number of governments particularly at the State level-noted flaws in the program, while a number of large, financially pressed cities indicated a desire for increased funding. Several jurisdictions expressed concern about the five-year life of revenue sharing and the squeeze which cutbacks in Federal categorical programs have caused on local budgets despite revenue sharing. Nonetheless, after the first 18 months of its life, general revenue sharing enjoys the overwhelming support of those officials who administer it at the State and local levels. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations. Leon County (Tallahassee, Fla.)- Los Angeles County (California) Mecklenburg County (Charlotte, N.C.) ---- Middlesex County (East Cambridge, Mass.). 34-789-74- HOW 45 SELECTED JURISDICTIONS VIEW REVENUE SHARING SUMMARY OF STAFF FINDINGS Question 1 How has General Revenue Sharing affected your tax levels? It is clear that general revenue sharing has had a substantial impact on the tax rates of State and local governments. Of the 45 governments contacted, 29 responded that general revenue sharing had either prevented a tax increase, reduced the rate of a tax increase or lowered taxes. Boston indicated that its tax rate would have gone up $12.00 without revenue sharing. In four counties and one city, officials said that revenue sharing funds actually caused a decrease in taxes. And officials in seven States, eight counties and eight cities said that revenue sharing had prevented or reduced the rate of a tax increase. However, it is important to note that several jurisdictions-particularly cities-reporting decreased pressure on their taxes because of revenue sharing, indicated that relief may only be temporary and that taxes may have to go up again next year. Question 2 In deciding how to allocate your Revenue Sharing funds, did you look at them as new money or as money to replace Federal cutbacks and impoundments? If it was new money, could you give examples of new or expanded programs which were funded with Revenue Sharing? If the money was replacement money, where were these funds replaced? Our survey clearly showed that counties are the most likely level of government to treat revenue sharing as "new" money, while States and cities are more likely to treat it as replacement money, or a combination of the two. Of the 16 counties responding to this question, 11 saw revenue sharing as new money, and four others saw it as a combination of new and replacement money. However, it should be noted that at least two of those 11 counties-Cumberland, Maine, and Middlesex, Massachusetts have never been major recipients of categorical aid. Only five of 12 States and four of 14 cities looked at revenue sharing as new money. |