-
Other States: Wisconsin
1. Prohibited counties, cities and other
taxing units of government from levying taxes
on or measured by income. (Ch. 18)
Other States: West Virginia
1. Authorized cities, towns and villages to
levy an annual privilege tax on any business
or occupation so taxed by the state, at a
rate not to exceed the state rate. (H.B.
1 First Special Session).
2. Authorized municipalities to levy a tax
on intoxicating liquors not to exceed 2 per
cent of the purchase price or Id on any
fractional part of 50$ (S.B. 6 5); and
3. Prohibited city corporations from levying
license or privilege taxes on motor vehicle
carriers taxed under Sec. 4, Art. 12-A,
Ch. 11 (H.B. 379)
Other States: Louisiana
1947 - 1948 1. Amended the New Orleans Charter to allow
city to levy a sales tax of only 1 per cent
instead of 2 per cent (Act 119), but passed
a later amendment permitting city to levy
additional 1 per cent sales tax if a majority
of voters approve. (H.B. 18, First Special
Session).
376
APPENDIX 13 (Continued)
Y e a r s O t h e r S t a t e s : L o u i s i a n a
1947 - 1948 2. Authorized any municipality except New
Orleans to grant franchises for motor busses,
trackless trolleys, and other forms of trans
portation to operate in the municipality.
(Act 313)
Other States: Michigan
1. Proposed to liberalize the 1 5-mill
property tax limitation by providing that it
might be exceeded by a majority, rather than
a 2/3 vote, and that the increase might be
for twenty, rather than five years, maximum
in any case to be 50 mills.
Other States: Missouri
1. Authorized cities with population over
700,000 to levy an earnings tax not to ex
ceed 1/2 of 1 per cent, effective for two
years after effective date of act. (H.B. 475)
Other States: South Carolina
1. Limited cities’ right to levy license
fees on fire insurance companies to fees on
the basis of premiums collected, not to ex
ceed 2 per cent, except in cities of ^>0,000
or more, where the maximum is 5 cent
(S.B. 1201)
Other States: Texas
1. Voters approved a Constitutional Amend
ment authorizing counties to levy additional
ad valorem taxes, provided they permit a
$3*000 homestead exemption, and providing
for tax levies in counties having tax
donations.
.377
APPENDIX 14
STATE TAX SHARING LEGISLATION,, BY YEARS1
Years The State: Michigan
1945 - 1946 1. Michigan voters approved proposal whereby
cities will share in revenue from state sale
tax. 1 per cent of the state’s 3 per cent
sales tax will be divided among the cities,
villages, and schools.
The State: Arkansas
1946 - 1947 1. Allocated to cities 12 1/2 per cent of
all general revenues over $33 million.
The State: Colorado
1. Allocated 6 per cent of the new gasoline
tax revenues to cities and towns on the basis
of motor vehicle registrations.
The State: Iowa
1. Earmarked 10 per cent of gross sales of
state liquor stores for distribution to
local governments. 50 per cent will be dis
tributed to cities and towns on a per capita
basis. The remaining 50 per cent will be
given to counties to reimburse them for
soldiers exemptions on real estate.
The State: Minnesota
1. Provided for sharing 30 per cent of the
liquor tax increase with cities and townships
on a per capita basis.
2. Allocated 1$. of the cigarette tax to
municipalities and counties and provided for
submission of a constitutional amendment to
divide the state gas tax between state and
counties on a 50-50 basis.
Source: Tax Policy, Vol. XIII, No. 11, Vol. XIV, No. 12, and
Vol. XV, No. 10.
378
APPENDIX 14 (Continued)
Years The State: New Mexico
1946 - 1947 1* Allocated 15 per cent of the motor
v e h i c l e r e g i s t r a t i o n f e e s t o c i t i e s .
The State: Oregon
1 . I n c r e a s e d t h e h i g h w a y r e v e n u e r e t u r n e d
t o c i t i e s f r o m 5 P e r c e n t t o 1 0 p e r c e n t ,
a n d f r o m 15-7 p e r c e n t t o 19 p e r c e n t t o
t h e c o u n t i e s .
The State: Tennessee
1. Allocated revenue from the new sales tax
as follows:
(1) O f t h e f i r s t $ 2 0 m i l l i o n , $14 m i l l i o n
t o t h e s t a t e f o r s c h o o l a i d , $ 2 . 5
m i l l i o n t o m u n i c i p a l i t i e s o n t h e
b a s i s o f p o p u l a t i o n , $ 2 m i l l i o n f o r
w e l f a r e , $ 1 m i l l i o n f o r s t a t e b u i l d
i n g s a n d m a i n t e n a n c e , a n d $.5 m i l l i o n
f o r a d m i n i s t e r i n g c o l l e c t i o n e x p e n s e .
(2) Revenues above $20 million: 80 per
cent to counties for school and wel
fare to be distributed according to
gas tax distribution formula, 12.5
per cent to cities on a per capita
basis, and 7*5 Per cent to the state
building and maintenance fund.
(3) Counties in which Chattanooga, Knox
ville, Memphis and Nashville are located
must pay 60 per cent of their allot
ments to these cities.
The State: Utah
1. Increased the allocation of state motor
vehicle license collections to local units
from $8 0 0 ,0 0 0 to $1,5 0 0,0 0 0, and provided
for distribution of state liquor store
profits above $2,2 5 0 ,0 0 0 annually to localities.
379
APPENDIX 14 (Continued)
Years The State: ¥est Virginia
1946 - 1947 1. Provided for rebate to municipalities of
2 per cent of liquor store sales.
The State: Louisiana
1947 - 1948 1. Allocated $3 million of its cigarette tax
receipts to cities to be distributed on a per
capita basis.
The State: Michigan
1. Proposed to repeal the sales tax diversion
amendment which distributes one-third of sales
tax collections to local governments.
The State: Minnesota
1. Voters defeated a Constitutional Amend
ment providing for division of gas tax
revenue equally between the state and coun
ties instead of 2/3 to state and 1/3 to
counties.
T h e S t a t e : S o u t h C a r o l i n a
1. Increased the municipal share of the
state liquor tax from 10 per cent to 15 per
cent , •
380
APPENDIX 15
MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION: ADMISSION AND
AMUSEMENT TAXES, BY YEARS
1945 - 1946 1. Beaver Dam (Wis.) taxed Dowling alley
receipts at 10 for each line bowled.
2. Davenport (Iowa) taxed exhibitions,
games and amusements such as circuses.
3. Eau Claire (Wis.) imposed license tax
on theaters, skating rinks, pool halls,
bowling alleys, and coin-operated amusement
devices.
4. Miami Springs (Fla.): 10 per cent on
green fees at city golf course.
5. Norfolk (Va.): 10 per cent amusement
tax upheld as valid in lower court decision..
6. Philadelphia (Pa.) increased amusement
tax from 4 per cent to 10 per cent,
7. St. Louis (Mo.): 3 per cent amusement
tax on gross receipts from boxing and wrestling
events.
1946 - 1947 1- . Atlantic City: 3 P©1* cent amusement tax
2. Chicago: 3 per cent admissions tax
3. Cincinnati: 3 per cent admissions tax
4. Columbus (Ohio): 3 per cent admissions tax
5. Greensboro (N.C.): Tax of 10 per cent on
gross receipts, after deduction of federal and
state taxes, on operators of automobile, midget
automobile, and motorcycle races, and similar
amusements.
6. Hannibal (Mo.): 2 per cent gross recepts
tax on theaters and other places of amusement.
Source: Tax Policy, op. cit., Volume XIII, No. 11; Volume XIV,
No. 12; Volume XV, No. 10.
381
APPENDIX 15 (Continued)
1946 - 19^7 7* Lynchburg (Va.): 5 per cent amusement
tax.
8. Miami (Fla.): 25 per cent night club
admission tax, which was invalidated by
Florida Supreme Court.
9- Pittsburgh (Pa.): Amusement tax, Ij,
for each 10^ of the established price.
10. Richmond (Va.): 5 pet cent amusement
tax.
11. Roanoke (Va.): 1 per cent amusement
tax.
12. St. Paul (Minn.): 5 per cent admissions
tax.
13* Sedalia (Mo.): 5 P©r cent of gross
receipts license tax on movie theaters.
14. Tuscaloosa County (Ala.): 1 per cent
tax on gross receipts of amusement places.
1947 - 1948 1. Every Ohio city over 25,000 population,
except Toledo and Norwood, has adopted an
admissions tax since such taxes were author
ized by their state in 1947.
2. Twenty-one Pennsylvania communities have
levied 10 per cent admissions taxes:
i ) A l t o o n a
2) B e a v e r F a l l s
3)
B o l i v a r B o r o u g h S c h o o l D i s t r i c t
4} B r a d f o r d
5/
B r o w n s v i l l e B o r o u g h
6) C h e s t e r
7)
C l a i r t o n
8) C l a t i o n B o r o u g h
9)
C l y m e r B o r o u g h
382
APPENDIX 15 (Continued)
1947 - 19^8 2. (Continuing 21 Pa. communities)
(10) Crafton Borough
ill) Indiana Borough
(12) Latrobe Borough
(1 3) Masontown Borough
fl4J Meadville
f15) Minersville Borough
(16) New Kensington
(1 7} Pottstown Borough
fl8) Reading
(19) Springsdale Borough
(20) West View Borough
(21; West View Borough School District
3. Other Pennsylvania communities which have
levied admissions taxes:
Butler:
Charleroi Borough:
Donora Borough:
Harrisburg:
Marrietta Borough:
Monongahela:
Roscoe Borough:
Seward Borough:
Tarentum Borough: •
(10
(11
(12)
2% of gross receipts
lf0 of gross receipts
1^ for each 1 24 - ad
mission.
5 f o
'O
5 ' f o
10^ where admission
charge is over 75^;
5^5 on other admissions;
Union town:
West Mifflin Borough
and 3 < f i for children.
School District:
West Newton
Borough:
$25*000 for the pri
vilege of operating
an amusement park.
5 %
* 1 - . At least twenty-six other Pennsylvania
communities have also adopted admission taxes.
They are:
383
APPENDIX 15 (Continued)
19^7 - 1948 4. (Continuing 26 Pa. communities)
Abington Township
Allentown
Ambler Borough
Bangor Borough
Carbondale
Carlisle Borough
Coatesville
East Norwegian-Township School
District
Easton
Emmaus Borough
Hanover Borough
Hazleton
Honesdale Borough
Lewiston Borough
Lock Haven
Mount Union Borough
Norristown Borough
Parkesburg Borough
Pottsville
Renovo Borough
Ridgeway Borough
Tower City Borough
Wanesboro Borough
Whitehall Township
(25) Wilkersburg Borough
(26) York
5. Bloomington (111.): 4 per cent on gross
receipts of theaters.
6. Charlottesville (Va.): 4 per cent
admissions.
7- DeKalb (ill.): 4 per cent admissions.
8. Rockford (111.): 3 per cent admissions.
9. St. Louis (Mo.): 5 per cent on theater
admissions and on gross receipts of sporting
events.
384
APPENDIX 15 (Continued)
1947 - 1948 10. St. Petersburg (Fla.): 10 per cent
amu s ement t ax.
11. Waukegan (ill.): 4 per cent admission
tax.
385
' APPENDIX 16
MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION: AIRLINE
AND AIRPORT TAXES
1945 _ 1945 1. Cleveland (Ohio): A landing fee ranging
from $4.50 per 9>000 pounds of gross weight
to $30.- per 100,000 pounds on non-seheduled
trip arrivals of cargo planes.
2. Columbus (Ohio): 2 1/2 per cent on gross
revenues of non-scheduled airlines using it
as a base and 4^ per gallon of gas and 20^
per gallon of lubricant sold at airport.
3. Dallas (Texas): 3^ per gallon on gasoline
sold.
4. Davenport (Iowa): A schedule of fees for
the operation and rental of airports.
5. Mobile (Ala.): A landing fee of 1/2 mill
for each pound of gross landing weight on. all
non-scheduled airlines.
6. Toledo (Ohio): Airport rates and charges.
Source: Tax Policy, Vol. XIII, No. 11; Vol. XIV, No-. 12;
Vol. XV, No. 10.
386
1945
1946
1947
APPENDIX 17
MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION: ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE TAXES
- 1946 1. Los Angeles (Calif.): 10 on each 250 or
fraction thereof spent in bars for hard
liquors, wines, or beer.
2. Shreveport (La.): Tax of $1.50 per
barrel (31 gal.) on beverages containing less
than 6 per cent alcohol.
- 1947 1. Atlantic City: 3 per cent liquor tax.
2. Baltimore: 500 per gal. tax on alcoholic
beverages, except wine and beer.
3. Washington, D.C.: Annual license fees
manufacture or sale or alcoholic beverages
were increased by 10 per cent, except the
fees on Class E retailers. (P.L. 347)
4. Macon (Ga.): Raised license fees for
beer from $72.50 to $100 for retailers, and
from $290 to $500 for wholesalers, and for
wine containing from 14 per cent to 21 per
cent alcohol from $27-50 to $50.- and to
$125.- for x\rine with over 21 per cent alcohol,
and raised annual iicense fee for retailer
liquor stores from $435 to $1,200.
5. Xtfheeling (Va.): 10 on each 500 or
fraction thereof on retail sales of liquor.
6. Atlanta (Ga. ) and Flint (Mich.).: Passed
consumption and excise taxes on liquor.
- 1948 1. More than 40 Minnesota municipalities
and several Wisconsin communities imposed
or increased liquor license taxes.
Source: Tax Policy, op. cit., Vol. XIII, No. 11; Vol. XIV,
No. 12; Vol. XV, No. 10.
3«7
APPENDIX 17 (Continued)
1947 - 19^8 2. St. Paul was upheld in its imposition of
an occupation tax of $750 on off-sale liquor
dealers by the Minnesota Supreme Court.
3- Baltimore imposed taxes on certain
alcoholic beverages sold by wholesalers.
388
APPENDIX 18
GASOLINE TAXES
1946’- 1947 1. Birmingham (Ala.): Taxed persons or
firms selling., distributing, or storing
diesel fuel or oil for uses other than the
operation of motor vehicles.
2. Casper (Wyo.): 1^ per gal., gasoline
tax.
3. Cheyenne: 1^ per gal., municipal
gasoline tax on wholesalers.
1947 - 19^8 1. Jefferson County (Ala.): Adopted a
gasoline tax of 1^ per gal. which it dis
tributes to cities on the basis of gasoline
delivered.
Source: Tax Policy., Vol. XIII, No. 11; Vol. XIV, No. 12;
Vol. XV, No. 10.
389
APPENDIX 19
HOTEL TAXES
1946 - 1947 1. Atlantic City: 3 per* cent tax on hotel
accomodations.
2. Miami: 5 per cent tax on hotel, tourist
home, and apartment bills which was invali
dated by the Florida Supreme Court on
November 20, 1947*
3. Providence (R.I.): Taxed hotel room
rentals.
4. New York City: Levied 5 Per* cent hotel
tax in 1946, effective until July 1, 1949*
Source: Tax Policy, Vol. XIII, No. 11; Vol. XIV, No. 12;
VoT. XV, No. 10.
390
19^5 -
Source
APPENDIX 20
LICENSE TAXES
1946 1. Eight Florida cities greatly Increased
their occupational license taxes:
(l) Lakewood by 100$
Titusville by nearly 100$
Melbourne by 50$
Marianna by 50$
Bartow by 50$
Miami by 30$
Panama City by less than 30$
Sarasota by Less than 30$
2. Chicago (111.): Annual tax of $50 on
juke boxes, in lieu of a license fee; and
required pinball machine operators to
obtain licenses at fee of $50 per machine.
3. Cincinnati (Ohio): Fixed license fees
for coin-operated photograph machines.
4. Kansas City (Mo.): License fees on the
business of renting and leasing automobiles.
5- New York City: Levied 5$ tax on temporary
occupancy of rooms in hotels, apartments,
and lodging houses, renting for more than
$2 a day (Effective: July 1, 1946 to June
30, 1949).
6. Omaha (Neb.): Imposed tax on juke boxes
and pinball machines.
7. Phenix City (Ala.): Annual license fee
of $500 on each afternoon daily newspaper
with a circulation of over 1,000 in Phenix
City, and a fee of $100 on each morning
daily newspaper with a circulation of ‘ over
500 in the city. These classifications apply
only to the Columbus Ledger and The Columbus
Enquirer. The publisher of these papers
claims that the measure is a punitive tax
resulting from a clean-up campaign which
Tax Policy, Vol. XIII, No. 11; Vol. XIV, No. 12;
Vol. XV, No. 10.
391
1945
1946
1947
APPENDIX 20 (Continued)
1946 the papers have directed against Phenix
City -which Is just across the river from
Columbus.
8. Wheeling (Va.) Increased annual license
fees of night clubs from $100 to $1,000;
professional bondsmen from $50 to $500; and
cab space for taxicabs from $10-50 to $100.
1947 1. Baltimore (Md.): Tax on pinball machines,
music boxes, vending machines, and similar
devices.
2. Buffalo (N. Y. ): Greatly Increased its
license fees.
3. Miami (Fla.): Levied a $400 annual fee
on the maintenance and operation of coin
operated radios.
1948 1. Following license taxes were imposed by
Pennsylvania local governments:
(1) Bellevernon Borough: Imposed license
taxes of $25 on. pinball machines and $15
on juke boxes.
(2) Brownsville Borough: Imposed license
fees of $25 on. pinball machines and $50
oh juke boxes.
(3) Coatesville: Taxed juke boxes at $10,
cigarette vending machines at $5 and
mechanical amusement devices and bowling
alleys at $20.
(4) Donora Borough: Taxed vending machines
at $5.
(5) Geistown. Borough: Imposed license tax
of $450 per year on used car dealers.
Source: Ibid.
392
APPENDIX 20 (Continued)
1947 - 194b (6) Harrisburg Imposed $7-50 annual li
cense fee on Juke boxes.
(7) Lancaster Imposed tax on juke boxes
and mechanical amusement devices.
(8) Leechburg Borough Imposed license
taxes of $15 on pinball machines and
music boxes.
(9) McKees Rock Borough. Imposed license
taxes of $50 on pinball machines and
$25 on music boxes.
(10) Millerstown Borough Imposed annual
tax of $25 on linball machines.
(11) Monongahela Imposed license fees of
f300 on amusement places, $25 on pinball
machines, $20 on juke boxes, $10 on bowl
ing alleys, $10 on billiard tables, and
$15 on cigarette vending machines, and
Imposed a $100 business license fee on
bankers, and power and express companies.
(12) North Bellevernon Borough Imposed
license fees of $50 on theaters, $10 on
bowling alleys, $15 on pool talbes, $15
on juke boxes, $10 on vending machines,
and $25 on pinball machines.
(13) Oklahoma Borough imposed $2 .'50 per
month on pinball machines.
(14) Roscoe Borough imposed $25 license
fee on juke boxes.
(15) Sharon imposed license fees of $20
on mechanical devices, juke boxes, and
pool tables.
Source: Ibid.
393
APPENDIX 20 (Continued)
1947 - 1948 (16) Springdale Borough imposed license
fees of $5 on bowling alleys, $10 on
billiard tables, $100 to $300 onmechani
cal devices, $25 on- juke boxes, $50 on
vending machines, $50:on merchandise
boards.
(17) Ross Township imposed a license fee
of $50 on pinball machines.
(18) Whitehall Borough imposed license
fees of $50 on pinball machines and $25
on juke boxes.
2. Other Pennsylvania communities which
have imposed license taxes on mechanical
amusement devices:
(l) Allentown.
(2 j Bangor Borough.
(3/ Carlisle Borough
(4) Charleroi Borough
(5) Emmaus Borough
(6) Hanover Borough
(7) Marietta Borough
(8) Mercersburg Borough
(9) Minersvilie Borough
i
lOJ Mount Union Borough
11) Revono Borough
12) Ridgeway Borough
13/ Seward Borough
14) Waynesboro Borough
15/ West Newton Borough
16} York
3. Minnesota communities adopted license
taxes as follows:
(1) Badger: $50 fee on all mechanical
musical devices.
(2) Bellinghaus: Licensed pinball machines
and games of skill at $75 per year.
Source: Ibid.
APPENDIX 20 (Continued)
394
1947 - 1948 (3) Bemidji: Imposed license fees of
$10 on pinball machines; $10 on restau
rants and hotels; $100 om moving picture
theaters; $25 on junk and second-hand
dealers.
(4) Benson: Licensed games of skill at
a $150 fee.
(5) Canby: Imposed $15 license fee for
operating a junk yard.
(6) Echo: Established $5 a month license
fee for coin-operated machines.
(7) Lake Forest: $25 annual fee for
each pinball machine and each music box
operated in a public place.
(8) Gibbon imposed license fees of $60
a year on coin-operated amusement devices.
(9) Kasota: Decreased license fee for
games of skill from $15 to $10.
(10) Le Sueur: Imposed license fees:
$156 for first 15 machines, $10 for
each additional machine, on owners of
mechanical amusement devices; and $5
per machines on operators.
(11) Madison: $35 license fee on pin
ball machines and games of skill.
(12) Mankato: License fees of $25 on
junk dealers, $150 on theaters, $10 on
pinball machines.
(13) Minneapolis: Increased all
license fees by 1/3 to finance an in
creased appropriation for police depart
ment, but reduced license fees for
"whirling entertainment for children”
from $15 to $5 a week.
395
APPENDIX 20 (Continued)
19^7 - 1948 (14) Park Rapid: Bi-annual license fee
of 50^ a bicycle.
(15). Richfield licenses at $25 on sale
of Christmas trees, $10 on amusement
devices such as merry-go-rounds, $50 on
mechanical amusement devices, $60 on
first 5 units in tourist camp plus $6
for each additional unit, $5 on soft
drinks.
(16) Rochester: $100 license fee on
sidewalk vendors.
(1 7) St. Cloud: $5 license fee for on-
sale soft drinks.
(18) West St. Cloud: Licensed mechanical
amusement devices at $25 a piece and
$100 for first 10 music machines plus
$10 for each additional machine.
(19) White Bear Lake: $50 license fee
on moving licture theaters.
4. Other States:
(1) Baltimore (Md.): Taxed mechanical
amusement devices.
(2) Hood River (Ore.): License fee of
$20 a week on jugglers.
(3) Janesville (Wis.): Biennial bicycle
license fee of $50 to finance reflector-
ized license plates.
(4) Lincoln (Neb.): Imposed tax on
mechanical amusement devices, and im
posed a privilege license tax of $1 to
$2 a foot of width on each business
driveway.
396
APPENDIX 20 (Continued)
19^7 - 19^8 (5) Little Rock: $25 a year tax on sale
of sliced watermellon on premises where
no other license is paid.
(6) Marshfield (Wis.): Increased annual
theater license fee to $100.
(7) Newport News (Va.): License taxes
of $10 on cigarette and candy machines
operated on premises having a merchants
retail license and retail tobacco license,
plus $5 on machines placed in establish
ments for employee use, $5 on weight,
pernut, and gum-machines, $10 on
machines vending agricultural products,
soft drinks, cigarsj $50 on other
vending machines operated by 5^ or more.
(8) North. Little Rock: Levied license
tax on manufacturers of artificial limbs.
(9) Oshkosh (Wis.): Increased license
fees on pool and billiard tables from
&3 to $5, bowling alleys from $5 to
$10 per alley, junk yards, from $10 to
$20, auctions from $15 to $25 per day
and fixed theater license fee at 20^5
per seat.
(10) Trenton (N.J.): License taxes on
bagatelle tables, towel supply business,
street pianos, and organ grinders.
(11) A number of So. Dakota cities
adopted taxes on slot machines following
state authorization.'
397
APPENDIX 21
MOTOR VEHICLE TAXES
1945 - 1946 1. Amarillo (Tex.)* Street rental charge
(on taxicabs) of 3 Per> cent of gross receipts.
2. Baltimore (Md.): 15 per cent tax on
gross receipts of public passenger vehicles
operated over fixed routes (and restored)
--tax on street railway operations to 9 per
cent.
3. Cheyenne: A morot bus franchise granted.
4. Houston (Tex.): Taxicab license fee up
to $60 per vehicle (invalidated by Texas
Supreme Court).
5. London (Ky.): $5 license fee on all
autos and trucks regularly opera'ted in the
city.
6. Omaha (Neb.): Increased tax on ca.rs and
trucks.
7. Shreveport (La.): Granted a bus franchise
at an annual fee of $2 .5 0 per passenger-seat.
1946 - 1947 1* Chicago: Imposed a mileage tax on motor
busses, and increased the motor vehicle tax
on vehicles under 35 horsepower (from $8 to
$10 per year) and over 35 horsepower (from
$16 to $20 per year).
2. Harrisburg (Pa.) taxed motor busses.
3. Portland (Me..) raised taxicab' license fee
from $20 to $40 per year.
4. Racine (Wis.) levied annual franchise tax
of $50 per taxicab.
Source: Tax Policy, Vol. XIII, No. 11; Vol. XIV, No. 12;
Vol. XV, No. 10.
398
APPENDIX 21 (Continued)
1946 - 1947 5. Shreveport (La.) levied 3/4 of 1 per cent
tax on gross revenues of trackless trolley
busses.
1947 - 1948 1. Columbus (Ohio) temporary license to a
private bus company under terms of which
city will receive 2 per cent of gross intra
city passenger revenues.
2. Denver: Imposed on taxicabs, annual
license fee of $ 1 0 0 for a business license,
$50 for each cab, and $ 3 for driver's license.
3. Detroit: Highway maintenance and repair
fee, based on number of passengers, on inter
city bus operators.
4. In Minnesota:
(1) Bemidii: Increased license fees for
taxes to $2 0 per vehicle and for other
passenger motor vehicles to $1 0 0.
(2) Lucerne: $25 fee on first taxicab
and $5 on each, additional cab.
(3) Richfield: Fees of $25 for first
garbage-hauling vehicle, $10 for each
additional vehicle; $2 5 for first taxi
cab and $3 for each additional cab;
$ 50 for first bus, and $10 for each
additional bus. '
5. Sheffield (Ala.) $35 annual tax on house
trailers.
6. Oshkosh (Wis.) increased license fees on
city busses from $100 to $ 1 5 0 and on taxi
cabs from $1 to $10.
399
APPENDIX 22
POLL TAXES
1947 - 1948 1. Certain Pa. communities imposed poll
taxes* as follows (with rate per.capita):
(l) Annin Township School District $10
( 2 1 B e l l e v e r n o n Borough 3
( 3 j B r a d fo r d 3
(4) Bridgewater Borough 5
(5) Clairton 2
(6) Crafton Borough 5
f7) Dunl e v y Borough 5
(8) Fayette City Borough 5
(9) Gallitzin Borough 5
(10) Hamlin Township School District 10
111) Kane Borough 3
(12) Meadville 5
(13; New Kensington 5
(l4) North Bellevernon Borough 3
(15} Oil City 5
(16; Port Alleghany Borough
(for 1947 to 1948 8
(for 1948 to 1949 10
(1 7) Ridgway Borough 5
(18) Scalp Level Borough
(for men: 2
(for women: 1
(1 9 ) S e w ic k le y Borough 5
(20) Smithport Borough School Distr. 10
f21] Speers Borough 3
(22) Tarentum Borough 3
(23; Tarentum Borough School Distr. 8
(24) Thornburg Borough 12.50
( 2 5) Verona Borough 5
Also: (1) Coatesville
(2) Easton
(3) Eleo Borough
(4; Franklin
(55 Hazelton
(6) Marietta Borough
(7; Myersdale Borough
(8) Northumberland Borough
(9; Parkesburg Borough
(10) Williamsport
Source: Tax Policy* op. cit.
400
APPENDIX 23
PROPERTY TAXES
1946 - 1947 l; Ann Arbor: Reached agreement with Uni
versity of Michigan under which latter will
pay $2 5 ,0 0 0 in. lieu of taxes in 1947, and
may pay $1,0 0 0; , 000 over a ten year period,
in addition to $5 ,0 0 0 as a capital investment
in utilities for each new building.
2. Philadelphia: Levied tax of 4 mills on
the principal of mortgages, stocks, bonds,
and money at interest.
3. Pittsburgh: Imposed a 2 mill tax on all
intangible personal property effective May 1,
1948, in addition to the taxes levied by the
School District of Pittsburgh and Alleghany
County.
1947 - 1948 1. Bradford (Pa.): Tax of 4 mills on
personal property.
2. New York City extended to January 1,
1952 limitation date for erection of housing
by private or public housing companies which
will be partially exempt from taxation for
local purposes (L.L. 6 7).
REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAXES
1947 - 1948 1. Aston Township School District (Pa.):
1 per cent real estate transfer tax.
2. Haverford Township (Pa.): 1 per cent
real estate transfer tax.
3. Rednor Township (Pa.): 1 per cent real
estate transfer tax.
4. Roanoke (Va.): Is considering civil
proceedings to determine the legal status of
its 1 per cent tax on real estate sales.
Tax was invalidated by the Roanoke Hustings
Court, after $53,000 had been collected, in
Source: Tax Policy, op. cit.
401
APPENDIX 23 (Continued)
1947 - 1948 a criminal case involving a taxpayer who had
refused to pay the tax and had been fined,
and the State Supreme Court refused to hear
. ah appeal.
402
APPENDIX 24
PUBLIC UTILITY TAXES
1945 - 1946 1. Miami: Excise tax on every purchase of
electricity, metered gas, bottled gas, and
telephone service.
2. New York City: Extended tax on conduit
companies (L.L. 12} and utilities (L.L. 13)
to June 30, 1947 at same rates.
3. Omaha: Occupation tax on electric
utilities.
4. Portland (Ore.): 3 per cent on gross
revenue of electric, telephone, and tele
graph utilities, and 2 per cent on local
gas and transit utilities.
5. Youngstown (Ohio) Reenacted 2 1/2 per
cent tax on net electric, gas, water, and
telephone service bills, but Held: Illegal
(Ohio Supreme Court).
6. Jacksonville (Fla.), Port Angeles
(Wash.), Canton (Ohio) and Utica (N.Y.)
all adopted utility taxes.
1946 - 1947 1. Baltimore (Md.): Imposed 5 per cent
utility consumers' tax on users of gas,
electricity, and local telephone service,
with residential users exempt.
2. Denver (Colo.): Increased telephone
company tax from 2 1/2 per cent to 3 per
cent of gross receipts, and imposed a 1
per cent tax on local exchange telephone
service and intra-state telegraph service
originating In the city, gas and electric
services, and gas and electricity sold for
domestic or commercial consumption.
Source: Tax Policy, op. cit.
403
APPENDIX 24 (Continued)
1946 - 1947 3* Ft. Lauderdale (Fla.)* Levied tax:
10 per cent of bills under $2 5* 5 cent
of bills over $25 on water, gas, electric,
telephone and telegraph services.
4. Greensboro, ( N . C . ) increased the annual
franchise tax on utilities furnishing •
electric current from $2 ,5 0 0 to $10,000.
5. Jacksonville: Levied tax on local
telephone service, and on purchase of
electricity, gas, and water service.
6. Lynchburg (Va.): Imposed a 2 per cent
public utility tax.
7. Norfolk (Va.): Imposed 8 per cent tax
on public utility bills to be paid by
consumers.
8. Richmond (Va.): Taxed gas, water, tele
phone and electric bills at 5 cent.
9. Topeka (Kansas): Levied a gas franchise
tax: 5 Per cent of gross revenues on non
industrial users and 1 per cent on industrial
users.
1947 - 1948 1. Baltimore taxed sales of artificial or
natural gas and electricity for consumption,
and also taxed utility poles.
2. Buffalo (N.Y.): 1 per cent tax on gross
income of utilities.
3- Charlottesville (Va.): 5 P®^ cent tax
on telephone, electricity, water, and gas
bills, and reduced to 2 per cent on amounts
over $3,000 on a single utility bill.
4. Chicago increased fees for use of city
street telegraph companies to $30 for each
new pole erected and $12 annual fee for each
pole used and located on public streets, and
established annual fees of 28$ per lineal
404
APPENDIX 24 (Continued)
1947 - 1 9 ^ 8 foot of duct for underground wires, and 4^
for wire not contained in a duct or conduit.
5. So. Miami (Fla.) imposed a graduated
tax on utility consumers bills.
405
APPENDIX 25
SERVICE CHARGES
Years Garbage Collection
1945 - 1946 1. Cincinnati: $3 Per ton for incinerating
waste and garbage from outside the city.
2. Dallas: A monthly garbage collection
fee of 7 5$ ! per household.
3. Detroit: New fees of $1.50 per five-
bushel barrel or $12 a ton on commercial
garbage collections over 300 gallons weekly,
or $6 per ton if the customer makes delivery
to the incinerator, and increased the fee
for commercial rubbish from 20$! to 3 0$ a
barrel.
4. Kent (Wsh.): A service charge for
garbage collection.
5. St. Paul (Minn.): A monthly fee of 75^
for collecting garbage and rubbish from
single family dwellings effective in 1947.
6. Virginia (Minn.) garbage collection
fees of 5 0^ a month for residences and $1
a month for business establishments.
7. Wheeling (Va.) garbage collection fee
of 5 0^ a month for residences.
Parking Meters
1. Indianapolis (Ind.) and Jackson (Mich.)
installed parking meters.
2. Miami Beach installed parking meters
on the city parking lot.
Source: Tax Policy, op. cit.
406
APPENDIX 25 (Continued)
Years Sewer Rental
1945 - 1946 1. Amarillo: Sewer rental fee of 7 5$ per
month for residences with 5 or less plumbing
fixtures, with 5^ for each additional
fixture and 20 per cent of the water bill
on industrial usersh
2. Anaheim (Cali.) sewer rental fee: $1
for a single-family dwelling.
3. Excelsior (Minn.): A sewer rental fee
of 754 f°r a single-family dwelling.
4. Madison: Revised schedule of sewer
rental charges.
5. Miami: Voters approved charges for
sewer services. Sewer rental ordinance
has been upheld by Florida Supreme Court.
6. Montclair (N.J.): Sewer service charge:
$2 .1 2 per 1 ,0 0 0 cubic feet for the first
1 0 ,0 0 0 cubic feet of water consumed per
quarter, and $1 .0 8 per additional 1 ,0 0 0
cubic feet, and with minimum quarterly
charge of $2. 5 0.
7. Providence: Imposed a sewer rental
charge.
8. Sacramento: New sewerage disposal
charges to be added to the water bill.
9. Utica (N.Y.): Sewer rental charge- of'
25 per cent of quarterly water bill.
1946 - 1947 1. Wisconsin Rapids (Wis.) and Holton
(Kan.): Have raised charges to non-reSidents
for the use of municipal services.
407
APPENDIX 25 (Continued)
Years Garbage Collection
1946 - 1947 1. Ashtabula (Ohio) imposed annual $9 fee
for garbage collection.
2. Minneapolis levied a refuse collection
charge of 75^ per month.
3. Montebello (Calif.): Adopted a garbage
collection service charge.
4. Pensacola (Fla.): Fixed charges for
garbage and refuse collection.
Parking Meters
1. Ashtabula (Ohio) and Augusta (Ga.)
installed parking meters.
Sewer Rental
1. Ashtabula (Ohio) levied a sewer rental
charge of 4<^ per 100 cubic feet of water
consumed.
2. High Point (N.C.) levied sewer service
charge of 50 per cent of the water service
charge.
3. Indianapolis: Imposed sewer service
charges on suburban users.
4. Montebello (Calif.): Adopted a sewer
rental tax.
Water Tax
1. Chicago: Raised the charge to out-of-
town consumers of city-water from 7*3 6^ to
20$ per 1000 gallons.
408
APPENDIX 25 (Continued)
Years Water Tax
1947 - 1948 1. Eugene (Ore.): Tax of 1/29$ per pound
of butter fat content on all milk sold In
the city to pay for an enlarged milk sani
tation inspection service.
2. Minneapolis (Minn.) revised rates for
furnishing fire protection services outside
the city limits.
3. Paragould (Ark.) offered fire protection
to property owners outside the city at a charge
of $3 f°r each fireman answering calls and
$50 each pumping hour or fraction thereof.
Garbage Collection
1. Moorehead (Minn.): Monthly service
charges of 9 0^ per family unit for its new
refuse collection and disposal system.
2. Oklahoma City: Charge for garbage
collection.
3. St. Petersburg (Fla.) adopted a system
of garbage collection charges.
Sewer Rental
1. Columbia Heights (Minn.) Increased
sewer rates to 40^ per month.
2. Farmington (mo.)': Imposed a sewer rental
charge of 15 per cent on water bills in
excess of $1 on users of more than 300 cubic
feet of water per month.
3. New Brunswick (N.J.) adopted a sewer
rental charge based on the amount of water
used.
4. St. Paul (Minn.) increased sewer rental
rates to produce 84 per cent more revenue.
APPENDIX 25 (Continued)
409
Years Sewer Rental
1947 - 1948 5. Wisconsin.Rapids (Wis.) adopted a system
of sewerage' service charges based on the
water bill.
Water Tax
1. Columbia Heights (Minn.) increased water
rates to $1 .5 0 a quarter.
2. Saginaw (Mich.) provided that consumers
outside city limits be charged at least
double the city water rates.
3. Santa Barbara (Calif.): $1 a month on
water meters., effective June to December,
1948.
410
APPENDIX 26
SEVERANCE TAXES
1946 - 1947 1. Robinson Township School District (Pa.)
levied a tax on all coal mined by the open
pit method within boundaries of the township.
1947 - 1948 1. Some Pa. communities, as follows, have
imposed taxes on coal production (with rates
indicated per ton):
(1} Bradford Township School Distr.
2) Collier Township
3) East Bethlehem Towhship School
District
(4) East Pike Run Township School
District
(5) Forward Township School Distr.
(6) Hanover Township School Distr.
(7) Lawrence Township School Distr.
(8) Limestone Township School Distr.
(9) North Fayette Township School
District
(10) North Versailles Township .
(11) Plumcreek Township School Distr.
(12) Redbank Township School Distr.
(13; Robinson Township School Distr.
(14) Rostraver Township School Distr.
(1 5) Smith Township ‘ '
(16) Smith Township School District
1 7; South Fayette Township
18) South Fayette Township School
District
19) Toby Township School District
20} West Deer Township School Distr.
2. Other severance taxes were imposed by
Pa. local units as follows:
(‘ 1) Chartiers Township School District
and
(2) Smith Township School District imposed
tax of 100 per ton strip mined.
50
100
30
100
50
50
50
50
80
100
50
50
50
50
100
50
50
50
30
50
Source: Tax Policy, op. cit.
411
APPENDIX 26 (Continued)
1947 - 1948 (3) Jefferson Tovmship: A tax of 50 per
ton strip mined.
(4) Burgettstown Borough: 2 1/20 per
ton processed.
(5) Cooper Township School District:
1 per cent on value of coal mined.
(6) Dunhard Township School District:
100 per ton on coal mined or processed.
(7) East Bethlehem Township: 10 per ton
on coal mined or loaded.
(8) Greenwood Township School District:
50 per ton on coal mined and trans
ported.
(9) Hopewell Township School District:
100 a ton on hauling or dumping of
bone coal.
(10) Mt. Pleasant Township School District:
100 per ton on coal mined, but exempted
coal deposits which have borne the
same real estate assessment and paid
taxes for three years.
(11) Pleasant Hills Borough: Taxes of 100
per ton mined and 250 per ton of
wastes deposited.
(12) St. Glair Township School District:
Taxes of 100 per ton mined and 100
per ton loam, and variable taxes on
mine accessories.
(13) Seward Independent School District:
Taxes of 100 per ton mined, 500 per
ton loam deposited and tax on props
and posts.
(14) Centerville Borough, Chest Township
School District, So. Heights Borough,
and Tremont Township School District,
also taxed coal production.
3. Montebello (Calif.) imposed a tax on
oil wells.
412
APPENDIX 27
TOBACCO TAXES
1945 - 1946 1. Miami: 24 per pack,, cigarettes and 14
for each 10^ or fraction of retail sale
price of tobacco product.
2. Omaha: 24 per pack of 20 cigarettes,
1^ for each additional 10; and cigar tax of
14 per cigar.
3. St. Joseph: $1 per 1,000 (cigarettes)
and required all sellers to pay license fee
of $1 for each place of business. (Gen.
Ord. 3 0 8 7)
4. Wheeling: 14 for each 20 cigarettes or
fraction thereof (20), plus annual registra
tion fee of $10 for sellers (Permanent in
junction was granted against enforcement
of this law.)
1946 - 1947 1* Atlantic City: 24 per package of 20 and
3 per cent tobacco tax.
2. Atmore (Ala.): 24 per pound, cigarette
tax.
3. Baltimore: 14 per 20 cigarettes; 14 on
cigars retailing at not less than 7^ nor
more than Vo4’ > 24 on cigars costing more
than 1 54 less than 3 04l 34 on cigars costing
more than 30^. 14 PeI* 204 or fraction there
of of the price per package on smoking tobacco
and on chevjing tobacco, the taxes to be paid
by stamps and effective for 1947 only.
4. Brookfield (Mo.): Cigarette tax of $1
per $1,000 with registration fee of $1.
5- Denver: Raised cigarette tax from 14
to 24 per pack.
6. Hannibal (Mo.): Levied a cigarette
retailers license tax of $1 per $1,000 but
Source: Tax Policy, op. cit.
413
APPENDIX 27 (Continued)
1946 - 1947 repealed it in April after two months of
trial.
7. Puehlo (Colo.): 1^ per pack of ciga
rettes.
8. Springfield (Mo.): 2.$ per pack of ciga
rettes.
9. Wetumka (Ala.): 2 < f i per pack of 20 ciga
rettes, 4^5 per pack of 21 to 40 cigarettes;
65^ per pack of more than 40, and half these
rates outside city., but within police juris
diction of the city.
1947 - 1948 1. Alamosa (Colo.): 2^ per package on
cigarettes and tobacco.
2. Baltimore: Taxed cigarettes and tobacco.
3. Grand Junction (Colo.): Taxed cigarettes
2< f per pack.
4. Jefferson County (Ala.): Adopted 2^ per
pack cigarettes tax, and distributes 75 per
cent to cities on basis of population.
5. Birmingham, and Bessemer (Ala.), located
in Jefferson County, abandoned their cigarette
taxes.
6. Rocky Ford (Colo.): Imposed a 2^ per
package on cigarettes and tobacco.
7 . St. Louis Increased cigarette tax from
$1 to $1.50 per 1,000 effective January 1,
1948 (Ord. 44341).
8 . St. Petersburg (Fla.): Tobacco tax of
1$ £ per 1 0^ of sales.
9. Trinidad (Colo.): 2$, per package on
cigarettes and tobacco.
414
APPENDIX 28
COMPARATIVE TAX RATES OF 327 AMERICAN CITIES FOR 19451
(Selected)
City (a)
Assessed Per Cent
Value Personality
Number of
Payments,
City Taxes
New York (b) $15,902,977,696 0 2
Chicago
4,886,619,059
16 2
Philadelphia 3,065,860,312 21 Op.
Detroit 2,906,345,890 27
2
Los Angeles
1,488,773,355
22 2
San Francisco (c) 846,625,476 16 2
Oakland (d) 289,054,328
17
2
San Diego (e)
221,759,855 19
2
Long Beach 253,127,120 14 2
Sacramento 135,723,010
15
2
Berkeley (f) 101,008,230 1 2
GLENDALE
74,022,755
18 2
Pasadena 128,774,390 20 1
San Jose
68,037,695
2
Fresno 64,141,445 36 2
Stockton
68,853,665
15 10
Santa Monica
49,557,085 17
2
San Bernardino (g) 32,819,970 28 2
Alhambra
31,633,275
22 2
Alameda
35,933,825 17
2
Santa Barbara 49,204,925 14 2
Riverside 30,691,240 10 2
Burbank 64,531,460
33
2
Santa Ana 28,114,570'
63
2 ■
Inglewood 25,292,415 8 * 2
(a} Census data omitted; (b) Pop: 1 million or over;
(c) Pop: 1/2 to 1 million; (d) Pop: 1/4 to 1/2 million;
(e) Pop: 100,000 - 250,000; (f) Pop: 50,000 - 100,000;
(g) Pop: 30,000 - 50,000.
Source: "Tax Rates of American Cities," Volker Fellows,
National Municipal Review, Vol. 34, No. 11, December, 1945,
pp. 547-566. This data compiled by the Detroit Bureau of
Governmental Research from Data Furnished by City Officials
and Members of the Governmental Research Association.
APPENDIX 28 (Continued)
City
Actual Tax Rate
as Levied Per
$1,000 Assessed Valuation
City School County State Total
Estimated
Ratio of
Assessed
Value to
True Value
(per cent)
Adjusted
Tax Rate
on 100%
Basis of
Assessment
New York $28.20 100 $28.20
Chicago $22.60
$13.30
$3-80 N 39.70 100 39.70
Philadelphia 17.00
11.75
N N
28.75
100
28.75
Detroit
19.69 9.73 4.99
N 34.41 100 34.41
Los Angeles
22.51
18.22
16.27
N 57.00 50 28.50
San Franci-sco
36.97 11.33
N N 48.30 50 24.15
Oakland 24.60 16.60 14.50 N 55.70
35
19.50
San Diego 21.40 18.30 17.60 N 57.30 50
28.65
Long Beach 12.12 19.54 21.27 N
52.93
50 26.47
Sacramento 20.50 20.10 12.60 N 53.20 67*
35.53
Berkeley 16.56 17.54 14.50 N 48.60 52 25.24
GLENDALE 13.66 23.10 16.27 N
53.03
50 26.52
Pasadena 11.74 20.44
16.27
N 48.45 67*
32.28
San Jose 15.72
Fresno 16.10 23.70 8.80 N 48.60 100 48.60
Note: There is no State levy on property in California, Delaware, Fla., 111.,
Iowa, Michigan, N.H., N.C., Ohio, Okla., Ore., R.I., S.C., S.Da., Vermont
and Virginia. There is not a State levy on real estate in Pa.
Source: Ibid., Note the following symbols and meanings: N * None; * = Cities
reported different assessment ratios for the city and county, or for
land and buildings. The figure shown is the weighted average (to the
nearest integer) of the several ratios; ** = estimated; Op. = optional, h
APPENDIX 26 (Continued)
City
$1,
City
Actual Tax Rate
as Levied Per
000 Assessed Valuation
School County State Total
Estimated
Ratio of
Assessed
Value to
True Value
(Per Cent)
Adjusted
Tax Rate
on 100^
Basis of
Assessment
Stockton 119.10 $16.84 $13.70 W $50.34 62*
$31.03
Santa Monica
21.23 20.95 21.27 N
63-45
50
31.73
San Bernardino 16.60 22.10 18.50 N 57.20 50 28.60
Alhambra ' 15.07 I9.76** 13.62** N 48.45
50
24.23
Alameda 15.80 31.60 N 47.40 50 23.70
Santa Barbara
Riverside
12.60
15.40 16.70 16.40 N 48.50 50 24.25
Burbank 16.60
18.71
I8.77 N 54.08 60
32.45
Santa Ana 16.00
23.33
17.32 N 56.65 33
18.69
Inglewood 14.00
23.37
22.35 N 59.72
50 29.86
417
APPENDIX 28 (Continued)
SPECIAL NOTES
Burbank County (L.A.) rate Includes 2.39* County Flood Control
and 2.50, Met. Water Dlst. rates.
San Bernardino County rate Includes $1.90, Flood control rate.
Santa Monica County rate Includes $5*-, Met. Water Dlst. and
County Flood Control rates.
Pasadena County rate include $2.39, Flood Control rate.
Glendale County rate includes $2.39* Flood Control rate.
Berkeley County rate includes park district, water district,
and mosquito abatement rates totaling $2.50.
Sacramento County rate includes $.30, utility district $.40,
flood control.
Long Beach County rate includes $5.-, water district and
$2.39, county flood control rates. City rate
includes $.10, sanitation district #3 bates.
San Diego County rate includes $.40, county water authority.
Oakland County rate includes $.20, park $2.20, municipal
utility, and $.10, mosquito abatement rates.
San Francisco Assessed value does not include $370,051,995
Solvent Credits, taxed at $1 per $1,000.
City and County governments are combined.
Los Angeles County rate includes $2.39, flood control rate,
on land and improvements only $5.-, Met. Water
Dist. rate.
WmtfBsstfty of Southern California
50
Sustaining such a conclusion is the comparison of
Glendale’s proportion of usable city area used for multiples
(3.41 per cent) with the comparable average proportion for
thirty statistical areas surveyed by the Los Angeles County
PO
Planning Commission: 2.4-5 per cent.
Table VII exhibits the allocation of the city's land
factor to “commercial uses”. 3-20 per cent of total usable
area is devoted to this class of utilization (subject to the
objections noted below). This means 338-7 acres in sum or
3.3 acres per 1*000 population.
"Light commercial" use is further interpreted by the
planning commission.21 It includes mercantile establishments
broadly, plus professional offices, studios, carpenter shops,
laundry agencies, furniture storage, hospitals and sanitaria.
"Heavy commercial" is also further expanded in the
22
context of the Report. It includes wholesale establish
ments, bakeries with no more than ten employees, bottling
works, candy manufacturing, manufacturing of medical and
pharmaceutical products, toy manufacturing, etc.
20 "On the other hand," says the Glendale Land Use
Report, "it is unlikely that the great area &f Glendale land
now zoned for multiple use will ever be entirely developed
for that purpose." (P. 6)
21 T
Loc. eit.
PP
Loc. eit.

Linked assets