Part of a common site for Neighborhood Councils and Homeowners groups of the San Fernando Valley and information concerning the Valley issues Information about the November 5, 2002 election
Section 1: State Subventions
Section 2: Federal Subventions
Section 3: Sales and Use Taxes
Section 4: Redevelopment
Section 5: Police
This report analyzes four key elements of the municipal finances of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County and selected major cities in the State of California. The purpose of the report is to provide detailed fiscal information about these cities for three reasons. First, the current proposal to split the City of Los Angeles into three separate municipal entities, the San Fernando Valley, Hollywood, and the residual parts of the City of Los Angeles, is a major issue in California state and local government, with regional, statewide, and national implications. This report is intended to help put the current proposal in context. Second, local officials, State legislators, and Members of Congress influence the key fiscal factors that we examine. Therefore, the data help clarify the relative priorities of these elected officials regarding civic finances. Third, the comparative data in this report can initiate a sophisticated discussion of municipal policies in the City of Los Angeles and in municipalities throughout Los Angeles County. In addition, Section 5 of this report examines police expenditures within the City of Los Angeles
This section examines State funding of municipal government in Los Angeles County and in selected California cities. This factor of municipal finance was examined closely because substantial controversy surrounds the issue of city influence in the State Capitol and because State financing (hereinafter referred to as "State Subventions") is such a major factor in municipal budgets. Moreover, many misconceptions exist about the relative influence that the City of Los Angeles is able to exercise in Sacramento.
Key Findings
The City of Los Angeles is not particularly successful in garnering State subventions. In fiscal year (FY) 1996-97 Los Angeles received $79.58 per capita in State subventions and ranked 19th of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County. In FY 1997-98 Los Angeles dropped to 27th out of the 88 cities (with $81.89) declining to 38th out of the 88 cities in FY 1998-99 (with $81.37). By FY 199899 the City of Los Angeles was actually receiving less than the average per capita amount of State subventions in Los Angeles County. Over the three-year period (FY 1996-97 to FY 1998-99) most cities in Los Angeles County actually experienced a greater percentage increase in per capita State subventions than the City of Los Angeles.
When compared to selected major cities in California, Los Angeles received less in State subventions than most of the other large cities. For example in FY 199899 Sacramento ($190.88 per capita), Long Beach ($128.95 per capita), Oakland ($97.69 per capita), San Jose ($92.22 per capita) and San Diego ($87.05 per capita) received more, per capita, than the City of Los Angeles ($81.37 per capita).
These per capita distributions of State subventions clearly indicate that the large size of the City of Los Angeles (11.19% of the State's entire population) has not translated into political power regarding State subventions. Sacramento (1.19%), Long Beach (1.34%) and Oakland (1.19%) all have a much smaller percentage of the State's population than the City of Los Angeles yet still receive a much larger amount in State subventions per capita. San Jose (2.69%) and San Diego (3.71%) also contain a much smaller percentage of the State's population and still received more in terms of State subventions than the City of Los Angeles in two out of the three fiscal years between FY 1996-97 and FY 1998-99 inclusive. The City of Anaheim, with only 0.91 % of the State's population received more in per capita State subventions than the City of Los Angeles in FY 1996-97.
Perhaps most telling is the fact that the City of Los Angeles, even when the per capita subventions to the County are factored in, receives only 52% as much in State subventions per capita as the combined City and County of San Francisco. Yet, the City of Los Angeles is approximately five times as large as the City of San Francisco.
Many of the smaller cities in Los Angeles County that receive more in State subventions per capita than Los Angeles actually have a higher per capita income than the City of Los Angeles. Equally remarkable, most of the cities in Los Angeles County that receive more in per capita State subventions have a lower percentage of families in poverty than the City of Los Angeles.
SECTION CONCLUSION: The City of Los Angeles receives less in State subventions than many smaller cities in Los Angeles County. In addition, the City of Los Angeles receives less in State subventions per capita than some other large cities in California. To index
This section examines federal subventions to the cities in Los Angeles County and to other selected cities in the State. The report provides data about the magnitude of these federal subventions.
Key Findings
In terms of federal subventions per capita, the City of Los Angeles does somewhat better, relatively speaking, than it does with State subventions. In FY 1996-97 Los Angeles received $139.82 in federal subventions per capita, but that number decline to $118.51 in FY 1998-99 when Los Angeles ranked 8th out of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County. Nevertheless Los Angeles received much less than Santa Monica ($282.20 per capita in FY 1998-99), Hawthorne ($190.87 per capita in FY 1998-99), and Long Beach ($160.90 per capita in FY 1998-99), for example. Moreover, in the three-year period examined (FY 1996-97 to FY 199899), Los Angeles experienced a percentage decrease in federal subventions per capita of 15.25%.
Compared to other large cities in California, Los Angeles is in the middle of the pack. With Long Beach ($161), Anaheim ($122), and Oakland ($122) receiving more in FY 1998-99 federal subventions per capita than Los Angeles. San Diego, Sacramento, and San Jose received substantially less.
Several of the cities in Los Angeles County that receive more in federal subventions per capita than the City of Los Angeles have a higher per capita income. Also, several of these cities have a lower percentage of families in poverty than the City of Los Angeles.
SECTION CONCLUSION: The City of Los Angeles receives less in federal subventions per capita than some other smaller cities in Los Angeles County, as well as some other large cities in California. To index
This section offers a detailed review of the municipal sales tax revenues of each of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County, as well as selected major California cities. Sales tax revenues are reviewed for two reasons. First, sales taxes are one of the few revenue sources that local government officials can influence directly by encouraging retail sales activity within their municipalities. Second, sales tax revenues, when combined with other factors, are a useful indicator of the business climate in each city.
Key Findings
Over half the cities in Los Angeles County earn more in sales tax per capita than the City of Los Angeles. In FY 1996-97 Los Angeles earned $77 in sales tax per capita. In FY 1997-98 Los Angeles earned $79.75 in sales tax per capita, and in FY 1998-99 the Los Angeles earned $81.01. Over this three-year period overall sales tax revenue per capita for municipalities in Los Angeles County grew
11.14%, while the overall sales tax revenue per capita for the City of Los Angeles grew 5.2%.
The per capita sales tax revenue earned by the City of Los Angeles in FY 1998-99 ($81.01) was a lower percentage of the City's per capita income (.39%) than was the case for most other cities in Los Angeles County. By contrast, West Hollywood (.48%), Glendale (.54%), Pasadena (.62%), Burbank (.63%), and San Fernando (1.47%) did a much better job of generating sales tax revenue as a percentage of the city's per capita income.
This unfortunate trend is repeated when taxable sales per automotive business permit is calculated. In this regard, the City of Los Angeles ranks 43rd out of the 66 cities on Los Angeles County that have such business establishments operating within their borders. Taxable sales per automotive related business in many cities immediately adjacent to the City of Los Angeles are much higher than in the City. Among these cities are South Gate, West Hollywood, San Fernando, Glendale,
and Pasadena. This is explained, in part, by the fact that Los Angeles has fewer new-car dealers per 100,000 residents than many of the other cities in the County. Despite being in the middle of one of the large automotive markets in the world, the City of Los Angeles has attracted (or retained) relatively fewer car dealerships than most other Los Angeles County cities with such businesses.
The City of Los Angeles levies a higher gross receipts tax on retail businesses than any other city in the County that levies such taxes. Most cities in Los Angeles County do not levy a gross receipts tax on retail or other businesses. SECTION CONCLUSION: The City of Los Angeles is much less successful in generating sales tax revenue per capita than most other cities in Los Angeles County. Other Los Angeles County cities have clearly created a more successful retail sales environment than the City of Los Angeles. To index
In this section redevelopment activities are examined. Redevelopment activity is an increasingly important element of municipal operations, and it provides insight into the priorities of municipal decision-makers.
Key Findings
Redevelopment activity in the City of Los Angeles is heavily focused on the downtown area. In FY 1999-00 the tax increment retained by redevelopment areas in the San Fernando Valley ($6,889,000) was less than one-tenth of the tax increment retained by redevelopment areas in the rest of the City ($69, 975,000). In the same fiscal year, the gap between total expenditures in the Valley redevelopment areas ($7,155,000) and total expenditures in the rest of the City ($123,365,000) was even greater.
Per capita redevelopment expenditures in the City of Los Angeles ($38.61) were much lower than per capita redevelopment expenditures in the immediately adjacent cities of Santa Monica ($903.37), Burbank ($294.25), Pasadena ($167.33), and Glendale ($89.19) in FY 1999-00. In the same year, per capita redevelopment expenditures in the San Fernando Valley were ($5.28).
SECTION CONCLUSION: Redevelopment activity in the City of Los Angeles is focused downtown and not in the Valley. Redevelopment expenditures in selected cities immediately adjacent to the City of Los Angeles are much higher on a per capita basis than comparable expenditures in the San Fernando Valley. To index
In this section police expenditures within the City of Los Angeles are examined. The allocation of police resources is a critical factor in any evaluation of the merits of civic devolution in the City of Los Angeles.
Key Findings
In FY 2000-01 police expenditures per capita were lower in the Valley section of the City ($170) than they were in the South section ($288), the Central section ($232), and the West section ($225). In FY 1999-00 police expenditures per square mile were lower in the Valley ($1,090,264) than in the South section ($3,541,207), the Central section ($3,614,145), and the West section ($1,719,057).
SECTION CONCLUSION: The Valley receives less police protection per capita than the rest of the City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles spends less on police protection, as a function of the violent crime rate, than 46 other cities in Los Angeles County. To index