THE SUNDAY OREGOXIAN, PORTLAND, FEBRUARY 1, 1920
GUESS-WORK IN PREPARING BUDGETS SCORED BY COMMISSION
r5 Multnomah County Tax Supervising and Conservation Body, in First Annual Report to Governor Okott, Recommends More Systematic Effort for Correction of Prevalent Abuses.
RECOMMENDATIONS OP TAX
: Bt PKRVISISG COMMISSION.
Centralization of public au
thority alone will halt present
large waste in public expendi
tures. - Commission should be granted
enlarged powers to make need
ed, field examinations before
budget estimates are outlined.
"Need of competent state-wide
budget statute Is urgent.
' Majority of school district
budgets are found faulty and
cash balances seldom agree.
.-City of Portland budget shows
guess work and needless appro
priations for 'The Cedars."
City of Portland appropriates
too much money for vacation
purposes. Commission suggests
that with more co-operation va
cation expense fund could be
greatly lessened or eliminated.
Jugglery of county levies re
sults in exceeding 6 per cent
tax limitation.
Uniform budget system should
be adopted by all tax levying
bodies of county.
Greater economy In municipal
transportation recommended.
Excess levies Imposed by
needless legislation promote extravagance.
several forms of administration in
Multnomah county, bear a reasonable
proportion to the growth of popula
tion, and to the increasing wealth of
community, as expressed in the
sessed valuations of property against
which these expenditures are a di
rect charge? The total tax. levy in
1911 was $6,401,427; the population
(federal census) 226.261 and the as
sessed wealth 301.917,756. For 1920
the total tax levy is lll.993.S53 (omit
ting drainage district taxes), the pop
ulation (estimated) 371,103, and the
assessed wealth $336,277,720. While
the increased volume of taxes for the
years 1911-1919 is expressed by the
percentage of E2.94, the load accel
erated for the year 1920, as compared
with 1919, at the incredible rate of
23.57 per cent.
to the increase of assessed wealth a
tendency not conducive to industrial.
commercial or home-building invest
Comparative Changes bl Population. Wealth
and Taxen Between the Yearn 1911 and
1920, Indicated by Percentages:
City of Portland Percent.
Increase of population 70.22
Increase of (volume) taxable wealth. . .14.01
Increase r.f taxes .'...90.90
Decrease of. (per capital wealth 33.60
lultnoman county, outside Portland
Decrease of population .24.50
Decrease of (volume) taxable wealth. .41.49
Decrease of taxes 18.72
Increase of (per capita) wealth....... 6.96
Multnomah county, including
Portland
Increase of population '. , . .. .64.43
Increase of (volume) taxable wealth. ..11.04
Increase of taxes 87.65
Decrease of (iier capita) wealth 32.31
In three particulars county gov-
i ernment, city government and public
The following table exhibits the de- I school administration the tax re
tail of the percentage increases: I qulrements disclose different impulses;
redeemed from license receipts, gaso
line tax and reimbursement for loans.
Bond Obligation Asrnlnst General
Property Taxes.
Omitting state, city-, assessment
and drainage district bonds, the. total
obligation against the taxable re
sources of the .county as a whole is
$18,089,100, and against the city (in
cluding 93.3 per cent of county high
way bond debt) $17,891,850. The cur
rent annual total interest tax charge
is $813,796, of which city property
bears $809,810. These property bonds,
redeemable from the general taxes,
represent a total interest obligation
of $14,207,299, and a total interest
and redemption obligation of $32,-
296,399. The $7,241,830 city assess
ment and drainage district bonds
carry a current annual interest
charge against the property directly
affected by the investment of $434,
CONDEXSED TABLE OF TAX LEVIES FOR 1911, 1919 AND 1920, WITH PERCENTAGES OF INCREASES
AND DECREASES. '
Fund
CORRECTION of prevalent abuses
in the fixing on annual budgets
and recommendations for less
sruess- work and more systematic ef
fort in the work of estimating public
expenses for an annual period are but
two of the many suggestions made by
the Multnomah county tax supervis
Ing and conservation commission in
its first annual report to Governor
Olcott.
This commission, which supercedes
the citizens' advisory budget commit
tee, had made an extended report i
which it deals with the tax problems
of each of the 66 tax levying bodies
of Multnomah county. It points out
tKht it is unable to function as it
would'like to do because of the small
length of time in which it may
scrutinize the many proposed budgets,
but' as a result of its efforts during
tae-first year of its official existence,
itisets forth that-many thousands of
dollars could be saved to the tax pay
ere if there were more co-ordmatio
among the various branches of gov
ernment which fix an annual tax
'.ThS. report in full, follows:
The supervision of the numerous an
BBal -budgets of Multnomah county; in
tbe-manner contemplated by the act
gfving life to this commission, can
nofbe instituted and maintained ef
festively without further legislation.
As a matter of fact, the problem
administrative, rather than advisory,
andin a minor degree contains the
elemental difficulties confronting the
federal congress in the long deferred
effort to establish a national budget
system. Although the general property
of the eountv bears the burden and
The tax revenues have a single source,
thK budget estimates are adopted an
nually by 66 levying bodies acting
independently of each other and ac
tuated by no co-ordinating impulse,
Inasmuch as the levying officials
manage the disbursement of the tax
revenues under auditing methods that
ace likewise Independent, they incline
to a policy of liberality and some
times extravagance, in considering
the needs and enterprises of their
several units of administration as all
Important. The large waste in public
expenditures chargeable to this con
dition is to be restrained oniy,Dy
General state purposes '. ,
County school purposes
County purposes
County public library
Port of Portland
City of Portland v
Public docks
Town of Gresham
Town of Fairview
Town of Troutdale
School District No. 1 (Portland)
School Districts Nos. 3 to 52, inclusive....
Joint school districts
L7nion high school district No. 1
Union high school district No. 2
County high school tuition fund,
Maplewood water district
centralization of administrative au
thoritv over the annual estimates; i
consolidation of auditing responsibili
ties, and a divorcement oi tne-uis
bursing from the levying function.
Public finances in Multnomah coun
ty are administered in three distinct
fiscal terms, xnat oi me scuooi mo-
triefs closes June 30, the city and
doc commission, November 30, and
the county and port, December 31
The tax funds of 56 school districts,
the Library Association of Portland,
the Port of Portland, the three drain
age districts and a water district for
1920, amounting to $3,556,058.31, - are
nassed to treasurers, in the admin
istration of three several budget-mak
Ing bodies, and subject to no super
visory audit of a properly bonded
authority. ' k
If the several agencies of govern
ment, having to do with the tax prob
lera affecting the general property of
the county, are to be regarded as
relative parts of a laf ge business con
cern, their disbursement accounts and
budget .necessities should be adjusted
to a uniform fiscal record, covering
the same period or term, and their
voucher methods and expenditures
should be subject to ' the periodic
scrutiny -nf a responsible supervisory
authority.
Before-entering upon a review of
Che budget subject, the urgent neces
sity for drastic statutory changes in
our incoherent financial system may
ie emphasized by a comparative study
of. the general property taxes for the
' last decade, considered in conjunction
-with the accumulating public debt.
n.Unroportionate Increase of Taxes,
, ' '.. population and Wealth.
vOne of the primary inquiries of the
commission was: Does the rapidly In-,
cteaslng annual outlays, under the
Total.
Tax 1911
? Tax 1919.
$ 603.835. 51$1.051, 394.27
392.493.U8I 606,741. 89
1,403,917.66
45,287.66
470.96.94
1,667,812.76
898.52
1,124.29
Y.777,Yll.66
35.181.27
2,168.26
$6,401,4285
1,637,476.15
163,747.62
t 671.598.61
3,367,207.04
305,200.64
3,036.46
1,000.89
960.65
1,945.216.95
58.682.27
6.381.70
3545.84
17.S70.76
10,943.78
Tax 1920.
PerCent. I Per Cent.
1911-1919 1911-1920
Inc. Dec. line. Dec.
Per-Cent.
1919-1920
Inc. Dec
$9,790,005.41
1.586.101.03
623,616.56
1,840,674.68
248,105.51
458,408.82
4,003,861.60
375,362.02
4,714.39
.1,066.45
1,001.40
2,716,873.30
. 78,046.02
6,060.54
4,145.89
21,073.60
19,883.32
4,638.14
$11.993,533.17
74.12
41.85
16.64
261.57
42.59
101.29
288.13
9.42
66.80
148.23
y52.94
10.96
162.33
58.54
24.01
457.67
i 3 8.75
423.V5
52.02
116.08
179.04
84.94
5.21
5.64
50.86
12.01
12.41
51.52
19.26
22.99
55.23
6.65
4.25
39.67
33.00
12.61
16.92
17.92
81.59
33.23
23.57 .
County 1920 includes market road tax, $100,583.31, and Rose Festival tax, $30,175. -IPort
of Portland 1919 Includes special levies, $250,000. , - .
tlnclude excess more than 6 per cent over previous year tax not "authorized by a majority of the legal voters
voting upon the question," as provided in -Article XI, constitution of Oregon.
The years 1911, 1914 and 1920 have
been adopted as instructive periods of
comparison for the following reasons:
Population estimates for the purpose
of determining approximate per capi
tas will have to be based on the last
federal census, which was taken in
1910. Moreover, 1910-1911 witnessed
a swing of the business and Indus
trial pendulum back to the normal
after the financial shock of 1907. In
1914 came the operation of the new
city, or commission, form of govern
ment, and this year also marked the
beginning of the inflation of values
and expenditures consequent upon
war conditions. ' -
Statistics of Tax Distribution.
The following instructive analysis
is worked out on the basis of the.
wealth area involved with each levy,
except in the case of the school dis
trict levies outside the city and the
trifling town and drainage and water
district levies which are aggregated
as . outside the city" taxes. The sum
of taxes obtained includes all ' the
levies computed on the basis of valu
ation of the area.
The . assessed valuation of the
coimty. lying outside the municipal
limits is relatively .so small (6.7 per
cent of the total) that the small towns
and the school districts are consid
ered as a part of the entire taxable
area of the county outside the city
boundaries, even to the determining
n the case of School district No. 1
(Portland) the amount of taxes of the
area of the district which extends into
the county, as a part of the burden
of county taxes outside the municipal
limits.
The vital purposes of the subjoined
table are: .
(1). To exhibit the actual distribu
tion of taxes as between municipal
and outside property in the county
with the per capita and percentage
cost variations for 1911, 1914 and 1920,
not expressed in expenditures but in
actual tax levies. In order to obtain
these precise aggregations each levy
had to be computed on the" basis of
the assessed valuation of the several
taxing units, ranging from the modest
school district to the municipal area.
(2). To measure in the language of
per capitas and percentages, as near
as possible, the volume of tax in
creases since 1911. and the apportion
ment of the levies, with a view to as
certaining the reasonableness or ex
travagance of the costs of government
and its incidental enterprises.
An important element in the prob
lem of increasing public expenditures
and debts is the variation in the vol
ume of assessable wealth upon which
these burdens become a mortgage. Al
though the volume ' of the assessed
valuation of 'the general property of
Mnltnomah county increased 11.04 per
cent since 1911 while taxes were in
creasing 87.65 per cent the per capita
of assessable wealth in Portland has
hrunk during the decade from $1324
to $879, with a small gain in the
county . area outside the city from
$1452 to $1563. The decrease of per
capita assessable wealth for the en-
re .county -during the period de
scribed was $1379 to $903. Thus the
per .capita assessable wealth of the
oity declined 33.60 per cent, and for
the entire county area 32.31 per cent
during a period in which the volume
of taxes increased 90.90 in the city and
.65 in Multnomah county. This
means that the annual tax burden
falling entirely on the general nroD-
erty of the community is accelerating
at a pace out of reasonable proportion
the progressive increase of city gov
ernment outlays overshadowing the
others. Municipal government taxes
in Portland increased 138.75 per cent
from 1911 to 1920; from $7.94 to $11.22
per capita. - ;
Of the total velume of taxes against
the common property, city govern
ment, including the dock commission,
absorbs 38.02 per cent in 1920, while
it required only 27.24 per cent in 1911
The county government proportion of
the total volume of taxes in 1911, in
cluding road, was 21.17 and in 1920
will be 14.91. The proportion of school
district! No. 1 in 1911 was 28.60 and in
1920 it will be 23.36. In order to ob
tain correct percentages the 1911
taxes for the town areas embraced
snbsequently in the city limits are In
cluded in the municipal calculation
Record of Bonded Debt, i
A compilation of the bonded debt
in Multnomah county, as of November
30, 19197 shows a grand total of $37,
242,980. The sum of the outstanding
warrants of the school districts is
trifling.. ' Of the $37,242,980, the sum
of $8,288,000 is chargeable to revenue
producing utilities, and $3,624,050 is
exempt from property tax, leaving a
total of $25,330,930 of general prop
erty obligations.- When the share
of this burden that falls upon out
side property, such as the county dis
trict schools, drainage districts, town
of Gresham, and the county highway,
is deducted, it leaves a net debt
against the municipal property (in
cluding 93.3 per cent of the county
highway bonds) "of $24,958,680, or 9.3
per cent of the, total assessed valua
tion. Available sinking funds . of
$2,263,589, if applied to redemption,
would reduce the debt percentage' 'of
assessed valuation to 7.36. Again,
deducting the assessment bonds, the
general property bond debt of .the
city diminishes to $17,878,100, or 6.72
per cent of the assessed valuation;
and to 5.07 per cent when the sink
ing funds are deducted.
The detail of the bond record ex
hibits the amount; date of issue and
maturity; rate of interest;' whether
and when retirement can be made
before maturity date; purpose of the
issue; amount of sinking fund where
such has been provided for; annual
credit to sinking fund; fund against
which the interest is a charge, and
whether bonds are redeemable from
the same fund.
Following is a comprehensive seg
regation of the bonded indebtedness:
General ourooses:
City of Portland Refunded $
Delinquent assessment
Improvement
Public docks
Harbor development .....
School district No. 1
Port of Portland .
Kiver Improvement ......
510, making the total annual inter
est on property debt $1,248,306. The
following table shows the detail of
the bond obligations to be provided
for in the general annual taxes:
trict No. 1, the port commission and
the dock commission.
With the exception of the city gov
ernment, which adopts its budget un
der the charter the third Monday in
November, andi the county govern
ment, which concludes its budget de
liberations December 31; the statu
tory requirement is that the budgets
of the taxing units be filed with the
county clerks and assessors on or De-
fore December 1. The supervisory
duties of the . tax conservation com
mission, with direct relation to the
various budgets, are limited as to
time, between Novermber 1 and De
cember 31; and in the opinion of the
funds,although reserving to them the
authority to control disbursements
through the voucher and invoiee
method applied to the expenditure of
other public funds. Until this change
is brought about legislatively and
the better method should be given
state-wide ' application the adminis
tration of school district funds will
remain irresponsible and chaotic.
Prior to legislative action an expert
examination of the several districts in
Multnomah county should be made.
Consolidated School Budget Estimates.
The consolidated school budget
sheet for Multnomah county, exclud
ing joint districts, shows the total of
district attorney, the commission has the 1919-1920 estimated expenditures
only 30 days, the month or o?emDer,
within which to make recommenda
tions for reduction in the budget es
timates of all districts required to
file levies on or before December 31.
It follows that for county, mu
niinal. schnoL highway and other
taxes aggregating approximately $10,-
500.000 in 1920. with the enormous
to be $3,589,978.69. of which $210,126.44
is for bond and warrant installment
payments and interest. s
The. following percentage table is
based on the estimates for operation:
Amount Pct
leacners" salaries I2.-..J.840.00
rqass of detail involved with the total j Flags
Furniture
Apparatus and supplies.
Library books
1,635.00
i 88,735.00
3,170.00
1MM firt
Repairs , 116,-08.26
nroDosed budget expenditures (in
cluding incidental revenues)- of $1.2,-
692,925.69; the commission wouio nave
tn examine, review and digest in -No
vember the proposed budgets or 6-
of the 66 levying bodies; make formal i
report of recommendations, and issue
Invitations, and hold conferences in
each instance where recommendation
was offered.
The multiplicity of uses and pre
texts for the heavy tax expenditures
in Multnomah county requires re
search in the general zones of opera
tion. Curtailment of budget esti
mates through an advisory cnannei.
and restraint by publicity upon tne
extravagant impulses of disbursing
aerents. can only be effected wnen
nre-ed unon the substantial basis of
specific information. Sch informa
tion is not to be ODtainen oy clerical
scrutiny of the proposed budgets in
the official headquarters of a com
mission or bureau, but as a result of
independent investigation in the field
of expenditure, tor tnis necessary Total district Kn. i t i7inno
technical labor, chapter 375, laws of Miscellaneous, other than district No.
1919, makes no provision, ana in ai-j
invin? tha expenditure of $-600 a
Improving around
Playground equipment.
Transportation of pupils
Tuition of oudIIs
Janitors' wanes .
Janitor supplies
f uel .
Llftht 7. .
Water 7
Clerks' salaries, exclud
ing; district Nil 1
Administration, district
No. 1
Miscellaneous, district No.
Betterments (
Buildings, new and ad
ditions Portables
Ground purchases . . .
Fire insurance
Moving portables ....
Freight and drayage. .
Fumigation
Liability Insurance . .
Rent (school purposes) f
Telephpne, schools ...
Civic centers : .
Lectures, traveling ex- j
penses, etc
Teachers' retirement
fund .
Insurance fund
14.6411.00
1,370.00
880.00
72.13
211,730.50
14,190.00
113.445.36
,20,759.50
-.-,654.75
1.225.00
113.235.00
1
17,650.00
30,000.00
50,000.00
30,000.00
1,000.00
4,410.00
6,730.00
1.100.00
3.250.00
3.100.00
8.300.00
6,000.00
3.000.00
17,150.00
15.000.00
71.71
.05
3.81
.12
.01
3.44
.43
.04
.03
'e.ii
.42
3.36
.6
' .37
.04
3.35
. New buildings '. $
.insurance ana miscel
laneous
3,000.00
1,096.50
Purpose
City of Portland General 1$
Delin. assm't collection!
Improvements . :
Docks Construction . .
Harbor development ...
Port of Portland River
Improvements ..
School dis. No. 1 Construe.
Total
County highway . .
County school districts
Construction
Town of Gresham Wa
ter system . ,
Grand total '.
Amount
526.500.00
1,000,000.00
7,910.400.00
4,960,200.00
1,250,000.00
350,0005)0
718,500.00
$16,715,600.00
1,250)00.00
98,500.00
25,000.00'
Annual
Interest.
$ 26,160.00
62,500.00
338,160.00
224,110.00
56,250.00
, 17,500.00
32.33L00
$747,011.00
69,375.00
6,910.00
l,500.0o!
Total
Interest
' Due.
$ 216.310:00
458,750.00
5.029,882.50
5,788,387.50
1,659,375.00
35,000.00
347,446.60
$13,535,151.50"
56.4,062.60
90,085.00
18,000.00
(Total Obliga-
tion prlnci
I pal and Int.
$ 742,810.00
1,458,750.00
12,940,282.60
10,748,687.50
2,909,375.00
' 385.000.00
1,065,946.60
$30,250,751.50
1,814,062.50
188,585.00
43,000.00
Total f
Postage and stationery.
otner tnan dist. No. 1
4.006.50
232.75
5.8:
1 '
.12
.01
Total operation S3.379.852.25 100.00
.uonaea : a n a warrant
debt and Interest 210.126.44
. $18,089,100,001 $813,796. 00$14.207,299.00 $32,296,399.00
526.500
1,000,000
7.810.400
4,000.200
1,250.000
71S.OUU
350.000
,.'.116.715,600
... 7,036,830
Total
City assessment bonds...
Total municipal bond debt..
County Highway
. Town of Gresham, water. . . .
Drainage districts
County school districts
Total "property debt of county.J25.330.930
Utility revenue bonds:
City of Portland (water) 6,794,000
City of Portland (drydock) 344.000
County (interstate bridge) 1,150,000
23.772,430
1.250,000
25,000
185,000
98,500
Total Utility revenue bonds...! 8,288,000
Total property, revenue bonds 33,618,930
State bonds. 87 per cent of $9.
140,000 principal and 1385,000
interest highway bonds 3.381,800
State bonds, 37 per cent of $450,
000 principal and (18.000 Inter
est rural credit bonds 166.500
Irrigation interest bonds.. 75,750
Total state $ 3,624.050
The state bonds are not a tax lia
bility, and are to be automatically
TABLE SH0WLG SEGREGATION OF
CITY AND COUNTY
PERCENTAGES.
"1
TAXES
WITH PER CAPITAS AND
Taxes on City Property-
Taxes 1911
Municipal government ...
Dock commission
School district No. 1....
County government
library purposes
County school
County market road tax
County roads
County Rose Festival ...
Prt-commission
Genera! i State
School (
- Total tax on municipal property..,.
Taxes on Property Outside City
School district No. 1
Other school districts
County government
library purposes ...i .....
County schools
Sunty market road tax
County roads ..
County Rose Festival
ort commission
General!
School (State
Total taxes on property outside city
Total Multnomah county taxes on property inside
- and outside Portland, except town, water and
I drainage districts. ..... .
$1,645,596
" i."727.87i'
1,014,786
41,140
260,563
"4 38', 75 8
548,530
356,546
1911
Per
Cap
7.94
8.34
4.90
.20
1.26
".12
2.64
1.72
Taxes 1914
1914
Per
Cap.
Taxes 1920.
1920 I
Per I
Cap.
Per Cent.
1911-1920.
Inc. Dee.
Interstate Bridge Bonds. '
The. interstate bridge bonds and
interest are no longer a factor of the
annual county tax burden. The pro
cess of redemption from the revenues
began in 1919, as an immediate re
sult of the legislation of Uiat year.
In adopting the county budget, for
1919, there were included the sums
of $50,000 for the "redemption of inter
state bridge bonds, 'and of $58,750 for
accrued interest . The subsequent
legislative act, creating the "Columbia
river interstate bridge commission,"
and defining its powers, autborzed
the payment of these obligations from
the bridge tolls, and as a consequence
the county general fund should have
to its credit January 1, 1920, tne un
used bond and Interest levies amount
ing to $108,750.
As to the obligation laid down in
section three of the 1915 law, to pay
the state 75 per cent of the net profit
from operation-, of the ..bridge, until
the state shajl be fully reimbursed
for deductions from taxes remitted
to the state, the county treasurer
holds the opinion that Multnomah
county owes to the state of Oregon
75 per cent of such profits, to and
including May 27,.,1919, but that fur
ther reimbursement is not required
after that date, nor can the state
lay claim to any part of the tolls
subsequently collected. Based on this
view, the status of the toll fund is
as follows: 7
State :
Net tolls to April SO,
1910 ,$2592
Net tolls May 1-27,
1919. 27-31 of 110.- "
203.27
13.731.99
Less county pro
tion -25 ...
Total due state....
County
25 of net tolls
$272,948.76
. 68.237.19
to
May 27. 1019 t 68.237.19
Tolls May 28-31. 1919,
4-31 of $15.203.27... 1,471.28
Net tolls June ' 1 to
Oct. 31, 1919 .... 80,601.20-
Less bond redemption
and interest paid in
June, 1919
$150,309.67
80,040.00
70.269.67
$6,033,780
21,022
67.077
102.310
. 4,148
26,269
I
32.239
65.306
35,9471
29.12
1.11
3.52
6.37
.22
1.38
V.69
2.90
1.89
$2,418,614
2,3r5.793
549,685
141,347
47,116
SoV.390.
08Y.696
1,404.866
376,927
-I-
$8,440,834
15,560
82,800
47,878
12,312
4,103
'49,246
35,79i
165,851
32,8311
t 344,4181 18.08!$ 446,372
6,378,1981 28.191 8,887,206
8.51 $ 4,003,861.501- 11.22 143.311
395,362.02 1.05
8.29 2,690.094.45 7.64 55.69
' 1.93 1,595,288.57 4.47 57.20
. .60 231.473.24 .65 462.65
,.17 581,811.13 1.63
93,840.00 ' .26 ...... ......
1.99 100.00
28.152.15 .08
2.05 437,922.35 1.23 19
4.94
1.32 1,480,238,88 4.15 j" 63.55
29.70 $11,518,044.79 32.28 90.90
.72 26.778.85 1.86 27.38
,3.80 129,209.37 8.99 92.63
2.20 114,627.80 7.97 12.04
.67 16,632.27 1.16 300.97
.19 41.805.43 2.91
6,742.81 .47
2.26 ' 100.00
2,022.85 .14
1.64 20,486.47 1.42 36.46
7.62 105,82.15 7.36 ( 16.01
'x"1 'jW
20.5JJ$ 464,168.00 32.28 34.77
29.051 11,982, 212.79 32.28 87.86
TABLE SHOWING SEGREGATION OF CITY AND COUNTY POPULATION, WEALTH AND TAXES,
WITH PER CAPITAS AND PERCENTAGES. !
Items
1911 Taxes.
rown taxes
Drainage district taxes
Water district taxes ..:
Grand t'l.inc. town. drainage and water dis. taxes.
tlXkx and Wealth Per Capita
Pwmfation City
"County outside, city
ASfeseed wealth City
C5u n t y outside city ....-...
Taxes City ....
'County outside city
Ftr-rapita wealth City
County outside city
Per pa pita taxes City
County outside city . .'. .V
Tier!
I Cap. I
1914 Taxes.
19141
Per I
Cap. I
1920 Taxes.
1 1920
I Per
I Cap.
23,229.00
6,401,427.00
207.214 '
19.047
$274,266,035.00
27.6D1.72U.UU
6,033.780.00
344.418.00
. 1.324.001
1,452.00
29.12
18.08
28.29
61,143.00
8,948,349.00
t" 284.184
21,765
$314,705,777.1)0
26,758.898.00
8,440,834.00
446,372.00
1,106.00
1,229.00!
29.70
20.15
..1$
29.25
6.T82.00
18.S06.00;
4.538.00
12.012,339.00
356,823 ..
14,380-
$312,801,680.00
22.476.040.00
11,518.045.00
494,294.00
879.00
1,563.00
32.28
34.37
32.36
Per. Ct.
1911-20
Inc.
87.65
Balance Nov. 30. 1919. accounts
to Oct. 31, 1919) $274,981.24
The annual revenues accruing from
the operation of the interstate bridge,
have attained a stability that seems
to guarantee the liquidation of .the
investment and a cumulative surplus
more than sufficient for maintenance,
replacement and reconstruction.
The two funds, "bridge" and "bridge
toll." should be merged; and if the
commission has not the authority to
invest surplus balances in bonds, the
legislature should confer it. This is
especially desirable if a permanent
reconstruction fund is to be estab
lished. The earning capacity of the
cash balances, unless funded in' in
terest bearing securitues, is only
per centr
Necessity of Field Examinations.
The law prescribing the duties of
the commission in section four, pro
vides that the annual budgets of the
66 taxing units be "filed for super
vision on or before December 1; and
in section five requires that the com
mission shall advise the taxing' of
ficials of the several units as to the
tax to be levied in keeping with its
findings and conclusions, between
November 1 and December 31. Within
this period "it shall be the duty of
said levying boards to meet with said
tax supervising and conservation
commission at said times and plaoes
(to be designated by the commission)
. . . that said proposed budgets
shaH, after said hearing, be care
fully considered by said commission,
the commission shall report back', in
writing . . . the results of their
findings." ,
It is practically impossible for a
supervisory budget commission to
function effectively in accordance
with these requirements. The largest
unit of expenditure is the city, and
its annual budget is adopted, under
the charter, the third Monday in No
vember, three weeks after the budget
estimates are compiled. Without hav
ing conducted a continuous examina
tion of the municipal outlays for the
antecedent portion of the year", forti
fied with precise knowledge as to the
detailed expenditures of the' previous
fiscal terms, an advisory commission
could hope to have little or no in
fluence as a supervisory agency in
the ultimate approval of the budget.
The same necessity exists in the case
of the other budgets, but more par
ticularly the budget of the major tax
units, "namely, the county, school dis-
year barely provides for perfunctory
clerical service and office supplies,
Uniformity In Budget Making
Advisable. (
While the act creating the commis
sion and prescribing Its duties di
rects it td co-operate' with the lew
ing officials in an advisory capacity,
in the preparation of the annual budg
ets, it fails to definte the elements of
information-to be contained in a uni
form budget exhibit applicable to the
many different taxing units. 'Indeed,
witn an tne legislative references to
budgets, no comp'etentbudget statute
nas oeen enacted. - Tne nearest ap
proach to an efficient law on the sub
ject relates merely to the county gov
ernment, and provides no formula for
data beyond the annual detail of esti
mated needs and receipts. Under the
administrative code of Multnomah
county, the so-called Westchester
budget form is supposed to be used
and the city officials have likewise
adopted- it : in actual practice. This
form contains not alone the detailed
estimates for the-ensuing year, but
allowances, and comparative detailed
expenditures- for a part of the cur
rent .fiscal . term,, with salary rates
and reasons for increase or decrease.
ine ideal budget form is only com
plete when the primary detail sheets
reveal comparative unit costs for two
or three ears past, and the- actual
expenditures of the previous year. .
. The only properly complied budgets
containing the original detail' sheets
was received in excellent form from
the municipal .authorities and the
dock corqmission. With 137 sheets of
estimates to consider. It is obvious
that the municipal budget should
come under supervisory examination
not later than October 1. instead of
the
the
Grand total $3,589,978.69
An Illustration of Guesswork,
In the case of the municiDal budcet.
filed with the commission about No
vember 1, the special levy election of
the 12th pending whih it was im
possible to calculate on the revenue
resources for 1920 prevented its pub
lication. Under the time limitation
for their adoption, November 17,
commission received no copy of
estimates as amended until long after
December 1
As an example of the many possible
instances of excessive estimates con
tained in the' municipa-r budget, and
to, emphasize the necessity for more
extended unit cost data In the budget
detail sheets, the estimates for clean
ing and disinfectant supplies at the
Cedars, the city detention . home,
may be cited. ,' t ar 1919 the budget
allowance was $150, and he nine
months' expenditures, $96.22. The to
tal of the--originalfstimate detail for
1920 was $985, and as finally adopted
the budget, showed a total allowance
for 1920 Of $500, as against $150 .for
1919. ' Upon looking into the 1920 de
tail it Is founa that 15 cases of toilet
paper, at $10 a case ($100), estimated
as necessary fdr the year, measured:
61,240 single federal government ra
tions of 16 1-3 sheets per day. Re
duced to a per capita calculation the
ten cases would furnish an annual
ration for 168 inmates, whereas the
commission was informed the aver
age daily, population of the "Cedars,"
patients and officials, was 35.
When the detention nome was tem
porarily located at Kelly Butte, under
the administration of the county commissioners,-
the records-'of the pur
chasing department show that for the
seven months, January 1 to July 31,
1918. inclusive, with an average daily
population (patients and employes) of
45. only three cases of toilet paper and
three cases of laundry soap -satisiiea
the requirements. On the basis of this
experience, jive cases or tonet paper,
instead of' 15,"fas estimated, and fiv
cases of laundry soap, instead of 35,
would have been a reasonable esti
mate for 1920 maintenance at the
Cedars." 'In addition, - this unusual
hvsrienic budger contained an estr-
mate of $160 for toilet soap. Taken
reduction made in the "Cedars" estir
mate, the sum of $300 would be al
lowed for an expenditure that should
. . .(Compiled from county assessor's levy roll, January 3,. 1920.
tax. levies are tentative, but will probably be unaltered.)
'Taxing" Agency '
l..v..
2.
1:.
3..
4..
7..
8..
9. .
November 1; and for-comparative pur-
DnSPS .nf th-in Anrliar t-AT, .. aa
-$204,711.57 ord of current vear exnenrtlt,,r fn, all together the three items amounted
six months, instead of nine, would to $485 and after deducting the $18o
suffice.''
School District Budgets. y.
Budget estimates of the school dis
tricts show no comparative data. In
some instances the directors fail' to
comply with the law, and the county
school superintendent and assessor
adjust the levies. In other, cases the
estimates iare defective, particularly
in the- matter of exhibiting available
resources. Reports, on cash balances
which appear in three forms: 'in the
budget estimated receipts, the annual
financial statements of the clerks to
the.- county superintendent, and . the
treasurer's records, are irreconcilable.
For lack of proper centralization
and control of. the school district
finances, the annual budget assets-
are in many instances incorrectly set
up- in the proposed budgets, and the
revenue foundation of such budgets
is therefore faulty.
The primary element of budget as
sets Is cash. ; Some of the cash bal
ances of June 30 are in possession of
the school boards, and other balances
remain with the county treasurer. In,
reporting the classified receipts and
disbursements to the county school
superintendent, the clerks of the
school boards are presumed to incor
porate the actual cash credit of the
district. , .Likewise in the budget the
correct cash balance of June 30
should be included in the resources.
In many cases the cash asset con
tained in the budget does not agree
with the cash balance reported to
the county school superintendent, and
again, the county treasurer's balance
sheet for the fiscal year shpws cash
in excess of both the budget and an
nual legal report.
Only three budget reports revealed
balanees in the treasurers hands,
amounting in the total to $443.03,
while the actual treasurer's balances
were $34,232.02. On the other hand.
the cash reported by clerks as budget
assets of June 30, 1919, does not agree
on the whole with the cash balances
reported to the county school super
intendent the same date. The super
intendent's reports show $8511.26
more cash than the budget estimates,
and $25,277.73 less than the treasury
balances.
School board budgets are mere esr
timates of expenditures and receipts,
and present hocomparative informa
tion." The dilatory and defective man
ner in which they are reported are an
embarrassment to the assessor. The
budget of District No. 1, though de
ficient In the matter of comparative
expenditures, contains a praiseworthy
feature in .the, painstaking explana
tion! of its stimates.
The remedy for the present condi
tion, is to concentrate the district
school finances in the offices of the
county treasurer andi county auditor,
thus relieving the school directors of
tne responsibility oi handling' the
not exceed $125. One of ths In
centives to the adoption of these ex
cessive budget details is that the sur
plus balances contribute to a fund
that, may be applied under the di
rection of the disbursing officers to
the redemption of expenditures made
in excess of budget provisions, or for
purposes not specified In the budget.
Municipal Transportation.
When the various odds and ends of
the transportation allowances in the
municipal budget are aggregated,
striking'ppssiblllties of economy are
suggested. The total proposed ex
penditures In 1920 for motor vehicle
accessories, supplies, repairs, auto
hire, car fare and "other" outlays, is
$159,617.50; and for transportation
employes $77.330.55; , making a total
transportation estimate for the year
of $236,948.05. On the basis of the
average monthly expenditure for like
service during the nine months of
1919. as reported in the budget esti
mates, the increase of the proposed
outlay for 1920 would be $76,373, or
47.66 per cent An allowance of
$5816.50 is made for street car fares,
$3615 for auto hire and $7905 for
"other" official transportation. The
total of these items. $17,336.50. shows
a 38.87 Der cent increase over the
average monthly expenditures mad
under similar classifications in 1J19,
Public Service Vacations.
In professional and commercial oe-
cupations it Is customary to provide
for individual vacations during tha
dull season without Increasing over
head costs. In public life the habit
of employing vacation substitutes, ac
quired of recent years, is developln
into obvious waste. The Multnoma
county budgets for -1920 contain a
aegregate of $79,826.25 for vacation
service, most of which cpuld be per
formed by co-operative arrangement.
or temporarily neglected, without dct
riment to the-public welfare. Tn
municipal estimates alone for vacation
services total $41,352.50.
Emergency Fund Accounts Advisable.
One of the plausible devices for th
purpose of creating surplus general
fund balances is the unexplained
"miscellaneous" or "contingent" items.
added for full-measure to the detailed
estimates. Fos 1920. unexplained
"contingent"-funds amounting to $13,
040 have been allowed 36 offices, de
nartmerits; bureaus and divisions, in
the municipal budget. The increase
of these allowances over the average
monthly expenditures for nine months
in 1919 is $5336. or 75.43 per cent.
Estimates or allowances of this
character 4should not be countenaccd
in budget making. A general emor
cency fund allowance snoum De pro
vided and expended through emer
gency warrants Issued by the auditor
on oroof of emergent necessity, cer
rifled , bv department heads on de
tailed forms.
The specified miscellaneous ana
contingent allowances in the city
hud-ret aggregate $1,101,684, as
against a nine months' expenditure of
85.136.60 in 1919; an annual rate 01
outlay of $380,152, which means a per-
r.ntiM increase of 159.78 ror
Thi lurira estimated expenditure is
Accounted for in part by plant, ae
terioration consequent upon war eeon-
nmv. hut if examined cioseiy wouia
probably reveal great possibilities for
thrift on tne part 01 tne uniuuua
tive officials.
Exceeded the Constitutional Limit.
Jugglery of the county levtes, fol
lowing the adoption or an error in
the published estimates, has resulted,
through violation of the 6 per cent
constitutional limitation, in a total
county levy" of $76,475.76 in excess of
the legal allowance ior annual in
crease, rne in is legisimuio
the levy limit for library purposes
from 4 to 1 mill, but tne taxes to De
raised for library purposes are in
cluded in the sum total or taxes to
be levied by the 'county commission
ers for all purposes. The same leg-
slature provided, for tne ltose fes
tival levy, which Is likewise made a
part of the annual sum of taxes to
he raised for general county purposes.
The county commissioners are author-
zed to include fhe estimates for these
evles in their annual budget, and
although the library association asked
for an increase of 51.13 per cent over
the 1919 levy, the commissioners, un
der legislative extension of the library
evy limit, provided for tne total es-
mate as a factor or tne county gov-
rnment budget. When the county
budget estimates were completed for
ublication, they included tne pro
posed library and Rose Festival levies,
and the sum total or an tne county
levy. estimates was within the 6 per
cent limitation for annual Increase.
In a check of the county budget
estimate sheets, in the tax supervis
ing and conservation commission, a
serious error of compilation was en- I
countered. The salary detail fnr
maintenance, originally submerged In
the bridge estimates, had been b
stracted for comparative information,
and then the total of the salary shseta
was Inadvertently added to and mad
a part of the budget for bridges. Tho
bridge estimates as adopted primarily
totaled $482,858.19, whereas the cor
rect sum was $348,926.94.
When the attention of the county
commissioners was drawn to the fact
that a fictitious surplus levy of $133..
931.25 was concealed in the bridge
estimates, the budget detail was re
considered and $50,000 of the sum of
the. error was absorbed in an increase
of the hospital levy. Then, at ths
last moment, In closing the budcet
December 31, the sum of $82,900 was
added to the $25,000 emergency esti
mate, for anticipated highway needs;
the purchasing department was glvnn
an additional $2100 for the establish
ment of a cost accounting system, and
the highway estimates were assigned
an additional $13,983.78.
The aggregate of these levies whoa
adjusted, exclusive of bond and Inter
est levies, was $1,803,821.88, while th
limitation, of the 6 per cent Inoream
for the general purposes of the county,
including library, was $1,727.34(U2:
an illegal excess levy, as taLod. of
$76,475.76.
No mention In this report of b
error discovered in the original county
budget estimates was contemplated,
until the eleventh-hour excessive in
creases imposed on this commlitnloa
the duty of citing the experience as
Illustrative of (1) the administrative
lmpotency of the tax supervising and
conservation act; (2) the determina
tion of levying bodies to maintain
maximum expenditures under the con
stitutional levy limitation; and (3)
the inherent inefficiency of a bud net
law that permits levy increases after
the- adoption and publication of es
timates. In two other levies the constitu
tional limit of increase was disre
garded. The legislature of 191J man
datorily increased the county per cap
ita school tax from $7 to $10. and
under the census requirement tho
Multnomah county levy was t-l.-
616.56. The legal limit of the county
school fund levy for 1920 is $.".90,
140.41; so that under a statute con
flicting in its operation In Multnomah
county with the constitution, an ex
cesslve levy of $33,470.15 has been
made.
The high school tuition fund levy
Is $19,883.32, while the leRal limit of
Increase was $11,600 62. The percent
age of increase Is 81.69 Instead of .
Excess Levies Imposed br Heedless
Legislation.
Tax levies as calculated under the
amended law of 1917, with the result
ant variation of sums over and above
budget allowances, are seriously ir
regular. The Jnhor and space saving
pretext for restricting the decimal
extension of the mllliiuc to the tenth
point Is the specious pleading of
Indolence and Incompetence: particu
larly with the present-day equipment
for precise mechanical compulation.
For the purpose of charting the
operation of the amended levy law
in Multnomah county, a tabulation Is
included in this report, based on the
primary and uncorrected valuations.
to show the 1919 assessments; present
egal levy: amount of tax raised
hereby; the budget allowances; tha
fractional surplus and deficit sums
resulting from an arbitrary and In.
exact levy compilation, and the ap
proximately correct levies.
It appears from these calculations.
ubject to trifling modification hy the
etectlon of errors during the process
f extending the taxes on the rolls.
that the net excess of levies In ths
county, over and above the budget
requirements. Is $44,806.52. All the
tax units, except three, get excessive
evles, and the city and school dis
trict No. 1, In addition to the larae
ncreases authorized by election, have
an excess levy in tne one instance ot
21.993.50 and In the other of $14,350.
The net excess of the levies collect
ible In 1919. under the new practice,
was $28.212 23, of which $17,726.27 was
accredited to the state, but as a mat
er of fact passed Into the county
urrent fund. The outside count
chool levies, for the same year, show
excess of $.".9.r9.89; the county
government, $8,391.73, and the Port
Portland. $9,890.91. on tne otner
and, the city levy was $3,792.96 less
han the budget requirements; docks,
6,057.36, and school district No. 1,
4,300.05. Such tax levy adjustments
re , not even approximate, and are
ntended to promote extravagance of
disbursement under the pretense of
expediency.
Following are excessive levies In
detail, and the' decimal calculations
that produce the correct amounts:
(Concluded on Pass 7.)
TABLE SHOWING EXCESSIVE TAX LEVIES CARRIED TO THEIR DECIMAL CALCULATIONS.
The figures reported for valuations, millugs and
Budget
Tax Levies
1919.
Valuation.
Igal
Mill,
age.
Tax 'Levy.
State of Oregon
County government
Market roaas
Rose Festival
County school fund
County Mbrary
Port of Portland.
City -of Portland
Portland .dock .commission
Town of Gresham
i : a V.irvlaur .....
v 1 , J . 1. .... - . ....
Town of Troutdale
TTnion hlffh school No.
Union high school No.
cicnoui uisiiici
School" district
School district
School district
School district
School district
School district
School district
School district
School district .
School district ,
School 'district -
School district--'
School district
No.
' No.
No.
NO.
No.
No.
No. 10..
No. 11..
No. 13. .
No. 14. .
No. la . . .
i.-16.''.'
No; 17.'..
-N. IS
.? t jt r-irtl ' . ,'Nfl- 0' . . . ... .
district .i No. 21..
district No,22...'
district Noi 23
district '..-. .Nov 2 4
district No. 25'. .,
district'- N0.-26
district - No. 27
NO. Z8.
No. 29.
No. 30 . . . .".
No. 3i:.
No. 32 ,
No. 33..'
No. 34
No. 35
No. 36
No. 38
No. 39...
No. 40 ;
No. 41
No. 42.
No. 43
No. 44. .
No. 45.i
No. 46
No. 48
No. 49..., ,
No. 50...-
No. 51. ... . .......
No. 52
No. 6 Joint
No. 9 joint
No. 15 Joint.
No. 42 joint......
No. 53 Joint
No. 62 Joints.,...
No. 67 Joint..
No. 83 Joint.
No. 84 Joint
fund. .
School
School
Schtfol
Stjhool
School
School
School
School
School district -
School district
School district
School district
School district
School district
School district
School distriot
School district
School district"
School district:'
School district
School district
School district -School
district
School district ..
School district
School district
School district
School district ,
School district -School
district
School district
School district
School district
School district
School district '
Schqdl district
School district .
School district
School district
.School- district
County high school tuitfon
Maplewood water aistnct .
Total of levies, exci
Net excessive levy
. .Ill, 584. v40.50l$336, 751.810.00 4.71 $ 1.5X6.101.03,
,...:7 1.723,912.46 335.277. 720. On 5.1 1.709.916.37
. S35. 277. 720.00 . 0.3 100.6X3.31
, .' 335,277.720.00 ' 0.09 30.175 00
, 622.940.00 385,277,720.00 1.86 623.616 66
, ' 247.474.00 835.277,720.00 0.74 24X 105.51
, 446,460.08 327.434.870.00 1.4 458.408.82
..... 8,981.868.00 312.801. 6SQ.00 12.8 4.003.861.60
370,494.54 312. 801,680. 00 . 1.2 375.362.02
!..'.. 4,706.00.. , 703.640.00 6.7a 4.714.39
. 1.060.93 136.725.00 7.8 1.066. 45
1,000.00 , 72.565.00- 13.8 1.001. 40
''". 4.110.52 882.105.00 4.T 4.145.89
' 20.888.00 - 2,886.795.00 , 7.S 21,07.1.60
2,702.523.00 315,!'15.500.0n g. 2,71. 873. 30
24.152.00 1.325.195.00 J8.3 . 24.251.07
' 9,417.51 1.3X8. 20. 00 6.8 9,440 17
..... A 301.80 ' 658.376.00 0.5 329.19
..... 350.00 ' '401.605.00 0.9 31.35
363.94 92.760.00 4.0 371.04
453.40- 231.880.00 2.0- 46.1. 76
' 525.00 171.5X0.00 3.1 31.9
2 365.48 939.25.00 . 7.0 2.374 X5
.... . 1.041.72 ' 300.860.00 3.4 1,022.92
NoIevv..v. .339.540.00 No levy
...... 1,400.00 666,320.00 2.2 I 1.45.90
550.00 461.230.00 1.2 . 653. 4X
257.30 18.1.060.00 1.5 274.59
2.000.00 621.546.00 3.9 , 2.0.14.02
" 416.38 41.O20.IIO 10.2 418.40
696.85 226,945.00 3.1 70.1.63
. .... 800.00 85.110.00 9.4 800.03
..... ' ""340.70 44.990.00 7. 34 1.92
..... 110.00 "101260.00 1 1 1 10 29
717.50 23S. 430.00 3.1 739.13
1. 000.00 32X.740.OO .1.1 1.019.09
1,600.00 459.890.00 3.3 1.517 4
...1. 442.97 " 224.775.00 2.0 449.55
S. D.No. .10 non-a!essH hie
482.00 155,6750 3.1 482.28
1,174.23 4u9.210.0O 2.9 1,186.71
992.64 1 3,184.645.00 0.4 1.271.86
450.00 96.440.00 4.7 451.27
553.69 'v 79, 820.00 7.0 65X74
831.96 178.816.00 ' 4.7 840.43
1.944.00 , 428.110.00 4 6 1.969.10
1,167.22 ' 27fW10.0O 4.3 1.189.42
- 972.49 i .' 678. 916. 00 1.6 1.018.37
No levy - .122.758.00 No levy for 1 91 9 .. . .
2,484.19 456.0.15.00 5.5 2,508.19
94.29 143.455.00 0.7 100.42
..... 569.67 59.830.00 9 4 662 4H
1... 5.684.63 614.405.00 9.3 6.713.97
2,978.80 J38.2XC.OO 4.1 3,026.97
..... 384.00 ' 259.470.00 1.5 389.20"
.... '. 350.00 -99.620.00 3.6 358.63
...... 332.25 89,745.00 3.7 3.12.06.
6.082.7.1 924.990.00 6.6 6.0X7.44
.... 1,407.79 2T.8.2S0.OO 5.5 1.420.54
.... 1,491.60 - 328,320.00 4.7 1.543.10
. 1.010.64 65.750.00 ' 15.4 ,1.012.65
1,535.321 392.145.00 4.0 1.68.58
i... 1.193.33 327.045.00 3.7 1.210.07
.... 306.90 40.230.00 7.7. 309.77
.... 8.09 3.800.00 2.2 8 3
76.94 .. 36,800.00 2.1 77.28
327.84 70.390.00 4.7 S30.63
'.No levy for 1919 111.190.00 , No levy
18.918.74 14,212.376.00 1.4 I 19.881.32 .
4,500.00 640.255.00 8.4 ' J 4,538.14
listr cts.... , .j$ll, 993.633.17 $
Lew ilorelbevy I.essl Correct
Than Than Levy
Budget. I Budget. I Hate.
t 2.060.63; I 4.70.1X8
$13,99. 09
21 80
94.58
38.14
.8.824.60
44.806 62
$14,018.08
2.1011
1.1926
1 4ir,
3 818
0 ior, 7
3 070
9 .1997
7 6728
1.09 7 3
3 0091
.1 04 19
3 217
1.9753
3.09x1
2.895
.31 1 7
4 M.K2
9:17
427
4 1.4 09
4.2197
1.43242
t i 44 74"
.;s7
9.3543
.26221
4.03476
148
3 .61.14
3 7022
5 4949
6.4r.oi,4
4.6431
15.394
3 9152
3 MVS
7 2X7
2 12
2 11908
4.6676
1.3120$
8.3294.