City Budgets

[Pedestrian]

San Francisco's mayor just signed the new city budget for $11 billion which seems like a massive amount for only 49 square miles. Times are flush in tech land:

SF’s budget soars by $937 million and will top $11 billion for first time
Dominic Fracassa May 31, 2018 Updated: May 31, 2018 6 a.m.

San Francisco’s $11.05 billion budget for the coming fiscal year will be the largest in the city’s history. That’s a 9.3 percent — or $937 million — increase over last fiscal year’s budget, which came in at $10.11 billion.

City officials said a handful of one-time capital projects, like street resurfacing, sidewalk repairs and park improvements, coupled with the growth of departments like the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the Municipal Transportation Agency were the reason for the spending growth . . . .

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...p-12955416.php

The one-time project thing is for real--seems like every street in town is torn up.

But this got me wondering how we compare to others:






https://ballotpedia.org/Analysis_of_...largest_cities

These are old numbers--from 2014. But I'm going to assume the relative levels of spending have stayed similar. Which leads to the question why San Francisco, New York and Washington DC stand head and shoulders above the rest in per-resident spending. New York spends over 3 times what Chicago does per resident, for example. I'm left wondering what we get for the money and why it's so much higher in some cities than in others.

[SIGSEGV]

Here's a filtered list sorted by City + State / citizen. I only included regional centers that have "full services" (e.g. major airport, comprehensive public transit including rapid transit, nice parks and museums, etc.). I'm sure many will quibble with my choices, but whatever.

It largely just seems to track cost of living (which makes sense since presumably these are largely salaries), although LA seems to be particularly frugal (high cost of living but moderate expenditures) and perhaps Detroit and Minneapolis are the most expensive relative to cost of living and services provided.

City             |  City / Citizen    |   City + State/Citizen
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington DC    |   15,624           |    15,624
New York         |   8,690            |    15,494
San Francisco    |   9,433            |    15,191 
Honolulu         |   6,036            |    14,411 
Portland         |   5,907            |    13,112 
Boston           |   4,180            |    12,661
Seattle          |   6,744            |    11,662 
Philadelphia     |   2,903            |    9,647
Minneapolis      |   2,999            |    9,528
Detroit          |   3,775            |    8,948
Baltimore        |   2,649            |    8,930
Cleveland        |   3,768            |    8,875
Pittsburgh       |   1,596            |    8,340 
Chicago          |   2,704            |    8,165
Denver           |   2,294            |    8,041 
San Diego        |   2,256            |    8,014
Los Angeles      |   2,132            |    7,890
Charlotte        |   2,649            |    7,096
St. Louis        |   3,094            |    6,932
Phoenix          |   2,333            |    6,689 
Houston          |   2,476            |    6,249
Dallas           |   2,333            |    6,106
Atlanta          |   1,190            |    5,332
Miami            |   1,252            |    5,007

[jtown,man]

Thanks so much for the interesting information! I would say DC doesn't surprise me much because of their unique political situation and destination within the country.

[cabasse]

i am both surprised and yet not surprised at all at atlanta's budget. holy shit, that's incredibly low - and it's plainly visible in the state of the city's infrastructure.

[wisheye]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

It largely just seems to track cost of living (which makes sense since presumably these are largely salaries), although LA seems to be particularly frugal (high cost of living but moderate expenditures)

It's because you're completely ignoring county budgets, which in Southern California for instance, provide a lot of services.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by wisheye

It's because you're completely ignoring county budgets, which in Southern California for instance, provide a lot of services.

You may be onto something. San Francisco is also a county. New York is several counties. So that may explain some of the reason they are so high (DC, of course, is analogous to a state).

What other cities are also counties? I know one or two that overlap a county geographically but still have separate governments like Jacksonville/Duval County FL and, I believe, Miami/Dade County FL. Do New York, Kings, Queens etc counties have any governmental functions that have their own budget separate from NYC? San Francisco is both a city and a county and its one government/one budget serves for both.

[saybanana]

Los Angeles County has a budget of ~$30 Billion for the 10 million residents.
Los Angeles City has 4 million residents within the county.

[Crawford]

NYC budget is around $90 billion for this fiscal year, so very roughly the same as SF.

The chart lists $73 billion, which sounds about 15 years out-of-date.

But, yeah, a nearly $1 billion rise in the SF budget in one fiscal year sounds like a lot. I hope these cities are socking away money for lean times.

[Centropolis]

i'm surprised at how small some of these budgets are, like indianapolis? a city of 900,000 people that fills the boundaries of an entire (full sized) county has a budget less than st. louis city.

recently there was a big local comparison to pittsburghs budget which is half of st. louis but we are probably right in line, it's a our state spending that is low, particularly for transit, so the city (and county) has to "bootstrap" the difference. although regional transit isn't a city budget item i don't think.

[pip]

You can't compare city budgets to one another. In some cities the County pays, higher county taxes then, for a lot of services or the state while in other cities it's up to the city.

And then there is schools. For example Baltimore per capita spending is four times that of Milwaukee, largely because Baltimore pays for school spending directly while Milwaukee has an independent school district. If this difference is taken into account they are practically identical.

[MonkeyRonin]

Toronto's budget for 2018 is only $11.12 billion (about $3,800/person). In Canada, most spending programs are under provincial jurisdiction, which is why the province of Ontario has a budget of $158 billion ($11,200/person) for comparison.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by wisheye

It's because you're completely ignoring county budgets, which in Southern California for instance, provide a lot of services.

Same thing with Miami. The County provides the transit, manages the airport, sea port, runs the traffic signals, public hospitals, public housing...etc. The City of Miami doesn't really do much other local zoning, police and fire hence the super low city taxes. School taxes are separate also.

[McBane]

This doesn't tell us the whole story. Is there any correlation with per capita spending and city services? Some of the cities with less per capita spending (e.g., Jacksonville, Wichita) are probably not needing to commit as much money on debt or pension obligations, homelessness, poverty, or crime as say Philadelphia or Chicago spends. Age is also a factor - how much money do cities have to spend to repair crumbling infrastructure that was originally built 100+ years ago? On the flipside, how much are newer, growing cities spending on expanding infrastructure?

Just b/c a city has a high per capita spend doesn't necessarily equal efficient government services. Not that anyone was arguing that it was, but it's a point to be made nonetheless.

[floor23]

San Francisco, Denver, and Honolulu are all consolidated City-County governments, so its somewhat misleading to include them. It's surprising how low Denver is despite the consolidation, but my guess is its due to sharing costs with neighboring counties. It's also surprising how high Portland is on the list. I would have never guessed they would be in the top 5.

Also I'd like to add that technically Honolulu shouldn't even be included on the list because there are no city governments in Hawaii. Just the state and 4 counties. Also the population for Honolulu is wrong and most likely they included the urban core.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by floor23

San Francisco, Denver, and Honolulu are all consolidated City-County governments, so its somewhat misleading to include them.

As are, IIRC, Indianapolis and Louisville?

[SlidellWx]

New Orleans and Baton Rouge are also city-parish governments. New Orleans and Orleans Parish are conterminous with each other. Baton Rouge is not conternimous with East Baton Rouge Parish, but the city and parish both elect a Mayor-President and council to oversee both the city and parish. That would make the $ per citizen number significantly lower for Baton Rouge than what is in the table.

[floor23]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

As are, IIRC, Indianapolis and Louisville?

Just looked it up and you're correct on both. My last post was from the top of my head (I shouldn't have been so lazy and just looked it up)

Apparently, Philadephia, New Orleans, and Nashville are also consolidated city-county.

There are a lot of hybrids out there such as Miami-Dade and Jacksonville (maybe?). I'd generally consider a true consolidated city-county where there is one set of council/supervisors and mayor.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by pip

You can't compare city budgets to one another. In some cities the County pays, higher county taxes then, for a lot of services or the state while in other cities it's up to the city.

And then there is schools. For example Baltimore per capita spending is four times that of Milwaukee, largely because Baltimore pays for school spending directly while Milwaukee has an independent school district. If this difference is taken into account they are practically identical.

Also, $1 in S.F. does not equal $1 practically anywhere else in the U.S. -- especially when the average rent for a 2b apartment will cost you over $4,500/mo.

Everything is more expensive in expensive cities, therefore requiring more money to pay for things that other cities wouldn't have to consider.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Also, $1 in S.F. does not equal $1 practically anywhere else in the U.S. -- especially when the average rent for a 2b apartment will cost you over $4,500/mo.

Everything is more expensive in expensive cities, therefore requiring more money to pay for things that other cities wouldn't have to consider.

San Francisco, by a 2009 ballot proposition, moved to a 2-year budget cycle. Revenue adjustments required in September of each year for the following year if budget/revenue projections are reduced. So the annual budget is about $5.5 billion each year. The city owns two massive cash-generating assets, SFO and the SF PUC (the water system serves most of the peninsula). So it's not as lavish as it sounds at first read.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by floor23

San Francisco, Denver, and Honolulu are all consolidated City-County governments, so its somewhat misleading to include them. It's surprising how low Denver is despite the consolidation, but my guess is its due to sharing costs with neighboring counties. It's also surprising how high Portland is on the list. I would have never guessed they would be in the top 5.

Also I'd like to add that technically Honolulu shouldn't even be included on the list because there are no city governments in Hawaii. Just the state and 4 counties. Also the population for Honolulu is wrong and most likely they included the urban core.

To may knowledge Denver "shares" cost with other counties in only three significant ways: (1) it has a regional transportation district across multiple counties (not unusual); (2) its football and baseball stadium are funded regionally; (3) its cultural facilities are funded, in part, regionally.

Not sure how common No. 3 is, though I believe (1) and (2) are not uncommon in the US. In any event, Denver does seem low in expenditure, particularly for a high-growth, booming city.

It's often hard to get an apples-to-apples comparison given certain accounting practices, and I do wonder if other things are going on, such as certain expenses being off book for some cities, but not for others. Denver, for example, has had a lot of BIG projects that are voter approved and funded through dedicated funding sources. Also, it has a monster airport with multi-billion dollar improvements/expansions underway that are funded through fees and through private enterprise partnerships.

I wonder if things like I've listed are included in some city "budgets" but excluded from others.