able to meet \ue000scal needs than in 2008. City \ue000nance of\ue000cers\u2019 assessment of their cities\u2019 \ue000s-

decreased signi\ue000cantly from their 2008 assessment, when 64 percent of city \ue000nance of- \ue000cers said their cities were less able to meet \ue000scal needs than

tory of NLC\u2019s 24-year survey. Finance of\ue000cers in cities that rely upon property taxes and sales taxes \u2014 the two most common local tax sources \u2014

Cities ended 2008 with year-to-year general fund expenditure growth outpacing general fund revenue growth.3 In current dollars, not adjusted for in\ue001ation, the year-to-year change in general fund revenues in 2008 was 4.1 percent over 2007 revenues, while expenditures increased by 5.6 percent. Looking to the close of 2009, city \ue000nance of\ue000cers predict that revenues will decrease slightly by -0.4 percent, while expenditures will increase by 2.5 percent.

2 Regional classi\ue000cations are based on U.S Census-de\ue000ned regions: \u201cNortheast\u201d includes cities in Conn., Maine, Mass. N.H., N.J., N.Y., Pa., R.I., Vt.; \u201cMidwest\u201d includes cities in Ill., Ind., Iowa, Kan., Mich., Minn., Mo., Neb., N.D., Ohio, S.D., Wisc.; \u201cSouth\u201d includes cities in Ala., Ark., Del., D.C., Fla., Ga., Ky., La., Md., Miss., N.C., Okla., S.C., Tenn., Texas, Va., W.Va.; \u201cWest\u201d includes cities in Alaska, Ariz., Cali\ue001., Colo., Hawaii, Idaho, Mont., Nev., N.M., Ore., Utah, Wash., Wyo.

Adjusting for in\ue001ationary factors in the state and local sector, the constant dollar, year-to-year increase in city revenues from 2007 to 2008 was 3.4 percent, while expenditures grew at a rate of 4.9 percent.4 For 2009, in constant dollars, city \ue000nance of\ue000cers project that general fund revenues will decline by -0.4 percent and expenditures will increase by 2.5 percent. In other words, the projections for 2009 are the same in current and constant dollars, re\ue001ecting the impact of the economic recession on in\ue001ation.

For the \ue000nal 2008 numbers in particular, a more dramatic impact on city revenues might have been expected given the stark downturn in underlying economic conditions. However, these impacts were not as evident for 2008 due to the lag between changing economic conditions and city revenue collections. Due to property tax assessment cycles, it often takes several years for city property tax revenues to accurately re\ue001ect the totality of changes in housing values. Similarly, it can take several months for city sales tax revenues to re\ue001ect changes in consumption, largely due to collection and administration issues. For these reasons, the deeper effects of the economic recession will likely be experienced and reported by cities beyond 2009, with the leanest years likely to be 2010 and 2011. (For more on the lag between economic changes and city revenues, see page 8)

The \ue000scal condition of individual cities varies greatly depending on differences in local tax structure and reliance. While an overwhelming majority of cities have access to a local property tax, many are also reliant upon local sales taxes and some are reliant upon local income taxes. Consequently, it is also worthwhile to understand the differing performance of these tax sources and the

Local property tax revenues are driven primarily by the value of residential and commercial property, with property tax bills determined by local governments\u2019 assessment of the value of property. Property tax collections lag the real estate market because local assessment practices take time to catch up with changes in the market. As a result, current property tax bills and property tax collections typically re\ue001ect values of property from anywhere from 18 months to several years prior.

The effects of the well-publicized downturn in the real estate market over the past two years are becoming increasingly evident in city property tax revenues, but do not yet re\ue001ect the full effects of the economic downturn. Collections for 2008 continued to reveal strong revenue growth as assessments caught up with the previous growth in the real estate market. Property tax revenues increased in 2008 by 6.9 percent, compared with 2007 levels, or in constant dollars, an increase of 6.2 percent. Projected property tax collections for 2009, however, point to some of the impact of the downturn in real estate values. Property tax revenues for 2009 are projected to grow in current dollars by 1.7 percent, or 1.6 percent in constant-dollar terms. But the full weight of the decline in housing values has yet to be experienced by many cities, and property tax revenues will likely decline in 2010, 2011 and 2012 as declining property values are re\ue001ected in city property tax rolls.

Changes in economic conditions are also evident in terms of changes in city sales tax collections. When consumer con\ue000dence is high, people spend more on goods and services and city governments with sales-tax authority reap the bene\ue000ts through increases in sales tax collections. For much of this decade, consumer spending was also fueled by a strong real estate market that provided additional wealth to homeowners. The struggling economy and the declining real estate market have reduced consumer con\ue000dence, resulting in less consumer spending and slower growth or decline in sales tax revenues. City sales tax receipts improved in 2008 over previous-year receipts by 3.0 percent in current dollars, or 2.3 percent in constant dollars. However, city \ue000nance of\ue000cers project a decline in 2009 of -3.8 percent in current and constant dollars.

4 \u201cConstant dollars\u201d re\ue001ers to infation-adjusted dollars. \u201cCurrent dollars\u201d re\ue001ers to non-adjusted dollars. To calculate constant dollars, we adjust current dollars using the U.S. Bureau o\ue001 Economic Analysis (BEA) National Income and Product Account (NIPA) estimate \ue001or infation in the state and local government sector. Constant dollars are a more accurate source o\ue001 comparison over time because the dollars are adjusted to account \ue001or di\ue001- \ue001erences in the costs o\ue001 state and local government.