Answer 6 The program is good. It is disturbing that it is accompanied by a decrease in categorical grants. Illinois Answer 1 Revenue sharing did not reduce taxes. However, if it were not for revenue sharing, taxes would be higher by the amount of revenue sharing. Answer 2 Funds were used as replacement, as passage of revenue sharing was not anticipated and greater welfare legislation was predicted. No examples. Answer 3 Answer 4 No special hearings were held. Group participation was noted from school people, the Animal Protection League, CAP agencies and the Mental Health Association. The situation is solvent. Answer 5 Answer 6 The program is good. Some of the reports are very time-consuming and complicated. Maine Revenue sharing prevented an increase in a major tax. Answer 2 The funds were looked at as new funds, 100% of which were used for assisting local school districts. One-half of the cost of education in Maine is now borne by the State. The revenue sharing funds went through the regular budget process. There was general citizen participation. Answer 5 The fiscal situation is favorable, but there are no excess revenues. Answer 6 The program is good in encouraging local participation. There is some problem in Maine because the revenue sharing law requires that certain forms be printed in a newspaper. Some townships must print 34-789-74- -3 the forms in a paper of 80,000 circulation for the benefit of seven citizens. The Planned Use Report must be printed by the select men, but they don't have the power; the town meeting does. The part-time officials also have a difficult time understanding the terminology. Therefore, revenue sharing has caused a considerable turnover in town officials. Massachusetts Answer 1 Revenue sharing has helped to delay a tax rise. Answer 2 Replacement money was used for urban action programs. Some was used also in housing and community affairs. The remainder was used for regular operating expenses. Answer 3 Examples of programs that would have been drastically cut without revenue sharing are children's programs, housing assistance and school reimbursements. Answer 4 No special hearings were held. Citizen interest was noted from the League of Women Voters, the National Urban Coalition, the Center for Community Change and the Center for National Policy Review. Answer 5 The situation is tight. Fiscal 75 will probably not require a tax rise, but operation will be bordering on a deficit. Answer 6 This is a positive program which has helped to hold the line on property taxes. It has also begun an awareness in the budgetary process by many interest groups. However, the distribution formula is weak. Missouri Answer 1 Revenue sharing has had no effect on tax levels. Answer 2 The money was looked at as new money. It was used for short term capital projects, for example, construction of residential quarters for the mentally retarded. Answer 3 Capital improvement programs would have been eliminated. Answer 4 The money goes through the normal budget process. There was no noticeable citizen interest at the State level. Answer 5 The fiscal situation is tight, with a deficit now. Answer 6 The program is fine, and there are excellent relations with ORS. New York Answer 1 Prevented an increase in a major tax. Answer 2 Revenue sharing is considered a part of the overall general fund and not as a separate part of revenue. The money is part of the State budget. Interest was present but not organized except a little aimed at social service programs. The situation is stable. Answer 5 Answer 6 Revenue sharing is useful and helps the income tax situation in New York. ORS is understaffed and the insistence on advertising is unnecessary. North Carolina Answer 1 Revenue sharing has had no direct impact on the tax situation although the tax level has remained the same. Answer 2 The money is looked at as part of the general fund. After the fact, certain items are listed in the budget reports as having been funded with revenue sharing. No examples. Answer 3 Answer 4 Answer 5 The money goes through the regular budget hearings. The State requires a balanced or surplus budget. The effect of revenue sharing on the fiscal situation cannot be determined. Answer 6 The program is good and there are no problems, except that there is no certainty of the funds continuing. Pennsylvania Answer 1 Revenue sharing has had no direct effect on the tax level. Answer 2 The money was looked at in both ways. New programs were transportation subsidies for school districts, aid to counties to pay court costs, mass transit and day care. Funds were used for replacement also. Answer 3 Programs concerned with aging would have been suffering if not for revenue sharing. Answer 4 There were no special hearings. Some citizen interest came from the School Board Association, the Education Association, the Pennsylvania Association for the Mentally Retarded and aging groups. Answer 5 The fiscal situation is healthy. Taxes were cut by $300 million this year, ending with a sizeable surplus. Next year there will be no tax rise. Revenue sharing has helped, but there would have been surplus anyway. Answer 6 The concept is good, but the program is not having as much of a positive effect as predicted. South Dakota Answer 1 Taxes have increased in South Dakota and revenue sharing has not prevented these increases to any extent. Answer 2 At first, the funds were looked at as new money but soon it was realized that they would be replacing Federal cutbacks. The revenue sharing money filled in where State appropriations had been cut, not for Federal cutbacks directly. Answer 3 No examples because 100% of the money was used for education assistance at the local level. Answer 4 The money went through the budget process. Interest was of a general nature. Answer 5 The fiscal situation is stable. There are anti-deficit laws in the State. The pick-up in the State's economy is due mainly to increased agricultural output. There is no tax increase anticipated in the near future. However, the State levies only a sales tax, so if the economy slows down, the State revenues will be drastically reduced. Answer 6 The concept of revenue sharing is good. The amount of money is not significant. It gave life to units of government of questionable viability. The Federal government has failed to realize the limited managerial capabilities of the States. The money goes through the budget process except the first year when because the receipts were unanticipated and the legislature is biennial, the Governor had sole discretion. No citizen interest was noted. Answer 5 The fiscal situation is poor. The unemployment is over 7% now. The State has still not recovered from the 1970 cutbacks at Boeing. Answer 6 The concept is good and there are no major problems. Wisconsin Answer 1 Taxes have been held stable but it is too soon to tell how much of this is due to revenue sharing. Answer 2 The money was treated as new funds and was used for increased school aid. The money is expended through the normal budget process. There was no citizen interest at the State level. Answer 5 Last year there was a substantial surplus of $217 Million but it was not due to revenue sharing. Answer 6 The concept is good but it is too early to tell what administrative problems could occur. There is still some apprehension. |