MMA Fiscal Survey
(from
Maine Townsman,
January 2002)
by
Michael Starn,
Editor
(tables by Kate Dufour)
Maine communities under 4,000 population spend almost 80 percent of their property tax commitment on education, and county government and communities over 20,000 population spend about 55 percent of their property taxes on education and county government.
The total roads expenditure in all Maine communities is slightly more than what they collect in excise taxes and receive from the state in local road assistance funds.
In 2000, the overall expenditure for public safety (police, fire, EMS) actually went down, from the prior year, while the expenditure for public works (roads, solid waste) went up.
These are just a few of the facts that MMA staff was able to extract from the data that will soon be published in the 2001 Municipal Fiscal Survey report. A hard copy of the report will be available in early February and an electronic copy, in a spreadsheet format, will be posted at the same time on the MMA web site, www.memun.org.
The Fiscal Survey report has an individual profile on all 490 Maine cities, towns and plantations. Local government revenue data that MMA was able to gather from state government sources is included in the report for all municipalities while expenditure data is shown only for those communities that filled out the fiscal survey.
MMA’s fiscal survey, on which the report is based, was mailed to all municipalities in late October, 2001. The financial data requested in the survey, and contained in the report, is for the fiscal year ending on December 31, 2000, on June 30, 2001, or sometime between those two dates.
This year’s survey had a response rate of about 50 percent. This is a slight improvement over last year’s 44 percent response rate, but not as high as MMA would like to see. Communities that responded to the survey will receive a complimentary copy of the survey report.
Uses of the Report
The Fiscal Survey is an extremely important lobbying tool for MMA’s legislative staff and should be a valuable budgeting tool for municipal officials.
Ask an expenditure question about Maine municipalities, and the survey should be able to provide the answer. How much do communities between 2,000 and 4,000 population spend (on average) on solid waste collection and disposal? What do communities under 1,000 population spend (on average) on fire services? What do communities over 20,000 population spend (on average) on police and fire services? These are the kind of questions the survey was designed to answer.
Legislators often ask these types of questions when bills come before their committees that have an impact on local government services. The State & Federal Relations staff’s enhanced ability to answer their questions about municipal revenues and expenditures improves the MMA advocacy program.
From a municipal official’s perspective, general comparisons are helpful but the specific and targeted comparisons should be the most beneficial. With a profile on each community, a coastal town could compare its law enforcement costs with several other coastal communities, a mill town could do cost comparisons with other mill towns, and service center municipalities could use the data to show the fiscal demands placed on their type of community.
Comparing costs is a useful budgeting tool that can assist municipal officials in determining the appropriate size of a municipal service and what its competitive cost is.
Expenditure comparisons can help make services more cost-efficient, but it should not be used as a sole determinant of cost. It is just one of many tools municipal officials can use when putting together a municipal budget.
Sometimes, comparing will make your community look good; other times it will give you ideas on how to improve services. Cost comparisons should not be used to belittle or criticize municipal employees; instead, it should be used as a way to improve service delivery and cost effectiveness.
When building a municipal budget, if municipal officials only look at what was spent the prior year or what the historical pattern of spending has been, they will not be able to “right-size” their municipal government services. For more information on benchmarking (comparing costs), refer to the May, 1997 issue of the MAINE TOWNSMAN (also archived on the MMA website).
First Look at the Data
The 2001 Fiscal Survey has grouped local government revenues by municipal, state and federal sources. Expenditures are categorized under general administration, public safety, public works, code enforcement/human services, recreation/library, education/county govt./debt service, and all other.
As the illustrated in the accompanying tables, MMA’s Kate Dufour separated the respondents into seven population groups. She took the sum of each group's expenditures or revenues and divided by the number of respondents to get an average expenditure/revenue for that population group. To develop a statewide estimate, she took the average and multiplied it by the number of communities (statewide) that fall under that population grouping.
Realizing that the statewide estimates will have some margin of error based on which communities in a particular population group responded to the survey and which did not, the overall totals match up pretty well to some numbers MMA has access to. For example the statewide estimate for excise tax collections using our survey was $158 million and the actual statewide total was $153 million. Local road assistance is $22.5 million using our survey and the actual is $22.3 million.
It comes as no surprise, given last year’s snowfall, that expenditures for winter road maintenance were up. During 2000 and the first half of 2001, the economy was strong and excise tax collection revenue was up, hence the survey report showed a fairly significant overall increase in total road expenditures. Solid waste expenditures were also up modestly.
Public safety expenditures were down slightly from the prior year, with decreased overall spending in law enforcement, fire services, and EMS.
Education and county government costs for municipalities in smaller communities are about 80 percent of property tax collections, while in larger communities the percentage of property tax collections drop from 70 percent in the 10,000 to 20,000 population group to about 55 percent in the over 20,000 population group.
Feedback
MMA is interested in knowing what municipal officials think about the Fiscal Survey. After you have received your copy (those who sent in their surveys) or have viewed the information online, please let us know your thoughts about it. Contact Kate Dufour or Michael Starn by phone (1-800-452-8786) or email (kdufour@memun.org or mstarn@memun.org ).
Law Enforcement
Population Average Statewide
Group Expenditure Estimate
20,000 + $3,126,883 $25,015,068
10,000-19,999 1,447,770 14,477,699
5,000-9,999 717,202 28,688,095
3,500-4,999 208,593 7,926,520
2,000-3,499 85,354 5,718,698
1,000-1,999 18,723 2,078,290
Under 1,000 3,855 824,947
Total (00/01) $84,729,318
Total (99/00) $86,252,848
Fire & EMS
Population Average Statewide
Group Expenditure Estimate
20,000 + $2,853,280 $22,826,238
10,000-19,999 1,066,939 10,669,391
5,000-9,999 644,305 25,772,192
3,500-4,999 211,350 8,031,285
2,000-3,499 111,426 7,465,553
1,000-1,999 53,225 5,907,948
Under 1,000 19,709 4,217,660
Total (00/01) $84,890,266
Total (99/00) $89,530,096
Road Maintenance
Population Average Statewide
Group Expenditure Estimate
20,000 + $3,128,692 $25,029,534
10,000 - 19,999 1,935,167 19,351,674
5,000 - 9,999 1,071,533 42,861,307
3,500 - 4,999 644,418 24,487,885
2,000 - 3,499 370,964 24,854,612
1,000 - 1,999 211,658 23,494,019
Under 1,000 111,210 23,799,009
Total (00/01) $183,878,041
Total (99/00) $141,549,551
Solid Waste
Population Average Statewide
Group Expenditure Estimate
20,000 + $1,190,841 $9,526,726
10,000-19,999 574,951 5,749,514
5,000-9,999 386,494 15,459,756
3,500-4,999 224,602 8,534,867
2,000-3,499 127,764 8,560,202
1,000-1,999 70,010 7,771,123
Under 1,000 31,091 6,653,575
Total (00/01) $62,255,763
Total (99/00) $60,306,508
Education
Population Average Statewide
Group Expenditure Estimate
20,000 + $20,014,256 $160,114,049
10,000-19,999 11,500,569 115,005,693
5,000-9,999 5,302,974 212,118,940
3,500-4,999 2,793,531 106,154,163
2,000-3,499 1,710,495 114,603,155
1,000-1,999 820,116 91,032,921
Under 1,000 349,563 74,806,380
Total (00/01) $873,835,301
Total (99/00) $837,954,889
Property Taxes for Education & County Government
Population Education County Property Tax % of
Group Expenditure Expenditure Commitment Taxes
20,000 + $160,114,049 $10,837,150 $311,940,263 54.8
10,000 - 19,999 115,005,693 6,199,034 172,610,855 70.2
5,000 - 9,999 212,118,940 14,387,377 324,563,009 69.8
3,500 - 4,999 106,154,163 7,713,871 146,401,201 77.8
2,000 - 3,499 114,603,155 10,955,985 157,710,926 79.6
1,000 - 1,999 91,032,921 7,043,566 122,651,978 80.0
Under 1,000 74,806,380 8,542,986 104,604,686 79.7
Total (00/01) $873,835,301 $62,629,437 $1,340,482,918 69.9
Total (99/00) $837,954,889 $55,410,097 $1,142,101,896 78.2
Excise Tax & Road Assistance Compared to Road Expenditures
Population Excise Tax State Road Road % of
Group Revenue Assistance Expenditure Revenue
20,000 + $22,220,966 $1,878,854 $25,029,534 96.3
10,000 - 19,999 20,617,300 2,057,883 19,351,674 117.2
5,000 - 9,999 38,346,186 4,103,005 42,861,307 99.0
3,500 - 4,999 22,542,104 2,804,292 24,487,885 103.5
2,000 - 3,499 23,036,565 3,129,475 24,854,612 105.3
1,000 - 1,999 18,146,801 4,128,901 23,494,019 94.8
Under 1,000 13,436,577 4,474,313 23,799,009 75
Total (00/01) $158,346,498 $22,576,724 $183,878,041 98.4
Total (99/00) $154,534,412 $22,316,043 $141,549,551 124.9