MALA'ttJI 
 
 LONG-RANGE PROGRAMMING 
 OF MUNICIPAL PUBLIC WORKS 
 
 JUNE 1941 
 
 NATIONAL RESOURCES PLANNING BOARD 
 
Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library 
 Gift of Seymour B. Durst Old York Library 
 
LONG-RANGE PROGRAMMING OF 
 
 MUNICIPAL PUBLIC WORKS 
 
 JUNE 1941 
 
 REPORT OF THE 
 
 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 
 
 TO THE 
 
 NATIONAL RESOURCES PLANNING BOARD 
 
 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1941 
 
 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. Price 30 cents 
 
Executive Office of the President 
 
 National Resources Planning Board 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 June 6, 1941. 
 
 The President, 
 
 The White House. 
 My Dear Mr. President: 
 
 We have the honor to transmit herewith a report on "Long-Range Programming 
 of Municipal Public Works." 
 
 This report is designed to serve as a guide to municipal governments in the 
 long-range planning of their public improvements. The methods and procedures 
 described are those which were developed in a series of demonstration projects 
 carried out by the Public Works Committee for the National Resources Planning 
 Board during 1939 and 1940 with the assistance of the Public Works Administration 
 and the Work Projects Administration. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 Frederic A. Delano, Chairman 
 Charles E. Merriam 
 George F. Yantis 
 
 hi 
 
NATIONAL 
 
 Charles E. Merriam 
 
 RESOURCES PLANNING 
 
 Frederic A. Delano, Chairman 
 
 BOARD 
 
 George F. Yantis 
 
 Henry S. Dennison 
 
 ADVISORS 
 
 DIRECTOR 
 
 Charles W. Eliot 
 
 Beardsley Ruml 
 
 ASSISTANT DIRECTORS 
 
 Thomas C. Blaisdell, Jr. Frank W. Herring 
 
 EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
 
 Harold Merrill 
 
 Ralph J. Watkins 
 
 H. M. Waite, Chairman 
 S. J. Chamberlin 
 Lowell J. Chawner 
 
 CORRINGTON GlLL 
 
 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE 
 
 Frank W. Herring William Stanley Parker 
 
 F. E. Schmitt 
 Fred E. Schnepfe 
 Robert W. Hartley, Secretary 
 
 A. F. Hinrichs 
 F. J. Lawton 
 Otto T. Mallery 
 
 SUBCOMMITTEE ON STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMMING 
 
 Frank W. Herring, Chairman William Stanley Parker 
 
 Otto T. Mallery Fred E. Schnepfe 
 
 Melvin E. Scheidt, Director of Study 
 
 IV 
 
LONG-RANGE PROGRAMMING OF MUNICIPAL PUBLIC WORKS 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 Pag* 
 
 Preface vn 
 Chapter I. Programming: Its Objectives and Procedure 1 
 Purpose of Long-Range Programming 1 
 General Pattern of Programming 1 
 Factors To Be Considered 3 
 Relationship of Programming to Planning 3 
 Outline of Procedure 3 
 Period Covered by the Program 4 
 Benefits and Advantages 4 
 Adapting Programming to Local Condi- 
 tions 6 
 Chapter II. The Financial Analysis 7 
 Purpose 7 
 Methods of Procedure 7 
 Responsibility for the Analysis 17 
 Chapter III. Listing Proposed Improvements 19 
 The Nature and Purpose of the List 19 
 Items To Be Included 19 
 Responsibility for Compiling the List 23 
 Forms and Procedures 23 
 Chapter IV. Preparation and Adoption of the Program 26 
 General Procedure 26 
 Evaluation of Projects 26 
 Financing the Program 27 
 Final Selection of Projects 41 
 Legislative Adoption 51 
 Public Approval 52 
 Summary and Conclusions 52 
 Chapter V. Programming Organization 55 
 City Planning Commissions 55 
 Informal Individual Action 57 
 City-Manager Cities 58 
 School Districts 58 
 Cooperative Types of Procedure 59 
 Appendix A. Statutes, Ordinances, and Charter Provisions 61 
 Appendix B. Sample Forms and Letters 66 
 Bibliography 72 
 
 NATIONAL RESOURCES PLANNING BOARD 
 
 V 
 
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 
 
 
 Page 
 
 
 
 
 Page 
 
 Figure 
 
 1. Trends in population, assessed valuations and 
 
 
 Figure 
 
 10. 
 
 Klfect of proposed land program, Nashville, 
 
 
 
 
 tax rate, Kalamazoo, Michigan 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 27 
 
 Table 
 
 1. City of Kalamazoo, general fund receipts, 
 
 
 Figure 
 
 11. 
 
 Effects upon finances of proposed program of 
 
 
 
 
 summary table, 1938-1920 
 
 8-9 
 
 
 
 City Commission, Fargo, North Dakota 
 
 28 
 
 Table 
 
 2. 
 
 Sample of detailed break- down of expenses, 
 
 
 Figure 12. 
 
 Municipal general obligation debt structure, 
 
 
 
 
 functional or departmental, City of Kala- 
 
 
 
 
 Fargo, North Dakota 
 
 29 
 
 
 
 mazoo, 1938-1920 
 
 10-11 
 
 Table 
 
 13. 
 
 Effect of city program upon general fund of 
 
 
 Table 
 
 3. 
 
 City of Kalamazoo, summary of operating 
 
 
 
 
 City Commission, Fargo, North Dakota 
 
 30-31 
 
 
 
 expense, 1938-1920 
 
 10-11 
 
 Figure 13. 
 
 Sample of explanatory text regarding the pro- 
 
 
 Figure 
 
 2. 
 
 Sample graphs of expense trends, by classes, 
 departmental operating expenses, City of 
 
 
 
 
 gram of the City Commission, Fargo, 
 North Dakota 
 
 33 
 
 
 
 Kalamazoo 
 
 12 
 
 Table 
 
 14. 
 
 Municipal gereral obligation debt for all tax- 
 
 
 Figure 
 
 3. 
 
 Adjusted total cash receipts and total operat- 
 ing and equipment expenditures, City of 
 Kalamazoo 
 
 12 
 
 Table 
 
 15. 
 
 ing authorities, Fargo, North Dakota 
 The municipal special assessment and reve- 
 nue bond debt structure, Fargo, North 
 
 34-35 
 
 Figure 
 
 4. 
 
 Total tax base, assessed valuation, City of 
 
 
 
 
 Dakota 
 
 37 
 
 
 
 Sacramento 
 
 13 
 
 Table 
 
 16. 
 
 Effect of programs of all units of government 
 
 
 Figure 
 
 5. 
 
 Debt service requirements, City of Sacra- 
 
 
 
 
 for taxes, Fargo, North Dakota 
 
 38-39 
 
 
 
 mento 
 
 13 
 
 Table 
 
 17. 
 
 Proposed total capital expenditures, Sacra- 
 
 
 Figure 
 
 6. 
 
 Operation income and expense, Department 
 
 
 
 
 mento, California 
 
 40 
 
 
 
 of Public Works, City of Sacramento 
 
 13 
 
 Table 
 
 18. 
 
 Future annual debt service costs of recom- 
 
 
 Figure 
 
 7. 
 
 Recreational Department, receipts and oper- 
 
 
 
 
 mended program, Sacramento, California 
 
 41 
 
 
 
 ating expenses, City of Sacramento 
 
 13 
 
 Table 
 
 19. 
 
 Future annual operating and maintenance 
 
 
 Table 
 
 4. 
 
 Sample of departmental break-down of in- 
 come and disbursements, public works, 
 
 
 
 
 costs of recommended program, Sacra- 
 ment:), California 
 
 42 
 
 
 
 City of Sacramento 
 
 14 
 
 Table 
 
 20. 
 
 Recommended sewer department program, 
 
 
 Table 
 
 5. 
 
 Sample of departmental break-down of income 
 and disbursements, recreational facilities, 
 City of Sacramento 
 
 15 
 
 Table 
 
 21. 
 
 Sacramento, California 
 Total proposed program for all units in the 
 city, Fargo, North Dakota 
 
 43 
 44 
 
 Table 
 
 6. 
 
 Total income by years, City of Sacramento 
 
 16 
 
 Table 
 
 22. 
 
 Proposed total program for several subde- 
 
 
 Table 
 
 7. 
 
 Total expenses by years, City of Sacramento 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 partments of City Commission only, Fargo, 
 
 
 Table 
 
 8. 
 
 Difference between estimated income and 
 
 
 
 
 North Dakota 
 
 45 
 
 
 
 estimated expenses, City of Sacramento 
 
 17 
 
 Table 
 
 23. 
 
 Six-year improvement program for 1939, 
 
 
 Figure 
 
 8. 
 
 Cumulative graphs of municipal disburse- 
 
 
 
 
 Winchester, Massachusetts 
 
 46 
 
 
 
 ments by classification, City of Sacramento 
 
 17 
 
 Table 
 
 24. 
 
 Six-year improvement program for 1940, 
 
 
 Figure 
 
 9. 
 
 Cumulative graphs of municipal income by 
 classification, showing margin available for 
 public works, City of Sacramento 
 
 18 
 
 Table 
 
 25. 
 
 Winchester, Massachusetts 
 Summary of proposed six-year program, 
 Dallas, Texas 
 
 47 
 48 
 
 Table 
 
 9. 
 
 Suggested form for listing information on pro- 
 posed projects 
 
 20 
 
 Table 
 
 26. 
 
 Six-year program of storm sewer construction, 
 1939, Dallas, Texas 
 
 49 
 
 Table 
 
 10. Summary list of needed improvements, Nash- 
 
 
 Figure 
 
 14. 
 
 Location of proposed storm sewer projects, 
 
 
 
 
 ville, Tennessee 
 
 22 
 
 
 
 Dallas, Texas 
 
 50 
 
 Table 
 
 11. Sample departmental list of needed improve- 
 
 
 Figure 15. 
 
 Organization chart of the government of 
 
 
 
 
 ments: schools, Nashville, Tennessee 
 
 24 
 
 
 
 Fargo, North Dakota 
 
 54 
 
 Table 
 
 12. Sample page from list of needed improve- 
 
 
 Table 
 
 27. 
 
 City of Boston, sample of individual project 
 
 
 
 
 ments, Winchester, Massachusetts 
 
 25 
 
 
 
 summary sheet 
 
 68 
 
 VI 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The place of public works in the national economy 
 and the relation of public works to national and local 
 planning have always been important interests of the 
 National Resources Planning Board and its predecessor 
 agencies. Several publications on various phases of 
 these subjects have been issued from time to time. In 
 January 1939, the Public Works Committee was ap- 
 pointed by the Board to undertake further studies of 
 public works, to assist in the preparation of a Federa- 
 6-year program of public works, and to encourage state 
 and local governments to prepare similar programs. 
 
 In undertaking the tasks assigned it, the Public 
 Works Committee organized a series of subcommittees, 
 one of which was assigned to the field of state and 
 local programs. This subcommittee, consisting of Mr. 
 Frank W. Herring, Chairman, Mr. Otto T. Mallery, 
 Mr. Fred E. Schnepfe, and Mr. William Stanley 
 Parker, directed its first efforts toward a study of 
 municipal programming, with the objective of devel- 
 oping a workable methodology adaptable to municipal 
 operations. In initiating this study it was necessary 
 to ascertain what was involved in the operation. The 
 experiences of cities which had been reported engaged 
 in programming their public works were therefore 
 studied. Officials in Cincinnati, Milwaukee, New 
 York, Richmond, and San Diego were visited and 
 local programming procedures discussed. 
 
 From the information thus gathered, a tentative 
 outline of procedure was prepared and tested in a 
 Nation-wide series of "demonstration studies," under- 
 taken cooperatively with a number of interested mu- 
 nicipal officials. Seven such studies were established: 
 Winchester, Mass.; Nashville, Tenn.; Kalamazoo, 
 Mich.; Dallas, Tex.; Fargo, N. Dak.; Sacramento, 
 Calif. ; and Spokane, Wash. 
 
 Resident staff assistance to undertake the demonstra- 
 tion studies was made available by the Federal Works 
 Agency through the Public Works Administration and 
 Work Projects Administration. The P. W. A. pro- 
 vided the services of one public works engineer and one 
 finance examiner for approximately 3 months in each 
 of the cities in which a study was located. The W. P. A. 
 provided clerical and stenographic help, through its 
 local offices. The engineers and finance examiners who 
 participated in these studies, and the cities in which 
 they worked, were: Mr. Robert Cross, Kalamazoo and 
 Spokane; Mr. Otto Croy, Fargo; Mr. Morgan Hayes, 
 Winchester; Mr. Robert Henley, Nashville; Mr. George 
 N. Howson, Sacramento; Mr. John P. Loughlin, 
 Dallas; Mr. George Newhall, Kalamazoo; Mr. J. V. 
 
 Otter, Spokane; Mr. Royden Reed, Dallas and Fargo; 
 Mr. Sidney Thomas, Sacramento and Winchester; and 
 Mr. Robert Totten, Nashville and Fargo. 
 
 Each of the demonstration studies culminated in the 
 publication by the municipal officials of a report setting 
 forth a long-range program of municipal improvements 
 and recommending procedures for continuance of the 
 operation in the future. Finally, the knowledge gained 
 through the initial investigations and the experiences 
 encountered in the demonstration studies were used as the 
 basis for preparing the general discussion of long-range 
 programming of municipal public works which follows. 
 
 The text was prepared by Mr. Melvin E. Scheidt, 
 who directed the demonstration studies and made the 
 initial investigations. Acknowledgment is made of 
 the splendid cooperation and the sincere helpfulness 
 of the officials of all the cities concerned, both in the 
 initial investigations and in conducting the demonstra- 
 tions. Without such cooperation it would not have 
 been possible to complete this work. 
 
 In addition to technical participation on the demon- 
 stration studies, Messrs. Royden Reed, Otto Croy, 
 and Sidney Thomas also took an active part in the final 
 development of the text. Mr. Carl Chatters, execu- 
 tive director of the Municipal Finance Officers Asso- 
 ciation of the United States and Canada, and Mr. A. E. 
 Buck, of the Institute of Public Administration, re- 
 viewed the document carefully, and their criticism 
 and suggestions have greatly benefited the text. 
 
 Although the procedures outlined in this document are dis- 
 cussed particularly in terms of municipal operations, they may 
 be applied equally well to State governments. Through demon- 
 stration studies in 1940, which were undertaken cooperatively 
 with the Pacific Northwest Regional Planning Commission, long- 
 range public works programs have been developed by the State 
 governments of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington, with 
 the National Resources Planning Board providing resident 
 assistance. The completion of these State demonstrations has 
 inspired a number of other State governments to employ long- 
 range programming procedures, with results which have con- 
 firmed the conclusions arrived at through the original studies, 
 as presented in this document. 
 
 State public works projects are more general in the nature of 
 services provided, but the administrative and financial problems 
 of the State are quite similar to those of the municipality. 
 Future needs of State departments involving capital outlays 
 may be forecast as readily as those of the municipality. Con- 
 trolling statutoiy provisions differ somewhat, but the methods 
 of tabulation and graphical presentation are the same for State 
 or municipal studies, and administrative methods are closely 
 parallel. The principal departure of the State from the munic- 
 ipal procedure concerns State highway programs which are 
 usually treated independently, for they are not readily adaptable 
 to the programming operation. 
 
 vn 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2014 
 
 https://archive.org/details/longrangeprogramOOunit 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 PROGRAMMING: ITS O B J E G T I V E S A N D P R O C E D U R E 
 
 Purpose of Long-Range Programming 
 
 A primary function of a municipal government is 
 that of providing public facilities and services. The 
 exercise of this function requires the construction and 
 operation of such typical facilities as water supply and 
 sewerage systems, schools and institutional buildings, 
 streets, bridges, airports, and recreational facilities. 
 Equipment and buildings are needed to provide for fire, 
 police, and health protection and in the general ad- 
 ministration of municipal affairs. The physical plant 
 and equipment for all of these services and facilities 
 are variously termed "public works" or "public im- 
 provements." Funds expended for the building of 
 this plant are usually considered "capital expenditures" 
 or "capital outlays." 
 
 Public improvements are important in determining 
 the direction and degree of community development, 
 and their construction or purchase frequently involves 
 the expenditure of a sizable portion of the municipal 
 income. Nevertheless, public improvements are too 
 frequently constructed as unrelated individual items 
 rather than as integrated components of a community's 
 facilities. Furthermore, with the exception of items 
 financed out of current revenues and included in the 
 ordinary operating budget, improvements are generally 
 financed through individual bond issues or other bor- 
 rowings, sometimes without due consideration of 
 the effect upon the present and future financial condi- 
 tion of the municipality. Uncoordinated handling of 
 improvement projects not only results in serious finan- 
 cial difficulties in later years but is detrimental to the 
 proper physical development of a commimity. 
 
 Much advantage is gained and some of these diffi- 
 culties are avoided when the budgeting operation 
 covers all public improvements, regardless of how they 
 are financed. Something more is required, however, if 
 public improvements are to be provided on a coordi- 
 nated long-range basis. Municipal budgets ordinarily 
 are restricted by law to one year, whereas the effect 
 of expenditures for new improvements upon the 
 finances of a municipality will extend generally over a 
 number of years, and the projects themselves will have 
 a long-time effect upon the physical development of 
 the community. Requirements for servicing the debt 
 initially incurred to finance the projects, or increases 
 in ordinary expenses resulting from their operation, 
 may in future years seriously tax the financial resources 
 of the municipality or handicap the financing of 
 additional improvements. 
 
 If a city is to provide the public improvements and 
 services which even average standards of municipal 
 efficiency require and, at the same time, is to continue 
 on a healthy financial basis, it is confronted with a 
 governmental problem that cannot be solved in a hap- 
 hazard fashion. To be successfully accomplished, this 
 task must be approached through an orderly far- 
 sighted procedure based upon three fundamental con- 
 siderations. First, the cost of proposed projects must 
 be related definitely to the financial resources of the 
 municipality through essential financial planning. 
 Second, proposed projects must be selected from the 
 point of view of general community need. This 
 involves community planning. Third, the element of 
 flexibility must be provided, if the procedure is to 
 be realistic and of continuing value. Conditions in a 
 community are never static, and changes and additions 
 are ever necessary to provide for growth and 
 development. 
 
 The procedure for reviewing desired public improve- 
 ments on a long-range basis in relation to general needs 
 and financial resources discussed herein provides a 
 method for satisfying the foregoing requirements. This 
 procedure is based upon researches into practices in 
 cities which have undertaken the long-range program- 
 ming of public improvements in whole or in part, and 
 upon specific experimental studies in selected typical 
 cities. Such basic procedure, now customarily identi- 
 fied as "long-term," "long-range," or "advance" 
 programming of public works, has been recognized and 
 employed by several governmental units, including the 
 Federal Government since 1931. The procedure is 
 applicable equally to State, county, and municipal 
 levels of government. 
 
 General Pattern of Programming 
 
 The objective of long-range public improvement pro- 
 gramming is to provide in an orderly way for public 
 improvement needs for a number of years in advance. 
 Certain practical limitations upon the undertaking 
 must be recognized, however. Future conditions are 
 never wholly predictable and it is therefore undesirable 
 to look too far ahead, or to attempt to impose a rigid 
 pattern of growth or development upon a community. 
 This is well illustrated in the history of highway develop- 
 ment. It was impossible 30 years ago to foresee the 
 ultimate effect of mass production of automobiles upon 
 our highways, or to design highway systems at that 
 time which would meet the motor traffic that we know 
 
 l 
 
2 
 
 National Resources Planning Board 
 
 today. Not planning, but the gift of prophecy would 
 have been necessary to know precisely what to do. 
 Provision for periodic review and revision of any 
 proposed improvement program must be made. 
 
 While, therefore, the procedure contemplates the 
 development of programs for 5, 6, or more years in 
 advance, provision for annual review, revision, and 
 extension of these programs to meet the requirement of 
 ever-changing conditions is also included. The opera- 
 tion of the procedure is as follows: 
 
 A list of the improvements needed in the community 
 during the next 5 or 6 years, arranged in some order of 
 preference, is compiled. The financial resources and 
 commitments of the municipality are analyzed to deter- 
 mine the funds which will probably be available or 
 which can be provided safely for the construction of 
 public improvements during the period indicated. 
 Those projects which are tentatively selected for con- 
 struction are then scheduled over these years, in the 
 order of their relative desirability, and in direct relation 
 to the funds indicated to be available for the purpose. 
 The first year of the schedule is then recommended as 
 a capital budget for the ensuing year and is given 
 
 legislative consideration, the balance of the schedule 
 constituting the probable future requirements. 
 
 At the end of the first year, the program is reviewed. 
 New projects which appear to be needed are added to 
 the lists. Projects no longer appearing to be justified 
 are eliminated; others may be shifted in position in the 
 schedule in accordance with changed needs, or for 
 other reasons. An additional year is added to replace 
 the year just completed, and the revised list of projects 
 is again scheduled over the full period of the program. 
 The schedule for the first year of the newly revised 
 program is then recommended as the capital budget for 
 the coming year. 
 
 Every year thereafter the operation is repeated. 
 Thus, a carefully conceived long-term program is 
 always available and in readiness for use, but with 
 only 1 year actually committed at any time. As this 
 procedure becomes established in the operations of 
 the local government, proposed projects are evaluated 
 over and over again, year after year, before they ulti- 
 mately reach the stage of actual undertaking. A 
 safeguard is thus provided against hasty or ill-consid- 
 ered actions. 
 
 ( 
 
 MUNICIPAL PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAMMING PROJECTS 
 
 (LOCATION OF THE SEVEN DEMONSTRATION STUDIES CONDUCTED BY THE 
 NATIONAL RESOURCES PLANNING BOARD AND THE 
 TITLES OF THE PUBLISHED REPORTS.) 
 
 • f-as 
 
 •SPOKANE T 
 
 "ADVANCE programming and I 
 
 BUDGETING OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS" ,' 
 
 \ FARGO*; 
 
 "REPORT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF 
 A SIX-YEAR PROGRAM FOR MUNICIPAL 
 IMPROVEMENTS I939"I940 
 THROUGH 1944-1945" 
 
 (COMPLETED DEC. 15, 1939) 
 
 / 
 
 ./ 
 
 i 
 / 
 
 / 
 
 (COMPLETED DEC. 8, 1939) " KALAMA2 
 
 • SACRAMENTO '} 
 
 ^"REPORT OF THE CITY MANAGER ON 
 1A STUDY OF ADVANCE PROGRAMMING 
 AND BUDGETING OF PUBLIC WORKS" 
 (COMPLETED JAN. 1, 1940) ,', 
 
 i 
 
 "REPORT OF THE SACREMENTO CITY 
 
 UNIFIED SCHOOL PROGRAMMING DISTRICT 
 ON A STUDY OF ADVANCE AND BUDGETING 
 OF PUBLIC WORKS" 
 (COMPLETED JAN. 8, 1940) 
 h S / 
 
 \ "REPORT OF THE OFFICE OF^ 
 THE CITY MANAGER ON A STUDY OF 
 ADVANCE PROGRAMMING AND 
 BUDGETING OF PUBLIC WORKS" 
 ' (COMPLETED JAN. 10, 1940) ^_ 
 
 /WINCHESTER' 
 
 "REPORT OF THE PLANNING BOARD 
 X WINCHESTER, MASS. SIX-YEAR 
 PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM" 
 (COMPLETED JUNE 1,1939) 
 
 \ 
 
 — NASHVILLE • 
 
 "SIX-YEAR PROGRAM FOR MUNICIPAL- 
 IMPROVEMENTS 1939-1940" *\ 
 (COMPLETED OCT. 2,1939) 
 
 j DALLAS • 
 
 -"BASIC FINANCIAL AND IMPROVEMENT 
 PROGRAM FOR 1940-1945" i 
 (COMPLETED JUNE 1,1940) 
 
 V /"-v. 
 
 Prepared in office of the National Resources Committee 
 
Long-Range Programming of Municipal Public Works 
 
 3 
 
 Public improvements are constructed each year as a 
 result of the action growing out of the annual capital 
 budget, but the end of the program is continually 
 moved forward in an endless progression, by adding an 
 additional year at the time of each annual review. The 
 procedure is thus consistent with the fact that cities 
 are never finished with their building and emphasizes 
 the fact that no single fixed program can ever hope to 
 provide, for all time, for the ever changing needs of a 
 growing city. Once established and properly integrated 
 with planning, programming thus becomes a continuing 
 administrative procedure of municipal government for 
 providing public improvements. 
 
 Factors To Be Considered 
 
 The public facilities required by a city naturally 
 depend upon such factors as its location, climate, area 
 and population, rate of growth, economic, industrial and 
 social resources, and other characteristics. Essential 
 studies and research to determine the effect of such 
 factors on the needs of the city are therefore precedent 
 to the sound programming of these needs. The find- 
 ings and recommendations of the local planning organi- 
 zation should be of maximum value in this respect, and 
 the program should wherever possible be predicated 
 upon a basic city plan. 
 
 Existing governmental practices and the local atti- 
 tudes which affect or influence municipal operations 
 must be coordinated and evaluated in preparing a 
 program. Thus, the nature of the facilities and serv- 
 ices already in existence has an important effect upon 
 an improvement program. These represent a sub- 
 stantial investment which, ordinarily, local opinion 
 will not permit to be scrapped, even though scrapping 
 may be desirable from a technical, esthetic, or planning 
 point of view. Therefore, proposed new developments 
 must be coordinated with existing plant and facilities 
 to best advantage. 
 
 To admit of practical accomplishment, a program of 
 public works must also be related directly to the finan- 
 cial ability of the community, to tax limitations, and to 
 other statutory requirements. Provision must, there- 
 fore, be made for a careful analysis of the financial 
 resources of the city, including grants and subventions. 
 Finally, it is necessary to give full consideration to 
 existing policies of the local government and the 
 attitude of taxpayers and their various organizations 
 affecting or influencing municipal operations. These 
 important factors must receive adequate consideration 
 and be coordinated and evaluated thoroughly in the 
 development of a program of public improvements. 
 
 Relationship of Programming to Planning 
 
 In view of the objectives set forth in the previous 
 sections, public works programming may be defined as 
 
 the orderly scheduling of the construction of proposed 
 improvements, based upon relative need and in direct 
 relation to financial resources. Such a procedure obvi- 
 ously implies the application of some method of evalu- 
 ating proposed improvements from the point of view of 
 relative need or desirability. To insure maximum 
 benefit to the community, such an evaluation must be 
 based primarily upon a comprehensive planning 
 procedure for the development of the community at 
 large. An intimate relationship, therefore, exists 
 between programming and planning. 
 
 Because of this close relationship, it is desirable to 
 make clear the distinction between these two operations. 
 "Programming" consists in arranging proposed projects 
 in a time schedule for construction according to an 
 order of priorities assigned them. It is an adminis- 
 trative process which is applicable to many types of 
 governmental activity. "Planning," on the other 
 hand, means consideration of the many factors influenc- 
 ing determination of the best possible arrangement for 
 the development of the community, and provides a 
 basis for determining what improvements are needed. 
 Such a procedure must be predicated upon studies and 
 research of the underlying characteristics of the city, 
 and involves the indication of desirable goals, and of a 
 policy for their attainment. "Programming" is a 
 means for bringing these plans to fruition in the most 
 orderly manner, consistent with changing needs. 
 
 Planning may, of course, be carried on without pro- 
 gramming, and programming of proposed public im- 
 provements may be undertaken in the absence of ade- 
 quate planning. But to achieve the best results, 
 programs are required to effectuate plans, and plans 
 are needed if programs are to become of greatest value. 
 However, since the objective of this study is to provide 
 a general guide for municipalities desiring to program 
 proposed public improvements, it is limited to a dis- 
 cussion of the procedures and techniques involve' in 
 the programming operation. It is assumed that the 
 need for sound planning as a precedent to good program- 
 ming, is realized. 
 
 Outline of Procedure 
 
 Five steps are involved in the preparation of a long- 
 range public works program. These are, briefly, as 
 follows: 
 
 1 . The Financial Analysis. — The responsible financial 
 officer or bureau of the city government should prepare 
 an analysis of the financial status of the municipal 
 government and of the financial resources of the city. 
 The analysis should include a study of municipal 
 revenues and expenditures and of the effect of addi- 
 tional expenditures upon the tax rate and financial 
 structure of the municipality, together with an ap- 
 praisal of related economic factors. The study should 
 
4 
 
 National Resources Planning Board 
 
 not only present figures for the current fiscal year, 
 but should also present an historical study of financial 
 data covering a sufficient number of past years to 
 produce a dependable indication of the trend in these 
 items. These data are then projected forward over the 
 period of the program, in the light of the trends revealed 
 and on the basis of existing conditions and the judg- 
 ment of the officials, for the purpose of providing a 
 basis for estimating the funds which will probably be 
 available for public improvements during the years of 
 the program. This demonstrates how the program 
 may be consumated, or what effect it will have upon 
 the fiscal affairs of the city. 
 
 2. The Listing oj Needed Public Improvements. — 
 Concurrently with the preparation of the financial 
 analysis, all of the various projects or improvements 
 needed or desired in the community should be listed, 
 and data regarding each assembled. These fists repre- 
 sent what is desired. Projects should be submitted by 
 each of the various operating and planning departments 
 of the local government. Other projects may some- 
 times be proposed by citizens or organisations within 
 the community and should also be included in the 
 list. A statement of the relation of the project to the 
 city's general plan for development, cost estimates, and 
 supporting data in justification of the proposed projects 
 should accompany each project listed. These state- 
 ments evidence why the projects are desirable. Where 
 programming has been in operation for a year or more, 
 compilation of the list of needs should be based upon 
 those projects listed in the preceding 6-year program, 
 but new projects proposed from all other sources should, 
 nevertheless, be listed. 
 
 3. The Preparation oj the Program. — All of the data 
 assembled in steps one and two should be reviewed, 
 weighed, and sorted by some central authority or com- 
 mittee for the' purpose of preparing a desirable and 
 financially possible program. In those cities where 
 programming has become an established procedure, the 
 program period should first be extended for this pur- 
 pose by adding a year to replace the one just past. 
 Those projects deemed to be within the realm of finan- 
 cial possibility are then scheduled over the full number 
 of years of the program in the order of preference 
 assigned to each. The schedule for the first year of 
 the program is recommended as a capital budget for 
 the immediate year to follow. In preparing the pro- 
 gram, due consideration must be given to the fiscal and 
 other policies of the administration, to planning con- 
 siderations, and to public attitudes. 
 
 4. Consideration by the Governing Body. — The capital 
 budget and the accompanying program are submitted 
 to the governing body, usually accompanied by a 
 budget message or report, and preferably as part of the 
 regular annual budget message. It is then the respon- 
 
 sibility of the governing body to review the program in 
 the light of its established policies and to accept or 
 revise the budget recommendations. 
 
 5. Public Acceptance. — Regardless of how well the 
 program has been prepared or how carefully it has been 
 weighed and considered by the council, little will 
 actually be accomplished in the way of its adoption 
 unless public approval and acceptance are also forth- 
 coming. This is especially true when elections must 
 be held to authorize the financing or construction of 
 public improvements. It is especially important there- 
 fore, that, through public hearings and otherwise, the 
 public be fully informed on the step-by-step prepara- 
 tion of the program and the benefits to be gained by its 
 adoption. If the explanations are left until the time 
 for submission of proposed items to the public for a 
 vote, the plan may be defeated due to confused or 
 inadequate understanding of the issues. 
 
 Period Covered by the Program 
 
 While the programming procedure is a continuing 
 process, the contemplated physical program growing 
 out of it covers, at any given time, only a specific, limited 
 number of years. The determination of what this 
 period shall be depends upon several factors and points 
 of view. For obvious reasons, too long a period should 
 not be adopted. 
 
 Efforts to date indicate that ten years is about the 
 longest period over which an advance program of 
 public works construction can be considered effective. 
 A program covering a longer period is likely to become 
 vague, and revisions resulting from the annual review 
 may become so numerous that the program will finally 
 become cumbersome. 
 
 Adoption of too short a period, on the other hand, 
 eliminates the advantages to be gained through the 
 concept of long-range advance programming. It must 
 be admitted, of course, that in many municipalities 
 even a 1-year improvement program is a progressive 
 step, but if full advantage of long-term programming 
 is to be gained, the period should cover more than 1 or 
 2 years. 
 
 In those cities where programming activities were 
 studied, the periods range from 3 to 10 years, the 
 average being 5 to 6 years. The Federal Government 
 has adopted 6 years as the length of its programming 
 period. Six years is generally accepted to be the most 
 convenient period. 
 
 Benefits and Advantages 
 
 In one sense, advance programming of public im- 
 provements might be deemed a procedure for the 
 efficient use of the financial resources of the community, 
 since it involves a thorough analysis of these resources 
 
Long-Range Programm ing of Municipal Public Works 
 
 5 
 
 in relationship to proposed public improvement expend- 
 itures. 
 
 In addition, the programming procedure enables a 
 city to coordinate all proposed improvement projects 
 with each other and with the general growth and re- 
 quirements of the community. It provides a certain 
 over-all perspective with respect to the development of 
 the city which is of benefit to the administrative officials 
 and the public. The resulting recommended construc- 
 tion program, based on considered judgment, is more 
 likely to provide for the best interests of the entire 
 community and to insure that maximum benefit will be 
 gained from the money spent. Concentration or over- 
 emphasis upon any single project to the exclusion of 
 others, perhaps more essential, may be avoided and a 
 more balanced development achieved. There are many 
 other important benefits to be derived from adoption 
 of the procedure. These are discussed below. 
 
 Stabilization of Construction Activities. — In many 
 cities, fluctuations in volume of public construction 
 serve to aggravate the difficulties resulting from the 
 cyclical behavior of our national economy. Failure 
 to plan in advance for the orderly expenditure of 
 public funds is likely to result, during periods of over- 
 expansion, undue expenditure and in excessive debt 
 accumulation. Faulty or uneconomical construction 
 may result from hasty methods during such periods. 
 Furthermore, the reaction from these periods of over- 
 activity causes much unemployment in the construction 
 industry, and may accentuate the ills resulting from 
 more widespread depression. 
 
 A municipality is in a better position to avoid these 
 difficulties or to cope with the problems arising during 
 periods of reaction if it can steady its construction 
 activities at a reasonably uniform level tlirough pro- 
 gramming improvements in advance. When the city 
 knows what its capital outlays are likely to be during 
 the coming six years, it is in a position to conserve its 
 borrowing power during periods of prosperity, or 
 perhaps even to accumulate an actual reserve, so that 
 it may continue to finance its public improvements 
 without difficulty when a period of depression occurs. 
 
 Stabilization of the volume of public improvements 
 at a reasonably uniform level will have a beneficial 
 effect upon employment *n the local construction indus- 
 try, and the related supply industries. To the extent 
 that construction activity is continued undiminished 
 throughout a depression period, the city government 
 benefits by lower construction costs. By the stabiliza- 
 tion of its own capital expenditures, a community may 
 not only contribute to the steadying of the national 
 economy, but may also achieve direct benefits within 
 its own area. 
 
 Benefits in Engineering and Other Municipal Opera- 
 tions. — Public improvement projects require time for 
 
 their study and for the preparation of the necessary 
 plans, if maximum advantage from the proposed ex- 
 penditure is to be gained. Hasty preparation in times 
 of emergency may result in errors that are costly to 
 correct. Programming projects in advance affords 
 ample time to avoid such difficulties. 
 
 A stabilized program is of direct benefit in the opera- 
 tion of the municipality itself, because the personnel and 
 functions of its designing and construction bureaus may 
 be organized on an efficient basis. Fluctuations in the 
 volume of work may be avoided and a minimum staff 
 continued without frequent lay-offs. This eliminates 
 the periodic hiring and training of new men and increases 
 the efficiency of the permanent staff through long asso- 
 ciation with policies, procedures and problems of 
 affected departments. The preparation of surveys, 
 plans and specifications, therefore, will proceed with 
 greater efficiency. 
 
 Improvements in Financial Procedures. — Related 
 financial operations can be organized more logically and 
 in accord with real needs if public improvements are 
 scheduled in advance. Future demands upon current 
 revenues and upon borrowing power may be forecast 
 with reasonable accuracy. The probable tax require- 
 ments of the years immediately following and the 
 purposes for which such funds are intended will be 
 more clearly outlined for the taxpayers. Authoriza- 
 tion by the governing body or approval by vote of the 
 people of bond issues or tax levies necessary to finance 
 projects may be anticipated and proposals submitted 
 for consideration or vote well ahead of need. If and 
 when enabling legislation or charter revisions are re- 
 quired before certain proposed improvements can be 
 undertaken, steps may be taken in advance to secure the 
 necessary action. 
 
 The ability of the community to finance its needed 
 improvements will be more clearly disclosed by the pro- 
 gramming procedure. Emergency requirements may 
 also be more readily provided against, and action by 
 the community at the proper time facilitated. 
 
 Advance Acquisition of Real Estate. — Real estate re- 
 quirements related to public improvements may be 
 predicted through preparation of advance programs, 
 and advantage may be taken of favorable real estate 
 markets to acquire construction sites at normal costs. 
 In doing this, however, a balance must necessarily be 
 struck between the carrying costs and the savings 
 resulting from advance purchase of land. 
 
 An example of the application of a program of ad- 
 vance purchase of land may be found in the procedure 
 of the Milwaukee School Board. This organization 
 maintains a continuous 5-year program of school and 
 recreational construction, and, in addition, carries on 
 statistical research designed to indicate where and when 
 new school sites probably will be needed. It purchases 
 
G 
 
 National Resources Planning Board 
 
 potential sites in the outlying and even in rural areas 
 adjacent to the city, on the basis of these studies, in 
 anticipation of the day when encroaching urban de- 
 velopments and annexations will demand the construc- 
 tion of schools or recreational facilities in these areas. 
 A saving in cost is thus achieved. 
 
 Of particular interest are the procedures of Kala- 
 mazoo, Mich., and Winchester, Mass., in advance 
 acquisition of land for park purposes. The Congress 
 has approved a similar policy for advance acquisition 
 of park and playground areas for the Washington, 
 D. C, region. Los Angeles County has found it to be 
 of advantage to anticipate the need for areas upon 
 which to construct various county administrative 
 buildings and to acquire these sites in advance of need. 
 
 Rights-of-way may well be secured in advance of 
 need, thereby avoiding costly delays in construction. 
 
 Participation in Federal or State Grants-in-Aid. — 
 Federal and State Governments have at times made 
 grants of funds to municipalities to aid in the construc- 
 tion of certain public improvements contingent, usually, 
 upon the municipality assuming a portion of the cost. 
 It was not unusual for a municipality to be unable to 
 take greatest advantage of such an offer, either because 
 it had not construction plans ready, or because financial 
 or legal restrictions made it impossible to proceed at 
 the time. These difficulties would have been lessened 
 materially if an advance program of desirable improve- 
 ments had been available, and if essential planning, 
 engineering, land purchase, and legal arrangements 
 respecting the proposed projects had been completed 
 or brought to a point where accomplishment could 
 have been readily achieved. 
 
 Grants-in-aid could have been used to assure the 
 continuance of the community's construction program 
 or to expand it beyond what normally would have 
 been undertaken had the community been limited to 
 its own funds. In the latter case, an advance pro- 
 gram would have been of great value, since projects 
 scheduled for later construction could have been moved 
 ahead in time of undertaking. 
 
 Avoidance of Impetuous Action. — The difficulties 
 caused by the construction of projects demanded as a 
 result of a momentary wave of popular enthusiasm 
 can be minimized through the operation of the long- 
 range programming procedure. On more than one 
 occasion a municipality has been forced, by popular 
 demand, to engage upon the construction of a project 
 which later proved to be a "white elephant," expensive 
 to maintain. Advance programming forces more care- 
 ful consideration of all projects. 
 
 Defense Against Activities of Pressure Groups. — From 
 the point of view of the municipal officials, important 
 benefits result from adoption of the programming pro- 
 cedure in decreasing or preventing log-rolling tactics 
 
 and unwarranted demands of neighborhood or other 
 pressure groups. The long-range program, based as it 
 is upon careful study and consideration of the many fac- 
 tors and elements affecting the community as a whole, 
 greatly relieves such difficulties by providing an effec- 
 tive and authoritative answer to such groups. This has 
 been demonstrated in several of the cities which have 
 already adopted programming; in one such city, the 
 programming procedure had been inaugurated chiefly 
 to afford the harrassed municipal officials relief from 
 the difficulties caused by pressure groups. 
 
 Adapting Programming to Local Conditions 
 
 The inauguration of the programming procedure 
 requires initially a certain amount of planning, re- 
 search, and analysis with respect to the physical 
 needs and financial resources of the community. The 
 completion of these necessary studies may require 
 several months of careful work. Once these initial 
 studies are completed and the procedure best suited 
 to the particular city in question has been worked out, 
 however, the process can then be carried on annually 
 thereafter with but little more effort than is now re- 
 quired in preparing the ordinary operating budget. 
 For this purpose, it is desirable that general adminis- 
 trative, procedures be gradually established in such a 
 way that they are naturally geared to the capital 
 budgeting procedure, just as they now are with respect 
 to the operating budget. 
 
 The basic data upon which a program is built are of 
 the same character everywhere. They are the analysis 
 of financial resources, and the list of physical needs. 
 But in detail, the procedure and internal organization re- 
 quired to carry on programming, will vary from city to city. 
 Local traditions, political procedure, financial policy, 
 type of governmental organization, even personalities, 
 will play an important part in determining the organi- 
 zation or methods which should be adopted by any city. 
 
 The various techniques and procedures which have 
 been developed for the preparation and continuance of 
 long-range improvement programs in cities throughout 
 the country are set forth in the following pages. These 
 procedures are roughly classifiable in accordance with 
 the several types of municipal government encountered, 
 but are also influenced by many other considerations. 
 Generally speaking, the operation is applicable to most 
 cities but becomes more complex as cities increase in 
 size. Practical limitations with respect to available 
 trained personnel, and in the amount of improvements 
 ordinarily constructed, make highly refined methods 
 unnecessary or undesirable in many of the smaller 
 cities. This limit in size of city will depend to a large 
 extent upon the nature of the community, but, in 
 general, it appears that for cities of less than 10,000 a 
 much simpler operation would suffice. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 THE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 
 
 Purpose 
 
 The purpose of the financial analysis is to determine 
 approximately the present and luture ability of the 
 municipality to pay for the construction and mainte- 
 nance of public improvements, by estimating the pres- 
 ent availability of funds, by research into the probable 
 future trends of municipal revenue and expenditure, by 
 appraisal of all factors related to the administration 
 and operation of the program, and by determining 
 what limitations are imposed, by statutes or prior 
 commitments, upon the freedom of the municipality to 
 act. This amounts in reality to comprehensive financial 
 planning for the city. 
 
 Method of Procedure 
 
 Preparation of the financial analysis calls for a review 
 of the records of municipal revenues, expenses, and 
 capital outlay for a number of past years, including an 
 analysis of past tax collections. Trends in growth or 
 decline of population, changes in property values, and 
 practices in assessing such values, must be determined. 
 Industrial and social characteristics and other develop- 
 ments effecting the financial welfare of the community 
 should be studied and appraised. The judgment and 
 opinions of the municipal officials regarding the prob- 
 able future financial requirements and resources of the 
 city must also be given due consideration. AD of the 
 data thus obtained must be correlated and trends ex- 
 tended into the future to provide a basis for making 
 reliable estimates of future available capital funds. 
 
 Trends revealed by past operations are invaluable in 
 preparing estimates of future revenues and operating 
 expenditures, but they should not be followed blindly. 
 It will probably be found, in most cases, that the 
 records of past operations are not always compara- 
 ble from year to year, due to various departmental and 
 other changes which have taken place. Increased or 
 improved facilities may have been provided at various 
 times, thus altering the pattern of financial operations, 
 or changes may have been made in the bookkeeping 
 and accounting systems. Care must be exercised to 
 reconcile all of these inconsistencies, so that the data 
 developed lor the analysis will be uniform and com- 
 parable. Either a cash or accrual basis may be used, 
 as long as one method or the other is consistently 
 employed. 
 
 The historical record period to be covered in tbe 
 review will, of course, depend much upon local condi- 
 
 tions and the nature of the records. But, if the records 
 permit, the period of time covered by the review should be 
 long enough to include the years of business depression as 
 well as prosperity, so that a better understanding of the 
 long-time trend of income and expenditures may be had. 
 
 Since the purpose of the analysis is to provide a basis 
 for making an estimate of present and future financial 
 ability, the study of past records need not be carried 
 to the extent of making an exact audit, although the 
 data segregated for analysis should naturally be re- 
 lated as closely as possible to the auditor's reports. 
 Many factors make it impossible to predict exactly what 
 funds will be required or available in succeeding years. 
 Therefore, the statistics taken from past records, if 
 tabulated consistently, need only be approximately 
 correct to serve the purpose. 
 
 When all of the estimates of future financial opera- 
 tions, broken down according to departments or func- 
 tions, have been completed, the totals of predicted 
 future income and of estimated future operating and 
 debt service requirements for the city should be grouped 
 in two master graphs. The difference between the 
 values shown by these two graphs should then indicate 
 the margin of capital funds, if any, which will probably 
 be available during the years of the program for public 
 improvements. Figures 3 and 9 are illustrative of these 
 master graphs. 
 
 The funds thus indicated to be available may either 
 be applied toward the retirement of such debt as may 
 be incurred for the construction of new or improved 
 facilities, or may be used as cash payment for improve- 
 ments, or both. The size of the recommended program 
 will be affected by the method employed. The method 
 of applying the available funds, and the policies 
 involved in financing the program, are discussed in 
 
 CITY OF KALAMAZOO 
 TRENDS IN POPULATION, ASSESSED VALUATIONS AND TAX RATE 
 
 Figure 1. 
 
s 
 
 National Resources Planning Board 
 
 more detail in chapter IV, in connection with the prep- 
 aration of the program. 
 
 It is suggested that the financial data covering the 
 historical period be grouped and arranged in tabular 
 and graphic form, by years, using the following classifi- 
 cations: (1) Revenues from taxes, State contributions, 
 licenses, fees, utility earnings, and other sources, by 
 sources; (2) expenditures for operating expenses, by 
 departments or activities, and for debt retirement; (3) 
 capital outlay, by departments or activities. A discus- 
 sion of detailed procedure to be used in dealing with the 
 several items and classifications, illustrated by sample 
 graphs and tables, follows: 
 
 Revenues. — Municipal revenues are derived princi- 
 pally from the collection of tax levies, franchise taxes, 
 fees, fines, and earnings from municipally owned 
 utilities. Contributions from the State for the main- 
 tenance and operation of schools, or for the construction 
 of highways within the municipality, and payments to 
 the city of shares in State tax revenues often contribute 
 substantially to the municipal income. The trend in 
 revenue from all sources should be separately deter- 
 mined, and predictions of future amounts made. 
 Tabular and graphic examples of such predictions, 
 based upon historical studies, are shown in figures 1, 
 6, and 7 and tables 1, and 4 to 6, inclusive. 
 
 Since the major portion of municipal income is 
 derived from direct taxation of property, a study of past 
 collections of property tax levies, and of the trend in 
 property values, is essential. By projecting these 
 trends into the future, a first approximation may be 
 made of the tax base and of tax collections during the 
 years of the program. Predictions based upon pro- 
 jections of past trends must reflect also the influence of 
 other important factors. Future property values will 
 be affected by the growth or decline in population and 
 in economic activity. These factors should be studied 
 and appraised, in order that the predictions may be as 
 accurate as possible. 
 
 The rate of growth and direction of movement of 
 population in a city is an important guiding factor in 
 the determination of what improvements may be 
 required. Advantage might well be taken of the need 
 to study trends in population in relation to the financial 
 analysis, therefore, to provide data which will be of 
 value to the whole programming operation. This ma} 7 
 be accomplished by making analyses and break-downs 
 of population changes by sections and areas, age groups, 
 and other classifications, so as to provide information 
 of value in determining the kind of improvements 
 needed and where they are most likely to be required. 
 
 Privately owned public utility concerns, particularly 
 
 Table 1. — City of Kalamazoo, General 
 
 1938 
 
 1937 
 
 1936 
 
 1935 
 
 1934 
 
 1933 
 
 1932 
 
 1931 
 
 1930 
 
 General property tax levy. 
 
 $002, 173 
 
 $763, 066 
 
 $7i-.(!.M.-. 
 
 $639,311 
 
 $704,035 
 
 $704, 323 
 
 $899,060 
 
 $899, 069 
 
 $911,379 
 
 General property taxes collected (includes light and water 
 department taxes) _ 
 
 720, 468 
 
 833, 532 
 
 823, 720 
 
 686, 191 
 
 755, 744 
 
 610, 562 
 
 809, 406 
 
 868, bOl 
 
 Current year's levy received.— 
 
 Prior years' levy received 
 
 Tax on light department property. . 
 Tax on water department property. 
 
 619,405 
 73, 370 
 5,814 
 21, 879 
 
 687,817 
 117, 762 
 5,870 
 22, 083 
 
 677, 138 
 124,412 
 5,480 
 16, 690 
 
 550, 435 
 129, 036 
 1,435 
 5,285 
 
 596, 566 
 152, 040 
 1,403 
 5, 736 
 
 528, 444 
 75,442 
 1.364 
 5,312 
 
 751,947 
 50, 436 
 1,712 
 5, 563 
 
 816,092 
 46, 310 
 1,540 
 5, 365 
 
 Interest on delinquent taxes, bank deposits, collection fees. 
 
 Licenses and permits.- 
 
 Fines and penalties 
 
 Rents and concessions 
 
 Other cash income items _ 
 
 Revenues from other agencies: 
 
 Gas and weight tax 
 
 Highway maintenance 
 
 Grade separation 
 
 Soldiers and sailors relief.. 
 
 Work relief (State and Federal grants) 
 
 From county for special highway construction. 
 
 Donations 
 
 Contributions and transfers from other Government- 
 owned funds: 
 
 From water department 
 
 From lighting department 
 
 Collector's account _._ 
 
 All other 
 
 20, 119 
 19, 062 
 15,953 
 20,281 
 58, 184 
 
 93, 602 
 4,700 
 
 33, 066 
 19, 166 
 20, 789 
 23, 313 
 48, 712 
 
 192, 627 
 5,409 
 20, 000 
 
 35, 770 
 20, 227 
 22, 368 
 14, 135 
 75, 658 
 
 65, 038 
 7,350 
 20, 000 
 
 40,412 
 17, 898 
 15, 272 
 15, 920 
 "i.!>v» 
 
 79, 322 
 3,054 
 
 44,136 
 16,288 
 11, 609 
 14, 540 
 38,000 
 
 115, 718 
 5,279 
 
 29, 072 
 
 15, 661 
 6,825 
 
 16, 434 
 36, 370 
 
 40, 810 
 8, 548 
 9,202 
 16, 257 
 26, 901 
 
 46, 664 
 10, 276 
 25, 168 
 18, 374 
 33, 505 
 
 3, 092 
 
 19, 519 
 
 6,875 
 35, 241 
 
 2,000 
 
 45, 000 
 
 9, 000 
 
 45,000 
 
 ,000 
 
 50, 000 
 
 500 
 
 50, 000 
 
 25, 000 
 15,000 
 
 50, 000 
 
 50, 000 
 
 5,000 
 
 1S2, 000 
 
 5, 000 
 
 25, 000 
 
 12,000 
 
 14, 000 
 4, 383 
 
 3, 618 
 
 5, 000 
 4,750 
 
 30, 000 
 1, 750 
 
 900, 773 
 
 859, 146 
 34, 993 
 6, 635 
 
 57, 412 
 10, 792 
 25, 509 
 19, 700 
 46, 148 
 
 13, 969 
 
 23,053 
 
 2,156 
 
 Total cash receipts 
 
 Less "Credit Appropriations" included in "Other Cash 
 Income Items" 
 
 1,011,369 
 1,063 
 
 1, 255, 614 
 974 
 
 1, 142, 266 
 1,018 
 
 968, 558 
 840 
 
 1, 069, 699 
 3, 929 
 
 813, 750 
 5,327 
 
 0, 64A 
 561 
 
 1, 222, 044 
 1.041 
 
 1, 081, 783 
 2,434 
 
 Adjusted total cash receipts. 
 
 1,010, 306 
 
 1, 254, 640 
 
 1, 141, 248 
 
 967, 718 
 
 1, 065, 770 
 
 808,423 
 
 oso.osi 
 
 1,221,003 
 
 1, 079, 349 
 
 Source: Kalamazoo Report. 
 
Long-Range Programming of Municipal Public Works 
 
 9 
 
 telephone companies, are constantly making such 
 studies in order to predict the volume of future needs. 
 
 Property values and tax income will be materi- 
 ally affected also by the economic or industrial 
 status of the community. It is desirable to make an 
 analysis of trends in industrial and commercial activity 
 as an important aid in determining the probable future 
 population and wealth of the municipality. The city 
 planning organization is customarily the agency to 
 make the study of population, industrial activity, and 
 similar items required as a basis for estimating future 
 revenues. 
 
 A prediction of probable future property values may 
 be made by combining the past trends in property 
 values with the implications disclosed by the population 
 and industrial studies. These predictions should be 
 discussed with the officials of the municipality's assess- 
 ment bureau in order that the guidance and judgment 
 of these officials, with respect to probable developments 
 in property values, may be brought to bear upon the 
 problem. Predictions of future income from property 
 tax levies may then be made by applying the probable 
 tax rate to those values. 
 
 Some assumption will have to be made as to the 
 course of future tax rates, and, if possible, a direction 
 as to policy in this regard should be obtained from the 
 
 cities' policy-determining officers. Consideration should 
 be given to statutes affecting taxes and taxing powers, 
 and to possible variations in assessment values or per- 
 centages used in establishing the tax base. The effect 
 of 1 mill variations in the rate should be shown so that 
 the governing body will be provided with all necessary 
 data regarding requirements for public works in connec- 
 tion with the establishment of future levies. Where 
 taxes are subject to constitutional or legal limitation, 
 such limits also must be kept in mind in making esti- 
 mates of future tax income. 
 
 Revenue-producing departments, such as a water 
 department, often contribute substantially to the gen- 
 eral funds of the city. In such cases a careful analysis 
 of these sources and of any policies which may affect 
 the future volume of such contributions should be made. 
 Prospective changes in State laws which may affect 
 these sources of revenues, or in statutes affecting 
 the taxation of municipally owned revenue-producing 
 facilities, should be anticipated, if possible. All ear- 
 marked revenues or funds should be properly segregated 
 for their intended use. 
 
 The tabulations of municipal income should be broken 
 down into sources and categories to the degree that the 
 influences which affect total income may be analyzed. 
 These separate studies should be projected forward 
 
 Fund Receipts— Summary Table 1938-1920 
 
 
 1928 
 
 1927 
 
 1926 
 
 1925 
 
 1924 
 
 1923 
 
 1922 
 
 1921 
 
 1920 
 
 General property tax levy 
 
 $874, 606 
 
 $859, 276 
 
 $828, 715 
 
 $810, 193 
 
 $878, 945 
 
 $809, 446 
 
 $761, 752 
 
 $854, 273 
 
 $545, 288 
 
 General property taxes collected (includes light and water 
 
 873, 528 
 
 870, 463 
 
 830,023 
 
 818, 277 
 
 882, 913 
 
 799, 061 
 
 749, 299 
 
 840, 963 
 
 547, 167 
 
 Current year's levy received 
 
 843, 691 
 23, 640 
 
 J 6, 197 
 
 834, 282 
 29,895 
 
 6,286 
 
 799, 356 
 24, 964 
 
 5,703 
 
 783, 365 
 29, 746 
 
 5,166 
 
 850, 598 
 27,173 
 f 1,246 
 I 3, 896 
 
 778, 445 
 19, 345 
 1,271 
 
 735, 690 
 12, 398 
 1, 212 
 
 835, 159 
 5,804 
 
 539, 594 
 7,573 
 
 Prior years' levy received 
 
 Tax on light department property.. 
 
 Tax on water department property 
 
 
 
 Interest on delinquent taxes, bank deposits, collection fees 
 
 Licenses and permits.. 
 
 
 
 
 
 48, 016 
 14, 622 
 28,117 
 14,248 
 63, 477 
 
 46, 356 
 14, 491 
 21, 961 
 13, 8?7 
 89, 465 
 
 41,630 
 13, 900 
 23, 449 
 10, 431 
 52, 234 
 
 66, 073 
 15, 309 
 17, 426 
 16, 313 
 150, 163 
 
 39, 049 
 17, 957 
 18, 476 
 16, 750 
 83, 661 
 
 38, 338 
 18, 259 
 16, 330 
 1,508 
 43, 074 
 
 25, 826 
 16,364 
 11, 775 
 1, 340 
 39, 433 
 
 16, 555 
 11,289 
 11, 183 
 839 
 28, 845 
 
 22, 939 
 11,235 
 12, 339 
 
 Fines and penalties 
 
 Rents and concessions 
 
 Other cash income items 
 
 24, 520 
 
 Revenues from other agencies: 
 
 Highway maintenance - 
 
 7,754 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Work relief (State and Federal grants) __ _ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 From county for special highway construction 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Donations _ 
 
 
 4,439 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Contributions and transfers from other Government-owned 
 funds.. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 From lighting department . . - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 All other 
 
 1, 156 
 
 1, 156 
 
 9,028 
 
 11, 197 
 
 12, 187 
 
 12, 187 
 
 12, 187 
 
 7,195 
 
 7,195 
 
 Total cash receipts... 
 
 1, 050, 918 
 6,024 
 
 1, 062, 168 
 
 980, 695 
 11, 198 
 
 1,094,758 
 95. 396 
 
 1, 070, 992 
 44, 235 
 
 928, 757 
 9,037 
 
 85b, 225 
 
 916, 870 
 4,882 
 
 625, 378 
 
 Less "Credit Appropriations" included in "Other Cash In- 
 come Items" _ 
 
 Adjusted total cash receipts _ 
 
 
 
 
 1,044,894 
 
 1, 062, 168 
 
 969, 497 
 
 999, 362 
 
 1, 026, 757 
 
 919, 720 
 
 856, 225 
 
 911, 988 
 
 625, 378 
 
 
 250134—41- 
 
10 National Resources Planning Board 
 
 Table 2. — Sample of Detailed Breakdown of Expenses — Functional 
 
 
 1938 
 
 1937 
 
 1936 
 
 1935 
 
 1934 
 
 1933 
 
 1932 
 
 1931 
 
 1930 
 
 1929 
 
 AIRFORT (AD 
 HEALTH (H) 
 
 Contagious diseases 
 
 $4,440 
 
 $2, 763 
 
 $4, 019 
 
 $4, 196 
 
 $2, 486 
 
 $2, 551 
 
 $2, 517 
 
 $3, 591 
 
 $6, 050 
 
 $6, 308 
 
 8, 928 
 14 
 
 ft 71 Q 
 
 5,772 
 3, 587 
 6,986 
 858 
 19, 393 
 7,951 
 
 9,485 
 71 
 6 042 
 5, 195 
 
 o, OoO 
 
 7,870 
 1,024 
 18, 006 
 8,358 
 
 8, 729 
 81 
 
 O, OoO 
 
 6,821 
 
 53 
 5 264 
 
 6,639 
 12 
 
 R MO 
 O, UOU 
 
 6,406 
 7 
 
 A AAQ 
 4, 44o 
 
 6,908 
 104 
 6, 156 
 
 7,094 
 
 82 
 6, 173 
 
 7, 558 
 619 
 6, 091 
 
 7,392 
 14 
 6, 020 
 
 
 3, 337 
 7,854 
 1,360 
 15, 715 
 7,434 
 
 3, 269 
 6, 183 
 1,015 
 10, 750 
 7,060 
 1, 573 
 
 3, 073 
 5,407 
 821 
 10, 154 
 7,190 
 1,641 
 
 2, 621 
 4,896 
 1,429 
 8,583 
 6, 940 
 1, 419 
 1,878 
 
 3, 876 
 4,706 
 1,988 
 12, 018 
 9,888 
 1,390 
 2,524 
 
 4, 087 
 4,936 
 1, 120 
 14,092 
 9, 850 
 1, 457 
 2,210 
 
 4, 140 
 4, 926 
 814 
 13, 634 
 9,772 
 1,572 
 1,996 
 
 4, 277 
 4, 861 
 940 
 12, 181 
 10, 030 
 1,684 
 2,027 
 
 Jicno'it ion 
 
 Public health nursing 
 
 Comfort station 
 
 
 
 
 
 HIGHWAYS (HI) 
 
 Street cleaning— paved 
 
 Dirt street maintenance 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 60, 208 
 
 59, 636 
 
 50, 198 
 
 41, 988 
 
 40, 567 
 
 38, 627 
 
 49, 558 
 
 51, 102 
 
 51, 027 
 
 49, 426 
 
 24, 697 
 
 Ol 7QQ 
 
 2,021 
 1,832 
 23, 621 
 1, 268 
 2,387 
 
 21,927 
 21, 1G7 
 1,320 
 795 
 17, 705 
 337 
 2,839 
 
 18,322 
 
 11, 237 
 1,485 
 
 15, 748 
 811 
 4, 198 
 
 20, 873 
 18, 404 
 1, 570 
 856 
 11,589 
 1,890 
 650 
 
 18, 860 
 16, 739 
 664 
 2, 436 
 16,216 
 993 
 374 
 
 18, 031 
 17, 535 
 620 
 449 
 11, 582 
 533 
 169 
 
 19,889 
 19, 532 
 2,748 
 221 
 8,487 
 1, 674 
 
 23, 739 
 16, 918 
 1,058 
 2,163 
 7, 973 
 873 
 77 
 
 20,745 
 22, 506 
 10, 078 
 
 837 
 11, 565 
 
 940 
 32 
 
 21,958 
 17, 510 
 21, 716 
 1,936 
 15, 634 
 1,480 
 2, 343 
 
 Snow removal . 
 
 Brick paved street maintenance . 
 
 Asphalt paved street maintenance 
 Sidewalks and bridges 
 
 Street signs 
 
 Bureau of repairs to concrete mixer 
 
 
 INTEREST (I) 
 
 Bonds and note interest 
 
 Interest on tax anticipation notes 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 /y, oio 
 
 uu, u»u 
 
 71 1 
 
 / 1, loU 
 
 55, 732 
 
 56, 282 
 
 48, 919 
 
 51, 551 
 
 52, 801 
 
 DO, /UO 
 
 82, 577 
 
 
 2,508 
 
 5,105 
 
 7, 672 
 
 10, 279 
 7 
 
 13, 076 
 4,658 
 
 547 
 
 1,326 
 
 2,127 
 
 4,534 
 
 Interest on temporary loans _ 
 
 
 125 
 1,900 
 
 
 
 816 
 
 393 
 
 
 
 Interest on loan for improvement of old city hall... 
 
 1,700 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 JUDICIAL (J) 
 
 Municipal justice court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1,700 
 
 4,533 
 
 5, 105 
 
 7,672 
 
 10,286 
 
 17,734 
 
 1,363 
 
 1,719 
 
 2,127 
 
 4,534 
 
 10, 367 
 
 10,286 
 
 9,988 
 
 9, 701 
 
 9,287 
 
 8,997 
 
 9,923 
 
 10, 803 
 
 10,691 
 
 10, 553 
 
 Source: Kalamazoo Report. 
 
 Table 3. — City of Kalamazoo 
 
 [Summary table, showing 
 
 
 1938 
 
 1937 
 
 1936 
 
 1935 
 
 1934 
 
 1933 
 
 1932 
 
 1931 
 
 1930 
 
 1929 
 
 
 OPERATING EXPENSE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CODE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 Administrative. 
 
 $107, 936 
 
 $104, 323 
 
 $112,749 
 
 $100, 942 
 
 $95, 948 
 
 $86, 329 
 
 $105, 125 
 
 $108, 350 
 
 $104, 201 
 
 $104, 950 
 
 AP 
 
 Airport ' 
 
 4, 440 
 
 2,763 
 
 4, 019 
 
 4,196 
 
 2,486 
 
 2,551 
 
 2, 517 
 
 3, 591 
 
 6,050 
 
 6, 308 
 
 H 
 
 Health ' . 
 
 60, 208 
 
 59, 636 
 
 50, 198 
 
 41, 988 
 
 40, 567 
 
 38, 627 
 
 49, 558 
 
 51, 102 
 
 51, 027 
 
 49,426 
 
 HI 
 
 Highways 1 
 
 79, 615 
 
 66, 090 
 
 71, 130 
 
 65, 732 
 
 56, 282 
 
 48, 919 
 
 51, 551 
 
 52, 801 
 
 66, 703 
 
 82, 577 
 
 I 
 
 Interest 1 
 
 1, 708 
 
 4,533 
 
 5, 105 
 
 7,673 
 
 10, 286 
 
 17, 734 
 
 1,363 
 
 1, 719 
 
 2,127 
 
 3, 331 
 
 J 
 
 Judicial 1 
 
 10, 367 
 
 10, 286 
 
 9,988 
 
 9, 701 
 
 9, 297 
 
 8,997 
 
 9,923 
 
 10, 803 
 
 10, 691 
 
 10, 553 
 
 P 
 
 Parks 
 
 54, 125 
 
 54,690 
 
 49. 824 
 
 42, 643 
 
 42, 813 
 
 38, 045 
 
 34, 625 
 
 36, 708 
 
 38,706 
 
 39, 858 
 
 P. S. 
 
 Public safety 
 
 354, 272 
 
 369, 215 
 
 342, 430 
 
 313, 442 
 
 287, 167 
 
 283, 940 
 
 311, 753 
 
 341, 067 
 
 341, 634 
 
 332. 007 
 
 S 
 
 Sanitation... 
 
 16,114 
 
 20, 038 
 
 15, 249 
 
 18, 357- 
 
 14, 889 
 
 15, 217 
 
 15, 917 
 
 14, 328 
 
 14, 211 
 
 13, 235 
 
 SL 
 
 Street lighting 
 
 51, 465 
 
 49, 990 
 
 50, 212 
 
 51,857 
 
 48, 397 
 
 47, 720 
 
 53, 463 
 
 52, 857 
 
 52, 121 
 
 51, 691 
 
 W 
 
 Welfare 
 
 35, 850 
 
 104, 975 
 
 104, 290 
 
 184, 637 
 
 95, 984 
 
 287, 494 
 
 361, 387 
 
 189, 967 
 
 69, 715 
 
 34, 912 
 
 w.s. 
 
 Water service J 
 
 40, 937 
 
 41, 010 
 
 41, 398 
 
 41, 151 
 
 41, 095 
 
 40, 899 
 
 41, 538 
 
 41, 703 
 
 41, 618 
 
 40,938 
 
 M 
 
 M iscel laneous 
 
 22, 419 
 
 21, 986 
 
 14, 582 
 
 18, 469 
 
 17, 446 
 
 50, 600 
 
 12, 542 
 
 24, 314 
 
 28,641 
 
 44, 421 
 
 
 Operating expenses s 
 
 839, 465 
 
 909, 535 
 
 871, 174 
 
 890, 787 
 
 762, 657 
 
 967, 072 
 
 1, 051, 262 
 
 929, 310 
 
 827, 445 
 
 814, 207 
 
 E 
 
 Equipment 
 
 15, 958 
 
 17, 008 
 
 28, 694 
 
 15, 164 
 
 10, 373 
 
 3, 932 
 
 5, 183 
 
 4, 506 
 
 23,649 
 
 12, 300 
 
 
 Total operating and equipment 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 expense 
 
 855, 423 
 
 926, 543 
 
 899, 868 
 
 905, 951 
 
 773, 030 
 
 971, 004 
 
 1, 056, 445 
 
 933, 816 
 
 851, 093 
 
 826, 507 
 
 1 See figure 2 for breakdown of these classifications. 
 
 Source: Kalamazoo Report. 
 
Long-Range Programming of Municipal Public Works 1 1 
 
 or Departmental— City of Kalamazoo, 1938-1920 
 
 
 1928 
 
 1927 
 
 1926 
 
 1925 
 
 1924 
 
 1923 
 
 1922 
 
 1921 
 
 1920 
 
 AIRPORT (AP) 
 
 Airport maintenance 
 
 $993 
 
 $1, 115 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 HEALTH (H) 
 
 OfficG of director 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7,049 
 61 
 
 £ 191 
 0, ooL 
 
 7,139 
 75 
 % ouu 
 
 $7, 398 
 233 
 
 A fill 
 1, OH 
 
 $8, 226 
 203 
 4, 925 
 
 $7, 652 
 7/0 
 5, 169 
 
 $7, 641 
 496 
 5, 119 
 
 $7, 578 
 783 
 4, 622 
 
 $6, 759 
 4,047 
 4, 048 
 
 $6, 686 
 2,263 
 3, 669 
 
 Contagious diseases 
 
 
 
 
 4. IKK 
 
 4, 646 
 524 
 11,795 
 9,984 
 1,480 
 174 
 
 A 1 Kf\ 
 4, 10U 
 
 4, 536 
 678 
 10, 553 
 9,637 
 1, 633 
 162 
 
 A 1 QA 
 4, loU 
 
 4, 679 
 622 
 10, 438 
 10, 688 
 1, 517 
 235 
 
 A 197 
 
 4, 772 
 894 
 10, 069 
 10, 065 
 1, 726 
 464 
 
 4, 202 
 3,217 
 1, 173 
 4,790 
 9,956 
 1,359 
 491 
 
 4, 023 
 4, 839 
 
 531 
 2,086 
 8, 952 
 1,592 
 
 430 
 
 4, 874 
 3,292 
 646 
 968 
 10, 331 
 1, 611 
 455 
 
 4, 156 
 3, 045 
 478 
 6, 445 
 10, 876 
 
 8, 360 
 2,769 
 704 
 2,042 
 
 Social service 
 
 
 Public health, nursing 
 
 
 
 Venereal diseases 
 
 711 
 
 724 
 
 nionwAYS (Hi) 
 
 Street cleaning — paved 
 
 45, 199 
 
 43, 263 
 
 44,611 
 
 45, 671 
 
 38, 779 
 
 35, 709 
 
 35, 160 
 
 40, 565 
 
 27, 217 
 
 20, 366 
 15, 659 
 5,643 
 2,275 
 8, 357 
 380 
 93 
 
 18, 937 
 15, 043 
 4, 156 
 1,904 
 7,908 
 3,075 
 689 
 
 22, 419 
 18, 456 
 3, 327 
 1, 192 
 8, 112 
 2,914 
 613 
 
 22, 122 
 21, 348 
 1,980 
 1,708 
 5, 781 
 4,757 
 6, 626 
 644 
 
 19, 623 
 22, 811 
 1, 550 
 1,900 
 3, 297 
 1,449 
 68 
 708 
 
 24, 476 
 
 on r\r\c 
 
 11, UUo 
 37 
 1,718 
 4, 756 
 8, 667 
 1, 119 
 614 
 
 24, 942 
 
 oo ooo 
 Z6, 226 
 
 153 
 
 3,800 
 3, 689 
 6,412 
 34 
 444 
 
 22, 065 
 25, 479 
 1,099 
 1, 692 
 2,870 
 2,501 
 98 
 619 
 
 20, 508 
 17, 861 
 1,348 
 823 
 2,951 
 953 
 98 
 
 KQ9 
 AZ. 10A 
 
 30, V2A 
 
 Dirt Street maintenance.. - 
 
 Snow removal 
 
 Brick paved street maintenance. 
 
 Asphalt paved street maintenance 
 
 Sidewalks and bridges 
 Street signs 
 
 Bureau of repairs to concrete mixer 
 
 INTEREST (I) 
 
 Bond and note interest 
 
 
 
 
 £9 77Q 
 
 (; i 71 9 
 01, / 
 
 K7 r\to 
 
 63, 96b 
 
 01, €Uo 
 
 Oo, 6Mo 
 
 62, 697 
 
 56, 323 
 
 4, 534 
 
 5, 821 
 
 7,438 
 
 9, 657 
 
 12, 133 
 
 15, 343 
 
 14, 977 
 
 18, 876 
 
 22, 105 
 
 Interest on temporarv loans . 
 
 
 1, 701 
 
 1, 186 
 
 1,239 
 
 1,714 
 
 2, 521 
 
 2,171 
 
 7, 108 
 
 1,730 
 
 Interest on loan for improvement of old city hall 
 
 
 JUDICIAL (J) 
 
 Municipal justice court.- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4,534 
 
 7,522 
 
 8,624 
 
 10, 896 
 
 13.847 
 
 17, 864 
 
 17, 148 
 
 25, 984 
 
 24, 335 
 
 9, 577 
 
 7,972 
 
 7,895 
 
 7,948 
 
 8,268 
 
 7,220 
 
 6,985 
 
 6,912 
 
 6,583 
 
 Note.— Similar detailed breakdown should be made for revenues, by sources and departments. 
 
 Summary of Operating Expense, 1938-1920 
 
 expenses by functional grouping] 
 
 
 1928 
 
 1927 
 
 1926 
 
 1925 
 
 1924 
 
 1923 
 
 1922 
 
 1921 
 
 1920 
 
 CODE 
 
 OPERATING EXPENSE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 Administrative - . 
 
 $105,018 
 
 $93, 388 
 
 $93, 308 
 
 $87, 705 
 
 $91, 259 
 
 $97, 130 
 
 $82,010 
 
 $81, 089 
 
 $69, 589 
 
 AP 
 
 
 993 
 
 1, 115 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 Health i _ 
 
 45, 199 
 
 43, 623 
 
 44, 611 
 
 45, 671 
 
 38, 779 
 
 35, 709 
 
 35, 160 
 
 30, 565 
 
 27, 217 
 
 HI 
 
 
 52, 773 
 
 51, 712 
 
 57, 033 
 
 63, 966 
 
 51, 406 
 
 63. 393 
 
 62, 697 
 
 56, 323 
 
 45, 124 
 
 I 
 
 Interest 1 
 
 4, 534 
 
 7, 522 
 
 8,624 
 
 10. 896 
 
 13,847 
 
 17, 864 
 
 17, 148 
 
 25, 984 
 
 24, 335 
 
 J 
 
 
 9,577 
 
 7,972 
 
 7,895 
 
 7,948 
 
 8,268 
 
 7,220 
 
 6,985 
 
 6,912 
 
 6. 583 
 
 P 
 
 Parks 
 
 39, 689 
 
 44. 397 
 
 23, 898 
 
 26, 839 
 
 36, 234 
 
 17, 078 
 
 16, 504 
 
 15,914 
 
 9, 299 
 
 P. S. 
 
 Public safety. - 
 
 321,475 
 
 134, 072 
 
 287, 951 
 
 271, 810 
 
 264, 958 
 
 229, 468 
 
 224, 648 
 
 220, 913 
 
 200, 555 
 
 S 
 
 Sanitation 
 
 15, 906 
 
 12, 282 
 
 10, 850 
 
 11, 765 
 
 14,079 
 
 14, 060 
 
 13, 624 
 
 11,909 
 
 9, 233 
 
 SL 
 
 Street lighting 
 
 49, 849 
 
 47, 833 
 
 48, 950 
 
 61, 101 
 
 73, 803 
 
 74, 847 
 
 77, 472 
 
 
 
 W 
 
 Welfare 
 
 38, 368 
 
 31, 405 
 
 25, 400 
 
 26,831 
 
 27, 130 
 
 23, 514 
 
 28,043 
 
 15, 261 
 
 9,262 
 
 W.P. 
 
 Water service 
 
 40,013 
 
 39, 437 
 
 39, 027 
 
 44, 407 
 
 42. 191 
 
 37. 348 
 
 28, 550 
 
 28, 285 
 
 22,154 
 
 M 
 
 Miscellaneous 
 
 40,316 
 
 76, 099 
 
 22, 296 
 
 46, 320 
 
 46, 088 
 
 30, 996 
 
 34. 229 
 
 37, 190 
 
 22, 455 
 
 
 Operating expense 3 
 
 $763, 710 
 
 $770, 857 
 
 $669, 843 
 
 $705, 269 
 
 $708, 024 
 
 $648, 627 
 
 $627, 970 
 
 $530, 345 
 
 $445, 806 
 
 E 
 
 Equipment 
 
 7,752 
 
 18, 640 
 
 7,352 
 
 12, 255 
 
 8, 579 
 
 9,452 
 
 7,205 
 
 9,973 
 
 10,330 
 
 
 Total operating and equipment expenditures 
 
 $771, 462 
 
 $789, 497 
 
 $677, 195 
 
 $717, 624 
 
 $716, 621 
 
 $658, 079 
 
 $635, 175 
 
 $540, 318 
 
 $456, 136 
 
 1 Payments from general fund for drinking fountains and fire hydrants. 
 • Does not include equipment expenditures. 
 
12 
 
 National Resources Planning Board 
 
 in the form of graphs to indicate the probable values of 
 these items during the years of the program. A master 
 graph should then be prepared from the totals of all 
 these items, to indicate the probable total of future 
 revenues. Figures 3 and 9, and tables 1 and 6, are 
 examples of such tables and graphs of revenues. 
 
 Expenditures: Operating Expenses. — Operating ex- 
 penses usually consume a major portion of the municipal 
 income and, therefore, have a very important relation- 
 ship with all other expenditures. A careful historical 
 analysis of operating expenses, as revealed by past 
 records, is required to indicate the probable trend in 
 operating requirements during the years of the program. 
 This may be accomplished either on the basis of depart- 
 mental or functional segregations. The data should 
 be broken down in sufficient detail to indicate clearly 
 the direction of such expenses for the several important 
 services and departments of the municipal government. 
 In the tabulation of these financial statistics for study 
 and analysis, care should be exercised that all extrane- 
 ous transfers, capital improvement expenditures, and 
 
 SAMPLE GRAPHS OF EXPENSE TRENDS, BY CLASSES 
 DEPARTMENTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 
 
 00LL4RS CITY OF KALAMAZOO 
 
 80,000 
 
 60,000 
 
 40,000 
 
 20,000 
 
 80,000 
 
 60,000 
 
 40,000 
 
 20,000 
 
 amounts not truly classifiable as operating expenses, 
 are excluded, so that the final tables and charts will 
 present an approximately correct picture. Figures 2, 
 6, and 7, and tables 2, 4, and 5 illustrate these steps. 
 
 Estimates of the maintenance and operating require- 
 ments of the departments and activities of the munici- 
 pal government should be projected into the future 
 years of the program, based upon the implications 
 disclosed by the study of past records. In arriving 
 at such future estimates, consideration must be given 
 to possible increases in the operating costs of the 
 municipality. Such increases may result from manda- 
 tory provisions for increases in wages or salaries, or 
 from an upward trend in the extent and quality of the 
 municipal services. 
 
 Expenditures: Debt Service. — A tabulation of all out- 
 standing municipal debt as of the end of the current 
 fiscal year should be made as a basis for indicating the 
 funds which will be required in future years for debt 
 service. General obligation bonds and all other direct 
 and indirect debt should be included. The tabulation 
 should be extended into the future to the point of ulti- 
 mate liquidation, so that, on the basis of no new debt, 
 the total amount of debt which will still be outstanding 
 in each future year and the amounts which must be 
 provided in each of these years for interest and amorti- 
 
 ADJUSTED TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS AND 
 TOTAL OPERATING AND EQUIPMENT EXPENDITURES 
 
 CITY OF KALAMAZOO 
 
 DOLLARS 
 (000 OMITTED) 
 1400 
 
 1200 
 
 1000 
 
 800 
 
 600 
 
 400 
 
 200 
 
 1920 1924 I92B 
 
 SOURCE KALAMAZOO REPORT 
 
 1936 1938 1940 
 
 1920 1924 1928 
 
 SOURCE KALAMAZOO REPORT 
 
 1936 1938 1940 
 
 FlGTJItE 2. 
 
 Figure 3. 
 
Long-Range Programming of Municipal Public Works 
 
 13 
 
 TH0USAND3 OF 
 DOLLARS 
 600 
 
 OPERATION INCOME AND EXPENSE 
 
 DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS 
 
 LONG TERM PROGRAM OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 
 CITY OF SACRAMENTO 
 
 
 MAJOR 
 IN MAIK 
 
 IMPROVE 
 THOROUG 
 
 WENTS 
 ^ARES^> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 EXPENSE^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 SPECIA 
 FROM TH 
 TAX 
 
 L ALLOCA - 
 E STATE G 
 INCLUDED 
 
 rioNS 
 
 ASOLINE 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^INCOME, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 note: 
 
 EXCESS 
 INCOME SI 
 
 1 
 
 EXPENSE 
 JPPLIED FF 
 1 
 
 3VER 
 
 OM TAXES 
 
 1 . 
 
 HOUSANDS OF 
 DOLLARS 
 250 
 
 RECREATIONAL DEPT. 
 RECEIPTS a OPERATING EXPENSES 
 
 LONG TERM PROGRAM OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 
 CITY OF SACRAMENTO 
 
 Figure 6. 
 
 Figure 7. 
 
 zation, may be shown. Data on sinking funds should 
 be similarly assembled. An estimate of probable pay- 
 ments on special assessment obligations, when these 
 are backed by the general faith and credit of the com- 
 munity and are likely to be defaulted, should, if possible, 
 be included. Appropriate graphs of the data covering 
 debt should then be prepared for easy reference. Fig- 
 ure 5 is a good example of such a graph. 
 
 The past practices of the municipality with respect 
 to the incurrence of debt should also be ascertained. 
 Such data will be of much value in assisting the pro- 
 gramming authority in promulgating an appropriate 
 financial policy with respect to new improvements. 
 Records of the debt incurred for a number of past years 
 
 should be examined for this purpose, and the amounts 
 tabulated. A graph of these past annual debt accum- 
 ulations should then be prepared, preferably upon the 
 same sheet as that showing the graph of future debt re- 
 tirement. A picture of the rate at which past debt has 
 been incurred may thus be presented and will give 
 some indication of the conditions to be faced in the 
 future. This will be especially valuable if a graph of 
 the debt limits, based on the study of trend in property 
 values, is also shown on the same sheet. Figures 8 
 and 10 partially illustrate these points. 
 
 A true picture of the debt situation of the munici- 
 pality cannot be shown unless the total debt structure 
 of the entire community is ascertained. It is impor- 
 
14 
 
 National Resources Planning Board 
 
 tant, therefore, that a careful study of overlapping 
 indebtedness and tax levies be made and trends of 
 such items be ascertained. These trends in overlapping 
 indebtedness may indicate that the sum total of debt 
 is becoming increasingly burdensome to the community, 
 and will affect the ability of the local government to 
 provide additional desirable facilities. For example, 
 the municipal government of the city of Chicago is 
 limited by law to a total outstanding indebtedness of 
 five percent of the assessed value of property within its 
 jurisdiction. There are several other governments 
 operating in the same area, however, each of wliich has 
 the same constitutional limitation of a five percent debt 
 limit. Thus, it is possible to have a total debt to be 
 supported by taxes levied upon the property of this 
 area amounting to 25 percent of its total value. Obvi- 
 ously, under such circumstances, proposals on the part 
 of any one unit of government to borrow should be 
 coordinated with the existing debt and proposed future 
 borrowing of all other units. In all cases where more 
 than one local government has jurisdiction and taxing 
 powers over a community, some form of cooperative 
 procedure should be instituted whereby the overall 
 financial condition of the community may be appraised. 
 
 Cincinnati is a good example of this latter method. 
 (See chapter V.) Full consideration and thoughtful 
 appraisal of these factors must therefore be made;. 
 
 The extent of such overlapping items for the his- 
 torical period may readily be shown in terms of millage. 
 An attempt should be made to predict the total millage 
 required for all such overlapping debt during the years 
 of the program. State and local taxpayers' associa- 
 tions may have valuable information to aid in the 
 study. Figures 11 and 12, and tables 14 to 18, inclu- 
 sive, in chapter IV indicate some of the factors which 
 should be covered, and demonstrate methods of pre- 
 senting them. 
 
 Capital Outlay. — The financial analysis should include 
 a study of past capital outlay for public improvements, 
 which will indicate the volume of improvements which 
 the city has financed in the past, disclose the policy 
 followed by the municipality in providing new or 
 improved public facilities, and aid in estimating 
 amounts required for the future. Such a study will not 
 by itself provide a basis for estimating amounts required 
 for future public improvements, however. Future 
 needs may be just the reverse of past expenditures if a 
 city has been unwisely neglecting its physical plant or 
 
 Table 4. — Sample of Departmental Break-down of Income and Disbursements 
 
 SACRAMENTO - PUBLIC WORKS 
 
 
 1929 
 
 1930 
 
 1931 
 
 1932 
 
 1933 
 
 1934 
 
 1935 
 
 1936 
 
 1937 
 
 1938 
 
 1939 
 
 Income: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Airport 
 
 
 
 10,000 
 
 13,000 
 
 12,000 
 
 12,000 
 
 10,000 
 
 10,000= 
 
 10,000* 
 
 11,500* 
 
 12,000* 
 
 Waste Removal 
 
 163,000 
 
 204,000 
 
 198,000 
 
 186,000 
 
 172,000 
 
 160,000 
 
 148,000 
 
 160,000 
 
 165,000* 
 
 180,000* 
 
 187,000* 
 
 Gas Tax (Street Maintenance) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 135,000 
 
 135,000 
 
 135,000 
 
 
 Sub-Total 
 
 163,000 
 
 204,000 
 
 208,000 
 
 199,000 
 
 184,000 
 
 172,000 
 
 158,000 
 
 305,000 
 
 310,000 
 
 326,500 
 
 199,000 
 
 Supplied by Taxes 
 
 338,619 
 
 322,986 
 
 341,871 
 
 363,428 
 
 293,931 
 
 262,696 
 
 294,509 
 
 251,349 
 
 258,759 
 
 149,715 
 
 292,979 
 
 Total 
 
 501,619 
 
 526,986 
 
 549,871 
 
 562,428 
 
 477,931 
 
 434,696 
 
 452,509 
 
 556,349 
 
 568,759 
 
 476,215 
 
 491,979 
 
 Disbursements: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Engineering — Administration 
 
 30,210 
 
 25,750 
 
 50,170 
 
 42,540 
 
 26,280 
 
 18,210 
 
 20,170 
 
 22,193 
 
 22,363 
 
 26,523 
 
 27,208 
 
 Street Maintenance (Regular) 
 
 49,485 
 
 65,803 
 
 67,808 
 
 67,808 
 
 57,685 
 
 27,390 
 
 57,280 
 
 140,000 
 
 155,000 
 
 35,000 
 
 35,000 
 
 Street Maintenance (Gas Tax) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Street Cleaning 
 
 96,583 
 
 89,676 
 
 87,806 
 
 80,432 
 
 71,856 
 
 71,441 
 
 71,337 
 
 76,931 
 
 77,996 
 
 81,531 
 
 82,230 
 
 Street Lighting 
 
 92,324 
 
 95,974 
 
 98,824 
 
 99,324 
 
 100,518 
 
 99,745 
 
 103,095 
 
 98,415 
 
 100,230 
 
 106,930 
 
 108,705 
 
 Sewer Maintenance 
 
 22.364 
 
 23,234 
 
 26,054 
 
 25,100 
 
 21,670 
 
 22,020 
 
 21,180 
 
 20,585 
 
 21,800 
 
 23,670 
 
 21,470 
 
 Sewer Disposal — Sump No. 1 
 
 21,984 
 
 24,957 
 
 23,958 
 
 22,526 
 
 14,963 
 
 15,885 
 
 15,125 
 
 15,200 
 
 15,066 
 
 14,811 
 
 15,291 
 
 Sewer Disposal — Sump No. 2 
 
 21,158 
 
 24,382 
 
 27,602 
 
 25,910 
 
 23,940 
 
 22,970 
 
 22,125 
 
 24,905 
 
 24,940 
 
 26,710 
 
 28,865 
 
 Waste Removal (Garbage) 
 
 118,511 
 
 113,382 
 
 122,998 
 
 124,774 
 
 123,724 
 
 126,762 
 
 99,264 
 
 110,073 
 
 110,623 
 
 120,567 
 
 126,794 
 
 Traffic Signs and Signals 
 
 9,000' 
 
 3,500 r 
 
 
 16,150° 
 
 5,740 
 
 4,025 
 
 5,575 
 
 9,430 
 
 7,635 
 
 8,660 
 
 10,700 
 
 Incinerator 
 
 25,000 
 
 30,328 
 
 30,194 
 
 29,236 
 
 (Not 
 
 separated after 1932) 
 
 
 
 
 Airport 
 
 15,000 E 
 
 30.000 E 
 
 7,560 
 
 17,805 
 
 17,700 
 
 16,310 
 
 14,380 
 
 14,227 
 
 14,949 
 
 17,636 
 
 17,116 
 
 Airport Development (Interest) 6 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 10,030 
 
 9,850 
 
 9,670 
 
 9,490 
 
 18,600 
 
 Airport Site (Interest) 
 
 
 
 6,897 
 
 10,823 
 
 13,855 
 
 9,038 
 
 12,948 
 
 14,540 
 
 8,487 
 
 4,687 
 
 
 Total 
 
 501,619 
 
 526,986 
 
 549,871 
 
 562,428 
 
 477,931 
 
 434,696 
 
 452,509 
 
 556,349 
 
 568,759 
 
 476,215 
 
 491,979 
 
 A From "'Foes and Charges" 
 
 b Interest on Bonds 
 
 c From "Sales and Services" 
 
 D Ind. Special Appropriation — $10,000 
 
 f Special Appropriation 
 
 r "Traffic and Safety Commission" 
 
 Source: Sacramento Report, Table A-4, p. 57 
 
Long-Range Programming of Municipal Public Works 
 
 15 
 
 if, on the other hand, it has just passed through a period 
 of extravagant development. While operating expend- 
 itures can be forecast largely on a basis of previous 
 trends, capital outlays must be forecast wholly on a 
 basis of carefully determined future needs. 
 
 The study of past improvement expenditures sug- 
 gested above is not synonymous with the previously 
 suggested study of past debt incurred, although the two 
 will bear some relation to each other. Public improve- 
 ments are by no means always financed by borrowing, 
 and the records may be vastly different. 
 
 In segregating past expenditures from the munici- 
 pality's records, it may not always be apparent which 
 expenditures should be classified as having been made 
 for public improvements. A detailed discussion of the 
 classification of improvement expenditures, which may 
 be helpful, is contained in chapter III in connection 
 with the discussion of the listing of needed improve- 
 ments. It may be found advisable, also, to review 
 past authorizations and ordinances as an aid in differ- 
 entiating these items. Departmental officials will also be 
 of help in the interpretation of which of the past expendi- 
 
 Table 5. — Sample of Departmental Break- 
 
 tures of their respective departments should be consid- 
 ered as outlay for public improvements, in accord with 
 a basic policy best determined by the finance officer. 
 
 Organization of Data. — The information disclosed by 
 the financial analysis is intended primarily for use in 
 determining later how the program should be financed. 
 It is urgent, therefore, that the pertinent financial sta- 
 tistics and related data be conveniently and compre- 
 hensively presented and interpreted for use by the 
 authority created to prepare the program. 
 
 The tables, charts, and graphs developed in the analy- 
 sis should be accompanied by appropriate footnotes and 
 concise explanatory text, in order that they may be 
 clearly understood and applied. These tabular forms 
 and supporting discussions should be printed or typed 
 into a number of copies, particularly for distribution to 
 those persons assigned authority for formulating the 
 program. 
 
 Examples of financial charts, graphs, and tables illus- 
 trating practices in this phase of municipal public im- 
 provement programming are presented in figures 1 to 9, 
 and tables 1 to 8, inclusive, which are taken from the 
 
 down of Income and Disbursements 
 
 SACRAMENTO RECREATION FACILITIES 
 
 1929 
 
 Receipts: 
 
 Auditorium 22,000 
 
 Camp Sacramento 10,900 
 
 McClatchy Pool 8,300 
 
 Clunie Pool and Memorial 
 
 Stadium 12,500 
 
 Wm. Land Golf Course 14,900 
 
 Del Paso Golf Course 4,000 
 
 Sacramento Golf Course 
 
 Sundry (and Miscellaneous) 
 
 Recreation Center 
 
 Total 72,600 
 
 Deficiency (Supplied by Taxes).... 45,695 
 
 Grand Total 118,295 
 
 Expenditures: 
 
 Auditorium 20,464 
 
 Recreation Department 61,243 
 
 Camp Sacramento 9,334 
 
 McClatchy Pool 8,207 
 
 Clunie Pool and Memorial 
 
 Stadium 
 
 Wm. Land Golf Course 14,839 
 
 Del Paso Golf Course 4,208 
 
 Sacramento Golf Course 
 
 Oak Park Club House 25,000 s 
 
 McKinley Park Club House 
 
 Men's Recreation Center 
 
 1930 
 
 23,000 
 12,000 
 6,500 
 
 2,000 
 17,000 
 3,500 
 
 64,000 
 118,592 
 182,592 
 
 21,259= 
 62,092 
 17,637 
 6,784 
 
 1931 
 
 18,000 
 12,000 
 6,000 
 
 6,000 
 22,000 
 6,000 
 
 70,000 
 53,107 
 123,107 
 
 21,620 
 66,256 
 15,634= 
 6.598 
 
 1932 
 
 18,000 
 14,000 
 5,000 
 
 5.000 
 22,000 
 7.000 
 
 71,000 
 62,723 
 133,723 
 
 1933 
 
 14.000 
 13.000 
 5,000 
 
 1,000° 
 21,000 
 
 3,500 
 36,000 
 
 1934 
 
 1935 
 
 193G 
 
 1937 
 
 1938 
 
 3,000 
 96,500 
 47,007 
 143,507 
 
 12,000 12,000 12,000' 12,000" 13,000" 
 
 10,000 10,500 12,500' 14,000" "14,000" 
 
 4,000 4,000 4,000' 4,000" 4,000" 
 
 4,000' 7,000" 9,000" 
 
 2,000 4,000 5,500' 8,000" 8,000" 
 
 14,949* 13,820* 14,245* 14,695* 15,079* 
 
 (Sacramento Golf Course replaced Del Paso) 
 
 22,735* 22,015* 24,580* 48,370* 46,020* 
 
 1,000 1,000' 1,000" 2,000" 
 
 2,500 2,000' 3,000" 4,000" 
 
 3,000 
 68,684 
 66,104 
 134,788 
 
 69,835 
 66,209 
 136,044 
 
 79,825 
 73,660 
 153,485 
 
 112,065 
 78,466 
 190,531 
 
 115,099 
 78,287 
 193,386 
 
 1939 
 
 13,000" 
 13,500" 
 3,000" 
 10,000" 
 10,000" 
 15,195* 
 
 28,385* 
 4,000" 
 4,000" 
 
 101,080 
 
 84,287 
 
 185,367 
 
 4,580 
 15,990 
 4,250 
 
 38,000" 
 12,000" 
 
 2,635 
 18.736 
 6,314 
 
 14.686 E 
 
 21,280 
 
 19,199 
 
 19,688 
 
 19,978 
 
 20,481 
 
 20.936 
 
 19,504 
 
 18,740 
 
 64,160 
 
 54,250 
 
 54,250 
 
 56,710 
 
 59,495 
 
 64,400 
 
 66,675 
 
 69,780 
 
 13,587 
 
 13,271 
 
 9,297 
 
 9,640 
 
 12,845 
 
 13,475 
 
 13,830 
 
 13,430 
 
 6,033 
 
 5,461 
 
 4,356 
 
 3,931 
 
 4,356 
 
 4,435 
 
 4,418 
 
 3,007 
 
 
 
 
 
 5,330 
 
 9,415 
 
 11,690 
 
 12,460 
 
 3,255 
 
 3,115 
 
 3,115 
 
 3,445 
 
 4,850 
 
 6,550 
 
 6,185 
 
 6,900 
 
 19,661 
 
 16,589 
 
 14,949 
 
 13,820 
 
 14.245 
 
 14,695 
 
 15,079 
 
 15,195 
 
 5,747 
 
 3,244. 
 
 (Sacramento Golf Course re 
 
 ^placed Del Paso) 
 
 
 
 22,550 
 
 22,735 
 
 22,015 
 
 24,580 
 
 48,370' 
 
 46,020' 
 
 28,385 
 
 6,398 
 
 6,505 
 
 7,303 
 
 8,255 
 
 9,985 17.470 c 
 
 Total 118,295 182,592 123,107 N °' 133,723 143,507 134,788 136,044 153,485 190,531 193,386 185,367 
 
 A From 1934 forward — under "Golf Commission." Receipts were supposed 1o balance expenditures This 
 
 has not been true, therefore these figures are in error by about $100,000 (1934-39 tncl.) 
 B Special Appropriation. 
 C Inch Special Appropriations 
 d Apparently not expended. Deleted. 
 « Return to Cash Basis Fund. 
 
 f Incl. apparently in "Recreation Department". 
 
 c $5,000 Revenue balanced Scrip to be Redeemed. 
 
 H From "Fees and Charges". 
 
 I From "Sales and Services" 
 
 J Incl. "Restaurant" 
 
 Source: Sacramento Report, Table A-5, p # 58 
 
16 
 
 National Resources Planning Board 
 
 cdooooocdotoooo 
 
 i/) [N O O O O O N Q O O O 
 
 -p O O CD CD CD CD CT) CD O O 
 
 ^JtD (D lo" CD iT> Ol O* ID CO V 
 
 CO CM O ' — ■ CO Co V C) CD 
 
 ro — cd 
 
 • —> <N U3 CO 
 CO CO 
 
 CDOOOOOOO^OOOO 
 to O CDCD OO CO O O O O 
 
 2; o o OCR. < — > , cd cn O CD o o 
 
 o o o ud* o" csj •V to 
 
 ■ — 1 cd r — cn ro cm 
 
 — — — to CO 
 
 2 co co" 
 
 — CM 
 
 CD UD 
 
 I J 
 
 CO 
 
 COOOOOOOO-^OOOO 
 co co cd o o o o n o o o o 
 
 f O O CD CD CD_ CD CDD CD OOO 
 
 2 CD T~ lO O* TT lO fO O* CO O CO 
 
 CD CM CD uD iO N T CM 10 
 
 CM 1 — • CM 
 
 I ■ a □ c 
 
 CO CO CD CO 
 
 c*> ■ O CO 
 
 UD* tD" CO 
 CM CM CD 
 
 CD CO CD CD 
 
 CO CO O 
 
 CO , , o_ CO 
 
 CM CM CD 
 lO — 
 
 CD CO CD CD 
 
 — < «— « CO t — 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 CDOOOOOOO 
 NN O CD CD CD O CM CD CD O CD 
 f O O CD CD CD OCnOOCD^o 
 2 CD" CM CD* lO V O CO d IT CO* o" 
 Co CM CO tj« • — • UD CD T CD CD • — < 
 CM — CM —> — • 1 — > CD Co 
 
 CD CD O CD OCOOO 
 
 ( 1 
 
 ro 
 
 COCDOCDOOCDCD-VOOL- _ 
 
 Co O CDCD CD CD CM CD CD CD CD CO CO CD C- 
 
 O CD CD CD CD) CD 00 CD CD O CD CO ; uD CT> 
 
 CO UD* O O* CD) CM CM* ud" 
 
 lO CM CO^T ^ CO V CO CT) Ul CM 
 
 « — O UD CO UD 
 
 CO* CO* CD 
 
 *"tO CD 
 ■ O CM 
 
 I — CM 
 
 O CO CD O 
 
 — . CO 
 CM UD 
 — UD 
 
 COOOOOOOOOOCDOCO CD CD CD CD 
 
 pis O CDCD CD CD i-O CD CM CD CN CO CD CD OO 
 
 ^ O O CO CD CD CD CO UD CM CD CM CO O CO 
 
 2<o d uo" cd" co o" ■*?" cn c_o* 00 cd" uo cd cm 
 
 co cm co co — -Tcoco^r-- — cm n n 
 
 CM— CM — CO UD CD UD « CO 
 
 CN 
 
 CO UD 
 
 UDOOOOOOOO 
 — . CD OO OOO 
 
 en cn cd co cd q o o 
 J2 — « cm" co" 0* co" ud" cd" 
 — 1 cd co — • co co 
 
 ' — — CM 
 
 cm" 
 
 COOOCDOOOOO 
 UD CD O CD CD O O 
 > — « CM CD CD CD CM 
 
 \ co* — " to" ud" cm" ud" ud" 
 
 ' Co — . UD CO ■ — ' CN 
 
 — -OOOOOOOO 
 CD O O CD O CD CD 
 rx Cs O CM CD 0_ CD. CM 
 
 "J to" cd co" ud" cn — " « 
 
 » — . — CO -T — UD O 
 
 — CDOCDOOOOCD 
 CO CD OO CD CD CD 
 _3 CM O CM CD CD O UD 
 
 §cn S — ' 
 
 CM 
 
 —> ud -•-r 
 
 CDCDOOCDOOOO 
 CM CD OOOO O 
 UD CJ> CD CD CD CD O CM 
 
 2! — " cm" co" co" cm" cm" CO 
 2 co cn ^ — r-H cn 
 
 OoOOOOOOO 
 ts O OOOO UD 
 !• — CD OOOO CO 
 
 52 — " to o" cm" cm" cm" ud" 
 
 2t O CO 1— 1 to 
 CO — —* 
 
 cooooooooo 
 co o 0000 
 co cd oooo -^r 
 ? CO" CM" CM." co" CM t" CnI 
 * CO CD N T ~- O 
 
 " CO r— 
 
 toOOOOOOOO 
 f O O □ O O O CD 
 CM UD o. O O O CD o^ o_ 
 ~"i cn ud o" co* o* co" co* cn 
 
 XJ O — CO CO UD — < CM 
 
 toOOOOOOOO 
 
 O — UD — • 
 
 ' o O o o o o 
 
 u ; O* O* O* V UD* O* CO* 
 
 Xjn cm n o ts N 
 
 — — * UD CM 
 
 COOOOOOOO 
 
 — 000000 I 
 
 CT) CD O CD CD O CD CD 
 
 m cm* o" o" co" ud" cd" cm" 
 
 r^i-O — UOCDO-COCM 
 
 G 9 
 
 §0 
 
 ! C <D ? 
 
 « m ^ 
 
 U 01O a ^ 
 ^ o O 'G 3 
 
 1 a b 
 o 3 . 
 a, co "S co 
 
 cn o 01 cm o co o 
 
 CO CO CO 
 CD CO CM 
 to UD CO 
 
 — . o — 
 
 OOO 
 
 — * o — 
 o" o* o" 
 
 1 CO CM — 
 ^_ CD CX> 
 
 co" ud" 
 
 1 ~ cn — < 
 
 — O — 3=0 1 
 
 UD — ■ — 
 
 to O CO 
 
 CM O CM 
 
 — o — 
 
 CO CO O UD 
 
 UD CO O — 
 
 <J~> , , CD CO 
 
 — " CO* CO* 
 
 co cn ^- 1 
 
 OOO 
 to CD CM 
 >~* CD UD 
 
 CO CM UD 
 to CO O 
 CO UD OD 
 
 co — en o 
 
 CO \ CO eg 
 
 CO* >— • o 
 
 — o CO 
 
 CO to CM UD 
 CM CD O to 
 
 cm — -^r 
 
 Co" CM* — 
 
 O UD O O 
 UD O O OD 
 <"*. CM 
 
 O — 
 
 o 
 o* cm" 
 o 0, 
 
 — CM 
 
 co"^: 
 
 JS2 
 
 to ud "o 
 
 to to u. 
 
 a 
 
 > o O 
 
 5° 
 
 - 03 
 3 U 
 
 Q) ? 
 
 » •= O 
 
 5 "8 
 
 1. c c a 
 1 = ^ s 
 
 •at)- 
 i 
 
 • PL CD Q 
 
 3 TJ 
 
 Q 
 <4 
 
 UJ 
 
 o 
 a 
 D 
 m 
 
 2 > -r 
 
 ^ -1 
 
 K!;S CC 
 
 1-iilJ o 
 
 "Ik-! 
 
 01S 
 
 °- . °. °. Q. CD. CD. CD O CD CM 
 
 at 00" o" cm* 0" 00" to* co" O* CD* o" CO* 
 
 ■DDUD'CCOCOCMOto T CO 
 
 °- °. °. °. °. °. CD. O O CD 0_ 
 
 cn co" co* cn o co" ^r" co" o co co" co" 
 
 «toC0C0toc0CMOCDCMC0O 
 CN O " T -h CD CM tO 
 
 OOOOOOOOOOUD 
 ,OOOOOOOOOOto 
 
 , q o o o o_ o_ CD_ o_ O O ro 
 
 1 to* CO O CM* -^r* O* CD* CO" tO* 
 
 OOOOOOOOOOto 
 
 ooooooooooco 
 
 O. CD_ O CD CD CD CD CD CD CD UD_ 
 
 cn co" — " co" o" cm* o" cm* o* o" co" co" 
 
 oooooooooor*. 
 
 -^OOOOOOOOOOto 
 5 °. °- °. °. °. ^ I °. °. CD. CD_ UD_ 
 OD CO* uo" O* UD* 0" Co* O* O* O* O" > 
 •1 CM CO CD T CO " tOCOOCOUD 
 CM OD — ' ■•r ■ — 1 CO CM to 
 
 CO CD 
 CM O 
 
 CO o CO 
 
 CO — OD 
 UD OD 
 CO CM UD 
 
 UD O 
 to O 
 to O 
 
 UD CM 
 CD* O 
 OD CM 
 
 1 CD CD CM 1 
 
 UD CM Co O 
 
 co to ud o cn ud cn~- oco 
 
 ^ UD O. 0_ OD O CM UD_ CD_ 0_ CO O UD CN CO CO 
 
 cn co cn to cn co ud cn cn to ud co co co •— - co 
 — 'ODcmcoco. — ■cn~cr> — 1— • CO • — ■ oco 
 CM OD — -cr CO CM tO~-CMir 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 UDCDDCOCOtoCDcO — (M N V CM CM 
 OD' — •• — itOuDfo. — -UDCOcD^r 
 
 OD CO OD O CM co cn cn CO — 
 
 n CO — O to" UD* OD* — ■ 
 
 • CM CO 
 
 " to* cn" cm" 
 
 ■ — 1 UD ~ " 
 CO CM 
 
 co ud co cn 
 
 CM CD CM -C 
 
 ^-* CM* CO* O* 
 
 O CM CO '* 1 ' 
 
 00 CM CO ^J" OD UD to CO 
 
 uj co* cn -^r ud" t" co" co" to" cn o* 
 XicntoOCMtoCOCOC^^cMCo 
 
 CO UD 
 CO CM 
 O N" 
 
 o" cn" 
 
 CM — 
 
 UD O CM CM 
 
 CDDCOCOCOtoUDtocOCOTj'tO 
 ' — ODUDCMUDOCMOUDto 
 CMCO"<rCNi-OCOCM-<TCO 
 
 CM 
 
 „. UD CO Co" UD CD CO CM CT> co" ■ — •" 
 XJC^CMCDDCOtoCOCOCo^cMCO 
 
 —1 CD CO 
 
 UD O CM CM 
 
 TCOTtNCniOCOOOlCOCM 
 CO UD lO CO CO UD CO — UD Co 
 
 CO CO O CO O CD — ' CM CDD CD uD CD 
 
 CO O 
 OD t*" 
 to OD 
 
 • CO to tO UD 
 
 UD OD CM — 
 
 D) CM UD — • UD O CO to Co rj" UD 
 J T CO ifl T UD CO — — ■ CO 
 
 irt q is 10 co cn o cd co o 
 
 ... Co tD to" UD* T* UD* Co" Co" UD* o" 
 CM CM to — UD UD CO ^ CN UD 
 
 CM CM 
 
 CM CO UD O 
 
 cm cn — co 
 
 UD Co CO 
 
 Co* ud" cm* o" 
 
 co o cn cm 
 
 CO o to 
 
 ^9* CO CM CO CO — CD_ — CO « to 
 m CO" Co" Co* OD —* CO* CO* ^*" Co* CD* 
 CM CM CO o m udCMtj-cMCO 
 
 cn cm 
 co* co" 
 — o 
 
 cm cn 
 ud* cn 
 
 CM — . 
 
 — ■ cn co 00 o Co Co uD 
 
 — T to O — 
 
 'CO to ^j* cn cn co 
 
 5 ***: -zi 00 ^ cn 
 
 Zll CM CO CD UD UD 
 
 — CO — 
 
 O CO O to .— « 
 CDD CO UD CM 
 
 CO* CO* CM* CO* CM" 
 
 UD CM UD CM O 
 
 COOCDOTTO^ruDODfo^r 
 
 CM T CO CO UD UD T" ■ — ■ UD CD CO 
 
 CO lO CM CM in CO CM CD CO CD cn 
 
 2 — " CM* «T — " CM* — • O* UD* OD to" 
 
 ■— • CO CM UD UD CD Co uD CO CO CO 
 
 CO CDD . — ■ CO CN CO tOCOtocMto 
 
 ~* tD CD* — ' UD* CO* O Co" CO* — 
 
 CM CO CO CO CO CD CO m o 
 
 p-< CO CM CM co 
 
 — UD I 
 
 ■ — 1 CN CO CO E? 
 
 t ud cn CO „ 
 
 co co to up q 
 
 cn" co" co" — T — 
 
 00 — — 3 
 
 Co CM OD 
 
 CM CM ^ 
 
 Co — to '5. 
 
 to •"S" CM Co a 
 
 — CO UD UD U 
 
 to" co* ud" cm" 
 
 CO CO CM CM O 
 
 cn — — C 
 
 — UD V 
 
 cn cn x: 
 o 
 
 CM UD TJ 
 
 co* § 
 
 to O 
 O CM 
 OD CM 
 
 CMCntoOCOOCMCMCOTrM- 
 O O CO UD — -CO CO cn UD CO T 
 CO ^5- Co OO CDD T ■ — ^ OO O 
 
 2 CM* CM* O* — •" CM" CO" CD" CO* t" ud" 
 — - OO to UD UD •— ' CD CO CO CDD 
 1 — ' CO T CM M* CO 
 
 OIVNTCOOI'TrtMNi/) 
 OD CD CO CO CD CO CD to CO — £0 
 
 W q q q q q to q q co cm 
 2 ^* co" cn ■ — ■* co co •— • cm cd" 
 
 CD CD CO CO ^ UD CO CO , — > 
 ■ — 'CO -^r CN CM co 
 
 CO to 
 
 to ro 
 
 CO — * 
 
 cn to_ 
 
 CO" UD* 
 UD O 
 
 _ ^ 
 c c 
 S ° b 
 
 - -3 ^ -o co 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 
 rpri 
 
 Bldg! 
 
 
 eation 
 
 i Ente: 
 
 e DC S « > 
 
 trt K C QJ u\ 
 
 % fj ■£ oOSd „ -5 u OT 
 Oo.iii.2uui£2aQ 
 
 D 
 
 ! £ a 
 ^ a — 
 am" 
 
 O ^5 
 
 < 
 
 it 
 
 Bill 
 
Long-Range Programming of Municipal Public Works 
 
 17 
 
 reports of the cities of Kalamazoo, Mich., and Sacra- 
 mento, Calif. It should be noted that the former has 
 adopted a complete pay-as-you-go financial policy, 
 while the latter finances most of its improvements by 
 means of borrowing. Other examples of methods of 
 presenting financial data will be found in figures 11 and 
 12, and tables 13 to 16, inclusive, in chapter IV in 
 connection with the discussion of methods of financing 
 the program. 
 
 Responsibility for the Analysis 
 
 The preparation of the financial analysis requires 
 technical knowledge and understanding and should 
 therefore be handled by a person familiar with the finan- 
 cial affairs of the municipality. It has been customary, 
 in most of the places which have undertaken the 
 preparation of long-range programs, to delegate this 
 
 Table 8. — Difference Between Estimated Income and 
 Estimated Expenses 
 
 CITY OF SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 
 
 Indicated amounts available for capital improvements 
 
 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 
 
 Estimated Income 3.616,226 3,652,000 3.710.000 3.768,000 3,826,000 3,884,000 
 
 Estimated Disbursements... 3.401.807 3.416.789 3,464,567 3,523,775 3,599,003 3,684,274 
 
 Available for Capital 
 
 Improvements 214.419 235,211 245,433 244.225 226.997 199.726 
 
 Source: Sacramento Keport, Table 3, p. 6 
 
 task to the chief fiscal officer of the municipality. Since 
 the preparation of the analysis involves considerable 
 contact with other departments, the individual assigned 
 to the task should possess a thorough understanding of 
 the operations of all of the various departments. 
 
 Procedures in other cities illustrate several different 
 practices with respect to the selection of the individual 
 to make the financial analysis. In New York, financial 
 
 CUMULATIVE GRAPHS OF MUNICIPAL DISBURSEMENTS BY CLASSIFICATION 
 
 LONG TERM PROGRAM OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 
 CITY OF SACRAMENTO 
 
 THOUSANDS 
 OF DOLLARS 
 
 4000 
 
 1929 
 
 1935 1937 
 MSO PUBLIC BUILDINGS 
 PUBLIC SERVICE ENTERPRISES 
 
 1939 1940 
 
 CHARITY a WELFARE 
 
 1945 
 
 SOURCE : SACRAMENTO REPORT P. 8 
 
 Figure 8. 
 
18 
 
 National Resources Planning Board 
 
 THOUSANDS 
 OF DOLLARS 
 
 4000 
 
 CUMULATIVE GRAPHS OF MUNICIPAL INCOME BY CLASSIFICATION 
 
 LONG-TERM PROGRAM OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES 
 CITY OF SACRAMENTO 
 
 3000 
 
 2000 
 
 000 
 
 1933 
 
 'POLICE court fines 
 'AUDITORIUM 
 SOURCE : SACRAMENTO REPORT P. 7 
 
 939 1940 1941 
 
 1945 
 
 Figure 9. 
 
 data are supplied by both the Comptroller and the 
 Budget Director. In Dallas, the financial analysis is 
 prepared by the assistant director of the Department of 
 Fiuance. In most of the other cities in which the pro- 
 gramming operation has been undertaken, this task has 
 been delegated to the auditor's office. In Cincinnati, 
 
 however, the analysis is prepared from records supplied 
 by the several governing bodies, by the director of the 
 local Bureau of Governmental Research, which is a pri- 
 vately financed organization. Regardless of who under- 
 takes the analysis, all municipal departments must co- 
 operate in supplying the necessary data. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 LISTING PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 
 
 The Nature and Purpose of the List 
 
 The objective of long-range programming is to pro- 
 vide for public improvements in an orderly and eco- 
 nomically sound manner. One of the first steps in the 
 operation should be to determine and list all proposed 
 or contemplated additions to the community's facilities 
 which are needed or held to be desirable. 
 
 Many departments and persons will have an inter- 
 est in assembling the list of proposed improvements. 
 The operating departments may require additions or 
 major repairs to their plant and equipment. New 
 projects, such as public buildings, bridges, boulevards, 
 parks, and sewer and water facilities, may be proposed. 
 The chief executive and members of the governing 
 body of the municipality may suggest various improve- 
 ments. Other improvements may be petitioned for by 
 the citizens of neighborhoods or districts, civic-minded 
 individuals and groups. Projects which have been 
 started but not yet completed or which require addi- 
 tional appropriations for completion will lay claim to 
 preference and must be weighed in relation to the whole 
 program. The "list of needs" should include the pro- 
 posals from all of these sources. 
 
 When more than one governmental unit has juris- 
 diction, each should compile its separate list of needs 
 and then the various proposals should be coordinated 
 so that conflicts will be eliminated. See chapter V 
 for procedure covering this step. 
 
 In those cities where programming has been prac- 
 ticed for several years, many of the projects proposed 
 will already have been listed in connection with the 
 preparation of the preceding year's long-term program. 
 In such cases, the previous year's list of needs provides 
 a starting point in assembling the new list, and new 
 projects proposed are merely added. Where pro- 
 gramming has not been undertaken previously, the 
 entire list must be compiled anew from original sources. 
 
 Each project proposal should be accompanied by 
 a complete statement of reasons why it is needed or 
 desired, and by an estimate of the cost of its construc- 
 tion or purchase. An estimate of future annual oper- 
 ating, maintenance or other expense which might 
 result from the construction or purchase of each pro- 
 posed item should be included, as an understanding 
 of the effect of a project upon future annual expenses is 
 essential in making a final selection of projects for 
 inclusion in the program. 
 
 Numerous considerations are involved in determining 
 whether a project should be included in the final pro- 
 gram and what its order of priority therein should be. 
 Some items will represent partially completed projects, 
 which the city is more or less obligated to finish. 
 Others will represent emergency requirements, such as 
 replacement of a condemned bridge or immediate 
 enlargement of a deficient water supply system. 
 
 Other items will probably appear highly desirable 
 from a social, economic, or public health point of view. 
 For example, new schools may be needed to alleviate 
 crowded conditions, or boulevards may require widen- 
 ing to relieve traffic congestion, or extensions to the 
 sewer system or treatment plant may be needed in 
 order to eliminate a health menace. Still other 
 projects will be of a developmental character, as in the 
 case of a new bridge, boulevard, or harbor improve- 
 ment. Data relating to all such considerations should 
 accompany each proposed project. 
 
 The operating and engineering departments of the 
 municipality will suggest many of the proposed im- 
 provements and will furnish much of the data required 
 in determining the relative need for these proposed 
 projects. The city planning agency, responsible for 
 the comprehensive plan or statement of objectives, 
 will have much pertinent information, and that agency 
 will also be in an advantageous position to undertake 
 or assist in the compilation of the list of needs. Among 
 the criteria by which the relative importance of listed 
 projects may be tested, the relation of the proposal 
 to the comprehensive city plan is highly important. 
 
 The considerations mentioned above are essential to 
 an intelligent determination of the relative merits of the 
 proposed projects, to the establishment of priorities, and 
 to an understanding of the relationship of the resulting 
 program to the finances of the city. In the absence of 
 such essential data, the projects listed may represent 
 merely the wishful and often fanciful thinking of the 
 various department heads or individuals sponsoring 
 them and the list may, in such cases, contain many 
 projects which are impractical or impossible of ac- 
 complishment. 
 
 Items To Be Included 
 
 The term "public improvement" is generally con- 
 sidered to mean projects of large size, fixed nature, or 
 long life, which provide new or additional public 
 facilities or services. These include schools, roads, 
 
 19 
 
20 
 
 National Resources Planning Board 
 
 Table 9. — Suggested Form for Listing Information on Proposed Projects 
 
 CITY OF 
 
 PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM 
 PROJECT PROPOSAL 
 
 Ref. No 
 Date 
 
 ., 19_ 
 
 1. Department 
 
 | 2. Bureau: 
 
 3. Description of project: 
 
 a. Physical description: 
 
 b. Purpose: 
 
 4. Need for project: 
 
 
 
 
 ENDORSEMENT 
 
 5. 
 
 Total estimated cost (including site) : 
 
 
 (Do not fill in below this line) 
 
 6. 
 
 Cost of site: 
 
 
 
 7. 
 
 Future burden resulting from project: 
 
 13. 
 
 Priority rating: 
 
 
 a. Annual cost: maintenance and 
 
 
 
 repair: 
 
 14. 
 
 Year recommended for construction: 
 
 
 b. Annual estimated cast of new 
 
 
 
 
 staff requirements: 
 
 15. 
 
 Recommended financing of construction: 
 
 
 c. Future expenditures for equip- 
 
 
 General revenue: 
 
 
 ment or utilities not included 
 
 
 Service charges: 
 
 
 in project cost: 
 
 
 Utility revenues: 
 
 
 
 General obligation bonds: 
 
 
 
 
 Federal aid: 
 
 8. 
 
 Estimated construction perid: 
 
 
 State aid: 
 
 
 
 Revenue bonds: 
 
 9. 
 
 Status of site acquisition: 
 
 
 Special assessment bonds: 
 
 
 
 Working capital or revolving fund: 
 
 10. 
 
 Status of plans and specifications: 
 
 
 Special reserves for capital ex- 
 
 
 
 penditures : 
 
 11. 
 
 Proposed manner of construction (con- 
 
 
 Total: 
 
 
 tract or day labor) : 
 
 
 
 12. 
 
 Year proposed for construction: 
 
 
 
 (Use reverse side if additional information is necessary) 
 
Long-Range Programming of Municipal Public Works 
 
 21 
 
 waterworks, sewers, public buildings, parks, and similar 
 items. Major replacements and reconstructions are 
 also to be considered. 
 
 In addition, it lias been found desirable in many 
 cases to include in tbe improvement program cer- 
 tain types of equipment which are not public im- 
 provements in the same sense as the items mentioned 
 above but bear a direct relationship to such improve- 
 ments or possess characteristics which make their in- 
 clusion in the program advantageous. Fire trucks and 
 similar large equipment items, for example, are, by 
 their characteristics, method of use, or manner of pur- 
 chase, similar to public improvements hi their relation 
 to the program and in their effect upon the municipal 
 finances. Other items, such as furniture, when pur- 
 chased as part of the initial equipment of a new build- 
 ing, may be considered logically as part of the im- 
 provement program. 
 
 However, practices vary so widely between cities 
 that no absolute rule governing the inclusion or re- 
 striction of equipment items in the improvement pro- 
 gram may be established by consideration of the nature 
 of the items themselves. Such determination must rest 
 upon other factors. 
 
 Much of the difficulty in determining what equip- 
 ment items should be included in a long-range im- 
 provement program results from a misunderstanding of 
 the purpose of the procedure. This misunderstanding 
 is in turn engendered by a tendency on the part of 
 many persons to interpret the term "public improve- 
 ment" as synonymous with that of "capital expendi- 
 ture." The latter is an expression used primarily for 
 accounting purposes and in most places covers all 
 capital outlay which adds to the physical assets of the 
 municipality. Since all public improvements are 
 capital expenditures, they are naturally included in 
 such a classification, but public improvements are not 
 all of the capital expenditures of a municipality, and 
 the latter term also covers equipment as well as other 
 items. 
 
 The purpose of long-range improvement programming 
 is the development of orderly methods for providing 
 public improvements in a community, rather than the 
 budgeting of all capital expenditures, or the classifying 
 of such expenditures for accounting and property- 
 control purposes. In developing a public improvement 
 program, therefore, it is quite essential that pro- 
 gramming procedures shall not be confused with 
 ordinary accounting operations, as the two have 
 entirely different purposes. An accoimting system 
 which will provide an adequate control over munici- 
 pal properties, or a budgeting procedure which takes 
 cognizance of all capital expenditures, as a separate 
 classification, is highly desirable, but emphasis upon 
 these objectives as part of the programming operation 
 
 may completely alter the perspective, and lead to 
 the defeat of the purpose for which programming is 
 undertaken. 
 
 The programming of public improvements does, in 
 effect, require the programming of all other expendi- 
 tures of the municipality, since the program must be 
 directly related to the entire financial operations of the 
 city if it is to be based upon the city's ability to pay. 
 Little, if any, justification can be found, however, for 
 the inclusion in the program of minor equipment items, 
 such as typewriters, fire hose, or police squad cars and 
 other equipment items which are normally traded in 
 or replaced annually. Expenditures for the purchase 
 or replacement of such items might better be treated 
 as operating requirements or included in a budget 
 category covering minor equipment. 
 
 The ultimate objective of the procedure is the 
 development of a program of public works, and only such 
 matters as are directly related to this problem should 
 be covered by its operations. The following method 
 of classification is suggested as generally covering 
 those items which are in keeping with the objectives 
 of the procedure: 
 
 1. New construction and major repairs and additions, 
 including purchase of land; 
 
 2. Major equipment, covering, in general, items for 
 which a separate authorization is called for in the annual 
 budget. 
 
 Two types of expenditures not heretofore mentioned 
 also appear logically to belong in an improvement 
 program, and should be included in the list of needs. In 
 some cities many public improvements are financed 
 through special assessments levied against the real 
 property in local improvement districts. Not only do 
 these projects have an important bearing upon the 
 public facilities provided in the community, but the 
 burden of financial obligation imposed upon the tax- 
 payers within each assessment district is of considerable 
 importance in relation to the financial operations of the 
 community as a whole. Special assessment projects 
 should be considered in developing an improvement 
 program, and should, under certain circumstances, 
 be included in the list of needs. The financing of these 
 projects should be given consideration in analyzing the 
 resources of the community. 
 
 Preconstruction engineering costs required in con- 
 nection with specific improvement projects are as 
 much a part of the capital cost of these projects as 
 are the bricks and mortar that go into the structures. 
 Such costs should be included in an improvement 
 program. The engineering cost of projects which are 
 scheduled for construction several years hence shoidd 
 properly appear in the program some time ahead of 
 the date set for construction of the project. The 
 engineering department would thus be provided well 
 
22 
 
 National Resources Planning Board 
 
 Table 10. — Summary List of Needed Improvements 
 
 SIX YEAR PROGRAM FOR MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS 
 
 SUMMARIZED INVENTORY OF NEEDS 
 
 DEPARTMENT) ALL 
 DIVISION: 
 
 Reported by I Date submitted : 
 
 Title: 
 
 Page of pages: 
 
 CITY OF NASHVILLE. TENNESSEE 
 
 (14) # C.R. Current Revenues. 
 
 *G.O. Ceneral Obligation Bonds. 
 
 •A. II. Assessment Bonds. 
 
 *S.H. State Highway Participation. 
 
 •U K. Railroad Co. Participation. 
 
 *S.F. Special Funds. 
 
 NOTE: Estimate of cost of land indicated 
 by letter "L" 
 
 (15) STATUS OF PLANS) 
 
 1. Preliminary eatimate only. 
 
 2. Surveys begun. 
 
 3. Surveys completed. 
 
 4. Work on plans not begun. 
 
 5. Sketch plans In preparation. 
 
 6. Sketch plans completed. 
 
 7. Detail plans in preparation. 
 
 8. Detail plans completed. 
 
 9. Detail plans and specifications 
 completed. 
 
 ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND ESTIMATED YEARLY EXPENDITURES 
 
 PROJECT 
 
 (1) 
 
 is 
 
 1,2)' 
 
 Toul 
 estimated 
 cost 
 
 (3) 
 
 Total for 
 si i year 
 plan 
 
 (4) 
 
 FISCAL YEAR 
 
 ss 
 
 Z 8 
 
 nr,YlAnli> 
 
 (It) 
 
 1939-40 
 
 (5) 
 
 1940-41 
 
 (6) 
 
 1941-42 
 
 (7) 
 
 1942-43 
 
 (8) 
 
 1943-44 
 
 (9) 
 
 1944-46 
 
 (10) 
 
 (Later) 
 (11) 
 
 5 a 
 
 (12) 
 
 audi tori ub 
 
 
 
 L 260,000 
 
 L 260.000 
 
 L 260,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a o 
 
 1,700,000 
 
 1,700,000 
 
 1, 700.00C 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Aviation 
 
 C E 
 
 2,160 
 
 2,160 
 
 2.16C 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 G 
 
 L 7,000 
 
 L 7,000 
 
 
 
 L 7.00C 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 307,000 
 
 264,000 
 
 42.00C 
 
 32,000 
 
 10,000 
 
 42,000 
 
 80,000 
 
 66,000 
 
 43,000 
 
 
 
 Board of Eduoatlon 
 
 G 
 
 L 96,000 
 
 L 93,000 
 
 L 26.0OC 
 
 L 16.00C 
 
 
 L 10,000 
 
 L 12,000 
 
 L 50,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 a o 
 
 977,000 
 
 977,000 
 
 426, 00C 
 
 
 114.00C 
 
 110,000 
 
 66,000 
 
 240,000 
 
 
 
 
 Engineering Department! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Streets 
 
 C R 
 
 1,260,000 
 
 1,260,000 
 
 
 260.00C 
 
 26O.0OC 
 
 260,000 
 
 250,000 
 
 250,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 L 446,000 
 
 L 446,000 
 
 
 L 130,000 
 
 L 16,000 
 
 L 100,000 
 
 L 100.000 
 
 L 100,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 A B 
 
 250,000 
 
 260,000 
 
 
 
 260.00C 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S H 
 
 1,181,060 
 
 1,181,060 
 
 
 
 281,080 
 
 300,000 
 
 300,000 
 
 300,000 
 
 
 
 
 S ewe re 
 
 G 
 
 L 161,460 
 
 L 124,120 
 
 L 17.39C 
 
 L 16,530 
 
 L 22,800 
 
 L 22,600 
 
 L 22,600 
 
 L 22,800 
 
 : 7,360 
 
 
 
 
 G 
 
 6,048,620 
 
 4,775,920 
 
 773, 91C 
 
 760,010 
 
 810,000 
 
 810,000 
 
 610,000 
 
 810,000 
 
 274,600 
 
 
 
 Ceneral 
 
 G 
 
 110,000 
 
 110.000 
 
 16.00C 
 
 36.0OC 
 
 36,000 
 
 16,000 
 
 6,000 
 
 6,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 S F 
 
 250,000 
 
 260,000 
 
 
 60,000 
 
 60.0CX 
 
 50,000 
 
 60,000 
 
 60,000 
 
 
 
 
 Fire Department 
 
 G 
 
 L 5,000 
 
 L 6,000 
 
 
 L 6,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 G 
 
 126,000 
 
 125,000 
 
 85,000 
 
 40,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Flood Control (Cumberland River) 
 
 G 
 
 L 269,400 
 
 L 269,400 
 
 L 20,000 
 
 L 67,400 
 
 L 127.0OC 
 
 L 55,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Vt D 
 
 5.500.000 
 
 3,600,000 
 
 
 1.000,000 
 
 1, 600.00C 
 
 1,000,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 G 
 
 130,600 
 
 130,600 
 
 4.00C 
 
 113.400 
 
 8.40C 
 
 4,800 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Health Department 
 
 G 
 
 98.000 
 
 98,000 
 
 98,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Drug Dispensary 
 
 G 
 
 12,000 
 
 12,000 
 
 12,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hospital Board 
 
 G 
 
 201,950 
 
 201,950 
 
 201,960 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Humane 4 Juvenile Commission 
 
 C R 
 
 10,000 
 
 10,000 
 
 2. OCX 
 
 4.26C 
 
 1.00C 
 
 1,000 
 
 1,750 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 G 
 
 75,000 
 
 75,000 
 
 25,00< 
 
 1S.00C 
 
 6, OCX 
 
 16,000 
 
 
 15,000 
 
 
 
 
 Public Library- 
 
 C R 
 
 9,160 
 
 9,150 
 
 2.20C 
 
 2.26C 
 
 2.00C 
 
 1,700 
 
 500 
 
 500 
 
 
 
 
 
 G 
 
 L 10,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 10.000 
 
 
 
 
 G 
 
 156,000 
 
 56,000 
 
 40.00C 
 
 
 16.00C 
 
 
 
 
 100,000 
 
 
 
 Light Plant 
 
 C R 
 
 193,900 
 
 167,900 
 
 40.60C 
 
 33.90C 
 
 34.50C 
 
 10,250 
 
 25,260 
 
 23.500 
 
 26,000 
 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 368,000 
 
 368,000 
 
 193, 00C 
 
 163, 00C 
 
 S.OOC 
 
 3,000 
 
 3,000 
 
 3,000 
 
 
 
 
 Police Department 
 
 
 
 15,000 
 
 16,000 
 
 
 15.00C 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sprinkling 4 Sanitation 
 
 G 
 
 L 10,000 
 
 L 10,000 
 
 L 5.00C 
 
 L 5,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 G 
 
 170,000 
 
 170,000 
 
 90.00C 
 
 eo.ooc 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Streets. Sewers & Sidewalks 
 
 C R 
 
 30,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 30,000 
 
 
 
 Waterworks Department 
 
 G 
 
 288,971 
 
 268.971 
 
 66.86C 
 
 49,992 
 
 46,42! 
 
 44,381 
 
 45,972 
 
 46,344 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total from Current Revenues. 
 
 
 1,495,200 
 
 1,439,200 
 
 46.85C 
 
 290^400 
 
 287.60C 
 
 262.960 
 
 277.600 
 
 274.000 
 
 66.000 
 
 
 
 Total from CO. Bonds — Lands. 
 
 
 1,220,680 
 
 1,203,620 
 
 317,390 
 
 233, 93C 
 
 171, eoc 
 
 187,800 
 
 134,800 
 
 162,600 
 
 17,360 
 
 
 
 " " " *' — Construction 
 
 
 9,773,041 
 
 9,365,441 
 
 3,761,720 
 
 1,295,402 
 
 1,048,821 
 
 1,044,181 
 
 1,031,972 
 
 1,177,344 
 
 417,600 
 
 
 
 Total from Assessment Bonds. 
 
 
 260,000 
 
 260,000 
 
 
 
 260,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total State Highway Participation. 
 
 
 1,181,080 
 
 1,181,060 
 
 
 
 281.08C 
 
 300,000 
 
 300,000 
 
 300,000 
 
 
 
 
 Total Railroad Co. Participation. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total from Special Funds. (Bevolvlng) 
 
 
 260,000 
 
 260,000 
 
 
 60,0001 
 
 60.000 
 
 60,000 
 
 (0.000 
 
 60,000 
 
 
 
 
 Total Proa War Department 
 
 W D 
 
 3,600,000 
 
 3,600,000 
 
 
 1,000,000 
 
 1. 500,000 
 
 1,000,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (.rand Totals. 
 
 
 t 17,670,201 
 
 1 17,179,241 
 
 4,126,960 
 
 2,972.752 
 
 3,687,202 
 
 E.844,931 
 
 1,794,272 
 
 1,964,144 
 
 490,960 
 
 
 
 Souroe: Nashville Report, Table II 
 
Long-Range Programming oj Municipal Public Works 
 
 23 
 
 in advance with the necessary funds to pay for the 
 required surveys, engineering studies, and designs. 
 
 Responsibility for Compiling the List of Needs 
 
 The compilation of the list of needs and of data related 
 thereto is for the purpose of providing the raw material 
 from which a program may later be developed ordi- 
 narily. The task is appropriately a function of the 
 local planning agency. 
 
 It is customary and administratively desirable to 
 delegate the task to some one responsible individual, 
 rather than to a committee. Examples of this arc 
 found in numerous cities. The City Planning Com- 
 mission of New York, which is required to prepare the 
 capital program, delegates the task of assembling the 
 list of needed improvements to a director of capital 
 budget, who collects the data on prepared forms and 
 also holds hearings for the purpose. In Nashville, 
 San Diego, and Boston, the inventory is assembled by 
 the planning engineer, in Dallas by the assistant director 
 of finance, and in Spokane by the city engineer. In 
 Cincinnati, the city manager is designated to perform 
 this function. 
 
 In compiling the list and supporting data, full oppor- 
 tunity must be accorded all individuals, departments 
 and organizations to propose improvements and to 
 present information relative to their urgency or desir- 
 ability. It is highly desirable that the individual desig- 
 nated to assemble the data shall be thoroughly familiar 
 with the various activities and departments of the munic- 
 ipal government and of the community and shall be a 
 thorough but tactful and diplomatic person, enjoying 
 the confidence of the officers of the various departments. 
 
 Forms and Procedures 
 
 Whether long-term programming is to be made an 
 official procedure of the local government or is under- 
 taken merely on the initiative of individual officers, it 
 can be more efficiently conducted if a few well-arranged 
 forms, together with appropriate instructions for their 
 use, are supplied to the various departments and individ- 
 uals for listing proposed projects and for presenting data. 
 
 Special forms designed specifically for the listing of 
 needed improvements may be used, or the forms upon 
 which the final program is prepared may serve, in a dual 
 capacity, for this purpose also. In New York City and 
 Boston, special forms are used for the preliminary listing. 
 These are arranged so that one type is used for pro- 
 posed new projects and another for projects which have 
 not been completed but for which appropriations have 
 been authorized or allotted. It has been found expe- 
 dient in several cities to use an individual project sum- 
 mary form for the purpose of standardizing the informa- 
 tion sought with respect to each item. These so-called 
 
 justification forms are in use in New York City, Boston, 
 Mass., and Dallas, Texas. A similar type of individual 
 project form is in use in connection with the Federal 
 6-year program. Samples of these forms, accompanied 
 by appropriate instructions, are shown in table 27. 
 
 In Cincinnati, the procedure involved in collecting 
 the inventory of needs is more or less a continuous opera- 
 tion throughout the year. The data are assembled in 
 permanent record books kept in the city manager's 
 office. The procedure is, in effect, that of maintaining 
 a perpetual inventory of needed or proposed capital 
 improvements. It has many advantages, and for this 
 reason has been adopted elsewhere. Dallas, Tex., 
 for example, proposes to use this method hereafter, and 
 a special filing system is being worked out for the pur- 
 pose. It is intended that all information on any project 
 proposed during the year will be cataloged in this file, 
 so that the list of needs will always be up to date and 
 available at any time of the year for review. Much of 
 the work and difficulty attendant upon the preparation 
 of the program at the time of annual revision will there- 
 fore be eliminated. This method of listing projects has 
 also been adopted in connection with the Federal 
 6-year program. 
 
 In table 9 is presented a suggested individual project 
 summary form which may be of general value in the 
 listing of data regarding each proposed project. It 
 should be noted that the lower right-hand corner of this 
 form is reserved for the notations of the programming 
 authority, in connection with its task of making a final 
 selection of projects for inclusion in the program. 
 
 Much information of a character pertinent to pro- 
 posed projects cannot be reduced to standard tabula- 
 tion. For this reason several cities have found it desir- 
 able to hold hearings at which the various department 
 heads or other officials, and interested citizens or or- 
 ganizations, may appear and present information or 
 opinions on proposed projects. In the city of New York 
 the hearings at which the department heads appear are 
 not public, but public hearings are also held. Formal 
 hearings are also granted the department heads and 
 other municipal officials in Winchester, Mass. 
 
 It has been found desirable in several places to trans- 
 mit a letter of instructions along with the forms, in 
 order that all officials and persons who are required to 
 submit data may have a full understanding of the 
 operation and of what is required. The letter of in- 
 struction sets forth the objective of the programming 
 operation, quotes the authority for the procedure, 
 describes the data required, and indicates the procedures 
 which are to be followed. Examples of such letters, 
 taken from existing practices in New York, Nashville, 
 Boston, and Dallas are included in appendix B. In 
 Fargo, N. Dak., a similar letter was used, and the public 
 
24 
 
 National Resources Planning Board 
 Table 11. — Sample Departmental List of Needed Improvements: Schools 
 
 DEPARTMENT: SCHOO 
 DIVISION: 
 
 Reported by: W.A. BASS 
 Title: St'PERINTS'iDENT 
 Page 1 of 1 pages: 
 
 ubmitted: 7-3-39 
 
 SIX YEAR PROGRAM FOR MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS 
 
 CITY OF NASHVILLE. TENNESSEE 
 
 (14) *C.R. Current Revenues. 
 
 •CO. General Obligation Bonds. 
 
 ' \ It. Attachment Bonds. 
 
 *S.H. State Highway Participation. 
 
 *it.R. Railroad Co. Participation. 
 
 *S.F. Special Funds. 
 
 NOTE: Estimate of cost of land indicated 
 by letter "L" 
 
 (15) STATUS OF PLANS i 
 
 1. Preliminary estimate ooly. 
 
 2. Surveys begun. 
 
 3. Survey* completed. 
 
 4. Work on plans not begun. 
 
 5. Sketch plans in preparation. 
 
 6. Sketch plans completed. 
 
 7. Detail plans in preparation. 
 
 8. Detail plans completed. 
 
 9. Detail plans and specification* 
 completed. 
 
 PROJECT 
 (1) 
 
 "3 » 
 
 11 
 
 *i 
 
 S« 
 
 (2)« 
 
 ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND ESTIMATED YEARLY EXPENDITURES 
 (Including cost of land or site) 
 
 1 S 
 Ji 
 
 X 
 
 (12) 
 
 REMARKS 
 
 03) 
 
 Total 
 etttimatrtl 
 cost 
 
 (3) 
 
 Total for 
 nil year 
 plan 
 
 (•») 
 
 FISCAL YEAR 
 
 1939-40 
 
 (5) 
 
 1940-41 
 
 (6) 
 
 1941-42 
 
 (?) 
 
 1942-43 
 
 (8) 
 
 1943-44 
 
 (9) 
 
 1944-4! 
 
 (10) 
 
 (Later) 
 
 (n) 
 
 (l) Waverly -Belmont Senior Hip,hSohoo! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 Building 
 
 00 
 
 200,000 
 
 200,000 
 
 , — 200,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Land 
 
 00 
 
 L 25,000 
 
 li 26,000 
 
 L 26,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Equipment 
 
 00 
 
 25,000 
 
 25,000 
 
 25,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (2) Cohn Senior High Sohool 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 Building 
 
 00 
 
 180 000 
 
 180 000 
 
 180,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Equipment 
 
 00 
 
 20,000 
 
 
 2 . ,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (5) MoFerrin Elementary Sohool 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 Building 
 
 00 
 
 100,000 
 
 100,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Land 
 
 00 
 
 L 10,000 
 
 L 10,000 
 
 
 
 
 L 10 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Equipment 
 
 00 
 
 10,000 
 
 10,000 
 
 
 
 
 10,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (4) Addition to Cameron Sohool 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 Building 
 
 GO 
 
 55,000 
 
 35,000 
 
 
 
 36,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Equipment 
 
 00 
 
 4,000 
 
 4,000 
 
 
 
 4,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (5) Highland Heighte Sohool 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 (Additional Land) 
 
 00 
 
 L 10,000 
 
 L 10,000 
 
 
 L 10,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (6) Llgon Lane Elementary Sohool 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 Building 
 
 GO 
 
 80,000 
 
 80,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 80,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 Land 
 
 GO 
 
 L 12,000 
 
 L 12,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Equipment 
 
 oo 
 
 8. JOO 
 
 8, 300 
 
 
 
 
 
 8,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 (7) Uaige Sohool 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 Land 
 
 00 
 
 L 6,000 
 
 L 6,000 
 
 
 — — 6*000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (8) Franklin Elementary Sohool 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 Building 
 
 00 
 
 100,000 
 
 100,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Land 
 
 00 
 
 L 10,000 
 
 L 10,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 L 10,000 
 
 
 
 
 Equipment 
 
 00 
 
 10,000 
 
 10,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (9) New Tarbox Sohool 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 Building 
 
 00 
 
 120,000 
 
 120,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 120,000 
 
 
 
 
 Land 
 
 00 
 
 L 20,000 
 
 L 20,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 L 20, 000 
 
 
 
 
 Equipment 
 
 00 
 
 10,000 
 
 10,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 10,000 
 
 
 
 
 (10) Teohnioal High School 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 Remodeling and Equipping Old Hume Fogg 
 Hi c h Srthnnl 
 
 Remodeling 
 
 00 
 
 
 26,000 
 
 
 
 25,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Equipment 
 
 GO 
 
 26,000 
 
 26,000 
 
 
 
 25,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (11) Bailey Sohool Auditorium 
 
 00 
 
 26,000 
 
 25,000 
 
 
 
 26,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total from Current Revenues. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total from G.O. Bonds — Lands. 
 
 
 93,000 
 
 93,000 
 
 25,000 
 
 16,000 
 
 
 10,000 
 
 12,000 
 
 30,000 
 
 
 
 
 — Construction 
 
 
 •77,000 
 
 977,000 
 
 425,000 
 
 
 114,000 
 
 110,000 
 
 88,000 
 
 240,000 
 
 
 
 
 Total from Assessment Bonds. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total State Highway Participation. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total Railroad Co. Participation. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total from Special Funds. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Grand Totals. 
 
 
 1,070,000 
 
 1,070,000 
 
 450,000 
 
 16,000 
 
 114,000 
 
 120,000 
 
 100, 00 
 
 270,000 
 
 
 
 
 Souroei Hashville Report 
 
Long-Range Programming of Municipal Public Works 
 
 25 
 
 Table 12. — Sample Page from List of Needed Improvements 
 
 WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 
 April 1939 
 
 INVENTORY OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS PROPOSED BY VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS 
 
 FOR 
 
 SIX YEAR PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM 
 
 Name, location, and/or type of project 
 
 Park department: 
 
 Connecting piece at Main Street to Wedge Pond Road 
 
 Loring Field: New field house 
 
 Leonard Field: New bathhouse 
 
 New playground: West side 
 
 Park Headquarters Building: Including garage for 6 cars; pro- 
 posed to use present cement block Sylvester Building, near 
 town yard; lower story to be used by city highway department for 
 
 garage 
 
 Acquire Central Hardware Store: Connect Mt. Vernon St. to Shore 
 
 Road 
 
 Shore Road Athletic Field: 
 
 New field house 
 
 Steel bleachers 
 
 Total park department 
 
 Water and sewer department: 
 
 Ridge Street: New water main — 4,850 feet from High St. to Woburn 
 
 town line 
 
 Hutchinson Road: New water main from Ridge St. to Arlington 
 
 line 2,187 feet 
 
 Land, Sylvester Ave 
 
 Total water and sewer department 
 
 Esti- 
 mated 
 Cost 
 
 Depart- 
 mental 
 Priority 
 
 $1,100 
 2,500 
 7,000 
 
 12,000 
 
 25,000 
 
 20,000 
 
 2,500 
 10,000 
 
 80,100 
 
 12,000 
 
 6,000 
 2,000 
 
 20,000 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 3 
 4 
 
 6 
 7 
 
 Source: Winchester report, table 4 (continued) 
 
 was also advised of the procedure and of the desirability 
 of submitting information, through a letter addressed 
 to key citizens of the community. 
 
 Examples of those types of forms which are primarily 
 designed for the listing of the final program but which 
 are also used for the purpose of assembling the pre- 
 liminary list of needs are included in chapter IV in 
 connection with the description of the procedures in- 
 volved in preparing the program. These are shown in 
 
 figures 13 and 14, and 17 to 26, inclusive. Dual 
 purpose forms were used in Richmond, Nashville, 
 Fargo, and Sacramento. Tables 10 to 12, inclusive, are 
 samples of actual inventories taken from the Nashville 
 and Winchester reports. These were accompanied in the 
 reports by appropriate explanatory text. The several 
 types of forms contained herein are offered as suggestions 
 only and should not be copied without considering the 
 desirability of modifying them to meet local conditions. 
 
 250134 — 41 3 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 PREPARATION AND ADOPTION OF THE PROGRAM 
 
 General Procedure 
 
 The financial analysis and the list of public improve- 
 ment needs provide the basic data from which a program 
 may be developed. Preparation of the program itself 
 involves the review and correlation of these data in 
 relation of the policies and problems to the local 
 government. 
 
 Several types of organization and procedure for ac- 
 complishing this objective have been developed in cities 
 which have undertaken the programming operation. 
 They are discussed in chapter V. In some cases, it will 
 be found desirable to vest authority for the preparation 
 of the program in a committee or planning agency 
 because of the many different considerations and 
 points of view involved. In any case, the type of 
 procedure and organization finally developed should be 
 specifically fitted to tbe operations and form of govern- 
 ment of the municipality concerned. The person or 
 authority charged with the responsibility of program- 
 ming should be officially designated by the executive 
 head of the municipality. 
 
 Preparation of the program is essentially a threefold 
 operation. First, all of the projects included in the 
 "list of needs" must be reviewed and evaluated in 
 terms of their relative importance and desirability. 
 Second, the volume of funds to be employed in the 
 construction of these improvements, and the method of 
 applying them, must be determined. Third, a final list 
 of projects must be selected for inclusion in the recom- 
 mended program, based upon the project evaluations, 
 the amount and character of the funds available for each 
 year of the program, and other considerations, such as 
 the effect of the projects selected upon future operating 
 costs. These several steps are discussed in frhe following 
 sections. 
 
 Evaluation of Projects 
 
 In most cities, the list of needs will doubtless contain 
 many more improvements than can be undertaken with 
 the funds available. Critical preliminary review of the 
 lists as submitted by department heads may indicate 
 that some of the proposed projects are impractical and 
 can therefore be eliminated at the start, but the remain- 
 ing items will probably still be more than can be 
 financed over the years of the program. Even if all 
 of the projects proposed could be provided for finan- 
 cially, the problem of which should be constructed first 
 would still remain. 
 26 
 
 Determination of the relative position of a project 
 in the program as finally recommended cannot be 
 completely divorced from the problem of determin- 
 ing the amount of expenditures which should be pro- 
 posed, since the final choice of projects and the order of 
 their priority will be influenced by the volume of 
 funds available. Before a final choice of projects for 
 inclusion in a program can be made, however, the proj- 
 ects must first be evaluated purely in terms of relative 
 need or desirability. 
 
 Effective measurement of the relative need for or de- 
 sirability of proposed improvements implies their con- 
 sideration in terms of the over-all services and facilities 
 required by the community. In other words, the 
 projects should be coordinated with each other, and with 
 the community's developmental problems. The orderly 
 accomplishment of this task calls for comprehensive 
 planning, if the projects recommended are to provide 
 for the best interests of the city. 
 
 As an illustration of what is implied in approaching 
 the problem in this fashion, a decision with respect to 
 proposed new bridges or streets, or with respect to 
 proposed widening of boulevards, can be satisfactorily 
 answered only if a thorough study of traffic conditions 
 has been made. The traffic study itself can have maxi- 
 mum value only if it in turn has been coordinated with 
 sociological, industrial, and economic studies which will 
 help to reveal the direction in which the city is growing, 
 the rate of growth, the probable requirements for indus- 
 trial, business, residential or recreational areas and 
 related factors which determine where people want to 
 go and in what numbers. Problems of off-street parking 
 facilities and the economics involved in providing them 
 would also have to be considered. 
 
 A bridge or boulevard may often appear to be a 
 desirable improvement when viewed independently of 
 city-wide considerations, but in relation to the long- 
 time trend of developments may clearly be revealed 
 as an undesirable feature which in later years might 
 aggravate rather than relieve the traffic problem. Sim- 
 ilar considerations and methods of analysis are involved 
 in school buildings, sewerage systems, parks, and other 
 public improvements. The policy followed in Sacra- 
 mento, for example, of selecting grade-school sites in 
 such a way as to make it unnecessary for a child to 
 have to cross a main traffic artery must be considered 
 in planning new streets or reorganizing the street 
 system, if the objectives upon which selection of 
 
Long-Range Programming of Municipal Public Works 
 
 27 
 
 school sites are based shall not be rendered in- 
 effective. 
 
 Investigations and studies of this character are insep- 
 arable components of comprehensive city planning and 
 can be untertaken to best advantage by an active and 
 well staffed city planning organization. Such a body 
 will be of great assistance in the task of evaluating 
 projects and should be called upon for advice on these 
 problems. 
 
 Not only do planning considerations within the city 
 itself affect the choice of projects, but developments 
 contemplated or proposed by other governmental units 
 must be brought into the picture and the program 
 coordinated with them if it is to be of maximum value. 
 Careful planning of city streets, for example, would be 
 ineffective unless these streets were also coordinated 
 with the county and state highway systems surrounding 
 or leading into the city. County and State departments 
 should consequently be consulted and county and State 
 planning procedures and proposals given full consid- 
 eration in proposing street improvements. 
 
 Similar problems of coordination will be encountered 
 in providing other municipal improvements. For 
 example, the disposal of municipal sewage may affect 
 the use of the waters of a river, and other uses and 
 users along the river should be considered for their 
 mutual benefit and protection. Flood control projects 
 may present similar problems. The relation of any 
 proposed improvements to the problems of contiguous 
 areas or units of government can be solved only through 
 close cooperation. 
 
 Where basic civic planning has not yet become a 
 part of the municipal procedure, certain more or less 
 arbitrary criteria must be used as a basis for evaluating 
 proposed improvements. For example, a dangerous 
 situation involving possible loss of life obviously pre- 
 sents an emergency situation in which remedial con- 
 struction should be given preference over other proposed 
 improvements. Likewise, projects required to protect 
 or conserve existing property or resources should receive 
 prima facie preference over projects which would pro- 
 vide new facilities or developments. Public health 
 requirements will certainly be deemed of more imme- 
 diate importance than the construction, say, of a new 
 municipal auditorium. 
 
 Some criteria which may be helpful in analyzing 
 proposed projects and in determining their relative 
 importance are: 
 
 1. Protection of life; 
 
 2. Maintenance of the public health; 
 
 3. Protection of property; 
 
 4. Conservation of resources; 
 
 5. Maintenance of physical property; 
 
 6. Provision of public services; 
 
 7. Replacement of obsolete facilities; 
 
 8. Reduction in operating costs; 
 
 9. Public convenience and comfort; 
 
 10. Recreational value; 
 
 11. Economic value; 
 
 12. Social, cultural or esthetic value; 
 
 13. Promotional value through effect on future 
 developments; and 
 
 14. Relative value with respect to other services. 
 These criteria are arbitrarily arranged as a general 
 
 guide which may or may not agree with any particular 
 community's scale of social values. Each community 
 will have its own ideas of what purposes should be 
 served first in providing public improvements. Neither 
 is the list all inclusive, as many other considerations 
 may suggest themselves in dealing with actual cases. 
 
 Financing the Program 
 
 The size of an improvement program is limited by 
 the amount of funds made available for it. Before 
 a final program can be prepared it is necessary for the 
 programming authority to determine what funds 
 are available from current revenues or may safely be 
 provided from other sources for each year of the pro- 
 gram, and the manner in which they will be applied. 
 
 The financing of public improvements may be ac- 
 complished in several ways. Pay-as-you-go, borrow- 
 ing, or a combination of these methods may be fol- 
 lowed. In some areas capital reserves may also be 
 accumulated for specific objectives. The policy which 
 will actually be pursued by the municipality with 
 respect to the size of the improvement program and 
 the method of financing it can only be assumed 
 prior to its actual adoption by the governing body, 
 
 CHART SHOWING EFFECT OF PROPOSED BOND PROGRAM 
 
 SCHEDULE OF PAST PRESENT AND PROPOSED BONDED INDEBTEDNESS 
 
 END OF EACH FISCAL YEAR 
 millions of CITY OF NASHVILLE 
 
 DOLLARS 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 — ____ 
 
 
 TOTAL 
 _£J~PRESE 
 
 VALUE OF 
 UT AND PR 
 
 COMBINED 
 DPOSED BO 
 
 IDS 
 
 
 TREND 
 TOTAL 
 
 IN A 
 OF It 
 
 ICUMUL 
 CURREC 
 
 1 
 
 IVE\ 
 3EBT1 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 TOTAL VAL 
 OUTSTANDI 
 NO NEW DE 
 
 JE 
 
 M( 
 B 
 
 OF BOND 
 . ASSUMMI 
 
 T.I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 —HISTORIC 
 
 iL 
 
 
 -FUTURE 
 
 
 i^CUMl 
 
 y' PROF 
 
 JLATIVE TC 
 OSED $70 
 
 TAL OF NE 
 0,000 OF 
 
 n debt, a; 
 
 YEW BOND! 
 
 SED UPON 
 ANNUALLY 
 
 
 
 
 
 /' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 1 1 1 1 
 
 
 
 / 
 1 1 1 1 
 
 i i i i 
 
 1 I I I 
 
 1 1 1 I 
 
 1 1 1 1 
 
 El 
 1 
 
 1 IT— 1— 
 
 TENDS TO - 
 >78-l979\ 
 -1 1 1 1 1 "i 
 
 1930 '35 '39 '44 '49 '54 '59 '64 '69 B75 
 
 •40 '45 '50 55 '60 '65 '70 876 
 
 SOURCE: NASHVILLE REPORT, CHART I 
 
 Figure 10. 
 
National Resources Planning Board 
 
 EFFECTS UPON FINANCES OF PROPOSED PROGRAM OF CITY COMMISSION 
 
 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF CITY OF FARGO 
 GENERAL FUND 
 
 EXPENDITURES FOR 
 HEALTH AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS 
 
 120 
 
 EXPENDITURES FOR 
 SEWER AND CITY PROPERTY MAINTENANCE 
 CITY SCALES - MAINTENANCE 
 thousands TEMPORARY LOAN RETIREMENT 
 
 OF DOLLARS 
 
 120 
 
 EXPENDITURES FOR 
 ADMINISTRATION AND POLICE DEPARTMENT 
 
 EXPENDITURES FOR 
 STREET LIGHTING AND STREET MAINTENANCE 
 
 TOTAL EXPENDITURES FROM GENERAL FUND 
 INCLUDING TEMPORARY LOAN RETIREMENT 
 (FOR OPERATING) 
 
 440T 
 
 400 
 
 TOTAL INCOME GENERAL FUND 
 (FOR OPERATING) 
 
 360 
 
 320 
 
 280 
 
 240 
 
 200 
 
 440 
 
 400 
 
 360 
 
 320 
 
 280 
 
 240 
 
 200 
 
 SOURCE FARGO REPORT, p 29 
 
 Figure 11. 
 
Long-Range Programming of Municipal Public Works 
 
 29 
 
 and even then can become effective only when con- 
 curred in by the public. This is especially true 
 where an election is required to authorize the issuance 
 of bonds or to permit increases in tax rates. Legal 
 restrictions and limitations are also involved. In de- 
 termining the volume of funds to be employed and in 
 preparing the program, it should be assumed, never- 
 theless, that the financial policy ultimately adopted 
 will be a sound one. 
 
 There are a number of items which should be taken 
 into account in considering municipal finances, particu- 
 larly where municipal debts are concerned, if the mu- 
 nicipality is properly to perform its required function 
 and at the same time keep its house in good order. 
 These are: 
 
 (1) The city's obligations must fall clearly within its 
 economic resources for payment; 
 
 (2) Plans for debt repayment must be soundly 
 formulated ; 
 
 (3) The municipality must possess and use adequate 
 taxing power; 
 
 (4) The municipality must maintain a sound current 
 account ; 
 
 (5) The city's administration must provide the ser- 
 vices, the physical facilities, and the forethought which 
 are essential to meeting and perpetuating a livable 
 community; 
 
 (6) The city's administration must be conducted 
 with reasonable economy and efficiency ; and 
 
 (7) There must exist a genuine quality of responsi- 
 bility and integrity in those who administer and con- 
 trol a city's governmental affairs. 1 
 
 These several points may be accepted advantageously 
 as an interpretation of the term, "sound financial poli- 
 cy," and used in the deliberations and recommendations 
 of those charged with the responsibility of developing 
 and preparing the program. 
 
 This phase of the study might be opened by posing 
 a few critical questions. Is complete debt elimination 
 the ultimate objective? If so, is that objective to be 
 reached quickly, or should the incurrence of new debt 
 be countenanced so long as the trend of total debt is 
 downward? Shall the existing tax rate be maintained, 
 or is it desirable to let it fluctuate to meet varying 
 municipal needs? Should the tax rate be increased 
 beyond immediate needs in order to retire outstanding 
 debt and achieve a pay-as-you-go status? What legal 
 restrictions affect these possibilities? 
 
 A discussion of various objectives and methods of 
 financing improvements is presented in the following 
 paragraphs to aid in approaching these questions. 
 For more detailed treatment, standard treatises on 
 
 1 "The Basis of Municipal Credit," Frederick L. Bird, Illinois Municipal Reriew, 
 April 1939. 
 
 municipal finance are available. Several of these are 
 listed in the bibliography included at the end of this 
 volume. 
 
 Pay-as-you-go Procedure. — For certain classes of 
 cities, there is much advantage in financing public 
 improvements by a pay-as-you-go procedure. This is 
 particularly true of the more common and the smaller 
 types of projects. Furthermore, in many cities the rate 
 of growth in population and the need to provide public 
 facilities and services has declined, and a large part of 
 the annual improvement program is devoted to replace- 
 ments or to modernization of facilities. In these cities, 
 as well as in the larger cities in general, the annual 
 expenditures for improvements tend to be fairly uniform 
 in amount, and might therefore be financed more 
 economically from current revenues than by means of 
 borrowing. 
 
 With an almost stationary population within fixed 
 geographical limits, the problem of improvement pro- 
 gramming shifts its emphasis from priority determina- 
 tion to the reduction of gross interest payments. Con- 
 tinued borrowing in these cities eventually has the effect 
 of superimposing a uniform but heavy burden of interest 
 charges upon the cost of the annual improvement pro- 
 gram. If borrowing were gradually eliminated, these 
 cities would be placed on a pay-as-you-go basis. The 
 gradual amortization of the outstanding debt would 
 release interest charges which, in many cases, would 
 either permit the annual volume of construction to be 
 increased or would reduce the ultimate cost of those 
 improvements constructed. 
 
 Partial or complete pay-as-you-go procedures have 
 been advantageously adopted in several municipalities. 
 
 MUNICIPAL GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT STRUCTURE 
 CITY OF FARGO, N.D. 
 HISTORICAL PERI0D-I9I0-II THROUGH 1938-39 
 AND 
 
 6 YEAR PROGRAM 
 
 OOLLARS 
 
 IN THOUSANDS 
 
 1,000 r _— - 
 
 Figure 12. 
 
National Resources Planning Board 
 Table 13.— Effect of City Program Upon General 
 
 1927-28 1928-29 1929-30 1930-51 1931-32 1932-33 1931-34 1934-35 1935-36 ' 1936-57 1937-36 
 
 PART A: REVENUES & EXPENDITURES : PRESENT BASIS HISTORICAL 
 
 REVENUES i INCL. TEI1P. BORROWING (a) " 
 
 TAXES.! GENERAL OPERATING {244,023 274,337 281,571 276,881 270,975 226,433 194,390 237,589 245,397:250 852 304 295 
 
 TAXES: FRANCHISE 27,217 28,782 28,968 28,608 27,059 25,142 22,866 23,096 24,802 23*066 25*040 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS 39,660 38,270 33,743 32,793 25,785 18,945 31,119 28,833 37,612 44 127 60*931 
 
 ( a) TEMPORARY LOANS 30.000 50.000 50.000 85.000 \ ' ' 
 
 TOTAL 340.900 341.369 394. 2u2 388.342 40.J.619 270.520 248.375 289.518 307.811 318.045 390.266 
 
 EXPENDITURES: INCL. LOAN RETIREMENT 
 
 ADMINISTRATIVE 37,584 39,043 37,721 38,405 37,169 32,846 30,040 26,451 33,600 34,509 38.96S 
 
 FIRE DEPARTMENT - 61,818 66,989 85,020 77,310 76,006 70,137 55,289 54,768 S6,2e7 58,017 60,121 
 
 POLICE DEPARTMENT 48,886 48,015 48,413 59,226 68,549 60,716 54,063 59,801 67,725 67,334 73,295 
 
 HEALTH DEPARTMENT 38,192 40,685 39,981 50,152 48,224 34,740 27,601 29,958 34,846 32,793 33,025 
 
 STREET DEPARTMENT (MAINTENANCE) 59,666 61,618 SB, JOS 65,968 57,510 39,510 37,079 39,670 50,602 56,297 63,691 
 
 STREET LIGHTING 31,200 32,342 33,483 33,770 33,044 28,346 18,104 19,658 28,625 15,349 26,284 
 
 SEVER MAINTENANCE - 5,125 5,536 5,236 6,106 6,214 4,262 4,862 5,533 6,119 6,901 5,194 
 
 MAINTENANCE: CITY PROPERTY 3,043 4,479 3,827 4,544 7,019 5,204 5,128 6,096 6,038 9,657 11,364 
 
 CITY SCALES 4,197 4,247 4,225 4,500 4,966 4,449 3,624 4,503 4,796 4,192 4,300 
 
 MISCELLANEOUS 15,250 19,072 17,457 13,378 14,422 12,233 8,729 10,794 12,690 11,004 9,385 
 
 (a) TEMPORARY LOANS 85.012 50.000 SO.OOO 1.466 1.657 3.612 2.975 13.152 6.790 
 
 TOTAL 387.973 322.026 563.606 403.359 354. 589 294,100 24£.131 257.252 104.503 509.295 332.414 
 
 BALANCE OR DEFICIT: OPERATING - -47,073 19,363 10,614 -15,017 54,230 -23,580 244- 32,286 3,508 8,840 57,852 
 
 CAPITAL OUTLAY 14,838 13,114 14,522 13,810 9,764 16,081 9,499 5,585 5,884 1,250 9.1S3 
 
 BALANCE OR DEFICIT: NET 61,911 6,249 -3,908 -28,827 44,466 -39,661 -9,255 26,701 -2,376 7,590 48,699 
 
 PART B: CAPITAL OUTLAY 6 YEAR PROGRAM EST. COST 
 
 CONSTRUCTION & EQUIPMENT! NEW 
 
 FIRE DEPARTMENT - |134,O00 
 
 STREET DEPARTMENT: EQUIPMENT 48,576 
 
 HEALTH DEPARTMENT: LAND CITY HOSPITAL - 2,700 
 
 PUBLIC BUILDINGS: CITY HALL 195,500 
 
 " » : REST ROOMS 6,000 
 
 UNDERPASSES: CITY'S SHARE 40.000 
 
 TOTAL 426,776 
 
 STREET IMPROVEMENTS: WATER MAINS 
 
 OWNER'S SHARE: S. A. WARRANTS 420,040 
 
 CITY'S SHARE: 20$ 85,260 
 
 STATE HIGHWAY SHARE 32.000 
 
 TOTAL 545.300 
 
 PART C: 6 YEAR PEnGRAM METHOD OF FINANCING 
 GENERAL FUND: 14 MILL LEVY 
 
 STREET DEPARTMENT 
 
 OPERATING COST 
 
 LAND: CITY HOSPITAL 
 
 OPERATING COST 
 
 REST ROOMS 
 
 OPERATING COSTS 
 
 CEN. FIRE STA. & TOWER OPRTO. COST - - 
 
 FIRE STA. NO. 3 OPRTO. COSf 
 
 CITY HALL 
 
 TOTAL - 
 
 GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT 
 
 CEN. FIRE STATION 1 TOWER 
 
 FIRE STATION Hi 
 
 UNDERPASSES: CITY'S SHARE 
 
 CITY HALL — 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFICIENCY DEBT 
 
 S.A. PROJECT NO. 2a CITY'S SHARE - 
 
 OPRTG. COST 
 INTEREST 
 
 ESTIMATED TOTAL 
 (OPRTG) 
 
 48,576 48,576 
 
 11,500 11,500 
 
 2,700 2,700 
 
 5,000 6,000 
 
 5,300 5,300 
 
 4,000 4,000 
 
 41,000 41,000 
 
 15.000 15.000 
 
 57.276 76.300 134.076 
 
 89,000 
 30,000 
 40,000 
 19S.500 
 -"■■4. 1 .- 'J 
 
 (INT.) 
 
 18,300 
 7,600 
 8,000 
 
 112.610 
 
 107,300 
 37,600 
 48,000 
 274.410 
 467. 310 
 
 14,300 
 15,600 
 35,960 
 11,000 
 8.400 
 
 85.260 "25.004 110.264 
 
 4,380 
 5,160 
 11,240 
 2,640 
 1.584 
 
 18,680 
 20,760 
 47,200 
 13,640 
 9.984 
 
 STATE HIGHWAY, STREET IMPROVEMENTS 32,000 
 
 SALE S.A. WARRANTS: ST. IMPROVEMENTS 4 W.M. 428,040 • 
 
 SALE OF PROPERTY: FIRE STATION 1S.000 
 
 TOTAL 475.040 ■ 
 
 PART D: 6 YEAR PROGRAM: EFFECT OF FINANCING 
 T AX LEVIES: ESTIMATED COLLECTIONS 
 
 TAXES FOR OPRTG: 6 YEAR PROGRAM 
 
 nun. PRESENT BASIS 244,023*274, 337*281,571*276,881*279,076*226,433*194, 390*237, 589*245, 397* 250,852*304,295* 
 
 INCREASE - 
 
 TAXES FOR G.O. DEBT: 6 YR. PROGRAM 
 
 " " "I PRESENT BASIS - 19,699* 19,639* 17,941* 22,138* 22,855* 9,414* 7,537* 5,721* 1,201* 559* 
 
 INCREASE 
 
 TAXES FOR DEF. S.A. FD: 6 YR. PROGRAM .0 
 
 « » « " »: PRESENT BASIS 5,068* 14,913* 24,533* 30,264* 38,443* 44,134* 
 
 INCREASE 
 
 KILLACE: 50jj VALUATION (b) Percentage of assessed valuation reduced from 75 to 50 in year 
 
 1932-33. For purposes of comparison with years subsequent to 
 
 OPERATING: 6 YR. PROGRAM 1932-33 the millage fpr years 1927-28 through 1932-33 has been 
 
 G. -0. DEBT:" " " — - adjusted to a 50$ basis. See paragraphs 3 and 4, Part IV, page 30. 
 
 DEF. S. A. FUNDS " 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 MILEAGE: PRESENT BASIS 21.24(b) 18.16(b) 19.24(b) 16.69(b) 16.75(b) 13.87(b) 14.45* 14.85* 15.60* 16.05* 16.02* 
 
 INCREASE 
 
 •ACTUAL (a) TEMPORARY BORROWING FOR OPERATING EXPENSES 
 
 Source: Fargo Report, Table 1, p. 28 
 
Long-Range Programming of Municipal Public Works 
 
 Fund of City Commission, Fargo, North Dakoto 
 
 aaa8 1^19^ 19^ 19^™^^ 
 
 FUTURE 
 
 266 441 267.030 270,000 273,500 277,000 280,000 283,500 
 26 064 26 000 26,500 26,500 27,000 27,000 27,000 
 4s)531 45,300 45,800 46,000 46,500 46,500 46,S00 
 
 54! ,036 338^300 IIOoO 2$^m JJgjSOO. l^IIES. 15^000. 
 
 37,903 38,600 
 
 60,644 60,800 
 
 75,795 76,200 
 
 32,402 3S.9J0 
 
 60,188 54,600 
 
 20,531 24,000 
 
 7,864 7,500 
 
 11,244 W,30O 
 
 3,198 4.750 
 13,699 
 11.200 
 
 ss, 
 
 300 
 
 38 
 
 ei o 
 
 40, 
 
 000 
 
 40,000 
 
 40,000 
 
 62 
 
 800 
 
 62 
 
 soo 
 
 62 
 
 800 
 
 62,800 
 
 62 
 
 800 
 
 76 
 
 200 
 
 76 
 
 700 
 
 76 
 
 700 
 
 77,200 
 
 77 
 
 200 
 
 SS 
 
 ISO 
 
 35 
 
 S80 
 
 S6 
 
 180 
 
 36,680 
 
 37 
 
 ISO 
 
 55 
 
 100 
 
 55 
 
 600 
 
 56 
 
 SOO 
 
 57,100 
 
 50 
 
 600 
 
 27 
 
 000 
 
 27 
 
 000 
 
 28 
 
 000 
 
 29,000 
 
 50 
 
 000 
 
 7 
 
 soo 
 
 8 
 
 ,A«I 
 
 6 
 
 000 
 
 8,500 
 
 8 
 
 500 
 
 10 
 
 300 
 
 11 
 
 
 11 
 
 000 
 
 11,000 
 
 11 
 
 000 
 
 4 
 
 750 
 
 4 
 
 ,750 
 
 4 
 
 BOO 
 
 4,900 
 
 4 
 
 900 
 
 14 
 
 ,700 
 
 14 
 
 ,4' 
 
 15 
 
 250 
 
 14,000 
 
 15 
 
 ,750 
 
 10 
 
 .550 
 
 10 
 
 .4^ 
 
 10 
 
 .350 
 
 10.250 
 
 10 
 
 000 
 
 336 _i 668 335.85 5 42.360 345.000 549. OBO 351.430 355.930 
 
 4 868 2,470 - 80 920 620 2,070 1,070 
 
 14 255 2,500* 3,500* 3, SOO* 3,500* 3,500* 3,500* "Contracted prior to 7-1-1939 
 
 -9 887 - 30 - 3,580 - 2,560 - 2,680 - 1,430 - 2,430 
 
 15,000* 89,000 30,000 "Depends upon sale of present location 
 
 8,376 16,750 11,450 6,000 6,000 
 900 900 900 
 195,500 
 
 3,000 3,000 
 
 _ 20.000 20.000 
 
 24.276 129.650 227.850 39.000 6.000 
 
 107,400 157,540 62,000 16,500 51,000 33,600 
 15,600 50,260 11,000 8,400 
 
 15.000 17,000 
 
 138.000 207.800 73.000 16.300 68.000 42.000 
 
 8,376 
 
 16,750 
 
 11,450 
 
 6,000 
 
 6 
 
 000 
 
 
 
 1,000 
 
 ■1,500 
 
 2,000 
 
 2,000 
 
 2 
 
 500 
 
 2 
 
 SOO 
 
 900 
 
 900 
 
 900 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 5,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 625 
 
 625 
 
 1,350 
 
 1 
 
 350 
 
 1 
 
 350 
 
 
 
 1,000 
 
 1,000 
 
 1 
 
 000 
 
 1 
 
 000 
 
 
 
 
 12,000 
 
 14 
 
 soo 
 
 14 
 
 SOO 
 
 
 
 
 5.000 
 
 5 
 
 000 
 
 5 
 
 000 
 
 10.276 22,77 5 15.975 30.350 30.350 24.350 
 
 15,560 13,160 12,760 12,360 11,960 9,560 9,240 8,820 8,600 7,280 
 
 1,200 4,200 4,080 3,960 3,840 3,720 3,620 3,480 3,260 6,240 
 
 4,800 5,440 5,280 5,120 4,960 4,800 4,640 4,480 4,320 4,160 
 
 7.820 14.820 14.540 18.260 17.820 17.330 16.940 16.500 16.060 20.620 19.900 19.340 18.700 18.060 17.420 20.280 
 
 18.360 26.4 20 34.060 56.220 59.260 56.14 35.050 33.960 33.040 3 0.980 23.880 _26,140 19.340 18.700 18.060 17.420 20.230 
 
 1,572 
 1,624 1,584 
 3,440 
 
 1,532 
 1,544 
 4,360 
 1,440 
 
 1,492 
 1,504 
 5,240 
 1,400 
 
 1,452 
 1,464 
 4,160 
 1,360 
 
 1.624 6.596 8.876 7.636 8.436 
 
 1,412 
 1,424 
 5,040 
 1,520 
 1.336 
 
 1,372 
 1,584 
 3,960 
 1,280 
 1.296 
 
 1,332 
 1,344 
 2,840 
 1,240 
 1.256 
 
 1,292 
 1,504 
 3,760 
 1,200 
 1.216 
 
 1,252 
 1,264 
 2,640 
 1,160 
 1.176 
 
 1,212 
 1,224 
 3,560 
 1,120 
 1.136 
 
 ■532 9.292 8.012 8.772 7.492 8-252 
 
 1,172 
 1,184 
 2,440 
 1,080 
 
 1.096 
 "6.972 ' 
 
 1,132 
 1,144 
 3,360 
 1,040 
 1.056 
 7.732 
 
 1,092 1,053 312 
 
 1,104 1,664 
 
 2,240 3,160 1,000 
 
 4.652 5.876 1.312 
 
 15,000 17,000 
 
 107,400 157,540 62,000 16,500 51,000 33,600 
 
 15.000 ' 
 
 "7,400 157.540 62.000 16.500 ~68ToOO 33.600 
 
 
 
 266,441* 
 
 
 
 41,570^ 
 
 277,276 289,775 289.475 307,350 310,350 307 850 
 267.000 270.000 273.500 277.000 280.000 283.500 
 
 10,276 19,775 15,975 30,350 50,350 24,550 
 
 18,360 26,420 34,060 36,220 39,260 36,140 35,050 53,960 33,040 50,980 23,880 26,140 19,340 18,700 18,060 17,420 20,280 
 2 2 Q Q 
 
 18,360 26,420 34,060 36,220 59,260 56,140 35,050 53,960 55,040 50,980 23,880 26,140 19,340 18,700 18,060 17,420 20,280 
 
 S J!^ jj^ JL'g iLS ^J3J3J3JfSJ3J5JSJ3 
 
 1,624 6,596 8,676 7,636 8,436 8,532 9,292 8,012 8,772 7,492 8,252 6,972 7,732 4,852 5,876 1,312 
 
 14.00 15.50 15.50 16.00 16.00 15.00 
 
 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.00 
 
 2-00 2-00 2.00 2.00 1.2 5 1.2 5 
 
 1.6-00 17.50 18.50 19.50 19.25' 18.25 
 
 16.0O» 16.00 16.0 16.00 16.00 15.50 15.25 
 1.50 2.50 3.50 3.75 5.00 
 
32 
 
 National Resources Planning Board 
 
 Table 13. — Explanatory Text Accompanying Financial Data for City Commission of Fargo — Continued 
 
 PART IV 
 
 3. Board of Commissioners of City of Fargo. 
 
 TABLE NO. 1 
 
 Table No. 1, page 28, of this Report, supported by graphic 
 analysis on page 29, is divided into four parts. 
 
 Part "A" reveals financial operations relating to this Fund 
 for a 12-year period ending June 30, 1939. The "Balance or Deficit" 
 shown for the respective fiscal years indicates the effect of these 
 operations. Estimates of volume of income and expenses for opera- 
 tion and maintenance of the activities are also revealed. The 
 "Balance" shown in the fiscal years for the future period, indicates 
 result of the estimates. 
 
 The temporary loans shown under both "Revenues" and "Expendi- 
 tures," relate to temporary borrowings to meet operating expenses. 
 
 The "Capital Outlay" included in Part "A" relates to sums paid 
 out of cash in the General Fund, for street and sewer improvements 
 affecting city-owned property, and for new equipment. 
 
 Part "B" of the Table shows the estimated initial cost of de- 
 sirable public improvements as inventoried under this Fund, and also 
 shows the fiscal years in which these improvements are scheduled. 
 
 Part "C" of the Table is intended to demonstrzte: 
 
 (1) Method of financing initial cost of inventoried 
 
 improvements; from 
 
 a. The operating 14-Mill Levy, 
 
 b. General Obligation Bonds (if authorized), 
 
 c. Special Assessment Warrants (City's share), 
 
 d. Other sources. 
 
 (2) Estimated increased operating costs incident to 
 
 inventoried improvements, and interest charges 
 incident to financing General Obligation Bonds 
 and Special Assessment Warrants. 
 
 (3) Estimated total initial outlay, operating costs, 
 
 and debt service, all incident to inventoried 
 improvements, spread over future fiscal years. 
 
 Part "D" of the table demonstrates effect of the proposed financ- 
 ing upon tax levies, collections and millage. 
 
 Source: Fargo Report. 
 
 For'example, the charter of New York City requires 
 that a specified increasing percentage of annual public 
 improvement expenditures be made from current 
 revenues, looking toward achievement of a complete 
 pay-as-you-go basis in 50 years. The procedure now 
 followed in Milwaukee will insure reaching this goal 
 at a much earlier date. The Milwaukee public works 
 program and financial analysis was prepared specifi- 
 cally for the purpose of. determining how the city 
 might ultimately achieve a pay-as-you-go status. 
 There it was demonstrated that for a few years addi- 
 tional funds would be required in order to provide 
 facilities which were urgently needed. By vote of 
 the people these were provided by additional taxes 
 rather than by resorting to further borrowing. Even- 
 tually all outstanding debt will be liquidated. Kala- 
 mazoo has achieved a complete pay-as-you-go status 
 through sufficient levies to cover operating and 
 capital expenditures. In both these latter cases, 
 however, problems resulting from the growth of the 
 
 surrounding metropolitan areas stilly 'present diffi- 
 culties. ] 
 
 In lieu of borrowing for public improvements the 
 possibility exists in some areas of accumulating funds 
 in advance through regular or special annual tax levies. 
 In California, State law permits municipalities to 
 levy taxes for several years in advance to raise the 
 funds with which to construct capital improvements. 
 The law requires that the improvements for which these 
 additional levies are made be specifically and clearly 
 designated and limits their expenditure strictly to the 
 objective indicated unless authorized by the electorate 
 to do otherwise. Some other States have similar laws, 
 New York State having passed such an act in 1941. 
 Within the limits permitted by the law, this procedure 
 might also be considered as a type of pay-as-you-go 
 operation. 
 
 Careful consideration should be given in preparing a 
 program to the desirability of ultimately reaching a 
 pay-as-you-go status. However, the achievement of 
 
Long-Range Programming of Municipal Public Works 
 
 PUBLIC BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS 
 Six-Year Program 
 Board of City Commissioners of City of Fargo 
 
 1 The need for the replacement of the present City Hall, the erection of 
 
 2 a municipal auditorium, and the establishment of rest rooms, has long been 
 
 3 recognized. Therefore, the accompanying Inventory presents for considera- 
 
 4 tion, estimates of cost of such structures, the desirability of which, is 
 
 5 discussed herein. 
 6 
 
 7 CITY HALL 
 
 8 
 
 9 1. There is no more adequate justification for the erection of a mod— 
 
 10 era, adequate, fireproof Municipal Building than can be presented by a brief 
 
 11 description of the present City Hall, and the lack of facilities it pre— 
 
 12 sents, in contrast to those needed. 
 13 
 
 14 Erected in 1905-1906, with brick walls, wood interior, and tar and 
 
 15 gravel roof, and consisting of a basement and two stories, comprising 5,290 
 
 16 square feet, it served admirably the needs of a community then totaling 
 
 17 some 12,000 people. 
 18 
 
 19 In the intervening years, public welfare has required the establish- 
 
 20 ment of new departments, operations, and the necessary facilities to meet 
 
 21 the growing needs of a community, now having a conservatively estimated 
 
 22 population of approximately 33,000. That continued steady growth has demon— 
 
 23 strated the inadequacy in size and arrangement of the present building, 
 
 24 which cannot house certain municipal departments, now quartered either in 
 
 25 the adjacent fire station or in a private building nearby. 
 26 
 
 27 Even by the standards of an earlier day, the building is poorly lighted 
 
 28 and ventilated. This is particularly true in the basement detention portion 
 
 29 of the Police Department, where the men's cells are totally dark and with— 
 
 30 out sanitary facilities. This is improper. 
 31 
 
 32 By far, the greatest inadequacy of the building is in the inflammable 
 
 33 nature of its interior. Five vaults, not wholly fireproof, comprising 308 
 
 34 square feet of floor space, can house but about one-third of the vitally 
 
 35 important City records, many of which could never be replaced, to the 
 
 36 great disadvantage of the City and the Public. It is estimated that more 
 
 37 than $50,000 would be required to replace such records as are possible of 
 
 38 reproduction. In either category, are the vital records of the Engineer- 
 
 39 ing, Water, Sewer, Health, Police, and Fire Departments, and the Assessor's 
 
 40 and City Auditor's offices. 
 41 
 
 42 A survey of the activities of each Municipal department, irrespective 
 
 43 of its present location, demonstrates the dire need of additional working 
 
 44 space, with facilities and accommodations commensurate with duties and re- 
 
 45 sponsibilities that have increased from year to year. Departments are now 
 
 46 occupying 8,350 square feet of working space. It is conservatively esti- 
 
 47 mated that at least 14,900 square feet of working space is necessary to 
 
 48 admit of proper, adequate, and efficient service to the public, and to af- 
 
 49 ford safeguard of vital records. It is also deemed advisable to provide 
 
 50 approximately 4,500 square feet of additional space, to insure against too 
 
 Page 1 
 
 Figure 13. — Sample of Explanatory Text Regarding the Program of the City Commission of Fargo, North Dakota. 
 
34 
 
 National Resources Planning Board 
 
 this status might require modification in the laws raising money in each succeeding year to retire the 
 
 regulating municipal procedure, and this possibility principal and cover interest charges. If borrowing is 
 
 should be investigated and appropriate recommenda- continuously resorted to, the annual program which 
 
 tions made. may be undertaken is likely to grow smaller as the 
 
 Borrowing. — Where a program is to be financed by burden of debt increases and more of the municipal 
 
 borrowing, the credit standing of the municipality revenues are required for servicing it. 
 
 must be considered. The financial affairs of a city When the total outstanding debt reaches its legal 
 
 must be carefully managed if it is to continue borrow- limit, the annual expenditure for improvements is 
 
 ing in the open market at low interest rates. The limited to an amount equal to the value of the bonds 
 
 terms and conditions of proposed bond issues should retired in that year. The debt limit restricts the 
 
 be thoughtfully worked out so that these issues will be issuance of new bonds in such instances. When this 
 
 coordinated with the pattern of existing indebtedness occurs, the permissible annual program will be smaller 
 
 to best advantage. than would be permitted under a pay-as-you-go 
 
 The length of time over which the bonds are to run procedure due to the large percentage of the current 
 
 should not be greater than the conservatively estimated revenues which must be used for payment of interest 
 
 useful life of the project for which the proceeds are on the outstanding debt. Under these circumstances, 
 
 used and might well be much less. Callable features serious consideration might be given to the possibility 
 
 might be included so that the debt may be retired of the gradual abatement of borrowing, 
 
 earlier if desired. Whether sinking fund or serial An analysis of outstanding debt, and of past borrow- 
 
 bonds should be issued must also be considered, ing practices, will provide a basis for approaching these 
 
 although the serial bond will probably prove to be more problems and should be included in the financial 
 
 easily administered. analysis. A study of the legal restrictions and require- 
 
 Financing improvements by borrowing requires ments surrounding the borrowing procedures of the city 
 
 Table 14.— Municipal General Obligation Debt for All 
 
 PART A 1910-11 1915-16 1920-21 1923-24 1925-26 1927-28 1928-29 1929-30 1930-31 1931-32 1932-33 1933-34 1934-35 19,35-36 1936-37 
 
 GENERAL FUND HISTORICAL 
 
 BONDS OUTST'G: JULY FIRST J 146,558 311,341 261,341 241,341 232,341 202,341 202,341 202,341 202,341 202,341 14,000 10,000 2,000 
 
 BONDS ISSUED: DURING YEAR 15.000 
 
 TOTAL 161.558 311.341 261.341 24 1.341 232.34 1 20 2.341 202.341 202.341 202.341 202.341 14.000 10.000 2.000 
 
 BONDS RETIRED: DURING YEAR 21,000 35,000 15,000 9,000 15,000 188,341 4,000 8,000 2,000 
 
 BALANCE: OUTST'G JUNE 30 140.SS8 276.341 246.341 232.341 227.341 202.341 202.341 202.341 202.341 14.000 10.000 2.000 
 
 BALANCE: SINKING FUND JUNE 30 61.500 53.700 102.800 131.600 136.000 149.300 159^500 163.300 179.400 1.500 4.000 500 
 
 NET DEBT 79.058 222.641 143.541 100.741 9 1.341 53.041 42.841 33.041 22.941 12.500 6. OOP 1.500 
 
 PART B 
 
 PARK FUND 
 
 BONDS OUTST'G: JULY FIRST 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 
 
 BONDS ISSUED: DURING YEAR 
 
 TOTAL 7.000 7.000 7.000 7.0 30 7,000 
 
 BONDS RETIRED: DURING YEAR 7,000 
 
 BALANCE: OUTST'G JUNE 30 7.000 7.000 7.000 7.000 
 
 BALANCE: SINKING FUND JUNE 30 2.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 
 
 NET DEBT 5.0 00 3.000 2.00 1.000 
 
 PART C 
 
 SCHOOL FUND 
 
 BONDS OUTST'G: JULY FIRST 55,000 385,000 385,000 465,000 510,000 565,000 515,000 435,000 520,000 444,000 336,000 273,000 211,000 150,000 
 
 BONDS ISSUED: DURING YEAR 70.000 200.000 . 100.000 . 150.000 
 
 total i::s,qoj ;-. 5.oo: s^.o^ ■; , c: :> s-, / 5:;, poo o_:_ L 1 _o ' ■ , ; , . , . i-.;,o :o 
 
 BONDS RETIRED: DURING YEAR 10,00Q 20,000 60,000 45,000 50,000 80,000 65,000 76,000 108,000 63,000 62,000 sl 000 32 000 
 
 BALANCE: OUTST'G JUNE 30 115.000 385.000 565.000 405.000 SSS.000 515.000 43 5.000 520.000 444.000 33 6.000 27 3.000 211.000 isqIoqq nslooo 
 
 BALANCE: SINKING FUND JUNE 30 7.500 25.000 40.000 S.8IS 43.99 7 54.616 35.910 36.195 44 . 59 7.40 7 2.276 11.303 2 ] 65 x '955 
 
 NET DEBT 107.500 360.000 525.000 399.185 521.003 460.384 399.090 433.805 399.410 52 8.59 5 270.724 199.697 147 J49 xil .OK. 
 
 PART D 
 
 ALL FUNDS 
 
 BALANCE: OUTST'G JUNE 30 140,558 391,341 631,341 797,341 639,341 774,341 724,341 644,341 722,341 458,000 346,000 275,000 211,000 150,000 118,000 
 
 BALANCE: SINKING FUND JUNE 30 61.500 61.200 127.800 171.600 143.815 197.297 219.116 211.210 215.595 46.090 11.407 2.776 11.303 2.C51 958 
 
 NET DEBT 79.058 330.141 503.541 625.741 495.526 577.044 50S.22S 453.131 506.746 411.910 534.593 272.224 199.697 1 47,349 117,042 
 
 Source:.F8rgo"Report,'P. 87,.Table No. 8 
 
Long-Range Programming of Municipal Public Works 
 
 35 
 
 is essential, and a determination of desirable changes in 
 tkeso enactments should be made. 
 
 Much benefit may result from this recommended pro- 
 cedure of carefully studying the borrowing practices of 
 the municipality, in relation to the long-time physical 
 needs of the community. To illustrate, an analysis of 
 the past borrowing practices of the city of Nashville, 
 Tennessee, made in 1939 in connection with the prep- 
 aration of its long-range improvement program, 
 indicated that it had been borrowing at a greater rate 
 than could be sustained in the future without increasing 
 the tax levy for debt service. A plan for future annual 
 borrowing was laid out which was adjusted to the 
 pattern of existing debt service requirements but would, 
 at the same time, eventually limit total future debt 
 service charges to a fairly uniform annual amount 
 falling within the limits of funds available from the 
 existing debt service levy. Figure 10 presents a graph 
 showing the results of this study. 
 
 The continuing annual debt service payments re- 
 quired by the type of financial procedure proposed for 
 Nashville means that the city pays annually almost 
 half again as much for its public improvements as it 
 Taxing Authorities, Fargo, North Dakota 
 
 would have to pay if this permanent debt load could 
 be eliminated. In other words, the interest charges 
 so released would permit a large increase in the annual 
 construction program. In working out the program 
 and in establishing the financial policy in Dallas, 
 Texas, a somewhat similar situation was recognized 
 and a policy was recommended which is designed 
 eventually to eliminate borrowing. 
 
 Partial Borrowing. — In contrast to the situations just 
 described are those in cities which require large capital 
 outlays only on occasion. Borrowing for public 
 improvements under such circumstances does not have 
 the same effect as borrowing for all improvements, 
 since it does not tend to build up a large fixed volume 
 of debt to be serviced. 
 
 Winchester, Massachusetts, illustrates this situation. 
 Winchester has a population of approximately 13,000, 
 and large improvements are required only at lelatively 
 long intervals. The financial analysis indicated the 
 feasibility of a pay-as-you-go procedure, with the 
 exception of a large new school building scheduled for 
 construction several years hence. The program was 
 accordingly laid out on the basis of pay-as-you-go, 
 with the exception of the new school. 
 
 1937-38 1938-39 1939-40 1940-41 1941-42 1942-43 1943-44 1944-45 1945-46 1946-47 1947-48 1948-49 1949-50 1950-51 1951-52 1952-53 1953-54 1954-55 1955-56 1956-57 1957-58 
 
 FUTURE 
 
 115,000 295,500 305,500 281,500 253,500 227,500 201,500 175,500 149,500 124,500 105,500 83,500 67,500 51,500 35,500 19,500 
 
 129.000 195.500 
 
 30 
 
 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 129,000 310.500 
 
 326 
 
 500 305,500 281 
 
 500 
 
 ..53 
 
 500 
 
 2i:7 
 
 500 
 
 201 
 
 500 
 
 175 
 
 500 
 
 149 
 
 500 
 
 124 
 
 500 
 
 105 
 
 500 
 
 E 3 
 
 500 
 
 67 
 
 500 
 
 53 
 
 500 
 
 35 
 
 ,500 
 
 19, 
 
 ,500 
 
 14,000 14,000 
 
 21 
 
 000 24,000 28 
 
 000 
 
 26 
 
 000 
 
 26 
 
 000 
 
 26 
 
 000 
 
 26 
 
 000 
 
 25 
 
 000 
 
 19 
 
 000 
 
 22 
 
 000 
 
 16 
 
 000 
 
 16 
 
 000 
 
 16 
 
 000 
 
 16 
 
 000 
 
 19 
 
 500 
 
 115,000 296,500 
 
 305 
 
 500 281,500 253 
 
 500 
 
 227 
 
 500 
 
 201 
 
 500 
 
 175 
 
 500 
 
 149 
 
 500 
 
 124 
 
 500 
 
 105 
 
 500 
 
 83 
 
 500 
 
 _67j 
 
 ,500 
 
 51 
 
 500 
 
 35 
 
 500 
 
 L9 
 
 500 
 
 
 
 
 30 000 30,00.) 44,000 43,000 35,000 33,000 30,000 25,000 17,000 10,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 
 30,000 ' 20.000 5,000 7.000 6.000 . 
 
 30,000 50,000 50,000 49.000 43,000 42,000 39,000 30,000 25,000 17,000 10,000 6,00 4,000 2,000 
 0,000 6,000 8,000 9,000 9,000 5,000 C,000 7,000 4,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 
 
 30,000 30.000 44,000 43,000 _35.QOO _33.000 50.000 25.000 J.7,000 _10.000 6.000 _4 1 000 2,000 
 
 118 
 
 000 
 
 9G 
 
 ,000 
 
 84,000 
 
 73,000 
 
 65 
 
 ,000 
 
 58 
 
 ,000 
 
 50 
 
 ,000 
 
 43,000 
 
 37 
 
 ,000 
 
 32 
 
 ,000 
 
 24 
 
 ,000 
 
 16 
 
 000 
 
 8,000 
 
 118 
 
 000 
 
 96 
 
 000 
 
 _84j000 
 
 73,000 
 
 65 
 
 000 
 
 58 
 
 000 
 
 50 
 
 000 
 
 43,000 
 
 37 
 
 ,000 
 
 
 000 
 
 24 
 
 000 
 
 16 
 
 000 
 
 3,000 
 
 22 
 
 000 
 
 12 
 
 000 
 
 11,000 
 
 8,000 
 
 7 
 
 000 
 
 8, 
 
 000 
 
 7, 
 
 000 
 
 6,000 
 
 5 
 
 ,000 
 
 8, 
 
 000 
 
 8 
 
 ,000 
 
 8, 
 
 000 
 
 8,000 
 
 96 
 
 ooo 
 
 84 
 
 000 
 
 73,000 
 
 65,000 
 
 r ' 
 
 000 
 
 50 
 
 000 
 
 4 5 
 
 000 
 
 37,000 
 
 2 2 
 
 000 
 
 24 
 
 000 
 
 16 
 
 ,000 
 
 8i 
 
 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 525 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 96 
 
 000 
 
 B3 
 
 475 
 
 73,000 
 
 65.000 
 
 58 
 
 000 
 
 50 
 
 000 
 
 43 
 
 000 
 
 37.000 
 
 32 
 
 ,000 
 
 24 
 
 000 
 
 16 
 
 000 
 
 : 
 
 000 
 
 
 
 96,000 114,000 103,000 109,000 216,000 581,500 381,500 348,500 310,500 268,500 227,500 189,500 153,500 126,500 105,500 63,500 67 500 51,500 35,500 19 500 
 
 525 
 
 90.000 113,475 103,000 10 9^,000 216,000 381,500 381,500 34 8,500 310, 500 208,500 227, 500 189,500 153,500 126,500 105,500 83,500 67,500 SJ^SOO 55.5QQ lq.SQQ 
 
36 
 
 National Resources Planning Board 
 
 Indirect Debt. — Public improvements of less than 
 city-wide benefit are, in many instances, financed by 
 special assessments levied against properties specially 
 benefitted. Borrowing practices in connection with 
 special assessment projects vary widely from State to 
 State. In some localities short-term bonds are issued 
 by the city to cover the construction cost; the city 
 collects the special assessments levied against the 
 properties in the benefitted district and uses that 
 revenue to retire the bonds. In other cases contractors 
 are required to accept special assessment bonds in 
 payment for their work and to assume the responsibility 
 for collecting the annual installments from the owners 
 of benefitted properties. In practice the contractor 
 discounts these securities at a bank to finance his 
 construction operations and consequently his bid on 
 the construction contract contains in it sufficient 
 cushion to provide for the expected discount. 
 
 The establishment of special assessment, or local 
 improvement, districts sometimes leads to complex 
 problems of overlapping indebtedness. At times, small 
 areas of only a few blocks are found to be overlapping 
 and included in several such districts. Consequently, 
 the properties in those small areas must bear their 
 proportionate share of the cost of discharging the 
 indebtedness of all the districts in which they are 
 
 included. In these "islands" the total level of indebted- 
 ness in relation to assessed valuation may become quite 
 high and set a sort of artificial ceiling to the amount of 
 debt that might be carried by any of the districts 
 in which the island is included. These elements 
 may control to a considerable degree the total 
 volume of improvements that can be financed by the 
 city. 
 
 The elimination of special assessment bonds as a 
 method of financing local improvements has been 
 successfully accomplished in Washington, D. C, which 
 maintains a revolving fund from which money is 
 advanced to cover the construction cost of local 
 improvements, and the fund is replenished by the 
 special assessments levied. 
 
 Wherever the general faith and credit of the munici- 
 pality is, or may become, involved in its outstanding 
 special assessment debt, or where a portion of the first 
 cost of an improvement is directly assumed by the 
 municipal government, the probable extent of the city's 
 involvement should be estimated and the effect upon 
 its financial status evaluated. Possible outlays for 
 this purpose should be covered in the program. In any 
 case, special assessment projects must be considered in 
 preparing the physical program, since the construction 
 of such projects adds to the improvements of the city. 
 
 Table 15 — The Municipal Special Assessment and Revenue 
 Financial Statistics for 12-Year Historical Period and 
 
 SPECIAL ASSESS- 
 
 PART A. 1927-28 1928-29 1929-50 19S0-31 1951-52 1932-55 1933-34 1934-35 1935-56 1936-37 1937-38 
 
 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT WARRANTS HISTORICAL 
 
 WARRANTS OUTSTANDING JULY 1ST - $2 
 ISSUED AND SOLD DURING YEAR 
 
 ,013 
 476 
 
 700 
 800 
 
 2 
 
 ,326, 
 249 
 
 000 
 800 
 
 2 
 
 ,306, 
 184 
 
 200 
 300 
 
 2,197,300 2 
 205,800 
 
 204 
 34 
 
 600 
 500 
 
 1 
 
 965, 
 33, 
 
 700 
 600 
 
 1, 
 
 966 
 3 
 
 500 
 
 1 
 
 757 
 35 
 
 600 
 000 
 
 1, 
 
 715 
 105 
 
 200 
 000 
 
 1 
 
 ,495,600 
 15,900 
 
 1 
 
 398,000 
 45,200 
 
 TOTAL - • 
 
 2 
 
 ,490 
 
 500 
 
 2 
 
 575, 
 
 800 
 
 2 
 
 40' 
 
 500 
 
 2,403,100 2 
 
 239 
 
 100 
 
 1 
 
 999, 
 
 300 
 
 1, 
 
 969 
 
 900 
 
 1 
 
 791 
 
 600 
 
 1, 
 
 820 
 
 200 
 
 
 511,500 
 
 1 
 
 443,200 
 
 WARRANTS 
 
 RETIRED DURING YEAR - 
 
 164. 
 
 500 
 
 
 269, 
 
 600 
 
 
 293, 
 
 200 
 
 198,500 
 
 273 
 
 400 
 
 
 32, 
 
 800 
 
 
 212 
 
 300 
 
 
 76 
 
 400 
 
 
 324, 
 
 600 
 
 
 113,500 
 
 
 276,700 
 
 WARRANTS 
 
 OUTSTANDING, END OF YR. 2 
 
 
 500 
 
 2 
 
 zoe , 
 
 200 
 
 E 
 
 ,197 
 
 300 
 
 2,204,600 1 
 
 
 700 
 
 : 
 
 966, 
 
 500 
 
 ) 
 
 757 
 
 ■ 
 
 1 
 
 715 
 
 200 
 
 ] 
 
 4? 5 
 
 
 
 398,000 
 
 1 
 
 166,500 
 
 PART B. 
 
 DISPOSAL PLANT REVENUE BONDS 
 
 REVENUE BONDS OUTSTANDING JULY 1ST 
 ISSUED AND SOLD DURING YEAR 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 BONDS RETIRED DURING YEAR 
 
 BOUDS OUTSTANDING, END OF YR. 
 
 Source; Fargo Report, Table No. 9, p. C9. 
 
 D I S P S 
 
 A L 
 
 P 
 
 LAST 
 
 540,000 
 
 585 
 
 ,000 
 
 540,000 
 
 53.000 
 
 
 
 
 598,000 
 
 585 
 
 000 
 
 540,000 
 
 13,000 
 
 45 
 
 ,000 
 
 - 18,000 
 
 585,000 
 
 540 
 
 000 
 
 522,000 
 
Long-Range Programming of Municipal Public Works 
 
 37 
 
 They should therefore be coordinated with the plans 
 and program of the city as a whole, and the overlapping 
 effect of this type of financing should be fully appraised. 
 
 Overlapping Debt. — In many communities the citizens 
 are concerned not only with the municipal debt, 
 but also with debts of overlapping units, such as school 
 districts, counties, and special ad hoc units of govern- 
 ment. All of these financial obligations should be 
 carefully considered in working out the financial basis 
 for the program, if it is to be sound and acceptable to 
 the citizens. The data required in considering the 
 over-all debt situation should be made available 
 through an enlargement of the financial analysis. 
 Procedures followed in Cincinnati, Ohio, described in 
 chapter V, offer a good example of such practices. 
 
 Debt and Tax Limitations and Budgeting Procedures. — 
 Statutory and charter requirements with respect to 
 municipal debt and taxing procedures must be known 
 and applied in the preparation of a program. A con- 
 densed statement and interpretation of laws and 
 ordinances relating to direct and indirect debt and to 
 taxes should be prepared for constant reference. Some 
 of the more important items which should be included 
 in such a statement are as follows: 
 
 A. Limitations upon debt and the basis upon which 
 such limits are calculated; 
 
 Bond Debt Structure, City of Fargo, N. Dak. 
 Future Years Special-Assessment Warrants 
 
 B. Classes of debt not covered by the debt limit; 
 
 C. Sinking-fund requirements and the relationship of 
 sinking funds to gross debt; 
 
 D. Details of laws and restrictions on levies for — 
 
 1. The general fund, 
 
 2. Revenue anticipation obligations, 
 
 3. Deficiency obligations, 
 
 4. Temporary borrowing, 
 
 5. Bonds for the city's portion of cost, of special 
 
 assessment improvements, 
 
 6. Bonds to be issued in conjunction with parti- 
 
 cipation by Federal agencies, and 
 
 7. General obligations; 
 
 E. Details of laws respecting use of earnings of 
 revenue-producing utilities; and 
 
 F. Other pertinent information respecting the issu- 
 ance of bonds, notes, warrants, and other evidences of 
 debt. 
 
 The municipal budgeting procedures and the legal 
 enactments affecting them should be summarized for 
 the benefit of the programming authority. 
 
 Financial Aid From Outside Sources. — In considering 
 the size of a potential program from a financial point 
 of view, it appears best to develop the program on the 
 basis of the municipality's ability to pay, rather than 
 to include items based primarily on the hope of finan- 
 
 MENT WARRANTS 
 
 1938-39 
 
 1939-40 
 
 1940-41 
 
 1941-42 
 
 1942-43 
 
 1943-44 
 
 1944-45 
 
 1945-46 
 F U 
 
 1946-47 
 
 T U R E 
 
 1947-48' 1948-49 
 
 1949-50 
 
 1950-51 
 
 1951-52 
 
 1952-53 
 
 1,166,500 
 20,900 
 
 985,300 
 
 779,725 
 
 581,431 
 
 449,618 
 
 326,493 
 
 215,419 
 
 157,501 
 
 117,867 
 
 74,767 57,252 
 
 40,384 
 
 28,384 
 
 14,884 
 
 5,000 
 
 1,187,400 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 202,100 
 
 205,575 
 
 198,294 
 
 131,813 
 
 123,125 
 
 111,074 
 
 57,918 
 
 39,634 
 
 43,100 
 
 17,515 16,868 
 
 12,000 
 
 13,500 
 
 9,884 
 
 5,000 
 
 985,300 
 
 779,725 
 
 581,431 
 
 449,618 
 
 326,493 
 
 215, 4]9 
 
 157,501 
 
 117.867 
 
 _74,767 
 
 57,25r.' 40,384 
 
 28,384 
 
 14,884 
 
 5,000 
 
 
 
 R EVENUE BONDS 
 
 522,000 503,000 483,000 462,000 440,000 417,000 393,000 368,000 342,000 312,000 280,000 247,000 211,000 174,000 134,000 92,000 48,000 
 
 522,000 503,000 485,000 462.000 440,000 4 17.000 393,000 368,000 342,000 312.000 280.000 247,000 211,000 174.000 134.000 92.000 48.000 
 19,000 20,000 21,000 22,000 23,000 24,000 25,000 26,000 30,000 32,000 33,000 36,000 37,000 40,000 42,000 44,000 48,000 
 
 503 ' 000 485,000 462.000 4 40.000 
 
 48.000 
 
National Resources Planning Board 
 
 Table 16. — Effect of Programs of All Units of Government for Taxes, 
 
 1927-28 1928-29 
 
 FART A: REVENUES AI1D RECEIPTS 
 
 TAXES FOR OPERATBIO , 
 
 TAXES FOR CO. DEBT RETIREMENT 
 
 TAXES FOR DEFICIENCY IN S.I.D. FDS. - - 
 
 BONDS SOLD 
 
 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT WARRANTS SOLD 
 
 OTHER SOURCES 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 EXPENDITURES AND DISBURSEMENTS 
 
 CITTl OPERATING 
 
 SCHOOLS l OPERATING 
 
 PARKS l OPERATING -- 
 
 LIBRARY I OPERATING 
 
 AIRPORTl OPERATING 
 
 RETIREMENT! 0.0. BONDS 
 
 DEF. S.A.FDSt a/c DEFAULTED ASSESSM'TS 
 STR. IMP'MENTS FINANCED BY SALE OF S.A. 
 
 CONSTRUCTION . 
 
 TOTAL . 
 
 BALANCE OR DEFICIT: NET 
 
 PiRT Bi 6 YEAR PROGRAM: CAPITAL OUTLAY 
 
 QENERAL FUND 
 
 AIRPORT FUND 
 
 PARK FUND 
 
 LIBRARY FUND 
 
 OPRTG. COST 
 INITIAL COST INTEREST 
 ESTIMATED ESTIMATED 
 - % 426,776 
 106,400 
 153,850 
 45.114 
 
 1929-30 1930-31 
 
 
 
 ,140 
 
 
 
 545, 
 
 ,200 
 
 
 
 
 ,440 
 
 
 1931-32 1932-33 1933-34 
 HISTORICAL 
 
 693 
 
 ,435 
 
 769,662 
 
 791,945 
 
 817,778 
 
 799 
 
 ,389 
 
 618,182 
 
 519, S44 
 
 104, 
 
 ,602 
 
 106,608 
 
 103,285 
 
 115,098 
 
 131,495 
 
 108,530 
 
 86,644 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5,068 
 
 14,913 
 
 100 
 
 ,000 
 
 
 
 150,000 
 
 
 
 
 476 
 
 ,800 
 
 249,800 
 
 184,300 
 
 205,800 
 
 34 
 
 ,500 
 
 33,600 
 
 3,400 
 
 zoi 
 
 ,713 
 
 181.898 
 
 237.321 
 
 226.916 
 
 : i 
 
 .367 
 
 114.362 
 
 128.587 
 
 1.580 
 
 .550 1 
 
 ,307,963 1 
 
 .310.651 1 
 
 ,515,; . i 
 
 ,1'v 
 
 t 7M 
 
 679.742 
 
 7SS,0AfJ 
 
 387. 
 
 ,973 
 
 322,026 
 
 383,668 
 
 403,359 
 
 554 
 
 ,589 
 
 294,100 
 
 248,131 
 
 494 1 
 
 ,790 
 
 529,409 
 
 539,210 
 
 546,469 
 
 545! 
 
 ,602 
 
 439,020 
 
 402,313 
 
 34, 
 
 ,386 
 
 35,045 
 
 41,148 
 
 44,230 
 
 *4, 
 
 ,423 
 
 31,828 
 
 24,582 
 
 11, 
 
 ,660 
 
 11,353 
 
 13,958 
 
 12,661 
 
 12, 
 
 ,658 
 
 11,580 
 
 11,635 
 
 
 
 679 
 
 365 
 
 6,992 
 
 7, 
 
 ,361 
 
 3,963 
 
 5,036 
 
 81, 
 
 ,248 
 
 84,961 
 
 109,544 
 
 108,806 
 
 299, 
 
 ,967 
 
 134,054 
 
 86,535 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5,068 
 
 11,100 
 
 476, 
 
 ,800 
 
 249,800 
 
 184,300 
 
 203,800 
 
 54, 
 
 ,500 
 
 33,600 
 
 3,400 
 
 270. 
 
 ,162 
 
 34.961 
 
 44.557 
 
 183.938 
 
 22, 
 
 ,814 
 
 31.552 
 
 17.579 
 
 1.757, 
 
 ,019 1 
 
 J 04 ] 
 
 ,316.750 1 
 
 ,512,255 1 
 
 
 114 
 
 S 4.76! 
 
 | J l^JU 
 
 - 176,469 
 
 39,714 
 
 101 
 
 3,337 - 
 
 122, 
 
 ,368 - 
 
 105,023 - 
 
 55,225 
 
 PART C: 6 YEAR PROORAMl METHOD OF FINANCING 
 EFFECT Cg) OPRTG. COSTS: INTEREST 
 
 OPERATING LEVIES (OPRTG. COST) 
 
 GENERAL FUNDr 14 MILL LEVY 57,276 76,800 134,076 
 
 AIRPORT FUND: 1 MILL LEVY 106,400 106,400 
 
 PARK FUND: 2 MILL LEVY 15,850 7,200 23,050 
 
 LIBRARY FUND: 1 MILL LEVY 36.793 16.400 55.193 
 
 TOTAL 216.319 100.400 316.710 
 
 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (INTEREST) 
 
 GENERAL FUND 354,500 112,810 467,310 
 
 PARK FUND 68.000 8.742 76.742 
 
 TOTAL 422.500 121.552 544 / 52 
 
 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFICIENCY DEBT 
 
 CITY'S SHARE 85.260 25.004 110.264 
 
 OTHER SOURCES 
 
 SALE OF S.A. WARRANTS 428,040 
 
 STATE HIGHWAY DEPT. !t SALE OF PROPERTY 47,000 
 
 WPA St JR.' C. OF C! POOL 70,000 
 
 PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION 8.321 
 
 TOTAL 553,361 
 
 TOTAL CITY'S FUNDS AND OTHER SOURCES 1.277.440 
 
 UTILITIES: WATER & DIS. PLANT EARNINGS 164,900 
 
 WPA PROJECTS : AIRPORT, WATER 4 DIS. PLANTS - - 56,400* 
 
 STATE H'WAY PROJECT: UNDERPASSES 600,000 
 
 GRAND TOTAL: ( INVENTORY SUMMARY) 2.098.740 
 
 •Water-Disposal Plant-Airport: Estimated value as of completion 
 
 PART D: EFFECT OF FINANCING 
 TAX LEVIES; COLLECTIONS 
 
 TAXES FOR OPRTG : 6 YEAR PROGRAM ■ 
 
 « n n . PRESENT BASIS 
 
 INCREASE 
 
 TAXES FOR G. 0. DEBT: 6 YEAR PROGRAM 
 
 ■" " " " : PRESENT BASIS 
 
 INCREASE 
 
 TAXES FOR DEF. S.I.D. FUNDS: 6 YEAR PROGRAM 
 
 » " « » « : PRESENT BASIS 
 
 INCREASE 
 
 MILLAGE : 50% VALUATION (b) 
 
 OPERATING: 6 YEAR PROGRAM 
 
 G.O. DEBT: 6 YEAR PROGRAM 
 
 DEF. S.I.D. FUNDS: 6 YEAR PROGRAM 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 
 
 693,435 
 
 
 
 104,602 
 
 769,662 791,945 817,778 799,389 
 
 
 
 618,182 
 
 100,608 103,285 115,098 131,495 108,530 
 
 .PRESENT BASIS _ 
 
 5,068 
 
 (b) Millage percentage of assessed valuation reduoed from 
 7S% to 50? in the year 1932-33. For purposes of 
 comparison with years subsequent to 1952-33, the mill- 
 age for 1927-28 through 1932-33 has been adjusted to 
 a SO* basis. See paragraphs 3 and 4, part IV, page 
 30. 
 
 SS^OSfb) 52.88(b) 52.78 51.44 52.62 40.54 
 
 INCREASE 
 
 INCREASE DOLLARS PER $1000 of A.V. 
 
 CITY: PRESENT BASIS AND 6 YEAR PROGRAM 
 
 COUNTY 4 STATE: PRESENT BASIS AND 6 YEAR PROGRAM 
 TOTAL 
 
 PRESENT BASIS: CITY. COUNTY & STATE - 
 
 55.08 
 
 52.88 
 
 52, 
 
 ,78 
 
 51, 
 
 .44 
 
 52.62 
 
 40.54 
 
 14.30 
 
 14.40 
 
 IS, 
 
 ,40 
 
 13 
 
 .18 
 
 15.51 
 
 16.02 
 
 69.38 
 
 67.28 
 
 66. 
 
 .18, 
 
 64 
 
 ,62 
 
 68.13 
 
 56.56 
 
 69.38 
 
 67.28 
 
 66, 
 
 l1§ 
 
 64. 
 
 .62 
 
 68.13 
 
 56.56 
 
 DJ CREASE 
 
 Source: Fargo Report, Table No. 10, p. 94 
 
Long-Range Programming of Municipal Public Works 
 
 39 
 
 City of Fargo, North Dakota. 
 
 All Tax Funds of the Municipality 
 
 1934-35 1935-36 1936-37 1957-38 1938-39 
 
 1939-40 1940-41 1941-42 1945-43 1943-44 1944-45 1945-58 
 
 626,890 
 96,030 
 24,533 
 
 35,000 
 137.969 
 
 653,167 
 61,885 
 30,264 
 
 105,000 
 168,348 
 
 661,511 
 37,400 
 38,443 
 
 15,900 
 153.942 
 
 778,999 
 26,470 
 44,134 
 
 45,200 
 196.403 
 
 713,001 
 17,090 
 41,570 
 
 20,900 
 196.614 
 
 920.422 1.016.664 907.196 1.091.206 969.175 
 
 730,443 
 14,967 
 35,000 
 
 174.981 
 
 955.3'Jl 
 
 742,500 
 11,587 
 35,000 
 
 107,700 
 
 956.71 7 
 
 753,000 
 11,207 
 30,000 
 
 167.400 
 901, C 07 
 
 757,500 
 10,827 
 25,000 
 
 167.000 
 960.327 
 
 768,500 
 10,447 
 25,000 
 
 166.050 
 969,997 
 
 778,500 
 10,067 
 15,000 
 
 165.100 
 968.1 57 
 
 44,500 
 20,000 
 
 64,500 
 
 257 
 
 
 504 
 
 303 
 
 509 
 
 205 
 
 332 
 
 414 
 
 556 
 
 668 
 
 335 
 
 830 
 
 542 
 
 380 
 
 345 
 
 080 
 
 349 
 
 680 
 
 351 
 
 430 
 
 555 
 
 9 001 
 
 394 
 
 914 
 
 421 
 
 306 
 
 441 
 
 607 
 
 444 
 
 776 
 
 464 
 
 047 
 
 471 
 
 003 
 
 476 
 
 000 
 
 481 
 
 000 
 
 486 
 
 000 
 
 491 
 
 000 
 
 496,000 
 
 51 
 
 478 
 
 56 
 
 317 
 
 56 
 
 827 
 
 40 
 
 481 
 
 42 
 
 066 
 
 44 
 
 500 
 
 44 
 
 000 
 
 43 
 
 500 
 
 44 
 
 500 
 
 44 
 
 500 
 
 44 
 
 000 
 
 9 
 
 652 
 
 9 
 
 905 
 
 11 
 
 157 
 
 11 
 
 394 
 
 10 
 
 784 
 
 12 
 
 000 
 
 12 
 
 500 
 
 12 
 
 700 
 
 12 
 
 700 
 
 12 
 
 900 
 
 15 
 
 000 
 
 S 
 
 095 
 
 4 
 
 365 
 
 5 
 
 115 
 
 7 
 
 658 
 
 9 
 
 567 
 
 7 
 
 000 
 
 7 
 
 000 
 
 7 
 
 500 
 
 7 
 
 500 
 
 8 
 
 000 
 
 8 
 
 000 
 
 76 
 
 290 
 
 69 
 
 336 
 
 40 
 
 734 
 
 27 
 
 379 
 
 16 
 
 468 
 
 14 
 
 967 
 
 11 
 
 587 
 
 11 
 
 207 
 
 10 
 
 827 
 
 10 
 
 447 
 
 10 
 
 067 
 
 12 
 
 riCO 
 
 54 
 
 9S3 
 
 11,1 00 
 
 38 
 
 142 
 
 88 
 
 380 
 
 35 
 
 000 
 
 35 
 
 000 
 
 30 
 
 000 
 
 25 
 
 000 
 
 25 
 
 000 
 
 15 
 
 000 
 
 35.000 
 
 105 
 
 000 
 
 15 
 
 900 
 
 45 
 
 200 
 
 20 
 
 900 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 19 
 
 977 
 
 26 
 
 543 
 
 22 
 
 607 
 
 20,707 
 
 52.698 
 
 6 
 
 500 
 
 6 
 
 500 
 
 7 
 
 500 
 
 3 
 
 500 
 
 3 
 
 500 
 
 ? 
 
 000 
 
 p-'.i 
 
 
 1-t 
 
 02 t 
 
 i .' 1 
 
 152 
 
 968 
 
 152 1 
 
 041 
 
 578 
 
 926 
 
 800 
 
 
 967 
 
 909 
 
 487 
 
 
 707 
 
 9 0' 
 
 777 
 
 949 
 
 4 
 
 B0 
 
 726 
 
 6 
 
 636 
 
 15 
 
 044 
 
 123 
 
 054 
 
 -52 
 
 403 
 
 28 
 
 591 
 
 21 
 
 820 
 
 23 
 
 120 
 
 20 
 
 620 
 
 22 
 
 220 
 
 25 
 
 170 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 24 
 
 276 
 
 129 
 
 650 
 
 227 
 
 850 
 
 39 
 
 000 
 
 6 
 
 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 28,900 
 
 15 
 
 500 
 
 15 
 
 500 
 
 15 
 
 500 
 
 15 
 
 500 
 
 IS 
 
 500 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 101 
 
 000 
 
 21 
 
 600 
 
 8 
 
 200 
 
 3 
 
 550 
 
 10 
 
 500 
 
 9 
 
 000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 27 
 
 614 
 
 4 
 
 500 
 
 3 
 
 500 
 
 3 
 
 000 
 
 5 
 
 000 
 
 ! 
 
 900 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 181 
 
 790 
 
 171 
 
 250 
 
 255 
 
 050 
 
 61 
 
 050 
 
 55 
 
 000 
 
 2b 
 
 C-JJ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 138 
 
 000 
 
 B 17 
 
 800 
 
 73 
 
 000 
 
 16 
 
 500 
 
 68 
 
 000 
 
 42 
 
 0C«D 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 319.790 
 
 579 
 
 050 
 
 328 
 
 050 
 
 77 
 
 550 
 
 105 
 
 000 
 
 70 
 
 000 
 
 44,500 
 20,000 
 
 M.QOQ 
 
 10,276 
 28,900 
 2,000 
 20.793 
 62.169 
 
 22,775 
 15,500 
 2,800 
 6.700 
 
 15,975 
 15,500 
 4,400 
 6,900 
 
 30,350 
 15,500 
 4,750 
 6.000 
 
 30,350 
 15,500 
 4,700 
 6.200 
 
 24,350 
 15,500 
 4,200 
 7.000 
 
 47.77S 42.375 56.600 56.750 51.050 
 
 337 6.304 
 
 18,360 
 7.037 
 
 26,420 
 9.169 
 
 6.304 25.397 35.589 
 
 34,060 
 10.021 
 44.061 
 
 36,220 
 10.114 
 
 46,0; 4 
 
 352,250 
 33.760 
 
 1,624 6,596 8,876 7,636 8,436 77,096 
 
 107,400 157,540 62,000 16,500 51,000 33,600 
 
 30,000*** • 17,000 ***St. Highway $15,000 
 
 70,000 Sale of F. Station 15.000 
 
 8.321 Total 30,000 
 
 215.721 157.540 62.000 16.500 68.000 33.600 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 740,719 
 
 762,275 
 
 768,975 
 
 791,350 
 
 802,350 
 
 804,350 
 
 519,544 
 
 626,890 
 
 653,167 
 
 661,511 
 
 778,999 
 
 713,001 
 
 730.443 
 
 742.500 
 
 753.000 
 
 757.500 
 
 768.500 
 
 778.500 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 10,276 
 
 19,775 
 
 15,975 
 
 33,850 
 
 33,850 
 
 25,850 
 
 
 
 •o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 15,304 
 
 17,891 
 
 36,604 
 
 46,416 
 
 54,528 
 
 56,401 
 
 88,644 
 
 96,030 
 
 61,885 
 
 37,400 
 
 26,470 
 
 17,090 
 
 14.967 
 
 11.587 
 
 11.207 
 
 10.827 
 
 10.447 
 
 10.067 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 337 
 
 6,304 
 
 25,397 
 
 35,589 
 
 44,081 
 
 46,334 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 35,000 
 
 36,624 
 
 36,596 
 
 33,876 
 
 32,636 
 
 23,426 
 
 14,913 
 
 24,533 
 
 30,264 
 
 38,443 
 
 44,134 
 
 41,570 
 
 35.000 
 
 35.000 
 
 30.000 
 
 25.000 
 
 25.000 
 
 15.000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1,624 
 
 6,596 
 
 8,876 
 
 7,636 
 
 8,426 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 37.97 
 
 39.57 
 
 59.72 
 
 40.26 
 
 40.38 
 
 39.40 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 .75 
 
 .92 
 
 1.95 
 
 2.53 
 
 3.00 
 
 2.98 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2.00 
 
 2.00 
 
 2.00 
 
 2.00 
 
 1.25 
 
 1.25 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 40.72 
 
 42.49 
 
 43.67 
 
 44.79 
 
 44.65 
 
 45.65 
 
 41.12 
 
 40.73 
 
 38.08 
 
 39.16 
 
 39.05 
 
 39.01 
 
 40.72 
 
 40.64 
 
 40.77 
 
 40.64 
 
 40.23 
 
 40.15 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1.85 
 
 2.90 
 
 4.15 
 
 4.40 
 
 5.50 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 $ 1.85 
 
 $ 2.90 
 
 $ 4.15 
 
 $ 4.40 
 
 J 3.50 
 
 41.12 
 
 40.73 
 
 38.08 
 
 39.16 
 
 39.05 
 
 39.01 
 
 40.72 
 
 42.49 
 
 43.67 
 
 44.79 
 
 44.63 
 
 43. 65 
 
 16.71 
 
 15.47 
 
 15.08 
 
 14.60 
 
 16.48 
 
 15.70 
 
 16.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 16.00 
 
 57.63 
 
 66.20 
 
 53.16 
 
 53.76 
 
 5S.53 
 
 54.71 
 
 56.72 
 
 58.59 
 
 59.67 
 
 60.79 
 
 60.63 
 
 59.63 
 
 57.83 
 
 56.20 
 
 53.16 
 
 53.76 
 
 55.53 
 
 54.71 
 
 56.72 
 
 56.64 
 
 56.77 
 
 56.64 
 
 56.25 
 
 56.15 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i.es 
 
 2.90 
 
 4.15 
 
 4.40 
 
 3.50 
 
40 
 
 National Resources Planning Board 
 
 cial aid from outside sources. This applies particularly 
 to such occasional or temporary sources of income as 
 gifts from private citizens or emergency grants-in-aid 
 from the Federal Government. 
 
 Basing a program on definitely ascertainable sources 
 of revenue does not render a city less likely to benefit 
 from possible future grants or from receipts of funds 
 * from unexpected sources. All that is necessary to 
 participate in such offers is to advance some of the 
 items of the program to an earlier scheduling. By 
 basing the program on funds to be derived primarily 
 from the community's own pocketbook, the program 
 is likely to be of better quality, and the projects selected 
 better suited to its needs. 
 
 It is not suggested that such regular outside sources 
 of municipal income as regular State contributions for 
 schools, or proportionate shares in State gasoline taxes 
 should be excluded from consideration. Neither does 
 
 it apply to certain specific projects which may be 
 offered to the city by other governmental units, con- 
 tingent upon the city providing certain minimum sums. 
 To illustrate, flood control or flood protection works 
 proposed for a city by the Corps of Engineers of the 
 United States Army may require the city to contribute 
 a share of the cost, and to agree to maintain the project 
 when completed. Such projects may be of much benefit 
 to the city and should certainly be given consideration 
 in preparing a program. Contributions by the State 
 roads department toward major street improvements 
 within the city, contingent upon the city providing some 
 fixed share, should also be considered carefully. 
 
 Effect of Multiple Overlapping Governments. — A large 
 proportion of all municipalities have other governments 
 operating within their jurisdictions. These range from 
 the Federal and State governments to special purpose 
 or ad hoc jurisdictions, such as sanitary districts, harbor 
 
 Table 17. — Proposed Total Capital Expenditures 
 
 DEPARTMENT: SUMMARY SHEET No. 1 
 
 DIVISION: Showing Capital Expenditures by Years. 
 
 Reported by: Date submitted. 
 
 Title: 
 
 Page oi pages: 
 
 SDC YEAR PROGRAM FOR MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS 
 
 City oi Sacramento. California 
 
 •CR. 
 •GO. 
 •A B. 
 
 •S.H. 
 •S.F. 
 
 Current Revenues. 
 General Obligation Bonds. 
 Assessment Bonds. 
 State Gas Tax. 
 Special Funds. 
 
 NOTE: Estimate ol cost of land indicated by letter "L" 
 
 (15) STATUS OF PLANS: 
 
 1. Preliminary estimate only. 
 2 Surveys begun. 
 
 3. Surveys completed. 
 
 4. Work on plans not begun 
 
 5. Sketch plans in preparation. 
 
 6. Sketch plans completed. 
 
 7. Detail plans in preparation. 
 
 8. Detail plans completed. 
 
 9. Detail plans and specifications 
 completed. 
 
 
 o £ 
 ■So 
 
 ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND ESTIMATED YEARLY EXPENDITURES 
 
 (including cost of land or site) 
 
 i§ 
 
 
 PROJECT 
 
 Total 
 
 Total for 
 
 Budgeted 
 Year 
 
 FISCAL YEAR 
 
 REMARKS 
 
 
 |JS 
 
 estimated 
 cost 
 
 sue year 
 plan 
 
 1939-40 
 
 1940-41 
 
 1941-42 
 
 1942-43 
 
 1943-44 
 
 1944-45 
 
 (Later) 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 (1) 
 
 <2r 
 
 (3) 
 
 (4) 
 
 (5) 
 
 (6) 
 
 (7) 
 
 (8) 
 
 (9) 
 
 (10) 
 
 (11) 
 
 
 (12) 
 
 (13) 
 
 Traffic Signs and Signals 
 
 Corporation Yard 
 
 Crocker Art Gallery 
 
 Fire Alarm Boxes 
 
 Waste Removal Plant 
 
 City Hall Elevators , 
 
 Court House Alterations 
 
 Sewage Disposal Plant 
 
 Streets 
 
 Water Mains 
 
 Fire Engines and Trucks 
 
 Child Dental and Tuberculosis 
 Clinic 
 
 Medical Venereal Clinic 
 
 Miscellaneous — Health Dept 
 
 Library Building 
 
 Airport Improvements , 
 
 Public Parks 
 
 Police Department 
 
 Recreation Improvements 
 
 Grand Total 
 
 Total Outside Contribution.. 
 
 1,400 
 
 300 
 
 375 
 
 2,550 
 39,500 
 29,425 
 17,050 
 
 2,817 
 12,500 
 190 
 95,016 
 
 2,408 
 50,250 
 
 253,781 
 111,166 
 
 6,400 
 12,347 
 300 
 
 22,100 
 20,000 
 300 
 
 42,550 661,575 
 
 80,000 60,000 
 
 50,000 50,000 
 
 24,000 17,000 
 
 53,400 
 
 6,400 
 12,347 
 300 
 
 14,000 
 
 20,000 
 
 4,400 
 8,264 
 300 
 
 400 
 
 4,400 
 9,607 
 102,300 
 5,000 
 400 
 
 4,400 
 8,228 
 6,300 
 5,000 
 400 
 
 10,000 
 
 50,000 
 
 2,475 
 16,550 
 200 
 23,750 
 1,500 
 5,950 
 
 29,500 
 2,475 
 14,550 
 12,800 
 23,500 
 7,500 
 15,450 
 
 361,822 947,397 
 73,000 353,333 
 
 2,575 
 
 2,600 
 
 2,600 
 
 60,000 
 
 55,000 
 
 55,000 
 
 50,000 
 
 50,000 
 
 50,000 
 
 17,000 
 
 16,000 
 
 3,000 
 
 30,000 
 
 
 
 2,475 
 
 2,475 
 
 2,475 
 
 63,700 
 
 14,200 
 
 22,300 
 
 37,200 
 
 16,500 
 
 197,200 
 
 19,900 
 
 20,500 
 
 20,500 
 
 9,500 
 
 1,500 
 
 1,500 
 
 85,950 
 
 17,950 
 
 14,450 
 
 391,664 
 
 318,432 
 
 393,353 
 
 89,684 
 
 56,000 
 
 147,317 
 
 Net Total Cost to City 
 
 Source : Sacramento Report, p. 13 
 
 142,615 288,822 594,064 301,980 262,432 246,036 
 
Long-Range Programming of Municipal Public Works 
 
 41 
 
 authorities, drainage districts, etc. Where more than 
 one local government (exclusive of Federal and State) 
 has jurisdiction in the same area, the problem of 
 financing public improvements is complicated by a 
 multiplicity of tax levies for various purposes. Unless 
 the finances of all these units of government can be 
 coordinated, a true understanding of the effect of a 
 proposed improvement upon the pocketbook of the 
 citizens cannot be had. Since the improvements pro- 
 posed by all of the various overlapping units must all 
 be paid for by the same people, the citizens of the area, 
 a thorough financial analysis covering every unit with 
 governmental powers should be made. The proposed 
 improvements and financing procedures can therefore 
 be reviewed in the light of the overall picture which 
 will result from these findings. 
 
 Final Selection of Projects 
 
 When the relative need or desirability of the various 
 proposed projects has been agreed upon, and the method 
 
 of financing and the probable amount of funds available 
 have been determined, a final selection of projects for 
 inclusion in the recommended program may be under- 
 taken. If no other factors were involved, this would 
 simply require the selection of projects in the order 
 of their previously determined priority ratings, until 
 the total cost of the projects so selected equalled 
 the funds available for each of the years of the 
 program. 
 
 In most cases, the procedure will not be as simple as 
 this, and other factors will affect the final selection. 
 For example, the project given first preference on the 
 basis of community need might be a sewage disposal 
 plant which would require a large outlay. Funds avail- 
 able or methods of financing may, on the other hand, 
 be so limited as to preclude this project for the time 
 being, and it would, therefore, have to be relegated to 
 a later position in the program. 
 
 No formula or hard and fast rule can be laid down for 
 the procedures involved in the final selection of a pro- 
 
 Table 18. — Future Annual Debt Service Costs of Recommended Program 
 
 DEPARTMENT: SUMMARY SHEET No. 2 
 DIVISION: Tabulation ol Annual Cost to City 
 
 Reported by: Date submitted: 
 
 Title: 
 
 Page ol pages: 
 
 SIX YEAR PROGRAM FOR MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS 
 
 City ol Sacramento, California 
 
 (14) *C.R. Current Revenues. 
 
 •G O. General Obligation Bonds. 
 *A.B. Assessment Bonds. 
 •S.H. State Gas Tax. 
 "S. F. Special Funds. 
 NOTE: Estimate ol cost of land indicated by letter "L" 
 
 (15) STATUS OF PLANS: 
 
 1. Preliminary estimate only. 
 
 2. Surveys begun. 
 
 3. Surveys completed. 
 
 4. Work on plans not begun. 
 
 5. Sketch plans in preparation. 
 
 6. Sketch plans completed. 
 
 7. Detail plans in preparation. 
 
 8. Detail plans completed. 
 
 9. Detail plans and specifications 
 completed. 
 
 (2)* 
 
 ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND ESTIMATED YEARLY EXPENDITURES 
 
 (including cost ol land or site) 
 
 Total 
 estimated 
 cost 
 
 (3) 
 
 Total for 
 six year 
 plan 
 
 (4) 
 
 Budgeted 
 Year 
 
 1939-40 
 (S) 
 
 FISCAL YEAR 
 
 1940-41 
 (6) 
 
 1941-42 
 
 1942-43 
 
 1943-44 
 
 1944-45 
 
 (7) 
 
 (8) 
 
 (9) 
 
 (10) 
 
 (Later) 
 (11) 
 
 (13) 
 
 Traffic Signs and Signals 
 
 Corporation Yard 
 
 Crocker Art Gallery 
 
 Fire Alarm Boxes 
 
 Waste Removal Plant 
 
 City Hall Elevators 
 
 Court House Alterations . . 
 
 Sewage Disposal Plant 
 
 Streets 
 
 Water Mains 
 
 Fire Engines and Trucks . . 
 
 Child Dental and Medical 
 Venereal Clinic 
 
 Library Building 
 
 Airport Improvements 
 
 Public Parks 
 
 Police Department 
 
 Recreation Improvements 
 
 1,400 
 100 
 300 
 
 375 
 
 2,550 
 
 29,425 
 17,050 
 
 2,817 
 12,500 
 190 
 23,350 
 
 2,408 
 10,250 
 
 6,400 
 1,936 
 300 
 
 22,100 
 20,000 
 300 
 2,550 
 4,667 
 50,000 
 24,000 
 
 2,475 
 16,550 
 200 
 8,750 
 1,500 
 10,630 
 
 6,400 
 3,712 
 300 
 
 14,000 
 
 20,000 
 25,610 
 7,000 
 50,000 
 17 000 
 
 5,857 
 14 550 
 7,130 
 8,500 
 7,500 
 18,637 
 
 4,400 
 11,755 
 300 
 
 400 
 
 26,230 
 9,333 
 50,000 
 17,000 
 
 9,572 
 16,867 
 20,350 
 7,300 
 9,500 
 11,976 
 
 4,400 
 12,976 
 
 300 
 5,000 
 
 400 
 
 25,875 
 11,083 
 50,000 
 16,000 
 
 9,459 
 17,317 
 9,165 
 7,500 
 1,500 
 21,802 
 
 4,400 
 11,473 
 12,750 
 
 5,000 
 400 
 
 25,495 
 12,833 
 50,000 
 3,000 
 
 9,336 
 25,366 
 7,062 
 7,500 
 1,500 
 15,434 
 
 Grand Total 
 
 Total Funds Available (Plate 3).... 
 
 Surplus Funds Available Over 
 Requirements 
 
 102,715 172,358 206,196 194,983 192,777 191,549 
 146,385 235,211 245,433 244,225 226,997 199,726 
 
 43,670 62,853 39,237 49,242 34,220 8,177 
 
 Source: Sacramento Report, p. 14 
 250134—41 4 
 
42 
 
 National Resources Planning Board 
 
 gram. In the last analysis the operation involves con- 
 sideration of various expediencies, policies, and public 
 attitudes. The treatment of these factors, in relation 
 to the program, will usually be accomplished in discus- 
 sions around the council table, and the final program will 
 depend upon these deliberations. Furthermore, uncer- 
 tainties regarding possible means of financing needed 
 improvements may make it desirable to submit several 
 possible programs for the consideration of the governing 
 body, based upon various methods of financing, or upon 
 alternate taxing procedures. Other considerations 
 which will influence the selection of a program of im- 
 provements are described below. 
 
 Effect oj Proposed Projects upon Future Costs. — Many 
 of the proposed projects will add to future operating 
 and maintenance expenses and debt service require- 
 ments. Cities have embarked upon construction pro- 
 grams in the past and later found that they were un- 
 able to operate the structures or facilities so constructed 
 
 because of their inability to pay the additional oper- 
 ating and maintenance costs engendered. Where there 
 is danger of such an occurrence, or where limitation 
 of taxes or the attitude of the citizens precludes any 
 possibility of increase in future revenues, this must be 
 avoided. Such potential increases in future expenses 
 must be given full consideration in weighing the various 
 proposed projects for inclusion in the program. 
 
 Consideration of future increases in operating and 
 other expenses in connection with the selection of a 
 program involves a trial and error process. Statements 
 concerning probable future expenses which would 
 result from the construction of each proposed project 
 will be available from the inventory. When a tentative 
 selection of projects for inclusion in the program has 
 been made, the total of the probable future expenses 
 can be determined. If these potential increases in 
 costs are more than the municipality can afford, reduc- 
 tions in the proposed program, or changes in the order 
 
 Table 19. — Future Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs of Recommended Program 
 
 DEPARTMENT: SUMMARY SHEET No. 3 
 
 DIVISION: 
 
 Reported by: 
 Title: 
 Page 
 
 Annual Operating & Maintenance 
 oi Capital Improvements 
 
 Date submitted: 
 
 Costs 
 
 SIX YEAR PROGRAM FOR MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS 
 
 City oi Sacramento, Caliibroia 
 
 (14) *CR. 
 •GO. 
 •A B. 
 •S H. 
 
 •sr. 
 
 Current Revenues. 
 General Obligation Bonds. 
 Assessment Bonds. 
 State Gas Tax. 
 Special Funds. 
 
 NOTE: Estimate ot cost of land indicated by letter "L" 
 
 (15) STATUS OF PLANS: 
 
 1. Preliminary estimate only. 
 
 2. Surveys begun. 
 
 3. Surveys completed. 
 
 4. Work on plans not begun. 
 
 5. Sketch plans in preparation. 
 
 6. Sketch plans completed. 
 
 7. Detail plans in preparation. 
 
 8. Detail plans completed. 
 
 9. Detail plans and specifications 
 completed. 
 
 
 °S 
 
 ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND ESTIMATED YEARLY EXPENDITURES 
 
 (including cost of land or site) 
 
 
 
 PROJECT 
 
 ■So 
 
 Total 
 
 Total for 
 
 Budgeted 
 Year 
 
 FISCAL YEAH 
 
 ]J 
 
 5 o. 
 
 REMARKS 
 
 
 S-3 
 
 estimated 
 cost 
 
 . six year 
 plan 
 
 1939-40 
 
 1940-41 
 
 1941-42 1942-43 
 
 1943-44 
 
 1944-45 
 
 (Later) 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 (1) 
 
 (2)* 
 
 (3) 
 
 (4) 
 
 (5) 
 
 (6) 
 
 (7) (8) 
 
 (9) 
 
 (10) 
 
 (11) 
 
 
 (12) 
 
 (13) 
 
 Traffic Signs and Signals.. 
 
 Corporation Yard 
 
 Crocker Art Gallery 
 
 Fire Alarm Boxes 
 
 Waste Removal Plant 
 
 City Hall Elevators 
 
 Court House Alterations.... 
 
 Sewage Disposal Plant 
 
 Streets 
 
 Water Mains 
 
 Fire Engines and Trucks. .. 
 
 Child Dental Clinic 
 
 Venereal Disease Clinic .... 
 
 Library Building 
 
 Airport Improvement 
 
 Public Parks 
 
 Police Department 
 
 Recreation Improvements.. 
 
 100 
 
 200 
 
 300 
 
 400 
 
 150 
 
 500 
 
 3,580 
 300 
 
 2.400 2.400 2,400 2,400 
 
 2,405 2,405 2,405 2,405 
 
 5,250 5,250 5,250 
 
 5,370 5,370 
 
 300 1,300 
 
 5,250 5,250 7,500 8,250 11,250 
 
 4,500 4,500 5,500 
 
 Grand Total 
 
 Source: Sacramento Report, p. 15 
 
 5,350 10,255 22,355 29,025 37,855 
 
Long-Range Programming of Municipal Public Works 
 
 43 
 
 of projects scheduled can be instituted, and the total 
 cast up a second time. This process can be repeated 
 as often as is necessary until the net effect of these 
 increased operating and other costs is such that the 
 total o fall these future expenses falls within the amounts 
 ndicated to be permissible. 
 
 The procedure required in programming the park 
 improvements in the city of Kalamazoo illustrates 
 this problem. A fixed sum was indicated to be avail- 
 able annually for all park department purposes in- 
 cluding capital outlay. No borrowing was considered 
 as the city pursues a complete pay-as-you-go financial 
 policy. It was necessary to arrange the improvement 
 program for the park department in such a manner 
 that the sum total of all future expenditures, including 
 both capital outlay and operating expenses, would not 
 be greater in any year than the total amount of money 
 indicated to be available in that year for this depart- 
 ment. Thus, as operating and maintenance expenses 
 
 increase each year with additions to capital plant, 
 the amount of additional improvements which may be 
 made in succeeding years represents a gradually 
 diminishing volume which after a few years will reach 
 zero. Thereafter, the annual appropriation for this 
 department will be entirely consumed in paying for 
 operating and maintenance expenses. No further 
 additions to park department plant or facilities will 
 then be feasible unless the annual appropriation for the 
 department is increased beyond its present fixed level. 
 
 Characteristics of the Community.— The general char- 
 acteristics of the community must be taken into ac- 
 count in preparing the program. For example, a 
 rapidly expanding community might require a large 
 volume of improvements, almost approaching an emer- 
 gency in character, which in later years could be^tapered 
 off as the community approached stability. Such a 
 situation would justify a larger capital expenditure for 
 the time being, or a different method of financing, 
 
 Table 20. — Recommended Sewer Department Program 
 
 DEPARTMENT: ENGINEERING 
 DIVISION: Sewers 
 
 Reported by: F. J. Klaus Date submitted: 
 
 R. E. Mittelstaedt 
 Title: City Engineer 
 
 Superintendent Water Dept. 
 
 Page of pages: 
 
 SIX YEAH PROGRAM FOR MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS 
 
 City oi Sacramento. California 
 
 (14) *C.R. 
 •GO 
 •A B. 
 •S H. 
 •S.F. 
 •F.A. 
 NOTE: Estimate oi 
 
 Current Rev 
 
 General Obligation Bonds. 
 Assessment Bonds. 
 State Gas Tax. 
 Special Funds. 
 Federal Aid. 
 
 st ot land indicated by letter "L" 
 
 (15) STATUS OF PLANS: 
 
 1. Preliminary estimate only. 
 
 2. Surveys begun. 
 
 3. Surveys completed. 
 
 4. Work on plans not begun. 
 
 5. Sketch plans in preparation. 
 
 6. Sketch plans completed. 
 
 7. Detail plans in preparation. 
 
 8. Detail plans completed. 
 
 9. Detail plans and specifications 
 completed. 
 
 PROJECT 
 (1) 
 
 il 
 £2 a 
 • d 
 
 (2)* 
 
 ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND ESTIMATED YEARLY EXPENDITURES 
 
 (including cost ot land or site) ^ 
 
 Total 
 estimated 
 cost 
 
 Total lor 
 six year 
 plan 
 
 (4) 
 
 1939-40 
 (5) 
 
 FISCAL YEAH 
 
 1940-41 
 (6) 
 
 1941-42 
 
 1942-43 
 
 1943-44 
 
 1944-45 
 
 (7) 
 
 (8) 
 
 (9) 
 
 (10) 
 
 (Later) 
 (11) 
 
 (13) 
 
 Sewage Diffusion Pipe.. 
 
 GO. 
 
 F.A. 
 
 Connecting Sewer and GO. 
 
 Treatment Plant F.A. 
 
 Debt service including sew- 
 age diffusion pipe 
 
 Additions and Betterments 
 
 Sewers C.R. 
 
 Sump No. 1 C.R. 
 
 Sump No. 2 C.R. 
 
 22,000 22,000 
 
 18,000 18,000 
 
 363,000 
 
 297,000 
 
 531,795 93,860 
 
 4,650 
 4,600 
 5,200 
 
 4,650 
 4,600 
 5,200 
 
 1,250 
 650 
 650 
 
 250 
 1,150 
 1,150 
 
 363,000 
 297,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 24,035 
 
 23,555 
 
 23,275 
 
 22,895 
 
 275 
 
 1,275 
 
 300 
 
 1,300 
 
 600 
 
 600 
 
 1,050 
 
 550 
 
 700 
 
 700 
 
 1,250 
 
 750 
 
 437,935 
 
 30 year-3% Serial Bonds 
 
 P.W.A. Project Calif.: 
 1981-F 
 
 30 year-3% Serial Bonds 
 Federal Aid 
 
 From report of 
 C G Hyde 
 
 Toted Capital Expenditures 
 
 Total Outside Contributions 
 
 Total from Current Revenue 
 
 Total New Indebtedness 
 
 Total Debt Service 
 
 'Total Annual Cost to City 
 
 714,450 2,550 42,550 
 
 315,000 18,000 
 
 14,450 2,550 2,550 
 
 385,000 22,000 
 
 14,450 2,550 2,550 
 
 661,575 
 297,000 
 1,575 
 363,000 
 24,035 
 
 2,575 
 
 2,600 
 
 2,600 
 
 2,575 
 
 2,600 
 
 2,600 
 
 23,655 
 
 23,275 
 
 22,895 437,935 
 
 25,610 
 
 26,230 
 
 25,875 
 
 25,495 
 
 •Note: Total annual cost 
 to City is sum ol expen- 
 ditures from Current 
 Revenue and annual 
 
 debt service. 
 
 Source: Sacramento Report, p. 30 
 
National Resources Planning Board 
 
 Table 21. — Total Proposed Program for All Units in the City 
 
 cm or parco 
 
 BOAR? OF COUWISSIONERS 
 BOARD Or PARK COMMISSIONERS 
 DEFARTMENTiBOAPU OP DIRECTORS, PUBLIC LIBRARY 
 
 Reported by: Departments Date: Various 
 
 title: 
 
 Approved: 
 
 Page 1 of 1 pages. 
 
 SIX YEAR PROGRAM FOR MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS 
 
 FARGO. NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 BRANCH OP GOVERNMENT: IfUrllCIFAl 10VERNMMT 
 
 (14) *G.L. Geoeral Levy Funds "S.T. Sewage Treatment Funds 
 
 •S.H. Slate Highway Participation 
 •R.R. Railroad Co. Participation 
 
 •C O. General Obligation Bonds 
 *S A. Special Assessment* 
 •W D. Water Department Funds 
 
 NOTE: Estimate ol cost of land indicated by letter "L" 
 
 (15) STATUS OP PLANS 
 
 1. Preliminary estimate only. 
 
 2. Surveys begun. 
 
 3. Surveys completed. 
 
 4. Work on plans not begun 
 
 5. Skelcb plans In preparation, 
 g. Sketch plans completed. 
 
 7. Detail plans in preparation 
 
 8. Detail plans compleled- 
 
 9. Detail plans and specifications 
 completed. 
 
 ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND ESTIMATED YEARLY EXPENDITURES 
 (including cost of land or site) 
 
 Total for 
 six year 
 plan 
 
 FISCAL YEAR 
 
 1939-bo 19"0-m 
 
 (5) (•) 
 
 19*l-"2 
 (') 
 
 19"2-"3 
 
 (8) 
 
 19113.11b 
 (») 
 
 I9LU-U5 
 (10) 
 
 (Later) 
 
 and rrloi 
 (ID 
 
 Board of Commission 
 
 A. Public Buildings 
 
 201,500 
 
 3,000 
 
 195,500 
 
 3,000 
 
 B, Fire Deportment 
 
 13", 000 
 
 30,000 
 
 "48,576 
 
 16.750 
 
 11,1>50 
 
 6,000 
 
 D. Land Acquisition 
 
 2,700 
 
 900 
 
 E. Special A.e»..m»nt Projects 
 
 593.300 
 
 138,000 
 
 16.500 
 
 P. Underpas 
 
 0. Water Depertm-nt 
 
 186,100 
 
 115,100 
 
 61,000 
 
 13,000 
 
 Sewage Disposal 
 
 ,?00 
 
 33,200 
 
 1U.5TC 
 
 I. Airport 
 
 636. U00 
 
 130, bOO 
 
 52,900 
 
 15.500 
 
 15.500 
 
 506,000 
 
 1.^11 1 ,'ft 
 
 >1.»1: 
 
 : .-. 
 
 T,. ? m 
 
 1U.30O 
 
 11,300 
 
 7.6KO 
 
 163.076 
 
 36,150 
 
 2b, 500 
 
 15,500 
 
 52b. 900 
 
 35". 500 
 
 35". 500 
 
 109,000 
 
 215.500 
 
 ■158,760 
 
 157. 5"0 
 
 62,000 
 
 16,500 
 
 51,000 
 
 33,600 
 
 171,100 
 
 100,100 
 
 61,000 
 
 16,000 
 
 13,000 
 
 (6) 
 
 6", 800 
 
 6", 800 
 
 25,000 
 
 1U.500 
 
 1' 
 
 15,000 
 
 15,000 
 
 70,960 
 
 15,600 
 
 35.960 
 
 9,6"0 
 
 " 32,000 
 
 1432,000 
 
 15,000 
 
 200,000 
 
 2C0.0C0 
 
 100,000 
 
 56, L 00 
 
 56.U0O 
 
 56,bO0 
 
 6S7.VW 
 
 Spar! of FnrV - n ~r 1 ^ si ~: v 
 
 A. Ml seel lajieour Improven'jnts 
 
 15.850 
 
 (3) 
 
 10.000 
 
 10,000 
 
 60,000 
 
 60,000 
 
 135, 
 
 Boi rd of Directors-Public Library 
 
 A. Library Add 4 Equipment — Books 
 
 27.611! 
 
 (e) Includes $9,739 
 
 38.720 
 
 36.793 
 
 b.500 
 
 3.500 
 
 upended during 1938-39 
 
 1) 16.133 
 
 8,321 
 
 (See Col. ll-"Prlor") 
 
 Total-All Boards and Departments 
 
 2.098. 7"0 
 
 j Igr ' 
 
 BUS* 
 
 Total from General Levy Special Assessment 
 Total from 1 
 
 21,980 
 
 1U.300 
 
 lb, 300 
 
 7.6bo 
 
 Levies (GUPDL-LL) 
 
 7"3.1"6 
 
 ■1 ,113 
 
 58, L 69 
 
 "2,250 
 
 3". 550 
 
 22,000 
 
 526.827 
 
 Total from General Obligation Bonds 
 
 "5b, 500 
 
 b22,500 
 
 30,000 
 
 220,500 
 -t ■ 
 
 30,000 
 
 6,000 
 
 32,000 
 
 Total from Special Assessments 
 
 "58,760 
 
 b.28.0"0 
 
 157.5"0 
 
 16,500 
 
 33.600 
 
 (5) Total from Water Department Funds 
 
 (5) 
 
 100.100 
 
 61.000 
 
 16,000 
 
 1,000 
 
 ' Total from Sewage Treatment Funds 
 
 6b, SCO 
 
 lb. 500 
 
 Special Funds (Sale of Fire Statlo 
 Total from Special Assessment Shar 
 
 15,000 
 
 15,000 
 15.600 
 
 ■. 
 
 Sub-Total from All City Sources 
 
 2,009,3"6 
 
 369.050 
 
 ( 7) Total from Slate Highway Particlpatic 
 
 (12) 
 (13) 
 
 »■.."■ 
 
 "32,000 
 
 M 
 
 from RBilroad Company Participatloi 
 
 Approved WPA Participation 
 P1A ' 
 
 116, "00 
 
 11', "00 
 8.321 
 
 116, boo 
 
 -. ■ -1 
 
 2. 78", 379 
 
 7"0,050 
 
 669,050 100,050 11", 000 
 
 Source: P^irgo Report, p. 93 
 
Long-Range Programming oj Municipal Public Works 
 
 Table 22.— Proposed Total Program for Several Subdepartments of City Commission Only 
 
 PUBLIC BUILDIMOS 
 FIRE DEPARTMENT 
 UNDERPASSES 
 DEPARTMENT LAND ACQUISITION 
 
 SIX YEAR PROGRAM FOR MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS 
 
 FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA 
 
 Reported by: 
 TUte 
 Approved; 
 Page < 
 
 Date: November 10, 1939 
 
 BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT: CITT COMMISSION 
 
 (14) *G.L. General Levy Fundi *S.T. Sewage Treatment Funds 
 
 •SB. Staie Highway PartictpatJoi 
 
 •K B Railroad Co. Participation 
 
 "G O General Obligation Bonds 
 'S A Special Assessments 
 •WD. Water Department Funds 
 
 NOTE: Estimate of cost of land Indicated by letter "L" 
 
 (15) STATUS OF PLANS: 
 
 1. Preliminary estimate only. 
 
 2. Surveys begun. 
 
 ■ Surveys completed. 
 
 4. Work on plans not begun. 
 
 5. Sketch plans in preparation 
 
 6. Sketch plans completed. 
 
 7. Detail plans in preparation. 
 
 8. Detail plans completed. 
 
 9. Detail plans and specifications 
 completed. 
 
 T 
 
 ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND ESTIMATED YEARLY EXPENDITURES 
 (including coat of land or site) 
 
 FISCAL YEAR 
 
 (1) 
 
 II 
 («' 
 
 cost 
 
 plan 
 
 («> 
 
 (5) 
 
 lO'lQ 'll 
 (•) 
 
 19 1^ 2 
 
 19 1 +2-43 
 
 («) 
 
 (») 
 
 1 fii 1 1 1 lie 
 1 ■ 1 - 1 1 J 
 
 (10) 
 
 (Later) 
 <») 
 
 5* 
 
 (12) 
 
 (13) 
 
 Public BulldlnjEB 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (1) Fireproof City Hall 
 
 0.0 
 
 195,500 
 
 195,500 
 
 
 
 195.50C 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 (?) Municipal Auditorium 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (3) Two Municipal Rest Rooms 
 
 S.L. 
 
 6,000 
 
 6,000 
 
 
 3,000 
 
 
 3,000 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 Total 
 
 
 gauggo. 
 
 201.500 
 
 
 V6M 
 
 195. 50C 
 
 3.000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (1) 
 
 O.L. 
 
 6,000 
 
 6,000 
 
 
 3,000 
 
 
 3,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (?) 
 
 S.O. 
 
 195.500 
 
 195,500 
 
 
 
 195,500 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 
 ?ai , c ?o_ 
 
 
 
 
 W.5M 
 
 3 .toft 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tire Department 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (I) New Central **lre Department Building 
 
 0.0. 
 
 79,000 
 
 79.000 
 
 
 79.000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 (2) Fire Department, No. 3 Bldg., and Equip. 
 
 S.O. 
 
 30,000 
 
 30,000 
 
 
 
 
 30,000 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 (3) New Fire Department, No. ?. Bldg. 
 
 S.F. 
 
 15,000 
 
 15,000 
 
 15,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 Abandon present bldg. 
 
 Ct) Drill Tower 
 
 0.0. 
 
 10,000 
 
 10,000 
 
 
 10,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 Total 
 
 
 r?t.oco_ 
 
 i-u,eoe 
 
 15.000 
 
 B9.000 
 
 
 30.000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (1) 
 
 0.0. 
 
 119,000 
 
 119.000 
 
 
 «9,ooo 
 
 
 30,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (?) 
 
 s.'. 
 
 15,000 
 
 15,000 
 
 15,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 uimflc] 
 
 IyJ.OOQ 
 
 _ii.oa 
 
 
 33.002 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Under 1 sseea 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (1) Underness N. Pac . Railway, Uth 3t. 
 
 0.0. 
 
 20,000 
 
 ?o,ooo 
 
 
 20,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 S.H. 
 
 ?00,000 
 
 200,000 
 
 
 200,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 n.R. 
 
 100,000 
 
 100,000 
 
 
 100,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (2) Underpass Or. N. Railway, Uth St. 
 
 0.0. 
 
 20,000 
 
 ?0,000 
 
 
 
 20,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 S.H. 
 
 200,000 
 
 ?00,000 
 
 
 
 200,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 P.P. 
 
 100,000 
 
 100,000 
 
 
 
 100,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 bLQ.OjO 
 
 bHQ.OOO 
 
 jfO.QOQ 
 
 
 (1) 
 
 0.0. 
 
 ItO.OOO 
 
 "0,000 
 
 
 20,000 
 
 20,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (?) 
 
 S.H. 
 
 U00.000 
 
 1*00,000 
 
 
 1(00,000 
 
 uoo.ooo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (3) 
 
 a.R. 
 
 200,000 
 
 ?00,000 
 
 
 200,000 
 
 200,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 
 
 6Jtcmprj 
 
 
 3_;q, 
 
 310,093 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Land Acoulsltlon 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (1) Purchase of Land, Hector's Addition 
 
 O.L. 
 
 L 2.700 
 
 t 2.700 
 
 
 
 9.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 Lots 1 to 12 lncl. i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 19 to Al lncl. Block 
 ♦7 (18 lots) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total -Bldgs. , Fire Dep't., Underpasses, Land 
 
 
 
 
 15.000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 gj 7Jj ._?oo_ 
 
 3 78 . 20q 
 
 
 516, ^jg 
 
 .1.1.000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total from General Levy 
 
 
 8,700 
 
 8,700 
 
 900 
 
 3.900 
 
 900 
 
 3.000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total from Genera) Obligation Bonds 
 
 
 3511,500 
 
 35><.500 
 
 
 109,000 
 
 215,500 
 
 30,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total from Special Assessments 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total from Water Department Funds 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total from Sewage Treatment Funds 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Special Funds (Sale present bldg.) 
 
 
 15,000 
 
 15,000 
 
 15,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Sub-Total from All City Sources 1 
 
 
 378, ?00 
 
 378,200 
 
 15,900 
 
 11?, 900 
 
 2l6. l 400 
 
 33.000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total from State Highway Participation 
 
 
 >»00, 000 
 
 Uoo.ooo 
 
 
 200,000 
 
 200,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total from Ballroad Company Participation 
 
 
 200,000 
 
 200,000 
 
 
 100,000 
 
 100,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Grand Total 
 
 
 978,?0O 
 
 978,200 
 
 15,900 
 
 ■U2.900 
 
 516.U00 
 
 33,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Source: Fargo Report, p. 10. 
 
46 
 
 National Resources Planning Board 
 
 than would the situation in older cities which have 
 largely occupied the area within their corporate limits 
 and have reached a point of relative stabilization. 
 Such considerations should be taken into account in 
 arriving at a suitable financial policy and are also of 
 much importance in selecting the final program itself. 
 
 Other Considerations. — It has often been found inex- 
 pedient in preparing a program to indicate specific 
 improvements of certain types prior to the time of 
 actual construction because of the likelihood of causing 
 sectional controversies or of encouraging adverse 
 
 manipulations. For example, in some cases it may be 
 unwise to indicate the specific streets which are to be 
 paved, or the particular piece of ground to be purchased 
 for school or park purposes, because neighborhood pres- 
 sures may be engendered, or owners of property may hold 
 out for larger sums than the property justified. This 
 does not mean that the proposed projects should not 
 be studied carefully and selected on the basis of relative 
 need or merit. In fisting them, nevertheless, it has been 
 found desirable in some cities to indicate lump sums 
 only for certain classes of improvements. 
 
 Table 23. — Six- Year Improvement Program For 1939, Winchester, Massachusetts 
 
 Projects 
 
 Item 
 No. 
 
 Total 
 Cost 
 
 1939 
 
 Suggested Allocation of Costs by Years 
 
 1940 
 
 1941 
 
 1942 
 
 1943 
 
 1944 
 
 Highway Department 
 
 Arterial Highways 
 
 Estimated additional maintenance costs 
 
 Secondary Streets 
 
 Maintenance 
 
 Surface Drainage (Storm sewers) 
 
 Estimated additional maintenance costs 
 
 Special Projects 
 
 Washington St. & Mys. V. Park'y (Traffic Circle) 
 
 Highland Av. & Myst. V. P'Ky (Widening & traf. Isl.). 1 
 
 Everett Av. Bacon & Central Sts. (Widening) 
 
 Fletcher, Wildwood & Palmer Sts. (Widening) 2 
 
 Symmes Corner (Widening) 3 
 
 Horn Pond Brook Road 4 
 
 Estimated additional maintenance costs 
 
 School Department 
 
 New Equipment 1 
 
 Land, Wyman School 2 
 
 Addition to Junior High School 3 
 
 New School, West Side 4 
 
 Landscaping 5 
 
 Buy 3 lots & houses, High School 6 
 
 Estimated additional maintenance costs 
 
 Park Department 
 
 Land at Main Street 1 
 
 Field House (Loring) 2 
 
 Bathhouse (Leonard) 3 
 
 New Playground, W.S 4 
 
 New Park Headquarters 5 
 
 Field House, Shore Road 6 
 
 Steel Bleachers, Shore Road 7 
 
 Estimated additional "maintenance costs 
 
 Water and Sewer Department 
 
 Ridge Road (Water main) 1 
 
 Hutchinson Road (Water main) 2 
 
 Land at Sylvester Avenue 3 
 
 Estimated additional maintenance costs 
 
 Fire and Police Department 
 
 New Fire Station, W. S 1 
 
 Estimated additional maintenance costs 
 
 Miscellaneous 
 
 Sprinkler Sys. Town H a n 1 
 
 New Engineering Quarters 2 
 
 Estimated additional maintenance costs 
 
 Total proposed new capital outlay 
 
 Total new maintenance and operating costs created 
 
 Total of all new costs 
 
 Estimated margin available for capital outlay based on 
 uniform tax rate of $29.20 (from Table 3) 
 
 Source: Winchester Report, Table S 
 
 $ 5,900 
 
 5,700 
 4,000 
 
 70.000 
 
 36,000 
 1,000 
 245,000 
 125,000 
 3,000 
 25,000 
 
 1,100 
 2,500 
 7,000 
 12,000 
 25,000 
 2,500 
 10,000 
 
 12,000) 
 6,000) 
 2,000 
 
 30,000 
 
 8,500 
 15,000 
 
 p. to 
 nJ i-l 
 O 
 
 _ x: 
 ■o o 
 cu u 
 
 o si 
 a 
 
 o - 
 U bo 
 
 °*J 
 bo-P 
 C <D 
 ■H <D 
 ■O S 
 
 ^ a, 
 o o 
 
 Q) CO 
 
 bo ni 
 ■a g 
 
 $ 18,000 
 15,000 
 8,000 
 
 5,900 
 
 6,000 
 
 1,0-00 
 
 1,100 
 2,500 
 7,000 
 
 6,000 
 2,000 
 
 8,500 
 
 18,000 
 15,000 
 8,000 
 
 5,700 
 
 6,000 
 1,000 
 
 1,000 
 25,000 
 
 12,000 
 
 6,000 
 
 15,000 
 
 $ 18,000 
 15,000 
 8,000 
 
 7,500 
 
 6,000 
 80,000 
 1,000 
 
 25,000 
 1,000 
 
 6,000 
 
 $ 18,000 
 500 
 15,000 
 
 8,000 
 500 
 
 7,500 
 
 6,000 
 165,000 
 
 1,000 
 
 2,500 
 10,000 
 1,500 
 
 30,000 
 12,000 
 
 $ 18,000 
 500 
 15,000 
 
 8,000 
 500 
 
 4,000 
 
 6,000 
 125,000 
 2,000 
 
 1,500 
 
 24,000 
 
 3 55,895 § 81,000 -5112,700 .$166,500 3251,000 $176,000 
 
 1,000 16,500 28,500 
 
 $ 55,895 I 81,000 0112,700 $167,500 £267,500 8204,500 
 
 $247,996 $184,958 $184,923 $190,761 $196,233 $209,044 
 
Long-Range Programming 0/ Municipal Public Works 
 
 47 
 
 Scope of Recommendations. — Based on the various 
 considerations previously discussed, a program of 
 public improvements covering a predetermined number 
 of years should be prepared. For the first year of the 
 program, the schedule should be explicit and should 
 recommend a definite capital budget to cover the 
 required expenditures. If there is some question of 
 ability or method of financing, alternate programs 
 might be submitted. For the remaining years of the 
 program, the schedule may be less positive but should, 
 nevertheless, be specific in the sense that actual proj- 
 
 Table 24. — Six- Year Improvement 
 
 Projects 
 
 ects should be scheduled and the totals of these projects 
 should in every instance be such as to fall within the 
 well-considered financial limitations of the community. 
 
 The recommended list of projects should be accom- 
 panied by complete financial data with respect to the 
 municipality as a whole, in order that the relation 
 of the proposed program to the finances of the com- 
 munity may be understood. The effect upon taxes, 
 debt structure, debt service, and operating expenses 
 for the entire six-year period should be made available 
 in a series of charts, graphs, and tables based upon 
 
 1940, Winchester, Massachusetts 
 
 Suggested Allocation of Costs by Years 
 
 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 
 
 Highway Department 
 
 Arterial Highways $ 18,000 $ 18,000 $ 18,000 $ 18,000 $ 18,000 
 
 Secondary Streets & 22,800 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 
 
 Surface Drainage 6,300 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 
 
 Washington St. and Mystic Valley Parkway (traffic ) 
 
 circle) ) 5 j90 o 
 
 Highland Ave. and Mystic Valley Parkway (widening ) 
 
 and traffic island) ) 
 
 Everett Ave., Bacon St. and Central St. (widening).. 3,500 
 
 Symmes Corner (widening) 4,000 
 
 Horn Pond Brook Rd. (estimated total cost 375,000).. 7,500 7,500 7,500 
 
 School Department 
 
 New Equipment 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 
 
 Additional Land at Wyman School 1,000 
 
 Addition to Junior High School Building 245,000 
 
 New School Building on West Side 125,000 
 
 Landscaping of Schoolhouse lots 1,000 1,000 1,000 
 
 Additional Land at High School 25,000 
 
 Additional Land at Junior High School (Parkhurst Lot) 5,000 
 
 Park Department 
 
 Land near Main St. bordering VIedge Pond 1,100 
 
 Field House, Loring Ave. Playground 2,500 
 
 Bath House, Leonard Field 5,000 
 
 New Playground on West Side 3,500 
 
 New Building for Park Headquarters 25,000 
 
 Field House, Shore Rd. Athletic Field 2,500 
 
 Steel Bleachers, Shore Rd. Athletic Field 10,000 
 
 Water and Sewer Department 
 
 Emerson Rd., Water Main and Sewer.. 4,000 
 
 Blossom Hill Rd., Water Main and Sewer 2,600 
 
 Additional Water Wells 3,000 
 
 Woodside Rd. Sewer Pump 2,000 
 
 Miscellaneous Water Mains and Sewers 9,000 
 
 Land at Sylvester Ave 2,500 
 
 Ridge Rd„ and Hutchinson Rd. Water Mains 6,000 6,000 6,000 
 
 Water Mains and Sewers Where Required 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 
 
 Fire and Police Departments 
 
 New Fire Station, West Side 30,000 
 
 Miscellaneous 
 
 Alterations in Town Hall (Engineering Quarters) 15,000 
 
 Total Proposed Capital Outlay $ 72,800 $ 96,000 $104,900 £121,500 $326,000 $224,500 
 
 Estimated margin available for capital outlay based 
 
 on uniform tax rate, $27.20 (from Table 3) $ 74,902 $ 84,165 $ 92,306 $101,071 $117,285 5117,160 
 
 Source: Winchester Report, Table 4 
 
National Resources Planning Board 
 
 Table 25. — Summary of Proposed Six- Year Program, 1939, Dallas, Texas 
 Baisic Financial and Improvement Plan 
 City of Dallas, Texas 
 
 LEGEND— STATUS OF PLANS 
 
 SUMMARY ALL DEPARTMENTS R— Detail Plans and Specs. Ready V— Sketch Plans in Preparation 
 
 ^ , , - , non S — Detal1 Plans completed W — Surveys Completed 
 
 UCtODer 1, 1VOV T — Detail Plans in Preparation X— Surveys in Process 
 
 U— Sketch Plans Completed Y — Preliminary Estimate Only 
 
 PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR DISBURSEMENTS 
 
 Proposal Description of Status of Estimated Year Year Year Year Year Year Later 
 
 Number Project Plans Project Cost 1939-40 1940-41 1941-42 1942-43 1943-44 1944-45 
 
 A Department of Public Works 
 
 1. Storm Sewers $ 4,003,500 $ 465,000 $ 619,500 $ 152,860 $ 550,000 $ 510,655 $ 793,000 $ 912,485 
 
 2. Street Opening and Widening 5,972,295 1,451.312 884,903 1,580,580 890,000 170.000 165,500 830,000 
 
 3. Aviation 1,419,978 289,683 49,150 395,345 685.800 
 
 4. Alterations— Municipal Bldg 49,200 49,200 
 
 Total $11,444,973 $2,205,995 $1,602,753 $1,733,440 $1,440,000 $1,076,000 $ 958,500 $2,428,285 
 
 B Water Department 
 
 1. General— Plant— Service Connections 961.698 159,278 143,750 172,000 215,170 89,500 182,000 
 
 2. Water Mains 1,305,743 211,372 116,663 179,552 179,428 226,728 352,000 
 
 3. Sanitary Sewers 715,654 169,624 115.074 104.000 110,000 180,000 36,956 
 
 Total 2,983,095 540.274 375,487 455,552 504,598 536,228 570,956 
 
 C Park Department 905,430 396,489 302,941 75,500 60,000 29,000 41,500 
 
 D Board of Education 2,087,000 350,000 1,737.000 
 
 E Fire Department 21,000 11,000 10,000 
 
 F Municipal Radio Station 53,275 4,075 7,200 5,700 5,700 26,000 4,600 
 
 G Public Library 772,000 772,000 
 
 H City-County Hospital System 584,000 584-.000 
 
 Total Estimated Cost 18,850,773 3,496,833 2,288,381 2,281,192 2,010,298' 1,677,228 1,575,556 5,521,285 
 
 Subsequent to 19+4-45 5,521,285 5,521,285 
 
 1939-40 Through 1944-45 13,329,488 3,496,833 2,288,381 2,281,192 2,010,298 1,677,228 1,575,556 
 
 SUMMARY— METHOD OF FINANCING 
 
 Cash on Hand 1,066,780 170,220 
 
 General Obligation Bonds (Authorized 
 
 but Unissued) 950,000 1,100,000 1,200,0UU 450,000 199,000 207,000 
 
 General Obligation Bonds to be Voted 550,000 801,000 793,000 
 
 Current Revenue 385,732 357,679 472,252 510,298 572,228 575,556 
 
 Works Projects Administration 1,084,321 654,982 
 
 Federal Aid _ 105,000 
 
 State Participation 500,000 500,000 
 
 Property Owners Participation 10,000 5,500 10,440 
 
 Railroad Company Participation 98,500 
 
 Total ., 3,496,833 2,288,381 2,281,192 2,010,298 1,677.228 1,575,556 
 
 Source: Dallas Report, p. 14 
 
Long-Range Programming of Municipal Publie Works 
 
 Table 26. — Six- Year Progran of Storm Sewer Construction, 1939, Dallas, Texas 
 Basic Financial and Improvement Plan 
 City of Dallas, Texas 
 
 PUBLIC WORKS— STORM SEWERS 
 October 1, 1939 
 
 LEGEND— STATUS OF PLANS 
 R — Detail Plans and Spec. Ready V— Sketch Plans in Preparation 
 
 S — Detail Plans Completed W — Surveys Completed 
 
 T — Detail Plans in Preparation X — Surveys in Process 
 
 U — Sketch Plans Completed Y — Preliminary Estimate Only 
 
 PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR DISBURSEMENTS 
 
 Proposal 
 Number 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 Description of 
 Project 
 
 Status of Estimated 
 Plans Project Cost 
 
 10 
 11 
 
 12 
 13 
 14 
 15 
 16 
 17 
 18 
 19 
 20 
 
 21 
 
 22 
 23 
 
 24 
 25 
 
 27 
 28 
 29 
 30 
 31 
 32 
 33 
 
 34 
 35 
 36 
 37 
 
 38 
 39 
 
 40 
 41 
 42 
 
 43 
 44 
 45 
 
 46 
 47 
 48 
 49 
 50 
 51 
 52 
 53 
 5* 
 55 
 56 
 57 
 58 
 59 
 60 
 61 
 62 
 
 63 
 64 
 65 
 66 
 
 Lamar St. — Forest to City Limit T 
 
 Maple Ave.— St. Louis S. W. R.R. 
 
 to Hudnall Y 
 
 Beckley Ave.— G. C. S. F. R.R. to 
 
 Elmore Y 
 
 Illinois — Lancaster to Interurban Y 
 
 Wilbur Lateral— Polk to Edgefield ... S 
 Kidd Springs — Diversion to Fouraker S 
 Myrtle St. — Marburg to Mercer 
 
 (Keynard) U 
 
 Lagow St.— Canal to Carl (Terry) .. Y 
 Colby Lateral — Dallas Branch to 
 
 H. & T. C. at Thomas R 
 
 Winnetka — Coombs Cr. to Colorado. U 
 York & Bradshaw to Oakland Ditch S 
 Dallas Br.— C.R.I.G. to Worthington S 
 
 Mill Creek— Browder to Ashby T 
 
 Vickery Place— Mill Cr. to Matilda.. Y 
 
 Misc. — Engineering Projects 
 
 Howell-Weldon. H. & T. C. to Haskell Y 
 Lemmon Ave. Relief — Hall to Lemmon S 
 
 Lucas Br. — Lucas to Maple U 
 
 Hawthorne Br. — Arroya to Maple U 
 
 Macon-Harding — Stephenson to 
 
 Slaughter U 
 
 Leland St.— Southland to Pine U 
 
 Santa Fe — Cristler to Cordova U 
 
 Lousanne Br. — Mont Clair to 
 
 Windomere S 
 
 Knight's Br.— Maple to Needles T 
 
 Greenland Hills Relief — Vanderbilt 
 
 to Greenville U 
 
 Cedar Springs Br.— M. K. & T. to 
 
 St. L. S. W. R. R U 
 
 Junius Heights Area .'. U 
 
 Brighton, Chalmers, Clarendon Area U 
 
 Owenwood Add. Area U 
 
 Haskell Ave. — Ware to Fitzzhugh U 
 
 East Br. Mill Cr. Reconditioning. .. U 
 West Shore Dr.— Tenison to Mt. Vista U 
 Edgefield Ave. — Colorado to 
 
 Stewart Dr U 
 
 Pearl St. Relief U 
 
 Pearl St. Reconditioning U 
 
 Lindbergh-Concho, Vickery to Martel U 
 West Br. Mill Cr. — Division 
 
 Shaft to M. K. & T U 
 
 Ware St. Lateral — McKenzie to Barry U 
 McKinney Relief— H. & T. C. to 
 
 McKinney Y 
 
 Clarendon Dr. — Cedar Cr. Structures Y 
 
 State St.— Worthington to Hall Y 
 
 Wahoo Lake Area — Wahoo Lake 
 
 to T. & P. R. R U 
 
 Five Mile Creek, Lisbon Area U 
 
 Town Br. Reconditioning U 
 
 West Peak Br— Roberts to 
 
 Pennsylvania U 
 
 Mill Cr.— D. U. T. R.R. to Browder.. U 
 
 Central Avenue Y 
 
 Betterton Br.— Cedar Cr. to Ewing. .. U 
 Crawford St. — Cedar Cr. to Jefferson Y 
 
 Center St. — Cedar Cr. to Adams Y 
 
 Clements St. — Llano to Mercedes U 
 
 Cedar Cr.— Trinity R. to Hampton U 
 
 Levee Dist. — Outlet Channels Y 
 
 Nobles Br. — Lovedale Channel U 
 
 Oakland Dist.— Pine to H. & T. C. U 
 
 Town Br. Outlet to D. U. T. R. R U 
 
 Seventh St. Relief— Davis to Ninth.. U 
 
 Bryan St. Relief via Collett Y 
 
 Peabody Relief— M. K. & T. to Myrtle U 
 St. George Relief — Clarence to Logan U 
 Clarence St. — St. George to Lattimer U 
 Wall St. Relief via G. C. S. F. R.R. 
 
 to Ervay U 
 
 Bannock St.— H. & T. C. to Holmes.. Y 
 Holmes St.— H. & T. C. to Holmes.. Y 
 P. & G. Co.— H. & T. C. to Parnell.. U 
 York St. Dist.— White Rock Cr. 
 to Hancock U 
 
 $13,000 
 
 24,000 
 
 5,000 
 5.000 
 13,000 
 73,000 
 
 65,000 
 36,000 
 
 38,000 
 5,000 
 10,000 
 182,000 
 748,000 
 37,000 
 30.000 
 12,000 
 13,000 
 9,000 
 6,000 
 
 30,000 
 29,000 
 20,000 
 
 13,500 
 56,000 
 
 62,000 
 
 89,000 
 115.000 
 156,000 
 153.000 
 
 11,000 
 8,000 
 
 14,000 
 
 10.000 
 65,000 
 45,000 
 102,000 
 
 276,000 
 42,000 
 
 24,000 
 37,000 
 28,000 
 
 38,000 
 188,000 
 58,000 
 
 18,000 
 56,000 
 
 133,000 
 34,000 
 19,000 
 47,000 
 41,000 
 70,000 
 20,000 
 20,000 
 26,000 
 13,000 
 75,000 
 66,000 
 
 200,000 
 16,000 
 12,000 
 
 72,000 
 28.000 
 24,000 
 7,000 
 
 13,000 
 
 Year 
 ,1939-40 
 
 $13,000 
 
 24,000 
 
 5.000 
 5,000 
 13,000 
 73,000 
 
 65,000 
 36,000 
 
 38,000 
 5.000 
 10,000 
 11,000 
 100,000 
 37.000 
 30,000 
 
 Year 
 1940-41 
 
 Year 
 1941-42 
 
 Year 
 1942-43 
 
 Year. 
 1943-44 
 
 Year 
 1944-45 
 
 Later 
 
 100,000 
 
 12,000 
 13,000 
 9,000 
 6,000 
 
 30.000 
 29,000 
 20,000 
 
 13,500 
 46,000 
 
 62,000 
 
 89,000 
 50.000 
 56,000 
 73,000 
 11,000 
 
 66.000 
 26.860 
 
 61,000 
 50,000 
 
 44,000 
 191,655 
 
 233,000 46,485 
 
 10.000 
 
 50,000 
 
 65,000 
 50.000 
 80,000 
 
 8,000 
 14,000 
 
 10,000 
 65,000 
 45.000 
 102,000 
 
 106,000 
 42,000 
 
 24,000 
 37,000 
 28,000 
 
 38,000 
 
 170,000 
 
 98,000 
 58,000 
 
 18,000 
 56,000 
 60,000 
 34.000 
 19,000 
 47,000 
 
 90,000 
 
 73,000 
 
 41,000 
 70,000 
 20,000 
 20,000 
 26,000 
 13,000 
 75,000 
 66,000 
 200,000 
 16,000 
 12,000 
 
 72,000 
 28,000 
 24,000 
 7,000 
 
 13,000 
 
 Total Estimated Cost 
 
 $4,003,500 $465,000 $619,500 $152,860 $550,000 $510,655 $793,000 $912,485 
 
 SUMMARY 
 
 Cash on Hand $304,080 
 
 General Obligation Bonds (Authorized but Unissued) 
 
 General Obligation Bonds (To be Voted) 
 
 Works Projects Administration 160,920 
 
 25,920 
 347.140 
 
 246,440 
 
 152.860 
 
 550,000 510,655 793,000 
 
 Total $465,000 $619,500 $152,860 $550,000 $510,655 $793,000 
 
 Source: Dallas Report, p. 15 
 
Figure 14. 
 
Long-Range Programming of Municipal Public Works 
 
 51 
 
 the data prepared in connection with the financial 
 analysis. Appropriate explanatory texts should accom- 
 pany these graphs and tables whenever necessary. 
 Finally, a financial summary sheet should be prepared, 
 showing the effect of the proposed program upon the 
 finances of the community, in terms of taxes. 
 
 Examples of actual summary financial statements, 
 showing the effect of proposed programs upon taxes, 
 are presented in figure 12 and tables 13 to 16, inclusive, 
 as illustrations of how such financial summaries may be 
 prepared. These are taken from the Fargo procedures. 
 It should be noted that, as explained in chapter V, 
 overlapping taxing authorities complicate the pro- 
 cedures, and these tables show not only the effect of 
 the programs of each separate taxing unit but also the 
 total effect of all of them combined. Simpler state- 
 ments would serve as well when only one unit of gov- 
 ernment is involved, but the basic method of approach 
 would be the same. 
 
 In addition to those projects actually recommended, 
 the complete list of proposed projects contained in the 
 inventory should be made available to the governing 
 body, and should accompany the recommended pro- 
 gram. It is desirable to indicate to the council the 
 problems involved in making a selection, and also to 
 provide data for further selections or changes in the 
 event that the council does not agree with the recom- 
 mendations made. This particular practice is followed 
 in New York City. 
 
 Various forms for listing recommended projects and 
 tabulating related data have been developed in the 
 several cities which have undertaken the programming 
 operation. These forms vary somewhat in complexity 
 in accordance with the size of the city and depending 
 upon the amount and kind of data to be shown. Where 
 a form is intended to be used both for listing the in- 
 ventory and for the purpose of presenting the recom- 
 mended program, the dual purpose naturally adds to 
 its complexity. 
 
 Examples taken from the programs of Sacramento, 
 Fargo, Winchester, and Dallas are presented in figures 
 13 and 14, and tables 17 to 27, inclusive, as illustrations 
 of how programs may be set up for submission to the 
 council, and of the several types of forms which may 
 be used for this purpose. Each of the forms differs in 
 some respect from all of the others in order to meet 
 some pecuiliar requirement or condition of the city in 
 which the program was prepared. Other variations 
 occurred in the forms used in most of the other cities, 
 but the four examples given are representative. 
 
 Three consecutive annual programs are presented in 
 the case of Winchester, Mass. These three programs 
 illustrate the effect of annual review upon previous 
 selections. It will be noted that in the 1940 and 1941 
 revisions some projects appearing in the previous pro- 
 
 grams were left untouched, others were completely 
 eliminated, and still others were shifted in order of 
 priority or modified in size. 
 
 The forms presented here are offered as suggestions 
 and examples only. 
 
 The following statement, taken from the Sacramento 
 report, is indicative of the general considerations and 
 attitudes involved in preparing these final programs, 
 and of their general contents. 
 
 "Immediately following are included the several de- 
 partmental public improvement schedules, all of which 
 are also summarized both as to priorities and construc- 
 tion costs and as to accompanying maintenance and 
 operation expense. The summary sheets carry annual 
 totals of initial and continuing outgo, in comparison 
 with the probable available municipal revenue. 
 
 "This is the finished schedule, the final capital im- 
 provement program recommended. It represents a 
 careful selection of needed projects chosen from a much 
 more extensive list initially submitted by the several 
 departments. 
 
 "Of necessity, many worth-while and desirable public 
 works projects had to give place to the more pressing 
 needs set down here. Beyond the momentary limits 
 of this study, future years may see many of these neces- 
 sarily omitted projects returned to the program. The 
 program as recommended, however, is based upon the 
 practical limitations imposed by safe and sound finan- 
 cial considerations of the municipal government." 2 
 Legislative Adoption 
 
 After the technical details of the program have been 
 completed, it is ready for submission to the City 
 Council for consideration. In most cities this is 
 accomplished directly, the program and the capital 
 budget being submitted by the chief executive as his 
 recommended course of action. In such cases, the 
 programming committee acts merely as an adviser to 
 the chief executive. In some cities, such as New York, 
 N. Y., and Winchester, Mass., the program is first 
 reviewed by an intermediate board. In New York 
 this is the Board of Estimate, and in Winchester, the 
 Finance Committee. In New York this board has posi- 
 tive powers to modify, but in Winchester it simply 
 reviews and makes recommendations. In other cities 
 where a similar board exists a parallel procedure would 
 probably be required. Ultimately, however, the capital 
 budget must be adopted, modified, or rejected by the 
 governing body itself. 
 
 The governing body may, for various reasons, find it 
 expedient or desirable to delete, reduce, or shift the 
 order of items contained in the program or even to add 
 new projects initiated by itself or others. Radical 
 revisions of an undesirable nature, or which are hastily 
 
 * Report of the City Manager on a Study of Advance Programming and Budgeting 
 of Public Works, Sacramento, Calif., January 1, 1940, p. 12. 
 
52 
 
 National Resources Planning Board 
 
 injected without consideration, arc far less likely to 
 occur if the program has been carefully prepared in 
 advance, and is accompanied by well prepared state- 
 ments concerning the reasons for the various recommen- 
 dations, the urgency or necessity of the items included 
 and a clear-cut picture of the related financial aspects. 
 A well-prepared program will be of great assistance to 
 the governing body in the execution of its functions, 
 and will tend to insure the wise, prudent, and enlight- 
 ened employment of the public funds. 
 
 Public Approval 
 
 The element of public approval has been left until 
 last for discussion but should not be considered as of 
 least importance. Public approval is absolutely essen- 
 tial to the success of the program, and should be kept 
 in mind from the inception of the operation. Many 
 instances can be cited in which well-conceived pro- 
 cedures involving city plans, improvement programs, or 
 similar matters have failed in their purpose because the 
 public was not properly advised in advance of the 
 purpose or nature of the proposals. 
 
 The methods adopted for informing the public or 
 winning its confidence must be determined by the 
 general character of the particular municipality con- 
 cerned. Such efforts, regardless of their direction, 
 must be looked upon as among the most important 
 items of procedure in establishing public works pro- 
 gramming and budgeting. 
 
 Summary and Conclusions 
 
 The need for orderly methods and procedures with 
 respect to the provision of public improvements has 
 been discussed in the preceding chapters, and methods, 
 procedures, and techniques indicated for accomplishing 
 this objective. In reviewing these suggested tech- 
 niques and in undertaking the establishment of long- 
 range improvement programming in any city, it will 
 be well to keep in mind that the most difficult phase of 
 the undertaking will be that encountered during the 
 first year, in connection with the assembly of records, 
 preparation of analyses, and determination of suitable 
 methods of organization and procedure. 
 
 Once these steps have been accomplished, program- 
 ming in succeeding years should be comparatively 
 simple. Improvements or modifications in techniques, 
 procedures, or organizations will suggest themselves as 
 the operation is continued, but such revisions need in 
 no way alter the initial objective of the operation or 
 render it more difficult to continue. 
 
 Once the decision has been made to adopt long- 
 range methods with respect to public improvements, 
 the necessary initial studies should be instituted suf- 
 ficiently in advance of the preparation of the annual 
 budget to bring these operations to completion con- 
 
 currently with, or a little in advance of, that regular 
 function. By this means, the improvement program 
 can be considered along with and as a part of the 
 regular annual budget. Each year thereafter the pro- 
 gramming operation should be undertaken along with 
 the regular budgeting operations, and the necessary 
 studies or assembly of data started several months in 
 advance of the time when the budget must actually be 
 submitted, in order that sufficient time may be allowed 
 for careful and satisfactory work. 
 
 The various steps involved in preparing a public im< 
 provement program and budget may for convenience 
 be summarized as follows : 
 
 1. Constitutional, statutory, and other legal powers 
 and requirements affecting municipal operations should 
 be analyzed and made known at the start of the study, 
 and the existing organization and procedures of the 
 municipal government reduced to charts and simple 
 statements for use of the staff. 
 
 2. Appropriate individuals or organizations should 
 be directed by the mayor, city manager, or executive 
 officer, to assemble the list of needs and undertake 
 the analysis of financial resources, commitments and 
 procedures. 
 
 3. Concurrently with the initiation of the program- 
 ming study, the public should be acquainted with the 
 purpose and objectives of the procedure so that it will 
 be prepared to act upon or give its approval to actions 
 growing out of adoption of the program by the municipal 
 government. 
 
 4. Appropriate orders or directions should be issued 
 to all departments and officials so that the necessary 
 cooperation will be accorded the programming staff and 
 complete data furnished. 
 
 5. An individual, committee, planning agency, or 
 other organization should be designated for the purpose 
 of reviewing the data resulting from the list of needs and 
 the financial analysis and for the purpose of preparing 
 a program. 
 
 6. Arrangements should be made for the review of 
 the recommendations resulting from point 5 by such 
 intermediate bodies as the Board of Estimate, Finance 
 Committee, or such other groups as appear necessary 
 or desirable. 
 
 7. The municipal government must receive the pro- 
 gram and recommended budget and take action thereon. 
 
 Assuming that a municipality has elected to adopt 
 the procedure, several additional steps or modifications 
 in municipal practice are recommended in order that 
 full benefit and advantage may result. 
 
 First, a procedure is required whereby plans and 
 specifications for the proposed projects may be pre- 
 pared well in advance of actual construction need. 
 This should not be difficult since proposed projects 
 are specifically scheduled in the program for at least 
 
Long-Range Programming of Municipal Public Works 
 
 53 
 
 1 full year in advance, and, in orderly progression for 
 several years thereafter. In order that such advance 
 action may bo most efficiently accomplished, however, 
 the city's engineering and designing departments 
 should be organized on a stabilized basis with a fairly 
 constant staff. 
 
 An excellent example of the advance preparation of 
 detailed plans with a stabilized designing department 
 is found in Richmond, Va. There, every capital appro- 
 priation ordinance specifies that a fixed percentage of 
 the funds shall go to the Bureau of Surveys and Design 
 for surveys and preparation of plans and specifications. 
 By efficient operation the bureau has been able to build 
 up a reserve out of these funds which permits it to main- 
 tain a fairly uniform staff and to prepare plans about a 
 year ahead of schedule. 
 
 Another suggestion is that a revolving fund be 
 established by the municipality, from which advances 
 
 could be made to pay the expenses of preparing plans 
 and specifications. The revolving fund would be 
 reimbursed from the funds ultimately made available 
 for the construction of the project. 
 
 Concurrently with the reorganization of the engineer- 
 ing procedures discussed above, similar measures 
 should be adopted with respect to land acquisition and 
 financing operations, so that plans and surveys, land, 
 and financing may all be provided for well in advance 
 of need and maximum advantage thus gained from 
 the programming procedure. 
 
 Where the programming operation has indicated the 
 need for new legal enactments, or revisions in old ones, 
 or where revisions in the system of records would make 
 the programming operation easier, appropriate recom- 
 mendations to this effect should be made and action 
 initiated by the municipal officials looking toward the 
 accomplishment of these improvements. 
 
54 
 
 National Resources Planning Board 
 
 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF FARGO 
 
 9 BOARD MEMBERS I 
 
 FRANK R. SCOTT, CHAIRMAN 
 
 MRS. EMMA C. FINSAIID, SECY. 
 
 CASPER I. NELSON 
 
 T. 0. HALBEISEN 
 
 GEORGE A. SOULE 
 
 m. E. WRIGHT 
 
 GEORCE VI. JENSON 
 
 MRS. E. E. SLETVOLD 
 
 ONE MEMBERSHIP VACANT 
 
 H. H. KIRK, SUP'T. 
 
 GEO. T. STAJ.U1SH, TREASURER 
 
 3 members ©looted at Special Elootion 
 annually for 3 year terms. 
 
 SOURCES OF REVENUE 
 1. a TAX LEVY I 
 
 I- 
 
 BUDGET 
 
 a. Proparod by Finanoe Committee 
 
 b. Adoptod by Board 
 
 c. Advertlsod A Oponod to Publlo 
 
 d a Submitted to Board Budget Review 
 
 e. Approved A roturoed by B. B. R. 
 
 f. Apprd. A- Cort'd. to Co. Aud. by Bd. 
 
 , aaBOND, G. 0.. (eSKA.Vi Z/z vote roq.) 
 
 , EQUALIZATION FUND 
 
 , STATE A COUNTY TUITION 
 
 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF CITY OF FARGO 
 
 4 COtnnSSIONBRS AND PRESIDENTi 
 
 FRED 0. OLSEN, PRESIDENT 
 
 W. W. FULLER 
 
 J. W. SUTIIEHIJIND 
 
 H. C. CORRIGAJI 
 
 FRED C. HAG EN 
 
 2 Cojmieaionaro eleoted at General 
 Election — Preaident eleoted every other 
 General Elootion. All for 4 yoar toraa. 
 
 BOARD OF DIRECTORS 
 FARGO PUBLIC LIBRARY 
 
 5 MEMBERS! 
 
 W. Li STOCXWELL, PRES 
 lira. W. W. Puller 
 Coaper I. Noleor. 
 Bra. P. W. Farnham 
 IT. L. Airhoaxt 
 
 Inga L. Rynning, 
 Librarian 
 
 BUDGET SUBMISSION - 
 — BUDGET APPROVAL 
 
 BOARD OF PARE COMMISSIONERS OF CITY OF FAP.GO 
 
 5 COMMISSIONERS! 
 
 C. B. KALDRON, CHAIRMAN 
 EMORY G EST IE 
 P. L. B. GODWIN 
 W. P. PORTERPIELD 
 HARRY BOWLAMD 
 
 EMANUEL SGUTT, CLERK 
 
 F. 0. STORRS, SUP'T. OF PARKS 
 
 GEO. T. SIAIID1SH, TREASURER 
 
 PAKXS - TOURIST CAMP - GOLF COURSE 
 
 2 Coomise loners elooted at General Eloo- 
 tion except at 3d Election, when 1 Com- 
 miaaionor ia eleoted. All for 6 year term*. 
 
 SOURCES OF REVENUE 
 
 xPRESENT TAX LEVYi 
 
 16 Milla Oprt'g.-Alrp't. 4 Library 
 1.76 " Def. S. A. Fundat .25 Mills 
 Polloe Pen. Fund: .23 Milla Judgm'ta. 
 
 BUDGETi 
 
 a. Prepared A adopted by Coamlesion 
 
 b. Adv't'd A Opened to Publio 
 
 o. Submitted to Bd. Budget Review 
 
 d. Approved A rotumod to Comu. 
 
 e. Appr'd. A Cert'd. to Co. Aud. by 
 
 xx BONDS. C. 0. 
 
 xxxBONDSi Rev. (Water A Sewer) 
 xxxxS. A. WARRANTS: (Pav. W. A S. Mains) 
 HATER A SEWER REVENUES 
 SPECIAL LICENSES 
 TEMPORARY BORROWING 
 
 L_ 
 
 SOURCES OF REVENUE 
 
 1. TAX LEVY i 1.05 Willi - Oprt'g. 
 
 BUDGET. 
 
 a. Prepared by Canmittoe 
 
 b. Adoptod by ConmtiSBion 
 
 o. Adv't'd. 4 Oponod to Publio 
 
 d. Submitted to Board Budget Review 
 
 e. Approved & roturoed to Conn. 
 
 f. Appr'd. k Cert'd. to Co. Aud. by Bd. 
 
 2. BONDS G. 0. (1 ' A.V. 2/3 vote roq.) 
 
 3. GOLF. TENTHS & TOURIST CAMP FEES 
 
 4. SWIMMING POOL FEES 
 
 5. TBiPORARY BORROWING 
 
 BOARD OF BUDGET REVIEW (7 MEUBERS) 
 
 2 CITY COMMISSION; 2 BOARD OF EDUCATION; 1 PARK 
 COMMISSION; 2 AT LARGE. 
 
 All budgets must be aubmitted to this Board for 
 approval. It haa power to reduce & eliminate 
 expenditures; no power to increase sane. 
 
 All bond iasuoa nuot be approved by the Board of 
 Budget Review prior to election. 
 
 W. FULLER 
 Commission 
 
 Police Departoont 
 
 ChaB. W. Albright, chief 
 
 Fire D o parfaotit 
 
 F. L. Caapion, Chief 
 
 Traffic Control 
 
 C. CORRIGAJI 
 CommiSBionor ; 
 
 Charge 
 
 Airport 
 
 W. P. Tarbell, 
 
 City Engineer in Charge 
 Olojf Anderson, Manager 
 
 Publio Health IJopartaent 
 Dr. A. A. Nichols, 
 
 Health Officer 
 Dr. H. P. Roberts, 
 Inspector 
 Publio Hospital 
 
 George Beyer, Sup*t. 
 
 Publio Fiealth _l^bo_rato_ry_ 
 
 Jane Nichols, Technician 
 Garbage Collection & Disposal 
 
 -Publio Buildings & Grounds 
 Publio Market 
 
 .i utility buildings. 
 
 FRED 0. OLSEII 
 
 Commissioner in Charge 
 
 Legal 
 
 C. C. Wafctam, City Attorney 
 
 Auditing 
 
 Carl Jorgenaon, City Audi- 
 
 AjseaanentB 
 
 Melvin Hagen, City Assosoor 
 
 Funds 
 
 Geo. T. Stendish, Treasurer 
 
 FRED C. BAGEN 
 
 Commissioner in Chargo 
 
 Wator Works System 
 
 W. P. Tarbell, Supt. of 
 
 Dept. (City Engineer) 
 A. C. Ayliffe, 
 
 Sup't. of Filtration 
 Hereon Estegron 
 
 Pumping Station Engineer 
 P. E. Eide, Sup't. of Meter 
 Leona Ziegler, Office Mgr. 
 
 Sewage Disposal Plant 
 
 W. ?. Tarbell, Chief Engr. 
 
 (City Engineer) 
 F. W. Pinney, Sup't. of 
 Plant 
 
 J. W. SUTHERLAND 
 
 Coiaaisoionor in Charge 
 
 Street InproyeciCTits and 
 Li.-htin^; Sowers 
 Alex Duncan 
 
 Sup't. Streets & Sewers 
 
 or Departaent 
 
 «C P. Tarbell, City Engr 
 
 City Scales 
 
 P. A. Eidoaa ) 
 
 Gene Morgan ) Weighers 
 
 R. J. Julian , 
 
 •Engineer Department em- 
 braoos all engineering 
 activities of oity. 
 
 THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CITY OF FARGO CONSISTS* OP FOUR SEPARATE UNITS: BOARD OF CITY COMMISSIONERS OF CITY OF FARGO, BOARD OF PARK COEflSSIOHEHS OF CITY OF FARGO BOARD OF EDUCATION P 
 CITY OF FARGO, AJ.D BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF FARGO PUBLIC LIBRARY. (The Board of Directors of Publio Library is appointed by the Board of Education and receives its funds through the * 
 Board of City Coamisaionero. It is self-determining as to matters pertaining to the maintenance and operation of the Publio Library.) 
 
 UOTE: A Planning Coa-ission was establiehed by ordinance, however, the (Emission as now constituted has r.o le-al standing for the reaaon that the appointments to the Connie 5 ion 
 wero not nade in accordanoe with the statute. The Connisslon has not been active, therefore, it is not included in the above as a branch of City Government. 
 
 CD;ERAL a SPECIAL TAX LEVIES: 
 
 a. SEEMS UNLIMITED (STATS ATTORNEYS RULING), SCHOOL DISTRICT OF FARGO AUTHORIZED UNDER SPECIAL ACT BY WHICH IT WAS AUTHORIZED TO LEVY SUCH TAXES AS MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO OPERATE 
 AND IJUNTAIN SCHOOLS. (Legislation since enacted, linits tax levy for sohool purposes, aocording to opinion of 6 ceo attorneys. The Board of Education is levvine taxes under 
 ruling of offioe 01 state attorney). * b 
 
 ea.MAY BE INCREASED TO 10% OF ASSESSED VALUATION. (2/3 VOTE REQUIRED) . 
 
 X. LEGAL LIMIT--14 MILLS FOR OPERATING 2 MILLS FOR LIBRARY, BANDS AND AIRPORT— 5 MILLS FOR J;DGMENTS-4 MILL FOR POUCE PENSION FUND. LEVIES FOR OPERATITC LIBRARY BANDS AND 
 AIRPORT IIAY BE INCREASED BY 50;1 (60^ VOTE REQUIRED) . NO LEGAL LIMIT, LEVIES FOR SINKING FUND AND FOR DEFICIENCIES IN SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUNDS ' *^»n«*, » 
 
 HAY BE INCREASED TO 6?! OF ASSESSED VALUATION; (2/3 VOTE REQUIRED). MAY ALSO BE INCREASED AN ADDITIONAL 4% OF ASSESSED VALUATION FOR WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ONLY (2/3 VOTE REQUIRED) 
 
 xxx. WATER AIID SEWER BONDS HAY BE ISSUED UP TO AN AMOUNT OF 100^ OF PHYSICAL PROPERTY VALUES, PAYABLE F"0M REVENUES ONLY i ' luwuiJUav; 
 
 xxxx. SPECIAL ASSESSIINT V/ARRANTS IJAY BE ISSUED FOR lOCtf OF COST OF PROJECT: A GErERAL TAX LEVY MAY BE MADE TO MEET DEFICIENCIES IN SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FUNDS (Statute in question, City 
 of Fargo is levying and collecting such taxes). v , * ' iWI » 
 
 ALL TEfTORARY BORROWING MADE ONLY AGAINST TAXES LEVIED ADD NOT COLLECTED. 
 
 ALL TAX LEVIES ARE SPREAD BY THE COUNTY AUDITOR. THE TAX BASE FOR TAX LEVIES IS 50f. OF ASSESSED OR TRUE VALUATION. 
 ALL TAX COLLECTIONS ARE COLLECTED BY THE COUNTY TREASURER AND REMITTANCES MADE MONTHLY. 
 
 OVERLAPPING LEVIES. 
 
 THE AREA SERVED BY THE FOUR GOVEPjr:ENT UNITS IS THE SAME AND OVERLAPPING, THEREFORE, ALL TAX LEVIES AND BOND ISSUES ARE OVERLAPPED. 
 PRESENT LEVY FOR STATE 5.89 MILLS (Statutes provide for substantial increase). 
 PRESENT LEVY FOR COUNTY 9.31 MILLS ( " ■ ■ ■ ■ ). 
 
 TOTAL PRESENT LEVY FOR FARGO— 55.20 MILLS OR $27.60 on $1,000.00 VALUATION. 
 
 THE FISCAL YEAR OP THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BEGINS ON JULY FIRST. 
 
 Source. Fargo Report, p. 6. 
 
 Figure 15— Organization Chart of the Government of Fargo, North Dakota. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 PROGRAMMING ORGANIZATION 
 
 Different types of organization and procedure have 
 been developed in the cities which have undertaken the 
 programming operation. Programming may, as in 
 Milwaukee, Richmond, or Sacramento, be largely the 
 result of the voluntary efforts of the municipal officers. 
 In other places it may be required as a part of the regular 
 duties of the city manager or some other official. In 
 some cities the task is delegated to the planning board 
 as a part of its regular duties. Finally, as in Cin- 
 cinnati or New York, there may be a more complicated 
 procedure in which the planning board or the city 
 manager performs only a part of the operation and a 
 more complex organization is established, involving 
 representatives of the city council, the finance depart- 
 ment, and other sections of the municipal government. 
 
 Examples of these several types of procedure and or- 
 ganization are described in more detail in the following 
 pages. In many cases they are still experimental 
 and will probably pass through numerous alterations 
 before reaching a more or less permanent form. They 
 are presented here as suggestions for use by cities 
 contemplating the adoption of long-range improve- 
 ment programming. Such cities should themselves 
 approach the problem on an experimental basis until 
 a method of procedure is developed which is in keeping 
 with local practices and limitations. 
 
 It is desirable to prepare a chart showing the func- 
 tional and departmental organization of the municipal 
 government, and the relationship to it of any over- 
 lapping units of government as an aid in determining 
 the method of procedure to be followed in preparing the 
 program. An example of such a chart, taken from the 
 report on the procedure at Fargo, N. Dak., follows. 
 
 Eventually, a perfected procedure for programming 
 should be made the subject of appropriate legal enact- 
 ment, in order to insure continuance in the future re- 
 gardless of changes in administration. A great many 
 cities already have permissive legislation available 
 which empowers them to undertake the operation. 
 Permissive sections which might be used for the pur- 
 pose are frequently embodied in legislation establish- 
 ing or permitting the establishment of planning or 
 zoning bodies. The general powers granted to munici- 
 palities can usually also be interpreted as permitting 
 officials to prepare long-range programs as an aid in 
 the discharge of their duties. 
 
 The programming operation seems likely to be most 
 effectively carried on where it is made mandatory, 
 
 rather than where the law merely grants permission. 
 Copies of mandatory legal enactments in actual use 
 are given in appendix A. Three types of city charter 
 provisions, one State-wide law, and one municipal 
 ordinance are included. They are offered as suggestions 
 for use only, and should obviously be modified to suit 
 local conditions. The essential requirement, however, 
 is first to try the operation under existing conditions, 
 until an appropriate procedure is developed. 
 
 City Planning Commissions 
 
 The responsibility for directing that programming 
 shall be undertaken ordinarily rests with a city's chief 
 executive, the governing body, or both. Without 
 their approval or cooperation, little benefit can be 
 expected. The actual work of assembling the data and 
 of making recommendations with respect to the pro- 
 gram and budget must be performed by departmental 
 officials or other persons. In many cities, this task is 
 delegated to the city planning commission or to the 
 planning engineer, assisted by the chief finance officer. 
 
 Montclair, N. J., exemplifies the simplest type of 
 programming procedure centering in the planning body. 
 The town planning board was requested by the board 
 of commissioners to prepare for its consideration, 
 the 1-year and 3-year capital budgets which are re- 
 quired by the State law. In order to comply with 
 this request, the planning board has undertaken to 
 develop a 10-year improvement program to provide a 
 basis for preparation of these two budgets, but whether 
 or not this program will be subject to annual revision 
 has not yet been indicated. The State law is admin- 
 istered by the Local Government Board, a branch of the 
 State government. A copy of the law is contained in 
 appendix A. 
 
 Somewhat more complicated is the procedure devel- 
 oped in Nashville, Tennessee, as an outgrowth of a 
 demonstration study undertaken there. The city 
 council indicated its desire to undertake the study and 
 placed the matter in the hands of the mayor who 
 requested the city planning commission to assemble 
 the data and prepare a recommended program. The 
 city auditor was designated to supply the financial data. 
 
 Department heads and other interested officials and 
 citizens were requested to submit lists of desirable 
 projects to the planning engineer, together with state- 
 ments in justification. On the basis of the financial 
 data supplied by the auditor, a proposed financial policy 
 
 55 
 
56 
 
 National Resources Planning Board 
 
 was suggested by the mayor. The planning engineer 
 then reviewed the lists of proposed projects, and pre- 
 pared a 6-year program to fit the proposed financial 
 policy. After appropriate review by the city planning 
 commission, this program was submitted to the mayor 
 in a report on the entire procedure. Upon receipt of 
 this report, the mayor appointed a citizens' committee 
 to review the recommendations and to advise him with 
 respect to the desires and attitudes of the public. 
 The mayor will later prepare recommendations of his 
 own for submission to the council, after receiving the 
 suggestions of the citizens' committee. 
 
 Boston, Massachusetts, is engaged in a similar 
 demonstration study, to establish long-range public 
 works programming. Data regarding the financial 
 analysis and the needed improvements were assembled 
 by the planning board for this purpose. A committee 
 was appointed, consisting of the mayor as chairman, 
 the chairman of the planning board, the city auditor, 
 and the budget commissioner, to review these data and 
 to assist the mayor in making a final selection of proj- 
 ects for inclusion in his recommended budget and pro- 
 gram. In this last phase of the operation, the Boston 
 procedure is much akin to that followed by the munici- 
 pal government of Cincinnati. 
 
 In Winchester, Massachusetts, where another demon- 
 stration study was established, the task of preparing 
 the program was undertaken by the town planning 
 board under authority of the State law, and with the 
 approval and cooperation of the Board of Selectmen. 
 Winchester operates under the New England town 
 form of government. The members of the planning 
 board and the Board of Selectmen are elected, each 
 board being independent. Financial data were sup- 
 plied through the town auditor by a third body, the 
 independently elected finance committee, which per- 
 forms not only some functions ordinarily entrusted to 
 the comptroller and city auditor, but, in addition, acts 
 as a board of estimate. Data regarding all physical 
 needs were submitted to the planning board by the 
 various department heads, and hearings were held at 
 which each of the department heads was asked to pre- 
 sent further testimony in substantiation of his recom- 
 mended departmental lists. Following the assembly 
 of the data, the planning board, in executive session, 
 prepared the program. 
 
 In undertaking the two annual reviews and extensions 
 of the program in connection with the preparation of 
 the 1940 and 1941 budgets, Winchester found no reason 
 to deviate from the procedures developed initially in 
 1939. The first year of the program is prepared by 
 the planning board and submitted to the finance com- 
 mittee, acting as a board of estimate. The committee 
 reviews the recommendations and prepares its own 
 with respect to each of the projects listed. Projects 
 
 proposed in the first year of the planning board program 
 are then published in the warrant for the annual town 
 meeting, along with the recommendations of the finance 
 committee, and are acted upon at this meeting. The 
 planning board's program and report is a public docu- 
 ment which has been distributed previously to the 
 citizens. 
 
 An interesting point regarding the Winchester pro- 
 cedure is that the town planning board appears to be 
 unusually well prepared to develop a program since the 
 members of the board include not only individuals with 
 a planning outlook but past chairmen of the finance 
 committee and board of selectmen of the town and other 
 officers, who from past experience are able to bring 
 broad knowledge of town affairs to bear upon the prob- 
 lem. Upon completion of their official duties, these 
 officers are frequently graduated to the planning board 
 for further civic duty. 
 
 The procedure established by charter in New York 
 City requires that the program be prepared by the city 
 planning commission and is much more complicated 
 than the operations previously described. Data on the 
 financial condition of the city, and an opinion on the 
 maximum amount and nature of the debt which may 
 be incurred during the next 6 years are submitted to 
 the mayor and other boards and commissions by the 
 comptroller and the budget director. A statement is 
 also prepared on the probable effect of such additional 
 capital expenditures upon future operating expenses. 
 The mayor is then required by charter to indicate to the 
 planning board and the other branches of the govern- 
 ment w r hat, in his opinion, is the amount of debt which 
 may safely be incurred for capital projects during the 
 ensuing year, with his recommendations regarding proj- 
 ects to be included in the capital budget. 
 
 A director of capital budget assembles the list of needs 
 for the planning board and holds departmental hearings 
 for the purpose of allowing the departments to present 
 further data in substantiation of their proposed projects. 
 Public hearings on these projects are also held. The 
 planning board prepares a recommended 6-year pro- 
 gram and the first year and is proposed as the capital 
 budget. The proposed program and budget are then 
 submitted to the board of estimate, the council, the 
 budget director, and the comptroUer. The comptroller 
 reviews the program and submits recommendations to 
 the board and the council. 
 
 The board of estimate may shift the order of projects 
 in the proposed program and capital budget by a major- 
 ity vote but may add new projects only by affirmative 
 vote of three-quarters of its members. Following public 
 hearings and adoption by the board of estimate, the 
 program and budget are referred to the city council, 
 which may adopt it as submitted or may revise it by 
 striking out projects. The council may not increase 
 
Long-Range Programming of Municipal Public Works 
 
 57 
 
 the program under any circumstances. It is perhaps 
 too early to comment on the results of the New York 
 procedure, as the planning board is charged with duties 
 with respect to the program which approach the char- 
 acter of legislative authority. Many elements of pro- 
 cedure must still be worked out, and these will require 
 time if the operation is to receive a fair trial. 
 
 Summarizing the discussion of those programming 
 proceedure in which the city planning commission ini- 
 tially prepares the program, provision is usually made 
 for some form of intermediate review of the program 
 before it is submitted to the governing body. This is 
 an additional assurance that it will reflect the various 
 policies, opinions, and points of view prevailing within 
 the community. This is exemplified in Nashville by 
 the appointment of a citizens' committee to review the 
 program; in Winchester by the intermediate review of 
 the program by the finance committee, and in. New 
 York by the public hearings and the action of the 
 board of estimate upon the program before passing it 
 on to the city council. 
 
 A similar procedure appears to be desirable in all 
 cases where the adoption of long-range programming is 
 contemplated. A committee might be organized to 
 act along with the planning body, as in Boston, or pro- 
 vision might be made for critical review of the program 
 by other persons or organizations. In such case, it is 
 suggested that the committee acting jointly with the 
 planning unit include representatives of the general 
 operating and finance departments, and of the governing 
 body, with perhaps representatives of the public at 
 large. 
 
 Informal Individual Action 
 
 The simplest possible procedure is that in which 
 some one individual is delegated with the responsibility 
 for the preparation of the program, whether on a formal 
 or an informal basis. In Richmond, for example, the 
 chief of the Bureau of Surveys and Design of the 
 Department of Public Works prepared a comprehensive 
 program for the city. This was done on his own 
 initiative in 1933 and included recommendations for 
 continuing the operation thereafter. Although the 
 Richmond procedure has not been formalized, the 
 resulting program served for several years as a basis 
 for approaching the problem of public improvements 
 generally. It was also used as a reservoir from which 
 to select projects for submission to the Public Works 
 Administration for grants. The program also served 
 as the basis for the stabilization of the personnel of the 
 Bureau of Surveys and Design, who were consequently 
 permitted to proceed in a more orderly and uniform 
 manner with the advance preparation of plans and 
 specifications. 
 
 The program in Milwaukee was also prepared by an 
 
 250134 — 41 5 
 
 individual, but in this case at the express direction of 
 the city government. The procedure grew out of the 
 desire of the city government to finance improvements 
 out of current revenues. The commissioner of public 
 works was requested to review the financial condition 
 of the city and also to prepare a list of those improve- 
 ments which were deemed to be desirable in order to 
 place the city in a first-class condition. This list 
 totaled approximately 55 million dollars, but the 
 financial analysis indicated that, on the basis of the 
 existing tax rate, only about 17 million dollars would be 
 available from current revenues during the next 7 
 years for construction purposes. An additional tax 
 levy to run for 10 years was approved by vote of the 
 people, in order that construction of such of the 
 listed improvements as were considered most urgent 
 could be undertaken. At the direction of the common 
 council a survey was then made by the commissioner 
 of public works, the city engineer and other officials, 
 of the city's needs in bridges, viaducts, and similar 
 items, for the next 10 years, to serve as a basis for the 
 expenditure of the additional tax funds so provided. 
 
 The procedure followed in Milwaukee has not been 
 formalized to the extent of providing for orderly periodic 
 review and revision of the public improvement program. 
 The operation is, nevertheless, of great advantage as 
 the list of projects resulting from its efforts to achieve 
 a pay-as-you-go policy is annually considered by the 
 Board of Estimate and the Finance Committee of the 
 City Council, and provides a basis for the recommenda- 
 tion of projects to be undertaken during the ensuing 
 year. Similar procedures have been practiced in the 
 City of Two Rivers, Wis., and Schenectady, N. Y., with 
 beneficial results. 
 
 Programming of an informal sort has been practiced 
 for a number of years in Sacramento by the city man- 
 ager as an aid in the discharge of his duties. He 
 developed methods for reviewing in advance the 
 finances and capital requirements of the municipality, 
 which permitted him to anticipate these needs and to 
 prepare recommendations to the council for capital 
 improvements based on long-range concepts. 
 
 The examples recited above are presented primarily 
 to point out that the advance programming of public 
 works may be undertaken in most communities, even 
 if on an informal basis. There are, nevertheless, 
 certain draw-backs to such informal or individual types 
 of procedure. First, in the absence of formal methods, 
 the continuance of the operation depends entirely 
 upon the continued interest of the individuals in office. 
 Secondly, where a program is prepared by an individual, 
 it may not reflect all the points of view which should be 
 brought to bear upon the problem. The old saying 
 that two heads are better than one might well be applied 
 to public improvement programming. Wherever pos- 
 
58 
 
 National Resources Planning Board 
 
 sible, provision should be made for review of individually 
 prepared programs by other responsible officials or 
 committees before adoption. A more formal procedure 
 would be preferable. 
 
 City-Manager Cities 
 
 In those cities where a city-manager form of govern- 
 ment exists, programming procedures are likely to be 
 of a simple pattern. The city manager generally takes 
 the lead in preparing the program. One marked ex- 
 ample of deviation from this method is found in Cin- 
 cinnati, where a much more complex procedure is in 
 operation. 
 
 In San Diego, the city manager is required by charter 
 to submit a long-range program of proposed public 
 improvements as part of his annual estimate of finan- 
 cial requirements. In undertaking this assigned task, 
 the city manager delegates the work of actually pre- 
 paring the program of physical needs to the city plan- 
 ning engineer, and designates a finance officer to pre- 
 pare the financial analysis. These data provide a basis 
 for the manager's recommendations to the council for 
 public improvements. The procedure has been in oper- 
 ation for only a few years and details of procedure 
 have not yet been perfected, but it has already proved 
 of great value. 
 
 A demonstration study in Sacramento resulted, after 
 some elaboration upon the existing procedure, in a more 
 formalized method of programming public improve- 
 ments. The city manager assumed reponsibility for 
 undertaking the procedure as part of his regular duties, 
 and assembled the list of needed improvements from 
 departmental lists of proposed projects and from other 
 sources available to him. Discussions with depart- 
 ment heads were held to develop further facts. The 
 financial analysis was prepared under the direction of 
 the city auditor. The proposed program was developed 
 from these data, with due regard for the various ele- 
 ments, attitudes, and policies within the city which 
 would have a bearing upon it, and was then submitted 
 to the city council as the manager's recommendations 
 with respect to public improvements and the capital 
 budget. Similar procedures were followed in Kala- 
 mazoo, Michigan. 
 
 In Dallas, Texas, preparation of the program was 
 undertaken by the city manager, and the resulting 
 recommendations represent his capital budget message 
 to the council. Certain variations in procedure were 
 developed in Dallas which are worth recording. Both 
 the task of assembling the list of needs and that of 
 preparing the financial analysis were delegated to a 
 single official, the assistant director of finance, who is 
 the executive head of the Finance Department. Lists 
 of desirable projects were submitted to him by all of 
 the departments, and in addition he prepared the finan- 
 
 cial analysis. These data were then submitted to the 
 city manager, who requested the city planning engineer, 
 the traffic engineer, and the director of the department 
 of public works, each to review the list of needs inde- 
 pendently, and to submit recommendations with respect 
 to the selection of priorities. The city manager re- 
 viewed the financial data and proposed a financial 
 policy upon which to base the size of the program. 
 Following the receipt of recommendations from the 
 planning and traffic engineers, and the public works 
 director, the city manager then made a selection of 
 project priorities and prepared a proposed program, 
 which was submitted to the city council in the form of 
 an annual capital budget message. 
 
 With respect to city manager cities, the Dallas pro- 
 cedure is of particular interest in that several points 
 of view are focused upon the program through pro- 
 vision for review of the data by other officials. In the 
 absence of a more formal organization, this appears to 
 be a desirable procedure. It might be of advantage 
 to organize a formal committee composed of the offi- 
 cials mentioned above, together with the city manager, 
 a member of the city council, and perhaps other mem- 
 bers at large. In any case, provision for review and 
 for submission to the city manager of advisory recom- 
 mendations based on various points of view is a wise 
 procedure and should be followed whenever possible 
 in other cities of this type. It would be desirable, 
 wherever a city planning organization exists, to make 
 that department responsible for compiling the list of 
 needs and related recommendations, and for preparing 
 the program. 
 
 School Districts 
 
 School districts are frequently independent govern- 
 mental units possessing separate taxing powers, and 
 are usually simple in their structure or organization, 
 since they have but a single function to perform. 
 Programming is a relatively simple matter, and is at 
 the same time a very valuable aid to the orderly pro- 
 vision of schools, playgrounds, equipment, and other 
 physical requirements called for by modern educational 
 practices. 
 
 A good example of how the programming operation 
 may be applied in a school district is found in the 
 procedure of the Milwaukee school district. A com- 
 mittee composed of members and employees of the 
 school board, appointed by the superintendent of 
 schools on his own initiative, biennially revises a 
 5-year program of school construction and other 
 capital requirements. This has been carried on since 
 1923 with much success. Other school districts have 
 advantageously programmed their needs also, but 
 usually on a less formal basis. It is suggested that all 
 independent school districts serving thickly populated 
 
Long-Range Programming oj Municipal Public Works 
 
 59 
 
 areas will derive much benefit from adoption of long- 
 range methods of programming their required im- 
 provements. 
 
 Cooperative Types of Procedure 
 
 The programming procedures described above cover 
 situations where only a single governmental unit is 
 concerned. More complicated types of organization 
 are required in cities where the programs of several 
 overlapping but independent taxing authorities must 
 be coordinated. Two separate objectives are to be 
 attained under such circumstances. First, procedures 
 are required for programming the public improvements 
 of each of the separate taxing units concerned, and 
 secondly, methods are required for coordinating these 
 separate programs in the interest of community-wide 
 development. The programming operations in Cin- 
 cinnati, Ohio, and in Fargo, N. Dak., illustrate 
 procedures developed to meet such situations. 
 
 The Cincinnati community contains three principal 
 overlapping taxing authorities: The Cincinnati munici- 
 pal government, Hamilton County, and the Cincinnati 
 school district. A procedure has been developed, at 
 the joint suggestion of the City Planning Commission 
 and the Bureau of Government Research, for reviewing 
 the proposed public improvement programs of these 
 three governmental units and of relating them to over- 
 all community requirements and financial resources. 
 The cooperative part of the procedure is unofficial, 
 although preparation of the municipal program and 
 participation of the municipal government in the 
 procedure have both been formalized by passage of a 
 city ordinance. The programming procedures of the 
 county and school district have not been given legal 
 recognition. 
 
 The operation of the municipal procedure is as fol- 
 lows: the city manager of Cincinnati is required by 
 ordinance to assemble a list of the projects proposed by 
 the various departments and individuals, but in doing 
 so acts as agent for the city council. The council 
 refers these lists to the City Joint Improvement Pro- 
 gram Committee (hereafter called the city committee) 
 composed of the city manager, a member of the coun- 
 cil (usually the chairman of the finance committee), 
 and a member of the city planning commission who 
 serves as chairman of the committee. The city audi- 
 tor acts as secretary of this committee. Thus, by direct 
 representation, the planning, operating, financial, and 
 legislative points of view are all brought immediately 
 to bear upon the preparation of the program. The 
 financial analysis upon which the program must be 
 based is prepared by the local Bureau of Govern- 
 mental Research in connection with its financial anal- 
 ysis for the entire community including the school 
 district and the county government. 
 
 The procedure calls for a tentative 5-year improve- 
 ment program to be selected by the city committee 
 from the projects contained in the list of needs on the 
 basis of the financial analysis, but the municipal ordi- 
 nance requires that it then be submitted to the City- 
 Wide Joint Improvement Program Committee (here- 
 after called the joint committee) for review and coordi- 
 nation before adoption. This joint committee is com- 
 posed of representatives of the city, the school district, 
 and the county. The director of the Bureau of Gov- 
 ernmental Research sits as a nonvoting advisory mem- 
 ber. The proposed programs of the county and the 
 school district are also submitted to the joint com- 
 mittee at the same time so that all three may be 
 integrated. 
 
 The joint committee reviews the suggested programs 
 and capital budgets of all three governmental units, in 
 the light of the financial analysis prepared by the Bureau 
 of Governmental Research. Adjustments in the several 
 programs are proposed in accordance with the indicated 
 relative importance of the needs of the several taxing 
 units and also in consideration of the financial situation 
 of the community as a whole. The adjusted programs 
 as recommended by the joint committee are then re- 
 ported back to the separate legislative or governing 
 bodies for final adoption. 
 
 A somewhat similar situation exists in the city of 
 Fargo, N. Dak., a community of less than one-tenth the 
 size of Cincinnati having a commission form of gov- 
 ernment. Three independent governing bodies per- 
 form functions within the city limits. These are the 
 board of commissioners, the board of education, and the 
 board of park commissioners. The board of directors 
 of the Fargo Public Library, a semi-independent body, 
 must also be included. As a result of a demonstration 
 study established there, a cooperative procedure was 
 worked out for the initial preparation of an improve- 
 ment program. This procedure will probably be modi- 
 fied through experiences gained in conducting the 
 operation in future years, but is now as follows. 
 
 Each of the governmental units within the city ap- 
 pointed representatives from among its members or 
 staff to sit as a joint program committee to supervise 
 the undertaking. Lists of projects and financial data 
 were collected from all of the various departments and 
 governmental units by a staff assigned to the joint 
 program committee for the purpose. A complete 
 financial analysis, by units, and also for the whole com- 
 munity, was prepared and the probable financial effect 
 of the proposed programs and projects was shown. 
 These data were presented to the governing bodies in 
 the form of a joint report. 
 
 A city planning commission has now been appointed 
 to review the data contained in the report, and make 
 
60 
 
 National Resources Planning Board 
 
 recommendations with respect to the size and content 
 of the several programs which should be adopted. 
 With the report and these recommendations as a guide, 
 each of the governing bodies will then make an actual 
 selection of projects for construction and prepare a 
 program in keeping with its indicated resources. 
 
 The final step in the procedure for all four units in 
 Fargo will be for the board of budget review to pass upon 
 the proposed programs. This board, which consists 
 of representatives of the several governing bodies within 
 the city, plus members at large, is an official body, and 
 has the duty of passing upon the proposed budgets 
 and upon all proposed bond programs of each of the 
 governing units. In passing upon the proposed pro- 
 grams, it will no doubt consider their effect upon the 
 over-all taxes of the city and, if necessary, make recom- 
 mendations regarding changes indicated by current 
 financial policies or problems. Because the board has 
 only veto power, however, it will not be possible for 
 it to propose increases in the several programs. 
 
 It is as yet too early to indicate the form of procedure 
 which will ultimately be adopted in Fargo, since the 
 inter-relationship of the several interlocking and over- 
 lapping governmental units complicates the operation 
 to such an extent that several years will probably be 
 required to refine and perfect these operations. Some 
 simplification in procedure will no doubt be effected. 
 Nevertheless, an interesting system of checks and bal- 
 ances with respect to the selection of capital improve- 
 
 ments and the expenditure of capital funds for the entire 
 community is indicated. 
 
 The matter of cooperative effort in the preparation 
 of long-range improvement programs in communities 
 composed of several independent overlapping taxing 
 authorities deserves special consideration. All funds 
 for the maintenance and operation of the several units 
 of government in these cities must be derived from one 
 source, the citizens of the community. The lack of 
 cooperation between the separate units may result in 
 concentration upon the program of one unit, to the det- 
 riment of the others, and may also permit groups outside 
 the government to bring about the construction of 
 projects not in keeping with the economical develop- 
 ment of the community as a whole. It is strongly 
 urged that every effort be made, in those municipali- 
 ties where a complex governmental structure exists, to 
 develop cooperative procedures for programming munic- 
 ipal improvements along the lines demonstrated by the 
 Cincinnati and Fargo examples. 
 
 The National Resources Planning Board, in its re- 
 port, Public Works Planning, in 1936, suggested another 
 form of cooperative programming which would involve 
 the establishment of "Metropolitan Public Works 
 Councils." Through this device it was suggested that 
 Federal, State, and local programs of public works 
 affecting the same area might be coordinated and 
 interwoven to the advantage of all of the agencies 
 concerned and of the inhabitants of the area as a 
 whole. 
 
APPENDIX A 
 
 STATUTES, ORDINANCES AND CHARTER PROVISIONS 
 
 SAN DIEGO CITY CHARTER PROVISIONS * 
 
 Article VII. Finance 
 
 Section 68. Budget and Accounting System. — A complete 
 budget and accounting system of municipal receipts and expendi- 
 tures is hereby established. The council may make changes, 
 amendments or modifications in said budget system to make it 
 conform to amendments hereafter made in said budget law, and 
 such other changes, amendments or modifications herein, not 
 affecting the substance or completeness of said system as the 
 council shall have power to make under the laws and constitu- 
 tion of the State. 
 
 Section 69. fiscal Year and Manager's Estimate. — The fiscal 
 year of the city shall begin with the first day of July and shall 
 end with the next succeeding 30th day of June. On or before 
 the first meeting in May of each year the manager shall prepare 
 and submit to the council a budget of the expense of conducting 
 the affairs of the city for the ensuing fiscal year. Departments 
 not under the manager shall submit their annual budget esti- 
 mates to the manager, or to such official as he may designate, 
 and in such form as he shall require on or before April 15 for 
 transmittal in proper form by the manager to the council. The 
 budget shall include a summary outline of the fiscal policy of the 
 city for the budget year, describing in connection therewith the 
 important features of the budget plan; a general budget sum- 
 mary setting forth the aggregate figures of the budget in such 
 manner as to show the balanced relations between the total 
 proposed expenditures and the total anticipated income and 
 other means of financing the budget for the ensuing year, 
 contrasted with the corresponding figures for the current year. 
 The classification of the estimate shall be as nearly uniform as 
 possible for the main divisions of all departments and shall give 
 the following information: 
 
 (a) A detailed estimate of the expense of conducting each 
 department and office of the city for the ensuing fiscal year; 
 showing the objects of expenditures such as personal service, 
 contractual service, materials and supplies, equipment, capital 
 outlays, and fixed charges; and further consolidated or sum- 
 marized under funds, organization units, and character of 
 expenditure; 
 
 (b) Expenditures for the corresponding items for the current 
 year including the amounts estimated to the end of the current 
 fiscal year with reason for increases and decreases recommended 
 as compared with appropriations for the current year; 
 
 (c) The total value of supplies and materials on hand in each 
 
 ■ Excerpt taken from Charter of the City of San Diego, California, adopted at the 
 General Election, Tuesday, April 7, 1931, approved by the Legislature, April 15, 1931, 
 pp. 37 and 38. Paragraph j of Section 69 requires particularly that the City Manager 
 prepare a long-term program of improvements. 
 
 department at the date of the preparation of the estimate; 
 
 (d) The total amount of city debt outstanding together with a 
 schedule of maturities of bond issues by departments, and state- 
 ment of borrowing capacity; 
 
 (e) A statement of the amounts which should be appropriated : 
 
 (1) For interest on the city debt, 
 
 (2) For paying off any serial bonds maturing during the year, 
 
 (3) For payment on lease contracts, 
 
 (4) For the aggregate of the year for the equal installments 
 required to be appropriated annually during the life of all other 
 bonds of the municipality in order to accumulate a fund sufficient 
 to pay off such other bonds at maturity. 
 
 (5) For disability and retirement payments, in addition to the 
 contributions of city employees, sufficient to maintain the respec- 
 tive funds; 
 
 (f) An estimate of the amount which should be appropriated 
 for contingent or emergency purposes; 
 
 (g) An itemization of all anticipated revenues of the city from 
 sources other than taxes, shown by departments; 
 
 (h) An item to be known as the "unappropriated balance" 
 which sum shall be available for appropriation later in the fiscal 
 year to meet contingencies which might arise. The budget shall 
 also contain an item to be known as the "reserve fund," which 
 shall be carried over to the next ensuing fiscal year following the 
 fiscal year for which the budget is prepared, to meet the cash 
 requirements of the city for the portion of said next ensuing fiscal 
 year prior to the receipt of taxes thereon, or for appropriations to 
 the unappropriated balance fund, -provided, That the Council shall 
 create gradually such "reserve fund" as provided in Section 91 
 of this article and shall add from year to year an amount sufficient 
 to meet the cash requirements of the city; -provided, however, 
 That no transfers from this "reserve fund" shall be made at ary 
 time, except as authorized and limited in Section 91 of this 
 article. 
 
 fi) An estimate of the amount of money to be raised from taxes 
 and bond issues which, with revenue from other sources, should 
 be necessary to meet the expenditures proposed; 
 
 (j) A long-time program of proposed activities, developments, 
 and improvements listed in order of relative importance and 
 specifying whether the work is to be done by bond issue or by 
 taxation ; 
 
 (k) Such other information as the manager may think desirable 
 or as may be required by the council. The council shall provide 
 for printing a reasonable number of copies of the estimate thus 
 prepared, for distribution to citizens at least 15 days before final 
 passage. Copies shall also be furnished to the newspapers of the 
 city and to each library thereof which is open to the public. 
 
 CINCINNATI, OHIO, MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE 
 
 Joint Improvement Program 
 
 1. There shall be a city joint improvement program committee 
 consisting of a member of council selected by it, the city manager, 
 and a member of the city planning commission selected by it. 
 
 2. The city auditor shall act as secretary of the city joint im- 
 provement program committee without extra compensation. 
 
 3. The members of the city improvement program committee 
 shall represent the city on the joint improvement program com- 
 mittee, 2 consisting of representatives of the city, school district 
 of Cincinnati, and the county of Hamilton. 
 
 i Summary taken from the Manual on Procedure adopted as a municipal ordinance 
 by the Cincinnati Council. 
 • A purely voluntary and unofficial body. 
 
 61 
 
62 
 
 National Resources I'lanirivg Board 
 
 4. The annual city joint improvement program shall consist 
 of a detailed statement of the proposed expenditures from the 
 proceeds of the sale of bonds and otherwise for permanent 
 improvements for the bond year which shall begin October 1. 
 
 5. The city manager, in January of each year, shall request 
 each department, board, and commission of the city to submit 
 an estimate of the proposed annual expenditures for permanent 
 improvements for the next 5-year period. He shall furnish each 
 department, board, and commission five copies of each of Forms 
 C and D. 
 
 Form C shall set forth expenditures for permanent improve- 
 ments which are to be financed out of current tax levies and 
 special levies. 
 
 Form D shall set forth expenditures for permanent improve- 
 ments which are to be financed out of bond funds. If certain 
 bonds have been authorized by the electors, Form D shall set 
 forth the number, title, and amount authorized; the amount 
 issued, if any, and expenditures to date. If certain bonds have 
 not been authorized by the electors, Form D shall set forth 
 separately the title and amount proposed for referendum. 
 
 6. Each department, board, and commission on or before Apri' 
 1 shall submit their programs in quadruplicate on Forms C and 
 D to the city manager who shall transmit them to the city 
 council. 
 
 6a. The city council shall, before April 15, transmit such 
 programs with their recommendations, if any, to the city joint 
 improvement program committee. (Amendment adopted by 
 council, Wednesday, December 21, 1938.) 
 
 7. The city joint improvement program committee shall, 
 before May 1, prepare for submission to the joint improvement 
 program committee a tentative bond program for a 5-year 
 period. 
 
 8. The city joint improvement program committee shall report 
 to council the recommendation of the joint improvement program 
 committee and transmit a proposed bond program for the en- 
 suing year. 
 
 9. Council shall refer the proposed joint improvement program 
 to the finance committee, who shall consult the appropriate 
 committees of council. 
 
 10. The finance committee of council shall report to council the 
 proposed program with their recommendation. 
 
 11. Council shall adopt a program which shall be followed 
 unless amended by council. 
 
 12. The city clerk shall transmit a copy of the joint improve- 
 ment program and any amendment thereto to the city auditor, 
 who shall report to council any proposed variation from the joint 
 improvement program. 
 
 13. The finance committee shall, at least 65 days prior to 
 the election at which it is intended to submit proposed bond 
 issues to the voters, report resolutions declaring the necessity 
 of each referendum bond issue authorized in the joint improve- 
 ment program but not yet authorized by the electors. 
 
 14. The clerk, upon passage of such resolutions, shall certify 
 same to county auditor at least 60 days prior to said election. 
 
 15. Council shall refer the certification of the county auditor 
 to the finance committee who, more than 40 days prior to said 
 election, shall report to council a resolution fixing an average 
 tax levy. 
 
 16. The clerk of council shall certify the resolution to the 
 deputy state supervisors of elections of Hamilton County. 
 
 17. If the contract for any improvement is not let during the 
 bond year, the authorization lapses unless included in the next 
 bond year's program. 
 
 NEW YORK CITY CHARTER PROVISIONS 1 
 
 Chapter 9. Capital Budget 
 
 Definitions 
 
 Sec. 211. As used in this chapter: 1. The term "capital 
 project" shall mean: 
 
 (a) Any physical public betterment or improvement or any 
 preliminary studies and surveys relative thereto. 
 
 (b) The acquisition of property cf a permanent nature. 
 
 (c) The purchase of equipment for any public betterment or 
 improvement when first erected or acquired. 
 
 It shall not include any public betterment or improvement, the 
 acquisition of any real property or the purchase of any equip- 
 ment, any part of the total cost and expenses of which shall be 
 paid out of the proceeds of assessments, nor the repavement of 
 any street, avenue, highway, or public place. 
 
 2. The term "pending" shall mean authorized but not yet 
 completed. 
 
 Report of Comptroller 
 
 Sec. 212. Not later than the fifteenth day of August in each 
 year, the comptroller shall submit to the board of estimate, to 
 the council, to the city planning commission, and to the director 
 of the budget, a report which shall be published forthwith in the 
 city record, setting forth the amount and nature of all obligations 
 authorized on account of each pending capital project, the liabili- 
 ties incurred for each project outstanding on the first day of 
 July, and setting forth and commenting in detail upon the 
 
 1 Excerpt from New York City Charter, adopted at the General Election held 
 November 3, 1930, pages 24, 25, and 26. 
 
 city's financial condition and advising as to the maximum amount 
 and nature of debt which in his opinion the city may soundly 
 incur for capital projects during each of the six succeeding calen- 
 dar years, ar.d containing such other information as may be 
 required by the city planning commission or by law. 
 
 Departmental Estimates for Capital Projects 
 
 Sue. 213. On such date as the mayor may direct, but not later 
 than the 15th day of August, the head of each agency shall 
 submit to the city planning commission and the director of the 
 budget a detailed estimate of all capital projects pending or 
 which he believes should be undertaken within the 6 succeeding 
 calendar years. Such estimates shall be known as departmental 
 estimates for capital projects and shall be in such form and 
 contain such information as may be required by the city planning 
 commission, by the director of the budget or by law. Such 
 departmental estimates shall be public records and shall at all 
 reasonable times be open to public inspection. 
 
 Report of Director of the Budget 
 
 Sec. 214. Not later than the 1st day of September, the direc- 
 tor of the budget shall report to the mayor his recommendation 
 as to the maximum amount and nature of debt wdiich in his 
 opinion the city may soundly incur for capital projects during 
 each of the 6 succeeding calendar years, the probable effect of 
 such expenditures upon the expense budgets for each of such 
 years and such comments and recommendations as he may 
 deem advisable. 
 
 Certificate of the Mayor 
 
 Sec. 215. Not later than the 15th day of September, the mayor 
 
Long-Range Programming of Municipal Public Works 
 
 63 
 
 shall submit to the city planning commission the report of the 
 director of the budget, together with the mayor's certificate as 
 to the maximum amount of debt which in his opinion the city 
 may soundly incur for capital projects during the ensuing calen- 
 dar year with his recommendations as to the capital projects to 
 be included in the capital budget. 
 
 Proposed Capital Budget; Preparation 
 
 Sec. 216. Each member of the board of estimate and such 
 member of the council as the council shall designate shall have 
 the right to attend in person or by a representative any and all 
 hearings conducted by the city planning commission at which 
 the heads of agencies or their representatives or subordinates 
 appear to explain their departmental estimates, to ask such 
 questions and to require the production of such papers and 
 records at such hearings as may seem to him appropriate and 
 proper. The budget director shall attend in person or by a 
 representative all such hearings and shall render to the city 
 planning commission such assistance and advice as it may require 
 in the preparation of the proposed capital budget. The public 
 may be present at such hearings but shall not have the right to 
 be heard, but the commission shall, before taking action on the 
 proposed capital budget, hold hearings thereon at which the 
 public may be heard. Notice of such hearings shall be published 
 in the city record at least 5 days prior thereto. 
 
 Proposed Capital Budget and Program; Submission 
 
 Sec. 217. Not later than the 1st day of November, the city 
 planning commission shall submit to the board of estimate, to 
 the council, to the director of the budget and to the comptroller 
 a proposed capital budget for all authorizations recommended 
 to be adopted for the ensuing calendar year the aggregate amount 
 of which shall not exceed the amount specified in the mayor's 
 certificate, and a capital program for the 5 calendar years next 
 succeeding such ensuing calendar year, both of which shall be 
 published forthwith in the city record. 
 
 Proposed Capital Budget and Program; Contents 
 
 Sec. 218. The proposed capital budget and program shall be 
 arranged in such manner as to set forth clearly: 
 
 1. As to each pending capital project; a brief description, the 
 original estimated cost, the date of authorization, the amount 
 and nature of obligations authorized, the amount and maturities 
 of such obligations issued, the amount of all liabilities outstand- 
 ing and the encumbered balances of authorizations on the 1st 
 day of July, the amount of liabilities estimated to be incurred 
 during the balance of the calendar year and the estimated addi- 
 tional appropriation required for completion. 
 
 2. As to each new capital project recommended; a brief 
 lescription, the calendar year in which it is recommended to be 
 indertaken and the total estimated cost. 
 
 3. As to each project; the estimated date of completion, the 
 amount of liabilities estimated to be incurred in each of the 6 
 succeeding calendar years, the estimated useful existence, the 
 amounts, the nature and terms of obligations recommended to 
 be authorized in each of the 6 succeeding calendar years and the 
 estimated annual maintenance and service charges. 
 
 4. Any recommendation that a pending project be modified or 
 abandoned or further authorization therefor postponed. 
 
 5. A brief description of each new project recommended in the 
 several departmental estimates, but not recommended by the 
 city planning commission to be undertaken within the 6 succeed- 
 ing calendar years, with the reason why such project is not 
 recommended. 
 
 6. Such other information as the city planning commission 
 may deem pertinent or as may be required by law. 
 
 When a project is divisible the information required shall be 
 set forth for each part thereof. 
 
 Recommendations of Comptroller 
 
 Sec. 219. Not later than the 15th day of November, the 
 comptroller shall submit to the board of estimate and to the 
 council a report, which shall be published forthwith in the city 
 record, containing such comments and recommendations with 
 respect to the proposed capital budget and program as he may 
 deem advisable. 
 
 Proposed Capital Budget; Hearings 
 
 Sec. 220. Between the 15th and the 25th days of November, 
 both inclusive, the board of estimate shall hold public hearings 
 on the proposed capital budget, and the officers of agencies 
 shall have the right, and it shall be their duty when requested 
 by the board of estimate, to appear and be heard. 
 
 Capital Budget; Adoption by Board of Estimate 
 
 Sec. 221. Between the 25th day of November and the 4th 
 day of December, both inclusive, the board of estimate shall 
 adopt a capital budget for the ensuing calendar year. Should 
 the board of estimate fail within such period of time to adopt 
 such capital budget, it shall be deemed to have been adopted in 
 the form submitted by the city planning commission. 
 
 The capital budget shall specify the capital projects which 
 may be undertaken during the ensuing calendar year and shall 
 fix the maximum amount of new obligations of the city which 
 may be authorized during such year to be incurred on account of 
 each such project and each pending project and the nature, 
 terms and maximum amount of the obligations which the comp- 
 troller may be authorized to issue for the liquidation of such 
 liabilities. 
 
 The board of estimate may include in the capital budget any 
 capital project which was included by the city planning com- 
 mission in the capital program. It may, not less than 15 days 
 prior to the adoption of the capital budget, request the city 
 planning commission to furnish, with respect to a project not 
 included in the capital program, information similar to that 
 included in said program with its recommendations. Such 
 information shall be submitted within 10 days and shall be 
 published forthwith in the city record. If the city planning 
 commission recommends such project the board of estimate 
 may include it in the capital budget. If the city planning com- 
 mission does not recommend the project the board of estimate 
 may include it only by a three-fourths vote. The board of 
 estimate shall not adopt except by a three-fourths vote any 
 capital budget pursuant to which obligations exceeding in the 
 aggregate the amount stated in the mayor's certificate, may be 
 issued. 
 
 Capital Budget; Adoption by Council 
 
 Sec. 222. Not later than the 6th day of December, the capital 
 budget as adopted by the board of estimate shall be certified 
 by the mayor and submitted to the council and shall be published 
 forthwith in the city record. Immediately upon such submission 
 a special meeting of the council shall be called by the president 
 of the council to consider such capital budget, which considera- 
 tion shall continue from day to day, but not beyond the 27th 
 day of December, until final action is taken thereon. Should the 
 council take no final action on such capital budget on or before 
 the 27th day of December, it shall be deemed to be finally 
 adopted as submitted by the board of estimate. 
 
 The council may strike out in its entirety any authorization 
 in the capital budget as submitted, but may not add to or 
 increase or vary the terms or conditions of any authorization 
 in such capital budget as submitted. 
 
64 
 
 National Resources Planning Board 
 
 Capital Budget; Certification 
 
 Sec. 223. Not later than the 29th day of December, the 
 capital budget as adopted by the council shall be certified by 
 the president of the council and transmitted to the mayor. 
 
 Not later than the 31st day of December, the capital budget as 
 finally adopted in such year shall be certified by the mayor, the 
 comptroller and the city clerk as the capital budget for the 
 ensuing calendar year. The capital budget shall, not later 
 than 5 days after such certification, be filed in the office of the 
 comptroller and shall be published forthwith in the city record. 
 
 Restrictions on Capital Project Authorizations at Other Times 
 
 Sec. 224. No obligations of the city shall be authorized in 
 any calendar year for or on account of any capital project not 
 included in the capital budget as finally adopted for such year, 
 or in excess of the maximum amount of obligations which may 
 be authorized on account of such project as fixed in such capital 
 budget; provided, however, that if the lowest responsible bid 
 for any such project shall exceed the amount authorized there- 
 for; the amount authorized may be increased by not more than 
 
 15 percent thereof by resolution of the board of estimate; and 
 provided further, that upon receipt of a recommendation in 
 writing from the city planning commission, approved by the 
 affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members thereof, the 
 board of estimate may amend the capital budget in accordance 
 with such recommendation. Upon the adoption of any such 
 amendment by the board of estimate adding a project to the 
 capital budget or increasing the maximum amount of obligations 
 which may be authorized on account of any project, it shall be 
 certified by the mayor and submitted to the council, and if the 
 council, shall adopt the same it shall be certified by the mayor 
 and submitted to the council, and if the council shall adopt the 
 same it shall be certified by the president of the council and trans- 
 mitted to the mayor. It shall thereupon be certified by the 
 mayor, the comptroller and the city clerk, and the capital 
 budget shall be and become amended accordingly. Not later 
 than 5 days after such certification, such amendment shall be 
 filed in the office of the comptroller and shall be published forth- 
 with in the city record. 
 
 PROPOSED CHARTER REVISION FOR PHILADELPHIA 1 
 
 Article SC (XXI) XXII. Capital Budget 
 
 Section SC (2101) 2201. Preparation of Budget— The city 
 manager shall annually prepare a capital budget on the basis of 
 a comprehensive and farsighted study of capital projects. The 
 term "capital project" shall include any plan for the permanent 
 physical improvement of the city together with preliminary 
 studies, property surveys of a permanent nature, and original 
 equipment which have been or should be acquired in connection 
 with the project but shall not include any project for repaving 
 or any project of which at least half of the cost is to be paid 
 from the proceeds of assessments for benefits. The planning 
 board shall determine conclusively what is and what is not a 
 capital project. 
 
 Section SC (2102) 2202. Data for Budget.— In preparing the 
 capital budget the city manager shall consider among other 
 things — 
 
 (a) The master plan in the form last approved by council; 
 
 (6) The report of the city controller to be furnished annually 
 on or before August 15 to the city manager and to the planning 
 board setting forth (1) the amount and the nature of each obligation 
 authorized on account of each uncompleted capital project and 
 of each obligation incurred in pursuance of such authority up 
 to July 1, (2) the financial condition of the city together with 
 comments thereon, and (3) advice as to the maximum amount 
 and the nature of the debt which in the opinion of the city 
 controller, the city will be able to incur for capital projects 
 during each of the 10 succeeding fiscal years; and 
 
 (c) A detailed estimate to be furnished annually on or before 
 August 15 to the city manager and to the planning board by the 
 head of each department office and agency, the capital expendi- 
 tures of which are paid out of the city treasury with respect to 
 each capital project which is uncompleted or which the head 
 believes should be urdertaken within the 10 succeeding fiscal 
 years. 
 
 Section SC (2103) 2203. Submission of Budget to Planning 
 Board. — On or before September 1 the city manager shall trans- 
 mit to the planning board the capital budget, which shall set 
 forth clearly — 
 
 1 Excerpt taken from Senate Bill No. 2 of The General Assembly of Pennsylvania 
 Sessions of 1939, Pages 108-112. Passed by the Senate, but failed to pass the House. 
 
 (a) As to each proposed capital project a brief description 
 thereof, the department office or agency for which it would be 
 constructed, the total estimated cost, the estimated completion 
 date, the estimated cost for the ensuing fiscal year, the estimated 
 economic life, the source of funds to meet such costs, together with 
 the nature, terms and maximum amount of obligations which may 
 be issued therefor and the fiscal year in which the city manager 
 recommends that the project be undertaken; 
 
 (b) As to each uncompleted capital project authorized by 
 council, a brief description thereof, the original estimated cost, the 
 date of authorization, the amounts of indebtedness authorized, of 
 bonds and notes outstanding, of obligations issued, and of each 
 other liability outstanding and the unencumbered balances, of 
 authorizations on July 1, the amount of each liability estimated 
 to be incurred during the balance of the fiscal year and the 
 estimated costs required for completion stated year by year; 
 
 (c) Recommendations for changes cr abandonment of pre- 
 viously approved capital project; 
 
 (<Z) A brief description of each capital project recommended 
 in the several department, office and agency estimates but not 
 recommended by the city manager to be undertaken, with his 
 reasons for not iecommending it; 
 
 (e) The maximum expenditures which, in the opinion of the 
 city manager, the city may soundly make for capital projects 
 during the ensuing fiscal year, together with the recommended 
 sources for meeting such expenditures and detailed comments on 
 the financial condition of the city, and 
 
 (J) Such other information as the planning board or council 
 may have requested. 
 
 Section SC (2104) 2204. Submission of Budget to Council. — On 
 or before September 15, the planning board shall submit to 
 council its revision of the capital budget prepared by the city 
 manager. The revised capital budget shall set forth the informa- 
 tion and recommendations received by the planning board, with 
 such additional information and changes as the planning board 
 may see fit, except that the aggregate amount of the proposed 
 expenditures for capital projects recommended for the ensuing 
 fiscal year shall not exceed the maximum expenditures which, in 
 the opinion of the city manager, the city may soundly make for 
 capital projects during the ensuing fiscal year. 
 
 Section SC (2105) 2205. Consideration of Budget. — Immedi- 
 
Long-Range Programming of Municipal Public Works 
 
 65 
 
 ately after the receipt of the capital budget, council shall consider 
 the budget in public sessions, affording a reasonable opportunity 
 to all persons to be heard thereon. Such sessions shall not 
 extend beyond October 1. 
 
 Section SC (2106) 2206. Adoption of Budget. — On or before 
 October 15 council shall adopt a capital budget. The capital 
 budget submitted by the planning board may be adopted with or 
 without modifications by the affirmative vote of a majority of the 
 councilmen holding office, except that any increase in any item of 
 the capital budget as submitted by the planning board shall 
 require the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the councilmen 
 holding office. 
 
 Section SC (2107) 2207. Changes in Budget. After the adop- 
 tion of the capital budget, it shall not be changed except that a 
 change recommended by three-fourths of the members of the 
 planning board may be adopted by council. 
 
 Section SC (2108) 2208. Effect of Capital Budget.— The 
 adoption of the capital budget shall be an authorization and shall 
 constitute an appropriation of loan funds for carrying out the 
 approved projects in the manner provided therein, except that 
 if funds for any projects are to be derived from new debt or from 
 an increase in indebtedness the authorization shall not constitute 
 
 an appropriation until the new debt or increase of indebtedness 
 has been authorized in accordance with this act. The current 
 budget shall include an appropriation equal to the amount which 
 the capital budget authorizes to be expended in that year out of 
 revenue for capital projects. No contract or other obligation of 
 the city in connection with the carrying out of any capital project 
 shall be authorized unless the project is included in the capital 
 budget as adopted by council, and no contract or other obligation 
 shall be binding unless and until an appropriation has been made 
 therefor as provided in this act. 
 
 Section SC (2109) 2209. Limitation on Loans for Projects. — 
 The amount of loans issued for capital projects included in the 
 first capital budget adopted hereunder shall not exceed 98 percent 
 of the amount authorized in the capital budget to be expended 
 for the ensuing fiscal year. In each succeeding year the per- 
 missible percentage shall be reduced by two so that ultimately 
 capital projects will be paid for wholly out of current revenue and 
 no loans will be procured for capital projects. Notwithstanding 
 the limitations in this section, council may authorize indebtedness 
 for all or part of the cost more than $10,000,000 or any self- 
 liquidating project, and such costs shall be excluded in determin- 
 ing the amount of bonds which may be issued in financing the 
 capital budget. 
 
 NEW JERSEY STATUTES AFFECTING LOCAL CAPITAL BUDGET 1 
 
 Article *3A. Public Funds for Capital Purposes 
 
 *40: 2-28.1. Capital Budgets. — The governing body of each 
 municipality and each county shall prepare, approve, and adopt 
 a budget for the expenditure of public funds for capital purposes 
 to give effect to general improvement programs. A capital budget 
 shall be a plan for the expenditure of public funds for capital 
 purposes, showing as income the revenues, special assessments, 
 borrowings, receipts from the sale of capital assets, free surpluses, 
 and down-payment appropriations to be applied to the cost of a 
 capital project or projects, expenses of issuance of obligations, 
 engineering, supervision, contracts, and any other related ex- 
 penditures. 
 
 The budget shall be prepared in accordance with the regulations 
 of and in the form and arrangement and detail prescribed by the 
 State board. After promulgation of regulations by the State 
 board, the governing body shall expend or incur obligations for 
 capital purposes only after the adoption of a capital budget, and 
 in accordance with such budget except for the preliminary ex- 
 pense of plans, specifications, and estimates. 
 
 The State board shall adopt, and from time to time may 
 amend, reasonable rules and regulations for capital budgets. 
 Regulations may classify the type of budget required, according 
 to size of municipality or county, nature of capital projects or 
 any other reasonable basis of distinction, and shall require a 
 
 i Taken from Cumulative Supplement to the Revised Statutes of the State of 
 New Jersey, 1938 Annual Volume, Municipalities and Counties, 40: 2-28.1, pp. 175 
 and 176. 
 
 statement of capital undertakings under way or projected over the 
 next ensuing 3 years as a general improvement program. Regu- 
 lations shall be uniform within the classifications established. 
 The State board may require different capital budgets to give 
 effect to a general improvement program as follows: 
 
 a. A special capital budget for the expenditure of funds 
 realized from the sale of obligations and adopted at the time such 
 sale is authorized. 
 
 6. A separate capital budget adopted at the same time and as 
 part of the annual budget. 
 
 c. A consolidated capital budget providing for the consolida- 
 tion of capital projects, with the annual budget treating bor- 
 rowed funds and other receipts as special revenue and capital 
 projects as separately itemized appropriations under the proper 
 office, department, institutions or other agency of the munici- 
 pality or county, as the case may be. 
 
 d. Any other type or form of budget adapted to planning and 
 guiding expenditures for capital improvement programs. 
 
 The State board shall also adopt reasonable regulations for 
 capital budgets for projects supported from funds borrowed in 
 successive installments as the work proceeds. A capital budget 
 need not be limited in duration to a single fiscal year, but may 
 continue for the life of the project. The State board shall 
 adopt reasonable regulations for the amendment of capital budg- 
 ets and for the transfer of amounts among the several items of 
 appropriation in the capital budget. 
 
 (Source, L. 1938, c. 128, §5, p. 275. Approved May 5, 1938. 
 
APPENDIX B 
 SAMPLE FORMS AND LETTERS 
 
 Boston, Mass. 
 
 OFFICE OF MEMBERS 
 
 THE CITY PLANNING Frederic H. Fay, Chairman 
 
 "ROATJD Sidney S. Conrad 
 
 JjUArvlJ Mary M Fitzgerald 
 
 ClTY Hall William Francis 
 
 William Stanley Parker 
 
 BOSTON, MASS. . . 
 
 Elisabeth M. Herlihy, 
 
 Honorary Consultani 
 
 October 1, 1939. 
 
 TO THE HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS: 
 
 In accordance with instructions from His Honor the Mayor, 
 the City Planning Board is preparing a Capital Budget for 1940 
 and a Capital Program for 1940-45. 
 
 The budgeting of capital accounts is just as essential as is 
 the budgeting of current accounts and the principles involved 
 are much the same. The Capital Budget, however, is not sepa- 
 rate and distinct from the City's usual budgetary procedure, 
 but is rather a part of it. The Capital Budget will correlate 
 the capital needs of all City Departments, Boards and Com- 
 missions. 
 
 There are submitted herewith forms which your Department 
 is requested to complete, together with instructions as to pro- 
 cedure. You are urged to return these forms to the City 
 Planning Board prior to November 1, 1939. 
 Very truly yours. 
 
 (s) Frank H. Mallet, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
 Enclosures: 
 
 CITY PLANNING BOARD 
 boston, mass. 
 
 Instructions to Departments for Filing Information 
 Relative to Plans and Estimates for Capital Budget 
 Projects 
 
 In accordance with instructions from His Honor the Mayor 
 the City Planning Board is preparing a Capital Budget for 1940 
 and a Capital Program for 1940 to 1945. There are submitted 
 herewith forms to be filled out by your Department covering 
 projects which you desire to have included in the Capital Budget 
 or Capital Program. These forms should be returned as 
 promptly as possible and should be in the hands of the City 
 Planning Board not later than November 1, 1939. 
 
 Capital Expenses are for physical developments in contrast 
 to operating costs. A Capital Budget may be considered as a 
 study of long term investments for the City. 
 
 In the report on the Capital Expenses of the last 20 years for 
 Boston, the groupings and definitions in City Document #87 
 have been followed, these will also serve as a guide for estimates 
 for next year. They include: 
 
 Purchase of land. 
 
 "C-Equipment: Equipment consists of machinery, implements, 
 tools, furniture, live stock, vehicles (which should be listed 
 separately) and other apparatus that may be used repeatedly 
 66 
 
 without material impairment of their physical condition and 
 which have a calculable period of service." 
 
 "E-Materials. Materials are articles and substances in a 
 natural or manufactured state, used principally by Departmental 
 forces in the construction or repair of buildings, highways, sewers, 
 machinery, articles and equipment." 
 
 "Special Appropriations: (Six items) Bridges, Ferries, Side- 
 walks, Parkways and Roadways, Streets and Street Signs." 
 
 Contracts for construction (including engineers' or Architects' 
 fees, advertising and other incidental costs) and contracts for 
 grading or planting of trees and shrubs. 
 
 It is recognized that some of the items which were listed for 
 the past years need not be considered in a new capital budget 
 because they are of such a short duration or of such a small 
 amount. They may be carried in the operating costs. For 
 instance C— 9, office, C— 15, tires, etc., and C— 16, wearing apparel, 
 need not be included in the new set up. 
 
 Because of the limited time available, information as to the 
 status of the various appropriations made to projects will be 
 secured by us this year from the city auditor. Information as 
 to the major terms and maturity of obligations that must be 
 provided in the future for the projects contained in the capital 
 budget and program will be worked out by the city planning 
 board, the budget department, the auditor and your depart- 
 ment after it becomes more certain how many and what projects 
 can be carried on within the limits of the funds that will be 
 available for capital projects during the next 6 years. 
 
 Departmental estimates must be submitted on standard 
 forms (A, B, and C) copies of which are sent you herewith. Ad- 
 ditional copies of these forms will be furnished on request. 
 The supply is limited and you are therefore urged to ask for only 
 the number of each actually required for the preparation of your 
 estimates. As many projects as possible should be listed on 
 each sheet of Forms A and B. Five copies of each sheet of the 
 departmental estimates are to be made. The original and three 
 copies of the estimate are to be delivered to the city planning 
 board, one copy is to be retained in your office. 
 
 For clarity the following terminology has been used. 
 
 An Available Appropriation is an appropriation that has been 
 made by the city council or otherwise so that an agency may 
 undertake an expenditure or a contract or other commitment 
 for that project. 
 
 An Authorized but Not Issued Appropriation is a loan which has 
 been authorized but which has not been made available for the 
 contraction of encumbrances. An agency cannot undertake an 
 expenditure or liability for a project which has only an appro- 
 priation authorized but not issued except under special approval 
 by the mayor. 
 
 A Pending Project is a project w-hich has not been completed 
 but: 
 
 1. For which an appropriation has been made available or is 
 reasonably expected to be made available at any time prior to 
 December 31, 1939; 
 
 2. For which an appropriation has been authorized but not 
 issued. A project is not to be considered completed as long as 
 there remains as of December 31, 1939, unexpended or unen- 
 cumbered balances of appropriations authorized for that project. 
 
Long-Range Programming of Municipal Public Works 
 
 67 
 
 A pending project would include a project for which an ap- 
 propriation was authorized or was reasonably expected to be 
 authorized up to December 31, 1939 (for example this might 
 be a project undertaken under the W. P. A. program). 
 
 All these projects should be entered on Form A. 
 
 A New Project is a project: 
 
 1. For which no appropriation has been authorized and 
 cannot reasonably expect to be authorized prior to December 
 31, 1939. All these projects should be entered on Form B. 
 
 Instructions for completing Forms A and B: 
 
 1. On Form A do not fill in columns 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15. 
 
 2. On Form B do not fill in column 1. 
 
 3. Arrangement of Projects. 
 
 A. On Form A. Pending Projects. 
 
 Assemble projects under the following general headings and 
 in the following order: 
 
 (1) Federal projects. All projects for which a loan or grant 
 has been made or may be made prior to December 31, 1939, by 
 the Federal Government. 
 
 (2) Other authorized projects or other projects for which an 
 appropriation has been made available or may be made available 
 prior to December 31, 1939. 
 
 (3) Projects for which only an approved but not issued ap- 
 propriation will be outstanding as of December 31, 1939. 
 
 These projects should be further arranged by the department 
 in order of preference. 
 
 B. On Form B. New Projects. 
 
 These new projects should be arranged by the Department in 
 order of preference. In indicating these priorities consider the 
 6-year Capital program as a whole, and include only such projects 
 as in the interest of your Department should be started not later 
 than 1945. 
 
 4. Total original Estimated Cost {Form A, Col. 8). — To include 
 all elements of cost of the completed project including P. W. A. 
 or W. P. A. funds. 
 
 5. Total Estimated Cost {Form B, Col. 5). — The assumption 
 should be that funds must be provided for through the Capital 
 Budget omitting all assumption of Federal grants. 
 
 6. Estimated additional Appropriations to be made available 
 between October 1 and December 31, 1939. — This column 14 Form 
 A, has been included primarily for the purpose of ascertaining the 
 extent of appropriations that the Departments expect may be 
 authorized during this period for projects connected with the 
 W. P. A. and P. W. A. programs. All other additional appro- 
 priations that it is reasonably expected may be authorized during 
 the period should also be shown. 
 
 Use the Remarks column liberally in connection with this item. 
 
 7. Estimated appropriation reguired to meet liabilities incurred 
 in 1940 to 1945 {Form B). — These columns will include the total 
 expenditure to be incurred in the respective years, for instance, 
 if a school building is to be started in 1941 and finished in 1942 
 those columns will contain the amount necessary to be spent in 
 each year. 
 
 8. Estimated additional annual operating and maintenance 
 charges on completion. This column should be equal to the 
 operating (personal service) and maintenance (other than 
 personal service) charges that will be necessary to permit the use 
 of the new facility after it is completed. Include in the estimate 
 any savings through operating and maintenance charges that 
 may be made. 
 
 Instructions for completing Form C. 
 
 Necessary additional information on the various projects will 
 be contained on Form C. Such information will include a 
 
 breakdown of costs, engineering and architectural plans and a 
 statement of the project showing how it meets present and 
 future needs of the City, how it fits in with the general long term 
 development program of your Department and how it is cor- 
 related with the long term program of other Departments. 
 
 Copies of this form will be made out for each project that is 
 submitted on Form B. It is realized, of course, that for costs in 
 the distant future only approximate estimates required by the 
 cost breakdown can be prepared. 
 
 For your information and convenience there is submitted a 
 sample Form C which indicates the type of information which the 
 Board desires. 
 
 Form A is a generously proportioned sheet designed to secure 
 necessary information on all Pending Projects, the status of the 
 appropriations available or expected, etc. It has the following 
 column headings: 
 
 Column Title 
 
 1 City Planning Board Project Number 
 
 2 1939 Capital Budget Number, P. W. A. Docket Number, 
 
 W. P. A. Work Project Number or Code Number 
 
 3 Title, Description and Location 
 
 4 Date Constiuction Started or To start 
 
 5 Estimated Date of Completion 
 
 6 Estimated Useful Existence of Project 
 
 7 Date of Initial Appropriation Authorized 
 
 8 Total Original Estimated Cost 
 
 9 Appropriations Authorized in 1939 But Not Issued as of 
 
 September 30, 1939, Amount and Nature 
 
 10 Appropriations Available as of September 30, 1939, 
 
 Amount, Nature and Maturity 
 
 11 Liabilities Outstanding Against Appropi iations Available 
 
 as of September 30, 1939 
 
 12 Unencumbered Balance of Appropriations Availab e as of 
 
 September 30, 1939 
 
 13 Estimated Additional Liabilities to be Incurred October 1 
 
 to December 31. 1939 *** 
 
 14 Estimated Additional Appropriations to be Available 
 
 October 1 to December 31, 1939 ► IM 
 
 15 Estimated Unencumbered Balance of Appropriations 
 
 Available as of December 31, 1939 
 
 16 Estimated Expenditures During 1940 
 
 17 Estimated Additional Annual Operating Charges on 
 
 Completion 
 
 18 Remarks 
 
 Form B is set up similar to Form A, and it is used to gather 
 information about Proposed New Projects. The column heads 
 are: 
 
 Column Title 
 
 1 City Planning Board Pioject Number 
 
 2 Title, Description and Location 
 
 3 Approximate Date Initial Appropriation is Required 
 
 4 Estimated Useful Existence of Project 
 
 5 Total Estimated Cost 
 
 6-11 Estimated Appropriation Required to Meet Liabilities to 
 be Incurred in 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, and 1945 
 
 12 Estimated Appropriations Required after 1945 to Complete 
 
 13 Estimated Additional Annual Operating Charges on 
 
 Completion 
 
 14 Remarks 
 
 Form C follows. 
 
68 
 
 National Resources Planning Board 
 Table 27. — City of Boston — Sample of Individual Project Summary Sheet 
 
 CAPITAL BUDGET 
 
 CITY PLANNING BOARD 
 
 Date 
 
 FORM C PROJECT SUMMARY 
 
 3. City Planning Bd. No 
 
 4. 1940 Cap. Budget No 
 
 5. P. W. A. Docket No 
 
 6. W. P. A. Works Proj . No 
 
 7. Code No 
 
 1. Dept: 
 
 2. Project title: 
 
 8. Location: 
 
 9. Description: 
 
 10. Will project be revenue producing how much annually 
 
 11. Site is secured , to be secured 
 
 12. Status of plans: 
 
 13. Breakdown of costs: 
 
 Item 
 
 Amount 
 
 Notes 
 (leave blank] 
 
 Planning (total a, b, c) 
 
 (a) Architects services. 
 
 (b) Engineering 
 
 (c) Inspection 
 
 II . Land. 
 
 Ill 
 
 IV. 
 
 Construction (total a, b). 
 
 (a) Labor 
 
 (b) Non-Labor 
 
 Miscellaneous equipment (total a, b). 
 
 (a) Equipment 
 
 (b) Furniture 
 
 V. Other. 
 
 Total estimated cost 
 
 (same as Col. 8 Form A or Col. 5 Form B' 
 
 14. Additional annual operation and maintenance charges 
 (total a, b, c)* 
 
 (a) Operating 
 
 (b) Maintenance 
 
 Amount 
 
 (c) Other. 
 
 Explanation 
 
 *Indicate savings by minus sign. 
 Source: Boston Project. 
 
 Note. — Other side will include space for: Purpose, 
 
 Relationship to Other Projects, and General Comments 
 
Long-Range Programming of Municipal Public Works 
 
 SAMPLE OF LETTER OF INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING 
 INVENTORY OF PROPOSED PROJECTS 
 City of Dallas 
 
 July 28, 1939. 
 
 Proposed Long-range Programming of 
 Public Improvements 
 
 Dear Sir: 
 
 On July 12, 1939, the City Council took favorable action on a 
 proposed long range programming of public improvements. At 
 a meeting July 19, 1939, attended by City Officials, Department 
 Heads and representatives of the National Resources Committee, 
 the objective sought and procedure contemplated were discussed. 
 
 Pursuant to the action of the City Council there is to be pre- 
 pared and presented to the City Council for such action as it 
 may deem advisable, a report and recommendations with 
 regard to: 
 
 A. Need of specific public improvements during the fiscal 
 year 1939-40 through 1945-46; 
 
 B. Present and anticipated financial ability of the City to 
 undertake construction of proposed public improvements; 
 
 C. Relative need and importance to Dallas as a whole, for each 
 proposed improvement to be evidenced by an established priority 
 tentatively set forth in the report for each of the 6 fiscal years. 
 
 Your particular attention is directed to the fact that it is NO 
 PART OF THE OBJECTIVE of the proposed programming 
 procedure to stimulate the expenditure of public funds. To the 
 contrary, the endeavor is intended to provide a well considered 
 plan, subject to revision annually for the orderly development 
 of Dallas based upon its present and carefully anticipated ability 
 to pay for needed improvements. 
 
 The benefits to the City of Dallas to be gained by such expan- 
 sion of existing procedure will be that: 
 
 (1) Improvements will be undertaken in the order of their 
 relative importance to the community; 
 
 (2) Interrelation of proposed improvements will be recognized 
 and coordination thereby made possible; 
 
 (3) The relationship of the proposed improvements to the 
 operation and maintenance factors of the cost of city government 
 will be indicated; 
 
 (4) Financing of the cost of the proposed improvements can 
 be more advantageously arranged; 
 
 (5) Debt service requirements for the financing of proposed 
 improvements can be coordinated with the requirements of 
 existing debt, and other demands against the revenues of the 
 City; 
 
 (0) Ultimate economy will ensue. 
 
 The final report of the City Council will constitute, in effect, 
 a capital expense budget to be considered for adoption annually, 
 coincident with the general budget. It is contemplated that 
 each Department Head will submit annually a revision of both 
 the inventory of needs and suggested priorities for capital im- 
 provements in his department. Each annual revision will make 
 definite request for allocations for the approaching fiscal year 
 and tentative determination of priorities for the next 5 years so 
 as to maintain the programming on a 6-year basis. 
 
 Each Department Head is hereby requested to furnish to the 
 City Plan Engineer his inventory of needs and suggested priorities 
 of proposed improvements on the attached form. As supporting 
 data, there shall be attached to the form, separate letter size 
 plain white sheets supporting each listed proposed improvement, 
 containing factual data relevant thereto, and justifying the social 
 and economic need for the proposed improvement. An outline 
 of the desired information is attached. Please make every 
 
 effort to conform to the requirements thereof, thereby not only 
 providing essential information but making possible compre- 
 hensive study through uniformity. All information will be 
 submitted in duplicate, and a third copy retained by each 
 Department Head. These inventories and supporting data 
 will be assembled, coordinated, studied, and then submitted to 
 the City Manager for the ultimate consideration of the City 
 Council. 
 
 The form which is attached for the listing of needed public 
 improvements contains captions which are reasonably self- 
 explanatory. The proposed improvements should be in order 
 of priority as determined by each Department Head. Each 
 proposed improvement should be numbered, and should be 
 appropriately identified in the column captioned "Name of 
 Project" by location, extent, purpose, area served or other brief 
 designation as deemed appropriate. 
 
 No consideration shall be given by any Department Head to 
 the possibility of Federal participation in the cost of any pro- 
 posed improvements. Consideration of financing the cost 
 must be based upon the availability of city funds only. 
 
 Through the courtesy of the National Resources Committee, 
 there has been made temporarily available to us the services of 
 Mr. Royden E. Reed, Planning Engineer, and Mr. John Loughlin, 
 Finance Examiner, from the local Regional Office of the Public 
 Works Administration. These men will cooperate in the pro- 
 posed work with Major Wood, to whom questions concerning 
 the desired information should be directed. If Mr. Reed or Mr. 
 Loughlin have occasion to confer with a Department Head, it is 
 requested that every reasonable consideration be extended. 
 
 In view of the limited time that the services of these con- 
 sultants may be had, I urge your prompt attention to the 
 submittal of required information, consistent with routine 
 duties. 
 
 (Sgd.) L. B. Houston, 
 
 Acting City Manager. 
 
 SAMPLE OF INDIVIDUAL PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET 
 
 Department: 
 Date: 
 
 Proposed Project 
 No. 
 
 City of Dallas 
 
 Page of 
 
 Total Estimated Cost 
 
 Cost of land 
 
 Cost of Equipment 
 
 A. Discuss: (1) Proposed facility. 
 
 (a) Scope and extent, including brief detailed description and 
 location of proposed improvements; 
 
 1. Furnish key plan if advisable; 
 
 (b) Basis of estimate of cost (cube, footage, yardage, detailed 
 est., etc.) ; 
 
 (c) Such breakdown of cost as may be available or desirable to 
 support estimate of cost, showing separately, estimated costs for 
 land and equipment; 
 
 (d) If the procurement of land, rights-of-way, or easements is 
 contemplated, cite pertinent information relative thereto; 
 
 (e) Effect, favorably or adversely, on operation and main- 
 tenance costs; 
 
 (/) Factors favorably or adversely affecting cost; 
 
 (g) Reason for tentative priority; 
 
 (h) Relationship to other facilities, present or proposed; 
 
 (i) Proposed method of financing as may appear advisable. 
 
 B. Discuss: (2) Existing facilities, if any. (If none, please 
 so state) ; 
 
70 
 
 National Resources Planning Board 
 
 C. Discuss: (3) Comprehensively justify need or desirability 
 of proposed improvement from social or economic viewpoint 
 after considering: 
 
 (2) Protection of life or property; 
 (6) Conservation of resources; 
 
 (c) Maintenance of physical property; 
 
 (d) Necessity of public service, convenience or comfort; 
 
 (e) Replacement of obsolete or inefficient plant (reduction of 
 operation and maintenance expenditures); 
 
 (/) Promotional value with respect to future development; 
 
 (g) Recreational value; 
 
 (h) Cultural or esthetic value; 
 
 (i) Relation to other services; 
 (j) Any other contingent factors. 
 
 D. Discuss: (4) Relationship to City Plan. 
 
 SAMPLE OF LETTER OF INSTRUCTION 
 City of Nashville 
 CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 
 nashville, tennessee 
 
 June 1, 1939. 
 
 To All Department Heads, 
 City of Nashville, Tennessee. 
 Gentlemen: 
 
 Following the verbal explanation of the proposed programming 
 of Municipal Improvements made at the meeting Tuesday 
 afternoon, May 23rd, attended by the Mayor and Board of 
 Public Works and many department heads, we are writing to 
 outline for your guidance the general nature and form of the 
 report to be prepared setting forth the "Six- Year Program for 
 Municipal Improvements of the City of Nashville." 
 
 At the close of this meeting, the Mayor designated the Plan- 
 ning and Zoning Commission to work out a tentative program 
 with the assistance and cooperation of the various departments 
 of the City Government. 
 
 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 
 
 It is contemplated that the report shall undertake to deter- 
 mine (1) the need in regard to specific improvements or better- 
 ments (2) the present and anticipated future financial ability of 
 the City to realize on such improvements (3) the relative im- 
 portance or need of the municipality as a whole for each of said 
 improvements to be evidenced by a priority tentatively estab- 
 lished in the report for each of the six fiscal years embraced in 
 the period to be covered by the report ending June 30, 1945. 
 The priorities shown for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1940, 
 are to be more definitely established since they will be based on 
 the availability of funds now in sight. 
 
 It is NO PART OF THE OBJECTIVE of this Program to 
 stimulate the expenditure of public funds for improvement. 
 
 It is strictly a CONSERVATIVE movement designed, by the 
 concerted study of heads of departments, the City Planning and 
 Zoning Commission, the Board of Public Works and the City 
 Council to provide a well-considered plan, subject to revision 
 annually, for the development of the Community as a whole 
 and based on the present and anticipated ability of the com- 
 munity to PAY for such betterments. 
 
 The results to be obtained from the carrying forward of this 
 movement as a permanent part of the activities of the municipal 
 government should be those of true economy in that (1) improve- 
 ments will be undertaken in the order of their relative importance 
 to the community (2) they will be related to the ability of the 
 community to pay for them and (3) the establishment of a Cap- 
 ital Expenditure Budget at ,the same time, annually, as the 
 
 Operating and Maintenance Budget, will stimulate efforts at 
 economy in the operation and maintenance in each department 
 as the basis of the next annual plea by the Department Head 
 that his Capital Budget be increased and advanced priority 
 given to some particular project which he believes to be essential. 
 
 This Report will be, in effect, a Capital Expense Budget of the 
 City to be adopted annually at the same time that an Operating 
 and Maintenance Budget is adopted, just prior to the beginning 
 of a new fiscal year. It is contemplated that each depart- 
 ment head will annually submit a revision of both the "Inventory 
 of Needs" and "Suggested Priority" for Capital Improvements 
 in his department at the same time he submits his request as to 
 his Operating and Maintenance Budget so that the two budgets 
 can be considered jointly in relation to the finances of the City. 
 
 Each year's revised Report will make definite allocation for 
 the approaching fiscal year and tentative determination of 
 priorities for the next 5 years thus maintaining the Program on 
 a 6-year basis. 
 
 METHOD OF PREPARATION 
 
 Each department is hereby requested to furnish to the Plan- 
 ning and Zoning Commission the "Inventory" and "Suggested 
 Priorities" hereinafter described in detail as promptly as possible. 
 The advisors furnished to the City by the National Resources 
 Committee of the Federal Government in connection with this 
 Program, will only be available for a limited time. 
 
 The part to be played by the Planning and Zoning Commis- 
 sion is one of assembling and coordinating the data submitted, 
 and establishing a tentative schedule of priority for the entire 
 program. 
 
 When this has been prepared a consultation with the Board 
 of Public Works will be arranged and revisions made. 
 
 A meeting with department heads is then planned to discuss 
 the priority schedule as to its effect on each department's activ- 
 ities for the coming year so that each head ma}' be familiar with 
 the underlying reasons back of the tentative decisions embodied 
 in the Schedule of Priorities. 
 
 At the proper times, during the preparation of the Report, the 
 various committees of the City Council will be consulted. 
 
 The Report, still in tentative form, will then be submitted by 
 the Planning and Zoning Board to the Board of Public Works for 
 consideration and submission to the City Council. Revisions 
 decided upon by the City Council will then be made and the 
 Report resubmitted for final acceptance or rejection. 
 
 BASIS OF FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION 
 
 It must be remembered that this Report is being prepared by 
 and for the City of Nashville, solely, and without regard to the 
 possibility of further Federal participation in the cost of better- 
 ments. 
 
 Therefore, the consideration of costs and priority will be based 
 on the availability of City funds only. 
 
 DETAILED INFORMATION DESIRED 
 
 INVENTORY: It is requested that each department head 
 prepare an inventory of all needed improvements or betterments 
 which he considers might be constructed within a 6-year or longer 
 period, with the round-figure estimated costs of each. 
 
 Such subprojects should each be defined by location, extent, 
 size, purpose, area served or other designation identifying its 
 scope. No details as to the method of arriving at the estimated 
 cost of these projects or subprojects need be submitted, but the 
 engineers of the Planning and Zoning Commission will be avail- 
 able for consultation if desired. 
 
 It is recognized that this first Report must be hurriedly assem- 
 bled, in some cases with inadequate preparation and from in- 
 
Long-Range Programm ing of Municipal Public Works 
 
 71 
 
 complete data. It is anticipated, however, that during the inter- 
 vening year before the next Report is filed, the department 
 heads will assemble further data and give detailed study to the 
 subject, with the result that future Reports will be based on 
 better considered and sounder judgment. 
 
 SUGGESTED PRIORITIES: Each department head is then 
 requested to submit a separate statement of priorities listing as 
 to each of the fiscal years from 1939-40 to 1944-45, inclusive, his 
 recommendations as to which projects or subprojects should be 
 included in each year's program. 
 
 It is also requested that the "Suggested Priorities" for each 
 department be placed in their proper order of relative importance 
 throughout the term of the Report so that if the final schedule 
 for the whole city requires that allocations to such department be 
 reduced, the projects or subprojects necessarily omitted may be 
 secured by beginning at the end of the list and proceeding in 
 reverse order up the list as far as may be required. 
 
 Each department head is requested to furnish with such In- 
 ventory and suggested Priorities, as full a discussion of his recom- 
 mendations and the factual data and other considerations entering 
 into his conclusions, as time and personnel will permit. 
 
 This discussion should also set forth the recommendation of the 
 Department Head as to the method of financing best suited to 
 each undertaking or class of undertakings included in his list of 
 "suggested Priorities." 
 
 These methods of financing may be any one of the following 
 or combinations thereof: 
 
 Current Revenues (C. R.). 
 General Obligation Bonds (G. O.). 
 Assessment Bonds (A. B.). 
 
 State Highway Participation including that of the Federal 
 Bureau of Public Roads (S. H.). 
 
 Railroad Company Participation (R. R.). 
 
 Special funds, consisting of "earmarked" revenue for a partic- 
 ular department such as the Board of Park Commissioners, 
 Board of Education, etc. (S. F.). 
 
 In the case of State Highway or Railroad Company participa- 
 tion, the estimated cost of any project should be subdivided to 
 show the estimated amount of such participation and the amount 
 to be provided by the City. 
 
 Land purchases for any project should also be separately 
 estimated, the amount being preceded by the letter (L). 
 
 In the case of any proposed project which would require an 
 increase in the operating and maintaining costs of the City, not 
 offset by increased revenues, it is requested that the department 
 head furnish an estimate of such annual increased operating and 
 maintaining cost from the date of anticipated completion of the 
 project to the end of the term of this Report (1944-45). 
 
 Anticipated revenues from the project shouid be similarly 
 estimated. 
 
 It is also requested that the department head report (sep- 
 arately) any reductions in the. operating and maintenance cost 
 to the City which would be occasioned by the construction of any 
 project or group of projects, such as resurfacing of streets, etc. 
 
 GENERAL 
 
 All data should be submitted in DUPLICATE with another 
 copy retained by the department reporting. 
 
 In the case of major departments, such as the waterworks and 
 city engineering, tentative forms for the assembly of data are in 
 course of preparation. It is requested, however, that no one 
 delay beginning woik on his recommendations while awaiting 
 such forms. 
 
 When a department head is reporting on but one item such as 
 public library, etc., the "Inventory" and "Suggested Priorities" 
 may be combined in one document. 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 Planning & Zoning Commission, 
 (Sgd) By Chas. W. Hawkins, 
 
 Engineer. 
 
 City of Nashville 
 CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 
 nashville, tennessee 
 
 June 19, 1939. 
 
 To all Department Heads, 
 Presidents of Commissions, etc. 
 Gentlemen: 
 
 With further reference to the preparation of data for the 
 "Six-year Program for Municipal Improvements of the City of 
 Nashville," we are now able to hand you herewith, copies of the 
 form for tabulating your "Inventory of Needs" and "Suggested 
 Priorities" referred to in our letter of June 1st. 
 
 If you do not have a wide-carriage typewriter it is suggested 
 that, you prepare these tables one copy each in ink or pencil. 
 On receipt we will cause the necessary number of copies to be 
 typed and will return one typed copy and the original for your 
 files. 
 
 Please make your written discussion of why you need each 
 separate project or item of building and equipment, its general 
 location or the area it will serve, fully explanatory as it is essen- 
 tial that the officials of the city who will review those statements 
 be fully informed as to the reasons why you need the improve- 
 ments you recommend at the time you advise that they should 
 be constructed or supplied. 
 
 It is requested that you furnish a statement of the total cost 
 of permanent improvements you have made or that have been 
 made in your department from current (budget) funds for each 
 of the last 6 calendar years, that is, from January 1st, 1933 to 
 December 31st, 1938. If you do not have actual records, please 
 estimate these expenditures as best you can and so state. As a 
 separate statement, if you have a record of expenditures from 
 bond funds for each of such years please furnish the annual 
 totals thereof. If you are uncertain as to whether any item or 
 items for which you have spent current funds are "permanent" 
 or are "expendable," please call our office and discuss the matter. 
 
 The representatives of the National Resources Committee, 
 who are helping us, were assigned here for only 30 days which 
 will expire on June 22nd and, while we hope their time will be 
 extended, we cannot tell how long an extension can be secured, 
 so please rush the submission of the desired information. 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 City Planning and Zoning Commission, 
 (Signed) By Chas. W. Hawkins, Engineer. 
 
 Note.— Forms referred to shown in Chapter V were also used for tabulating the 
 program finally recommended. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 American Municipal Association, Programming Municipal 
 Public Works; A New Approach, Text of a discussion at the 
 16th Annual Conference of the American Municipal Associa- 
 tion, Chicago, November 2, 1939, 19 pp. 
 
 American Society of Civil Engineers, Engineering Economics and 
 Public Works; A Symposium (Reprinted from Proceedings), 
 February 1938, 225 pp. 
 
 American Society of Planning Officials, Proceedings of the Con- 
 ference on City Planning Administration; Chicago, November 
 19-20, 193G, 136 pp. 
 
 Bird, Frederick L., "The Basis of Municipal Credit"; Illinois 
 Municipal Review, April 1939. 
 
 Buck, Arthur E., Public Budgeting, New York, Harpei and 
 Brothers, 1929, 612 pp. 
 
 Buck, Arthur E., "The Long-Term Financial Program as an Aid 
 to City Planners," City Planning, January 1931, pp. 25-29. 
 
 Buck, Arthur E., et al., Municipal Finance, New York, The 
 Macmillan Company, 1926. 
 
 Buck, Arthur E., The Budget in Government Today, New York, 
 The Macmillan Co., 1934, 349 pp. 
 
 Chatters, Carl H., and A. M. Hillhouse, Local Government Debt 
 Administration, New York, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1939, 528 pp. 
 
 Compton, Karl T., "Long-Range Budgeting of Public Capital 
 Expenditures," The Annals, vol. 162 (July 1932), pp. 127-132. 
 
 Herring, Frank, "Local and State Programming," American 
 Planning and Civic Annual, Washington, 1939, pp. 127-134. 
 
 Hoan, Danial W., City Government; Harcourt, Brace and Com- 
 pany, New York City, 1936. 
 
 Lewis, Harold M., "Long Range Capital Improvement Program- 
 ming and Budgeting;" Planners Journal, January-February 
 1938, pp. 1-7. 
 
 "Long Term Public Works Planning," American City, Septem- 
 ber, 1938, pp. 62-63. 
 
 Merrill, Harold A., Myron D. Downs, Robert Kingery, and 
 Harold M. Lewis, "Capital Budgets and Improvement 
 Programs," American Planning and Civic Annual, Washing- 
 ton, 1938, pp. 315-338. 
 
 Merrill, Harold and Charles Wiltse, "Long-Range Capital Im- 
 provement Programming and Budgeting;" Paper presented 
 to the Annual Meeting of the American City Planning Institute; 
 Princeton, New Jersey, December 28-29, 1937. 
 
 Morey, Lloyd, "Municipal Budgets for Capital Improvements;" 
 An Address delivered before the Sixth Annual Community 
 Planning Conference; Decatur, Illinois, May 9, 1939. 
 
 Municipal Finance Officers' Association, Long-Term Financial 
 Planning; Chicago, 1939, pp. 40-44. 
 
 Municipal Finance Officers' Association, Report of the Commission 
 on Long-Term Financial Planning; January 19, 1940, 14 pp. 
 
 National Resources Committee, Division of Costs and Responsi- 
 bilities for Public Works; Washington, 1938, 193 pp. 
 
 National Resources Committee, Public Works Planning; Wash- 
 ington, 1936, 221 pp. 
 
 Nolen, John, and F. H. Fay, "Long-Term Budgeting of Capital 
 Expenditures," National Conference on City Planning; 24th 
 Proceedings, 1932, pp. 80-89. 
 
 Rightor, C. E., and G. B. Ford, "Budgeting the City Planning 
 Program," National Conference on City Planning; 21st Pro- 
 ceedings, 1929, pp. 229-245. 
 
 Rightor, C. E., The Preparation of a Long-Time Financial 
 Program; Municipal Administration Service. 
 
 72 
 
 Sawyer, D. H., "Long-Range Planning of Public Works," Illinois 
 
 Municipal Review; March 1933, pp. 43-44. 
 Scheidt, M. E., W. L. Parsons, and W. S. Parker, Proceedings of 
 
 26th Annual Conference; Massachusetts Federation of Planning 
 
 Boards, Bulletin No. 42, October 20, 1939, pp. 68-79. 
 Stone, Donald C, Management of Municipal Public Works; 
 
 Public Administration Service, Chicago, 1939, 344 pp. 
 
 Special Reports 
 
 Cincinnati, Public Improvement Programming for the Cincinnati 
 Community; Cincinnati Bureau of Governmental Research, 
 July 1938, 25 pp. 
 
 Dallas, A Basic Financial and Improvement Program for the City 
 of Dallas, Texas; May 1940. 
 • District of Columbia, Advance Planning of Public Works in the 
 District of Columbia; United States Federal Employment 
 Stabilization Board; Washington, 1933, 27 pp. 
 
 Fargo, Report on the Development of a Six-Year Program for Mu- 
 nicipal Improvements, 1939-1940 through 1944-1945. Joint 
 Program Committee, Fargo, North Dakota, December 8, 
 1939, 102 pp. 
 
 Kalamazoo, Report of the Office of the City Manager on a Study 
 of Advance Programming and Budgeting of Public Works; 
 Kalamazoo, Michigan, January 1940. 
 
 Milwaukee, Cash v. Bonds for Financing Public Improvements 
 in the City of Milwaukee, City Club of Milwaukee, Committee 
 on Public Finance, April 1936, 17 pp. 
 
 Montclair, Report and Recommendations for a Capital Budget for 
 1939; Town Planning Board, Montclair, New Jersey, Januarv 
 31, 1939, 10 pp. 
 
 Nashville, Six-Year Program for Municipal Improvements; 
 Nashville, Tennessee, October 1939, 64 pp. 
 
 New Haven, The Financing of New Haven's Permanent Improve- 
 ments; New Haven Taxpayers, Inc., New Haven, Connecticut, 
 February 1937, 9 pp., Report No. 16. 
 
 New York City, Proposed Capital Budget for the Calendar Year 
 1939 and Capital Program for the Next Succeeding Five Calendar 
 Years, as submitted to the Board of Estimate, Council, Di- 
 rector of the Budget and to the Comptroller, pursuant to the 
 provisions of Section 217 of the New York City Charter. City 
 Planning Commission, New York City, November 1, 1938, 62 pp. 
 
 Sacramento, A Study of Advance Programming and Budgeting- 
 of Public Works; City Manager, Sacramento, California, 
 January 1, 1940, 69 pp. 
 
 San Diego, Long-Term Program of Capital Expenditures; Glenn 
 A. Rick, City Planning Engineer, City of San Diego, Cali- 
 fornia, 1938, 45 pp. 
 
 Spokane, Advance Programming and Budgeting of Capital Im- 
 provements; City of Spokane, Washington, December 15, 1939, 
 44 pp. 
 
 Tennessee, Programming Public Works, 1940; Tennessee State 
 Planning Commission and Work Projects Administration, 
 May 1940, 149 pp. 
 
 Two Rivers, Long-Term Financial Planning in Two Rivers; E. J. 
 Donnelly, The Municipality, League of Wisconsin Munici- 
 palities, January 1940, pp. 5-6. 
 
 Winchester, Report of the Planning Board; Winchester, Massa- 
 chusetts, 1939, 32 pp. 
 
 Winchester, Annual Report, Six-Year Public Works Program; 
 Planning Board, Winchester, Massachusetts, 1940, 7 pp.