Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
16989413
label
Urban Policy (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
16989413
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Urban Policy (2)
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
Finance
Urban policy
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
16989413
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-07-31
month
7
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-07-01
month
7
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
105990b28232e737
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 39, folder "Urban Policy (2)" of the James M.
Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 39 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
5/4/76
THE WHITE HOUSE
At good- to
WASHINGTON
April 9, 1976
we
ALL wt
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
pls
FROM:
STEVE McCONAHEY & PAT DELANEY
we
As a followup to our last meeting on Urban Issues and Art
Sun
Quern's memorandum of April 8 on that subject, we have (1)
developed a brief analysis of the current financial status
of several American cities and (2) drafted a procedure for
handling calls and inquiries from cities claiming "financial
crisis.
FINANCIAL PROFILE
There are two problems involved in developing a list of
financially plagued cities. First, it is difficult to secure
reliable and up-to-date data. Secondly, we feel it would be
unwise to create such a list given the possibility that it
would be circulated outside the White House. If circulated,
it would be potentially hazardous to these cities as they
sought financing. Nevertheless, we have described the con-
dition of several cities in three ways:
1.
Based on the 1972 ACIR financial study: In its
original analysis, ACIR identified six warning
signs:
BIG DEFICIT IN WARENT YEAR
a.
an operating fund revenue-expenditure imbalance
in which current expenditures significantly
exceeded current revenues in one fiscal period.
DEFICITS For
b.
a consistent pattern of current expenditures
exceeding current revenues by small amounts
for several years.
C.
an excess of current operating liabilities
7
over current assets (a fund deficit).
d.
short-term operating loans outstanding at the
conclusion of a fiscal year (or in some in-
stances the borrowing of cash from restricted
funds or an increase in unpaid bills in lieu
of short-term loans.
Bonrowny from Restricted fords
FORD i LIBRARY 938870
-2-
Required owners can't pey tax e
e. a high and rising rate of property tax delinquency.
f. a sudden and substantial decrease in assessed
OMP in amend Hope ty value
values for unexpected reasons.
aggiogate
Tables 1,2,4 and 5 indicate the financial condition of
cities identified by ACIR in its analysis. We have not
been able to develop the information for all of these in-
dicators because of the lack of consistent data.
2. Based on Standard & Poor's Ratings
We have also provided the Standard & Poor rating for
the selected list of 30 cities and the USCM list (see
attached). This chart could be misleading in that it
seems to portray a very strong picture for the financial
condition of these cities. Those cities with a AA or
A could in fact, during a period of tight money, run
into difficulty with financing. The cities with a AAA
would be the first in line in the money market. All of
these, of course, would stand in back of Federal borrow-
ing to finance the current deficits. For example, Detroit
with a A rating during the New York City crisis could
not find an underwriter. There was just no market for
their bonds. So these ratings must be considered in
tandem with "market conditions".
United States
ducyon
3. Based on the USCM Analysis
We also have attached a somewhat different list prepared
by the USCM at our request. This list contains cities
that they have identified as problems (see attachment).
This list contains several of the descriptors of the
conditions found in Detroit, Cleveland, Yonkers, Newark,
Boston, Baltimore and Buffalo. Again, one should note
the incomplete nature of these data.
These three analyses provide a sense of the financial con-
ditions found in many cities. However, these data do not
provide a good profile of smaller cities. Data for these
jurisdictions is even more incomplete. Again, we want to
caution against developing a specific problem list for White
House monitoring. Our contact with cities and their public
interest organizations should provide us with an adequate
warning system.
BERRLD R. FORD
-3-
INTERNAL PROCEDURE
In response to the second request, we have drafted a
procedure for the handling of specific inquiries from
cities claiming a financial crisis (see attachment).
ACIR STUDY
Table I
Revenue-Expenditure Comparison
General Operating Fund
Large Cities
(Cash Basis)
Excess or (Deficiency) of Revenues
Compared to Expenditures
Cities
($ millions)
(in order of population)
1971*
1974*
New York
$ (656.2)
$ (807.8)
Chicago
14.0
36.7
Los Angeles
(5.5)
40.7
Philadelphia
(48.8)
5.5
Detroit
17.5
8.6
Houston
(4.1)
(8.0)
Baltimore
(8.3)
23.9
Dallas
(.9)
1.2
Cleveland
(13.2)
0
Indianapolis
.2
(.7)
Milwaukee
12.2
7.3
San Francisco
13.4
9.8
San Diego
2.1
4.9
San Antonio
( .4)
1.6
Memphis
3.5
NA
Boston
1.5
(15.9)
St. Louis
(4.5)
(10.7)
New Orleans
0
9.8
Phoenix
(1.0)
8.5
Columbus
1.0
3.2
Seattle
1.8
(1.1)
Jacksonville
(2.5)
11.0
Pittsburgh
5.2
.3
Denver
4.2
4.0
Kansas City
(1.3)
1.1
Atlanta
(2.0)
8.7
Buffalo
(5.4)
(6.1)
Cincinnati
( .5)
1.6
Nashville
2.6
.5
Minneapolis
1.1
(7.3)
*Source: Compiled from available published financial reports for each city;
see accompanying list.
Table II
Accumulated Fund Balance or Deficit
General Operating Fund
Large Cities
(Pro Forma Cash Basis)
Balance or (Deficit)
Cities
($ millions)
(in order of population)
1971*
1974*
New York
$ (657.6)
$ (1,492.3)
Chicago
(188.3)
(179.0)
Los Angeles
115.0
160.3
Philadelphia
(29.2)
(6.7)
Detroit
(17.2)
(25.6)
Houston
13.6
6.8
Baltimore
9.2
15.4
Dallas
3.8
(1.2)
Cleveland
(13.6)
0
Indianapolis
2.0
3.1
Milwaukee
17.5
37.8
San Francisco
79.9
114.2
San Diego
4.8
2.8
San Antonio
2.8
1.4
Boston
25.9
(22.6)
Memphis
5.6
NA
St. Louis
(3.5)
(14.6)
New Orleans
( .8)
2.8
Phoenix
3.0
.4
Columbus
1.7
6.9
Seattle
14.7
10.1
Jacksonville
15.4
14.1
Pittsburgh
7.3
16.5
Denver
7.2
3.9
Kansas City
.7
.8
Atlanta
10.1
20.5
Buffalo
1.6
(21.8)
Cincinnati
1.3
11.1
Nashville
2.8
10.4
Minneapolis
5.4
6.6
*Source:
Compiled from available published financial reports for each
city; see accompanying list.
Table IV
Annual Percentage Change in
General Operating Fund Revenues
and Expenditures, 1974*
Large Cities
Cities
Percentage
Percentage
(in order of
Increase (Decrease)
Increase (Decrease)
population)
Revenues
Expenditures
New York
3.7%
10.1%
Chicago
12.0
12.4
Los Angeles
9.7
(2.5)
Philadelphia
( .1)
3.1
Detroit
0
1.6
Houston
9.1
12.7
Baltimore
4.1
.1
Dallas
9.6
7.7
Cleveland
13.0
1.5
Indianapolis
5.1
6.8
Milwaukee
9.4
.6
San Francisco
(1.9)
2.3
San Diego
17.9
11.4
San Antonio
19.5
16.0
Boston
19.6
15.4
Memphis
NA
NA
St. Louis
14.8
17.7
New Orleans
21.6
15.3
Phoenix
13.3
16.8
Columbus
8.1
8.4
Seattle
8.1
8.7
Jacksonville
20.9
9.8
Pittsburgh
(10.0)
(7.1)
Denver
19.4
8.6
Kansas City
5.3
6.7
Atlanta
12.8
3.1
Buffalo
3.3
(8.0)
Cincinnati
4.5
8.7
Nashville
19.4
10.1
Minneapolis
(2.4)
5.8
Average
9.3%
7.0%
Median
9.1%
8.4%
*Source: Compiled from available published financial reports for each
city; see accompanying list.
GERALD LIQUEST R. FORD
Table V
General Obligation Bonded Debt
Large Cities
December 31, 1971 and April 30, 1974
Cities
Debt as a
(in order of
Debt Per Capita
Percentage of Value*
population)
12/31/71
4/30/74
12/31/71
4/30/74
New York
$612
$850
7.5
8.1
Chicago
204
357
2.7
3.8
Los Angeles
331
362
3.1
3.0
Philadelphia
456
445
12.5
6.6
Detroit
293
372
3.9
4.6
Houston
509
535
5.5
3.6
Baltimore
374
262
6.4
3.8
Dallas
521
666
5.0
5.8
Cleveland
369
369
3.9
3.9
Indianapolis
275
338
3.8
5.0
Milwaukee
316
357
4.5
4.0
San Francisco
455
564
3.4
4.0
San Diego
237
181
2.6
1.6
San Antonio
240
344
5.3
6.4
Memphis
435
386
6.6
4.8
Boston
536
456
17.2
5.7
St. Louis
338
259
4.7
3.2
New Orleans
486
504
6.9
5.4
Phoenix
230
304
3.7
3.3
Columbus
330
413
4.9
5.6
Seattle
422
540
3.6
4.5
Jacksonville
173
293
3.5
4.2
Pittsburgh
285
626
5.4
10.1
Denver
75
309
0.9
2.4
Kansas City
387
471
4.5
5.3
Atlanta
458
474
4.8
3.5
Buffalo
345
464
8.2
11.0
Cincinnati
432
409
4.6
3.5
Nashville
367
367
7.2
7.2
Minneapolis
254
467
2.6
5.1
Average
358
425
5.3
5.0
Median
356
398
4.8
4.6
Source: Municipal Bond Selector, Standard and Poor's Corporation, III,
No. 6, December 31, 1971 and April 30, 1974.
*Assessed Value
STANDARD & POOR
February 1976
Standard & Poor's Municipal Bond Ratings for 30 Selected Cities
General Obligation Bonds (except where designated otherwise)
Cities
(in order of population)
*
New York
AA
Chicago
(TAN)
AA
Los Angeles
(County)
A-
Philadelphia
A
Detroit
(I.S.D.)
AA
Houston
A
Baltimore
AA
Dallas
(I.S.D.)
AA
Cleveland
(Water Rev)
AAA
Indianapolis
(Various Authority & S.D.)
AAA
Milwaukee
(County)
AA
San Francisco
(BART-Revenue)
AA
San Deigo
(County)
AA
San Antonio
A
Boston
AA
Memphis
A
St. Louis
A
New Orleans
(SWR & WTR Bonds)
AA
Phoenix
(U.H.S.D.)
AA
Columbus
AA
Seattle
AA
Jacksonville
AA
Pittsburgh
AAA
Denver
(S.D. #1)
AA
Kansas City
AA
Atlanta
A
Buffalo
AA
Cincinnati
A+
Nashville
(Various Revenue Bonds)
AAA
Minneapolis
(USCM LIST) --
NR
Yonkers
BBB
Newark
AA
Saginan
(County)
AA
Flint
(S.D.)
AA
Grant Rapids
(S.D.)
AA
Royal Oak
(S.D.)
*Rating Suspended
AAA Prime--These are obligations of the highest quality. They have
the strongest capacity for timely payment of debt service.
AA High Grade--Bonds rate AA have the second strongest capacity for
payment of debt service.
A
Good Grade Principal and interest payments on bonds in this category
are regarded as safe.
BBB Medium Grade--This is the lowest investment grade security rating.
NR No rating
February 1976
Standard & Poor's Municipal Bond Ratings for 30 Selected Cities
General Obligation Bonds (except where designated otherwise)
Cities
(in order of population)
*
New York
AA
Chicago
(TAN)
AA
Los Angeles
(County)
A-
Philadelphia
A
Detroit
(I.S.D.)
AA
Houston
A
Baltimore
AA
Dallas
(I.S.D.)
AA
Cleveland
(Water Rev)
AAA
Indianapolis
(Various Authority & S.D.)
AAA
Milwaukee
(County)
AA
San Francisco
(BART-Revenue)
AA
San Deigo
(County)
AA
San Antonio
A
Boston
AA
Memphis
A
St. Louis
A
New Orleans
(SWR & WTR Bonds)
AA
Phoenix
(U.H.S.D.)
AA
Columbus
AA
Seattle
AA
Jacksonville
AA
Pittsburgh
AAA
Denver
(S.D. #1)
AA
Kansas City
AA
Atlanta
A
Buffalo
AA
Cincinnati
A+
Nashville
(Various Revenue Bonds)
AAA
Minneapolis
(USCM LIST) --
NR
Yonkers
BBB
Newark
AA
SaginanA
(County)
AA
Flint
(S.D.)
AA
Grant Rapids
(S.D.)
AA
Royal Oak
(S.D.)
*Rating Suspended
AAA Prime--These are obligations of the highest quality. They have
the strongest capacity for timely payment of debt service.
AA High Grade Bonds rate AA have the second strongest capacity for
payment of debt service.
A
Good Grade Principal and interest payments on bonds in this category
are regarded as safe.
BBB Medium Grade--This is the lowest investment grade security rating.
NR No rating
USCM STUDY
Detroit
Cleveland
Yonkers
Newark
Boston
Baltimore
Buffalb
Unemployment Rate (Dec.75) 17.4
(Nov75) 10.8
16.9
Total Budget FY 75-76
808.0 Million
324.8 Million
124.0 Million
209.8 Million
661.0 Million
1,425.5 Million
480.0 Mill
(with School)
(1/75-12/75)
(with school)
(with schools)
Federal Revenue Sharing
39.5 Mill.
16.0 Mill.
1.6 Mill.
8.7 Mill.
25.0 Mill.
27.0 Mill.
8.2 Mill
State Revenue Sharing or
Aid
67.2 Mill.
-
10.2 Mill.
2.5 Mill.
140.0 Mill.
-
21.4 Mil
Projected Deficit
44.3
0 22
8.5 Mill.
5.5 Mill.
33.0 Mill.
0
34.0 Mill
Previous Year Carry over
17.2
0
6.5 Mill.
0
14.7 Mill.
0
20.0 Mil
Highest Level of
Employment
19,942 (1/75)
13,000 (1970)
5,500 (1975)
6,100 (1/75)
23,327 (2/1/74)
31,000
6,330 (19
Present Level of
Employment
18,314 (12/75)
10,992
4,683
5,100
14,282
32,882
5,250
Projected Level 7/1/76
?
10,800
4,500
4,900
13,700
32,882
4,050
CETA Employment (Current)
2,864
1,700
?
?
1,310
200
1,600
Areas of Past Employer
Waste,Health,
Across the Bd.
Across the Bd.
Mostly garba
Reduction
Across the Bd.
Rec, Finance
Parks but
Across the D
Areas of Anticipated
Pks. to go 0
Employee Reduction
Across the Bd.
Recreation &
Across the Bd.
Parks & Rec.
of business
Property
Shorter work week
Yes
Work Without Pay
Reduced Services
GERALD
Mounted Squad
No backyard
Disbanded
garbage
FORD
Closed Facilities
Library, Museum
Printing plant
Closed Parks
shorter hours
closed
Rec Centers
-2-
Detroit
Cleveland
Yonkers
Newark
Boston
Baltimore
Buffalo
Pay Freeze
Municipal increase
Pay freeze 11/75
negotiated
Pay Cut
Tax Increase
Referendum Rejected
Real Prop. Tax
by voters
increased to max.
Bonding Operating Exp
85.0 Mill.
54.0 Mill
or Tax Anticipation Notes
8.5 Mill.
15.0 Mill.
Interest Rate
9.0 %
8.75 %
7.30 %
9.0%
GERALD FORD
-2-
Grand
Royal
Seattle
Atlanta
Philadelphia
Saginaw
Flint
Rapids
Oak
Tax Increases
Prop. Tax Increase
Tax increases in
Prop. Tax Increase
In 1974
virtually all
3 mils. for 5 year:
categories
Bonding Operating Exps. or
Tax Anticipation Notes
Interest Rate
100 Million
GERALD
FORD
Seattle
Atlanta
Philadelphia
Saginaw
Flint
Grand
Royal
Rapids
Oak
Unemployment Rate
8.8
12.0
(Metro) 9.4
(Jan.76) 8.5
12.0
Total Budget FY 75-76
279.9 Million
130.5 Million
1,160.0 Million
36.6 Million
49.9 Million
?
13.0 Mill
Federal Revenue Sharing
-
7.0 Mill.
52.2 Mill.
2.7 Mill.
4.2 Mill.
3.5 Million
.5 Mill
State Revenue Sharing
or Aid
8.7 Mill.
2.5 Mill.
-
2.6 Mill.
5.1 Mill.
6.9 Mill.
2.2 Mill
Projected Deficit
0
0
80.0 Mill.
0
0
0
3.0 Mill
Previous Year Carry Over
0
0
11.0 Mill.
0
0
0
0
part of
Mill.
Highest Level of
Employment
12,000 (1973)
35,000
1,073
2,000
2,517
461
Present Level of
Employment
9,090
35,000
1,073
2,000
2,447
451
Projected Level 7/1/76
9,090
35,000
1,073
1,800
2,447
451
?
CETA Employment (Current)
600
400
417
74
Areas of Past Employee
Reduction
Across the Bd.
Across the Bd
Across the Bd
Areas of Anticipated
Employee Reduction
Across the Bd.
Across the Bd.
Shorter Work Week
Work Without Pay
Rextuced Services
Closed Facilities
GERALD
Close Hospital
Pay Freeze
FORD
Freeze being negotiated
Pay Cuts
DRAFT PROCEDURE
PROPOSED PROCEDURE FOR MONITORING
CITY FINANCIAL PROBLEMS
Outlined below is a suggested procedure for responding to
calls and correspondence outlining a city's financial problem
and/or requesting assistance. The process would provide a
focal point for information and would insure a coordinated
White House response. The procedure would involve the
following steps:
1.
Complete check list of information based on tele-
phone conversations or written correspondence, and
forward this information to the Office of Inter-
governmental Affairs. The check list should
include the following information:
A.
Name of City
B.
State
C.
Name of Mayor
D.
Provider of information/position
E.
Brief description of the problem
- -Nature of problem
Amount of money involved
State action and response to date
Alternatives available
Proposed solution
Availability of documentation
- Nature of request to Federal
Government
- Other groups involved, e.g.
banks, business
2.
Develop and maintain in the Office of Intergovern-
mental Affairs a file on the city in question.
The files should include the following items:
A.
Completed check list
B.
Log of calls and discussions along with
description of actions taken
C.
Correspondence
D.
Assignment of lead responsibility
E.
Copies of memoranda and decision papers
3.
Assign day-to-day responsibility for monitoring and
follow up with the city. (This would likely be IGA
staff or specific agency representatives)
4.
Alert the President of the situation through Jim
Cannon's weekly report.
5.
Circulate check list from Jim Cannon to the Urban
Task Force. The circulation list should include
at a minimum the following:
A.
Cannon
B.
Seidman
C.
O'Neill
D.
Simon
E.
Fletcher
F.
Quern
G.
McConahey
H.
Appropriate Domestic Council Staff
6.
Convene Urban Task Force as necessary to review the
situation, receive analysis and information from
the city in question, and develop necessary memoranda
and recommendations for the President.
7.
Make recommendations to the EPB as necessary.
Cities May Flourish
In South and West,
Decline in Northeast
But Manhattan Could Be
A Rich Enclave; Suburbia
To Expand Everywhere
A Downturn in Violence?
By ROGER RICKLEFS
Stoff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
NEW YORK-Only a dozen years ago,
32
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Tuesday, April 6, 1976
The Future Revised: Cities Likely
To Flourish in the South and West
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 9, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
STEVE McCONTHEY & PAT DELANEY
As a followup to our last meeting on Urban Issues and Art
Quern's memorandum of April 8 on that subject, we have (1)
developed a brief analysis of the current financial status
of several American cities and (2) drafted a procedure for
handling calls and inquiries from cities claiming "financial
crisis.
FINANCIAL PROFILE
There are two problems involved in developing a list of
financially plagued cities. First, it is difficult to secure
reliable and up-to-date data. Secondly, we feel it would be
unwise to create such a list given the possibility that it
would be circulated outside the White House. If circulated,
it would be potentially hazardous to these cities as they
sought financing. Nevertheless, we have described the con-
dition of several cities in three ways:
1.
Based on the 1972 ACIR financial study: In its
original analysis, ACIR identified six warning
signs:
a.
an operating fund revenue-expenditure imbalance
in which current expenditures significantly
exceeded current revenues in one fiscal period.
b.
a consistent pattern of current expenditures
exceeding current revenues by small amounts
for several years.
C.
an excess of current operating liabilities
over current assets (a fund deficit).
d.
short-term operating loans outstanding at the
conclusion of a fiscal year (or in some in-
stances the borrowing of cash from restricted
funds or an increase in unpaid bills in lieu
of short-term loans.
-2-
e. a high and rising rate of property tax delinquency.
f. a sudden and substantial decrease in assessed
values for unexpected reasons.
Tables 1,2,4 and 5 indicate the financial condition of
cities identified by ACIR in its analysis. We have not
been able to develop the information for all of these in-
dicators because of the lack of consistent data.
2. Based on Standard & Poor's Ratings
We have also provided the Standard & Poor rating for
the selected list of 30 cities and the USCM list (see
attached). This chart could be misleading in that it
seems to portray a very strong picture for the financial
condition of these cities. Those cities with a AA or
A could in fact, during a period of tight money, run
into difficulty with financing. The cities with a AAA
would be the first in line in the money market. All of
these, of course, would stand in back of Federal borrow-
ing to finance the current deficits. For example, Detroit
with a A rating during the New York City crisis could
not find an underwriter. There was just no market for
their bonds. So these ratings must be considered in
tandem with "market conditions".
3. Based on the USCM Analysis
We also have attached a somewhat different list prepared
by the USCM at our request. This list contains cities
that they have identified as problems (see attachment).
This list contains several of the descriptors of the
conditions found in Detroit, Cleveland, Yonkers, Newark,
Boston, Baltimore and Buffalo. Again, one should note
the incomplete nature of these data.
These three analyses provide a sense of the financial con-
ditions found in many cities. However, these data do not
provide a good profile of smaller cities. Data for these
jurisdictions is even more incomplete. Again, we want to
caution against developing a specific problem list for White
House monitoring. Our contact with cities and their public
interest organizations should provide us with an adequate
warning system.
-3-
INTERNAL PROCEDURE
In response to the second request, we have drafted a
procedure for the handling of specific inquiries from
cities claiming a financial crisis (see attachment) .
Note: Attached is a Wall Street Journal Article
ACIR STUDY
Table I
Revenue-Expenditure Comparison
General Operating Fund
Large Cities
(Cash Basis)
Excess or (Deficiency) of Revenues
Compared to Expenditures
Cities
($ millions)
(in order of population)
1971*
1974*
New York
$ (656.2)
$ (807.8)
Chicago
14.0
36.7
Los Angeles
(5.5)
40.7
Philadelphia
(48.8)
5.5
Detroit
17.5
8.6
Houston
(4.1)
(8.0)
Baltimore
(8.3)
23.9
Dallas
( .9)
1.2
Cleveland
(13.2)
0
Indianapolis
.2
( .7)
Milwaukee
12.2
7.3
San Francisco
13.4
9.8
San Diego
2.1
4.9
San Antonio
( .4)
1.6
Memphis
3.5
NA
Boston
1.5
(15.9)
St. Louis
(4.5)
(10.7)
New Orleans
0
9.8
Phoenix
(1.0)
8.5
Columbus
1.0
3.2
Seattle
1.8
(1.1)
Jacksonville
(2.5)
11.0
Pittsburgh
5.2
.3
Denver
4.2
4.0
Kansas City
(1.3)
1.1
Atlanta
(2.0)
8.7
Buffalo
(5.4)
(6.1)
Cincinnati
(.5)
1.6
Nashville
2.6
.5
Minneapolis
1.1
(7.3)
*Source: Compiled from available published financial reports for each city;
see accompanying list.
Table II
Accumulated Fund Balance or Deficit
General Operating Fund
Large Cities
(Pro Forma Cash Basis)
Balance or (Deficit)
Cities
($ millions)
(in order of population)
1971*
1974*
New York
$ (657.6)
$ (1,492.3)
Chicago
(188.3)
(179.0)
Los Angeles
115.0
160.3
Philadelphia
(29.2)
(6.7)
Detroit
(17.2)
(25.6)
Houston
13.6
6.8
Baltimore
9.2
15.4
Dallas
3.8
(1.2)
Cleveland
(13.6)
0
Indianapolis
2.0
3.1
Milwaukee
17.5
37.8
San Francisco
79.9
114.2
San Diego
4.8
2.8
San Antonio
2.8
1.4
Boston
25.9
(22.6)
Memphis
5.6
NA
St. Louis
(3.5)
(14.6)
New Orleans
( .8)
2.8
Phoenix
3.0
.4
Columbus
1.7
6.9
Seattle
14.7
10.1
Jacksonville
15.4
14.1
Pittsburgh
7.3
16.5
Denver
7.2
3.9
Kansas City
.7
.8
Atlanta
10.1
20.5
Buffalo
1.6
(21.8)
Cincinnati
1.3
11.1
Nashville
2.8
10.4
Minneapolis
5.4
6.6
*Source:
Compiled from available published financial reports for each
city; see accompanying list.
Table IV
Annual Percentage Change in
General Operating Fund Revenues
and Expenditures, 1974*
Large Cities
Cities
Percentage
Percentage
(in order of
Increase (Decrease)
Increase (Decrease)
population)
Revenues
Expenditures
New York
3.7%
10.1%
Chicago
12.0
12.4
Los Angeles
9.7
(2.5)
Philadelphia
( .1)
3.1
Detroit
0
1.6
Houston
9.1
12.7
Baltimore
4.1
.1
Dallas
9.6
7.7
Cleveland
13.0
1.5
Indianapolis
5.1
6.8
Milwaukee
9.4
.6
San Francisco
(1.9)
2.3
San Diego
17.9
11.4
San Antonio
19.5
16.0
Boston
19.6
15.4
Memphis
NA
NA
St. Louis
14.8
17.7
New Orleans
21.6
15.3
Phoenix
13.3
16.8
Columbus
8.1
8.4
Seattle
8.1
8.7
Jacksonville
20.9
9.8
Pittsburgh
(10.0)
(7.1)
Denver
19.4
8.6
Kansas City
5.3
6.7
Atlanta
12.8
3.1
Buffalo
3.3
(8.0)
Cincinnati
4.5
8.7
Nashville
19.4
10.1
Minneapolis
(2.4)
5.8
Average
9.3%
7.0%
Median
9.1%
8.4%
*Source: Compiled from available published financial reports for each
city; see accompanying list.
Table V
General Obligation Bonded Debt
Large Cities
December 31, 1971 and April 30, 1974
Cities
Debt as a
(in order of
Debt Per Capita
Percentage of Value*
population)
12/31/71
4/30/74
12/31/71
4/30/74
New York
$612
$850
7.5
8.1
Chicago
204
357
2.7
3.8
Los Angeles
331
362
3.1
3.0
Philadelphia
456
445
12.5
6.6
Detroit
293
372
3.9
4.6
Houston
509
535
5.5
3.6
Baltimore
374
262
6.4
3.8
Dallas
521
666
5.0
5.8
Cleveland
369
369
3.9
3.9
Indianapolis
275
338
3.8
5.0
Milwaukee
316
357
4.5
4.0
San Francisco
455
564
3.4
4.0
San Diego
237
181
2.6
1.6
San Antonio
240
344
5.3
6.4
Memphis
435
386
6.6
4.8
Boston
536
456
17.2
5.7
St. Louis
338
259
4.7
3.2
New Orleans
486
504
6.9
5.4
Phoenix
230
304
3.7
3.3
Columbus
330
413
4.9
5.6
Seattle
422
540
3.6
4.5
Jacksonville
173
293
3.5
4.2
Pittsburgh
285
626
5.4
10.1
Denver
75
309
0.9
2.4
Kansas City
387
471
4.5
5.3
Atlanta
458
474
4.8
3.5
Buffalo
345
464
8.2
11.0
Cincinnati
432
409
4.6
3.5
Nashville
367
367
7.2
7.2
Minneapolis
254
467
2.6
5.1
Average
358
425
5.3
5.0
Median
356
398
4.8
4.6
Source: Municipal Bond Selector, Standard and Poor's Corporation, III,
No. 6, December 31, 1971 and April 30, 1974.
*Assessed Value
STANDARD & POOR
February 1976
Standard & Poor's Municipal Bond Ratings for 30 Selected Cities
General Obligation Bonds (except where designated otherwise)
Cities
(in order of population)
*
New York
AA
Chicago
(TAN)
AA
Los Angeles
(County)
A-
Philadelphia
A
Detroit
(I.S.D.)
AA
Houston
A
Baltimore
AA
Dallas
(I.S.D.)
AA
Cleveland
(Water Rev)
AAA
Indianapolis
(Various Authority & S.D.)
AAA
Milwaukee
(County)
AA
San Francisco
(BART-Revenue)
AA
San Deigo
(County)
AA
San Antonio
A
Boston
AA
Memphis
A
St. Louis
A
New Orleans
(SWR & WTR Bonds)
AA
Phoenix
(U.H.S.D.)
AA
Columbus
AA
Seattle
AA
Jacksonville
AA
Pittsburgh
AAA
Denver
(S.D. #1)
AA
Kansas City
AA
Atlanta
A
Buffalo
AA
Cincinnati
At
Nashville
(Various Revenue Bonds)
AAA
Minneapolis
(USCM LIST) --
NR
Yonkers
BBB
Newark
AA
Saginan
(County)
AA
Flint
(S.D.)
AA
Grant Rapids
(S.D.)
AA
Royal Oak
(S.D.)
*Rating Suspended
AAA Prime--These are obligations of the highest quality. They have
the strongest capacity for timely payment of debt service.
AA High Grade--Bonds rate AA have the second strongest capacity for
payment of debt service.
A
Good Grade--Principal and interest payments on bonds in this category
are regarded as safe.
BBB Medium Grade--This is the lowest investment grade security rating.
NR No rating
USCM STUDY
Detroit
Cleveland
Yorkers
Newark
Boston
Baltimore
Buffalt
employment Rate (Dec.75) 17.4
(Nov75) 10.8
16.9
otal Budget FY 75-76
808.0 Million
324.8 Million
124.0 Million
209.8 Million
661.0 Million
1,425.5 Million
480.0 Mi
(with School)
(1/75-12/75)
(with school)
(with schools)
ederal Revenue Sharing
39.5 Mill.
16.0 Mill.
1.6 Mill.
8.7 Mill.
25.0 Mill.
27.0 Mill.
8.2 Mi
tate Revenue Sharing or
id
67.2 Mill.
-
10.2 Mill.
2.5 Mill.
140.0 Mill.
-
21.4 MA
rojected Deficit
44.3
0 22
8.5 Mill.
5.5 Mill.
33.0 Mill.
0
34.0 Mi
revious Year Carry over
17.2
0
6.5 Mill.
0
14.7 Mill.
0
20.0 Mi
ighest Level of
mployment
19,942
(1/75)
13,000 (1970)
5,500 (1975)
6,100 (1/75)
23,327 (2/1/74)
31,000
6,330 (In
resent Level of
mployment
18,314 (12/75)
10,992
4,683
5,100
14,282
32,882
5,250
rojected Level 7/1/76
?
10,800
4,500
4,900
13,700
32,882
4,050
ETA Employment (Current)
2,864
1,700
?
?
1,310
200
1,600
reas of Past Employer
Waste,Health,
Across the Bd.
Across the Bd.
Mostly gart
eduction
Across the Bd.
Rec, Finance
Parks but
Across the
reas of Anticipated
Pks. to go
mployee Reduction
Across the Bd.
Recreation &
Across the Bd.
Parks & Rec.
of business
Property
horter work week
Yes
brk Without Pay
GERALD
educed Services
FORD
Mounted Squad
No backyard
Disbanded
garbage
losed Facilities
Library, Museum
Printing plant
Closed Parl
shorter hours
closed
Rec Center:
-2-
Detroit
Cleveland
Yonkers
Newark
Boston
Baltimore
Buffalo
Freeze
Municipal increase
Pay freeze 11/75
negotiated
Cut
Increase
Referendum Rejected Real Prop. Tax
by voters
increased to max.
ding Operating Exp
85.0 Mill.
54.0 Mill
Tax Anticipation Notes
8.5 Mill.
15.0 Mill.
erest Rate
9.0 %
8.75 %
7.30 %
9.0%
GERALD
LIBRANT FORD ?
Scattle
Atlanta
Philadelphia
Saginaw
Flint
Grand
Royal
Rapids
Oak
employment Rate
8.8
12.0
(Metro) 9.4
(Jan.7 8.5
12.0
otal Budget FY 75-76
279.9 Million
130.5 Million
1,160.0 Million
36.6 Million
49.9 Million
?
13.0 Mi
ederal Revenue Sharing
-
7.0 Mill.
52.2 Mill.
2.7 Mill.
4.2 Mill.
3.5 Million
.5 Mi
tate Revenue Sharing
or Aid
8.7 Mill.
2.5 Mill.
-
2.6 Mill.
5.1 Mill.
6.9 Mill.
2.2 Mi
rojected Deficit
0
0
80.0 Mill.
0
0
0
3.0 Mi
revious Year Carry Over
0
0
11.0 Mill.
0
0
0
0
part of
Mill.
ighest Level of
mployment
12,000 (1973)
35,000
1,073
2,000
2,517
461
resent Level of
mployment
9,090
35,000
1,073
2,000
2,447
151
rojected Level 7/1/76
9,090
35,000
1,073
1,800
2,447
451
?
ETA Employment (Current)
600
400
417
74
reas of Past Employee
Reduction
Across the Bd.
Across the Bd
Across the Bd
reas of Anticipated
Employee Reduction
Across the Bd.
Across the Bd.
horter Work Week
lork Without Pay
Services
losed Pacilities
Close Hospital
ay Freeze
FORD
Freeze being negotiated
LISSANY
ay Cuts
Grand
Royal
Seattle
Atlanta
Philadelphia
Saginaw
Flint
Rapids
Oak
X Increases
Prop. Tax Increase
Tax increases in
Prop. Tax Increa
In 1974
virtually all
3 mils. for 5 ye
categories
nding Operating Exps. or
IX Anticipation Notes
terest Rate
100 Million
GERALD FORD
DRAFT PROCEDURE
PROPOSED PROCEDURE FOR MONITORING
CITY FINANCIAL PROBLEMS
Outlined below is a suggested procedure for responding to
calls and correspondence outlining a city's financial problem
and/or requesting assistance. The process would provide a
focal point for information and would insure a coordinated
White House response. The procedure would involve the
following steps:
1.
Complete check list of information based on tele-
phone conversations or written correspondence, and
forward this information to the Office of Inter-
governmental Affairs. The check list should
include the following information:
A.
Name of City
B.
State
C.
Name of Mayor
D.
Provider of information/position
E.
Brief description of the problem
- Nature of problem
Amount of money involved
State action and response to date
- Alternatives available
-
Proposed solution
-
Availability of documentation
-
- Nature of request to Federal
Government
-
Other groups involved, e.g.
banks, business
2.
Develop and maintain in the Office of Intergovern-
mental Affairs a file on the city in question.
The files should include the following items:
A.
Completed check list
B.
Log of calls and discussions along with
description of actions taken
C.
Correspondence
D.
Assignment of lead responsibility
E.
Copies of memoranda and decision papers
3.
Assign day-to-day responsibility for monitoring and
follow up with the city. (This would likely be IGA
staff or specific agency representatives)
4.
Alert the President of the situation through Jim
Cannon's weekly report.
5.
Circulate check list from Jim Cannon to the Urban
Task Force. The circulation list should include
at a minimum the following:
A.
Cannon
B.
Seidman
C.
O'Neill
D.
Simon
E.
Fletcher
F.
Quern
G.
McConahey
H.
Appropriate Domestic Council Staff
6.
Convene Urban Task Force as necessary to review the
situation, receive analysis and information from
the city in question, and develop necessary memoranda
and recommendations for the President.
7.
Make recommendations to the EPB as necessary.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 12, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
ART QUERN Artor
SUBJECT:
Follow-Up to April 9, 1976, Urban
Issues Meeting
The following are the next steps to be taken in exploration
of urban issues:
1.
Annexation
Steve and Pat will look into the existing research
on the use of annexation by cities to expand their
revenue base.
2.
Free Trade Zones
Lynn will look into concept of "free trade zones"
for urban areas.
3. EDA
Quern will inquire about EDA's programs which have
been directed toward urban areas.
4.
HUD
Lynn will circulate copies of HUD urban issues paper
and each member of the working group will provide
Lynn with comments in anticipation of a meeting with
Secretary Hills.
5.
Johnson and Johnson
Art Fletcher will proceed to set up a briefing session
by drafting a letter for Jim Cannon's signature.
2
6.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Art Fletcher will suggest Fletcher/Quern meeting with
Chamber Washington Urban Affairs Representative.
7.
Briefing on Revenue Sharing
Quern will invite Paul Myer to next working session to
brief on Revenue Sharing.
8.
Allied Services
Steve will have more detailed work prepared examining
Allied Services and Joint Funding Simplification Act.
9.
Tax Incentives
Quern will get further information on Administration's
tax incentive proposal.
Sir.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 13, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE DOMESTIC COUNCIL STAFF
URBAN POLICY STUDY
FROM:
LYNN MAY
hyn q
SUBJECT:
Legislation
In the interest of making our group more aware of background
material related to urban policy questions, I will be
forwarding to you relevant items of information from my
sources. Please note the attached item. It is from the
Housing and Development Reporter, Vol. 3, #23, April 5,
1976.
Attachment
Housing and Development Reporter
Vol. 3, #23 April 5, 1976
WAYS AND MEANS PASSES 35 PERCENT
INTEREST SUBSIDY FOR TAXABLE BONDS
The House Ways and Means Committee reported out the
"Municipal Taxable Bond Alternative Act of 1976" to provide
federal payment of 35 percent of the interest on taxable
municipal bonds beginning July 1, 1977.
The bill, (H.R. 12774), which passed the committee on
March 29 by four votes, faces an uncertain future on the House
floor later this month. Despite Administration support of the
measure, only one Republican, second ranking Barber B.
Conable, Jr., of New York, voted in favor of it. Republicans
and Southern conservative Democrats are expected to launch a
strong campaign against it on the floor.
Proponents, led by the bill's sponsor, Ways and Means Com-
mittee Chairman Al Ullman (D-Ore), argue that the new tax-
able bond bill will provide state and local governments an op-
tional route to the corporate bond market when they are having
or inadequate agency safeguards, but expressed amazement
that despite these warnings, HUD did little to head off impend-
ing disaster.
Specifically, the committee found that HUD lost millions of
dollars in insurance claims and caused personal tragedy to
foreclosed homebuyers because it did not monitor closely
enough the activities of approved mortgagees.
Partly as a result of the committee's hearings, the depart-
ment wrested control over the mortgagees from the office of the
FHA Commissioner, where it had been for over 40 years, and
placed it in the hands of a four-party committee, the Mortgagee
Review Board. This group has already moved against a number
of mortgagees, including the Advance Mortgage Corp., a sub-
sidiary of Citicorp, and the second largest mortgage banking
firm in the country.
The report points out, however, that this could have been
done years ago, since the department was aware of servicing
shortcomings long before it took any action.
"Perhaps the most disturbing fact about this situation was
that everyone knew of the inadequacies in mortgage servicing,"
the committee wrote, "but felt powerless to do anything to cor-
rect them."
The report scored private lenders participating with the
government in HUD-FHA insurance programs for failing to
live up to the standards laid out in guidelines issued both by
HUD and the Federal National Mortgage Association (FN-
MA), the organization which holds much of the government-in-
sured debt.
Once homes are foreclosed, the report states that the abuses
for
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 15, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
ART QUERN
Hrter
SUBJECT:
Discussion Paper on Cities
It seems to me that our general discussion of urban issues
has produced a number of threads of thought which are
worth summarizing and pursuing.
The following brief rundown of these "threads" is offered
only as a means of promoting our continued explorations
of particular urban questions.
1.
Private Sector Involvement
A.
Corporations
-- What is it that leads a corporation
to commit itself to the betterment of
an urban area.
B. Banks
-- What roles do banks play in assisting
urban areas to weather fiscal crisis and
restore fiscal stability.
2.
Expanding Revenue Base
A. Annexation
-- What are the various possibilities,
advantages and disadvantages of
annexation.
B.
"Free trade zones"
-- Whether this concept offers any advantages
to urban areas.
2
3.
Use of Federal Funds
--
We are exploring the "allied services"
concept for cities to see if we can enable
much greater flexibility in their use of
Federal funds. In effect this is an "urban
block grant" concept.
4.
Economic Development
A.
We are examining current EDA policies toward
cities.
B.
We are reviewing a type of urban development
bank concept.
5.
Welfare Reform
--
The welfare reform studies we are engaged in
could offer some relief to cities.
6.
General Revenue Sharing
--
We are monitoring the current deliberations
on the Revenue Sharing issue as it relates
to cities.
7.
Gauging Fiscal Health
A.
Steve and Pat have compiled basic information
on the major cities as judged by outside
groups.
B.
Norm Hurd's intergovernmental finance project
could assist by identifying better tools to
be used in gauging fiscal conditions of cities.
8.
Current Federal Programs
A.
HUD
-- Carla Hills will be meeting with us soon
to review HUD's approach to urban questions.
B.
Transportation
-- Judy Hope has been reviewing "urban"
questions with DOT staff.
CC: Art Fletcher
Steve McConahey
Pat Delaney
Lynn May
Allen Moore
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 15, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
ART QUERN
Hrter
SUBJECT:
Discussion Paper on Cities
It seems to me that our general discussion of urban issues
has produced a number of threads of thought which are
worth summarizing and pursuing.
The following brief rundown of these "threads" is offered
only as a means of promoting our continued explorations
of particular urban questions.
1.
Private Sector Involvement
A.
Corporations
-- What is it that leads a corporation
to commit itself to the betterment of
an urban area.
B. Banks
-- What roles do banks play in assisting
urban areas to weather fiscal crisis and
restore fiscal stability.
2.
Expanding Revenue Base
A. Annexation
-- What are the various possibilities,
advantages and disadvantages of
annexation.
B.
"Free trade zones"
-- Whether this concept offers any advantages
to urban areas.
2
3.
Use of Federal Funds
--
We are exploring the "allied services"
concept for cities to see if we can enable
much greater flexibility in their use of
Federal funds. In effect this is an "urban
block grant" concept.
4.
Economic Development
A.
We are examining current EDA policies toward
cities.
B.
We are reviewing a type of urban development
bank concept.
5.
Welfare Reform
:
The welfare reform studies we are engaged in
could offer some relief to cities.
6.
General Revenue Sharing
--
We are monitoring the current deliberations
on the Revenue Sharing issue as it relates
to cities.
7.
Gauging Fiscal Health
A.
Steve and Pat have compiled basic information
on the major cities as judged by outside
groups.
B.
Norm Hurd's intergovernmental finance project
could assist by identifying better tools to
be used in gauging fiscal conditions of cities.
8.
Current Federal Programs
A.
HUD
-- Carla Hills will be meeting with us soon
to review HUD's approach to urban questions.
B.
Transportation
-- Judy Hope has been reviewing "urban"
questions with DOT staff.
CC: Art Fletcher
Steve McConahey
Pat Delaney
Lynn May
Allen Moore
12A
THE WICHITA EAGLE
Thursday, April 15, 1976
Urban
Drive to Fight Bias
"What we have already done is to
Ford Aide Hits
racialize public service programs so
much that nobody wants them.
"You know there are while blks in
the inner city who are without jobs
Campaign Hate
too.
There are white folks there who
shoot other people and who take dope.
Public service service programs are
By BOB HEATON
for everyone who needs them."
Staff Writer
Fletcher said he feels more cities
will follow New York City into radical
A presidential advisor, visiting in
programs of financial reform.
Wichita Wednesday, lashed out at
"They are going to have to hold the
"race baiting" and "hate baiting" by
line on expenses, I think," he said. "I
presidential candidates.
can see more and more cities taking
Art Fletcher, deputy assistant to the
advantage of bankruptcy laws to get
President for urban affairs and a
their houses in order."
former Kansan, was here to address
Fletcher was critical of public
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 12, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
ART QUERN Art
SUBJECT:
Follow-Up to April 9, 1976, Urban
Issues Meeting
The following are the next steps to be taken in exploration
of urban issues:
1. Annexation
Steve and Pat will look into the existing research
on the use of annexation by cities to expand their
revenue base.
2.
Free Trade Zones
Lynn will look into concept of "free trade zones"
for urban areas.
3. EDA
Quern will inquire about EDA's programs which have
been directed toward urban areas.
4. HUD
Lynn will circulate copies of HUD urban issues paper
and each member of the working group will provide
Lynn with comments in anticipation of a meeting with
Secretary Hills.
5.
Johnson and Johnson
Art Fletcher will proceed to set up a briefing session
by drafting a letter for Jim Cannon's signature.
2
6.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Art Fletcher will suggest Fletcher/Quern meeting with
Chamber Washington Urban Affairs Representative.
7.
Briefing on Revenue Sharing
Quern will invite Paul Myer to next working session to
brief on Revenue Sharing.
8.
Allied Services
Steve will have more detailed work prepared examining
Allied Services and Joint Funding Simplification Act.
9.
Tax Incentives
Quern will get further information on Administration's
tax incentive proposal.
Urbangolicy
THE WHITE HOUSE
At
WASHINGTON
April 15, 1976
Let two To
yood -
Review, when
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
ART QUERN Hitor
week, are.
FROM:
we
SUBJECT:
Discussion Paper on Cities
June
It seems to me that our general discussion of urban issues
has produced a number of threads of thought which are
worth summarizing and pursuing.
The following brief rundown of these "threads" is offered
only as a means of promoting our continued explorations
of particular urban questions.
1.
Private Sector Involvement
Dut you England
Corporations
What is it that leads a corporation
to commit itself to the betterment of
an urban area.
Banks
is B.
in my!?
-- What roles do banks play in assisting
urban areas to weather fiscal crisis and
restore fiscal stability.
2.
Expanding Revenue Base
A.
Annexation
-- What are the various possibilities,
advantages and disadvantages of
annexation.
B.
"Free trade zones"
-- Whether this concept offers any advantages
to urban areas.
GERRLD 8. FORD
2
3.
Use of Federal Funds
good
--
We are exploring the "allied services"
concept for cities to see if we can enable
much greater flexibility in their use of
Joint
Federal funds. In effect this is an "urban
block grant" concept.
4.
Economic Development
I'd like to an a
A.
We are examining current EDA policies toward
cities.
defunter of (2) A Policy
B.
We are reviewing a type of urban development
bank concept.
5.
Welfare Reform
--
The could welfare offer reform some relief studies to we cities. are engaged in Pight
6.
General Revenue Sharing
--
We are monitoring the current deliberations
on the Revenue Sharing issue as it relates
to cities.
7.
Gauging Fiscal Health
A.
Steve and Pat have compiled basic information
on the major cities as judged by outside
groups.
B.
Norm Hurd's intergovernmental finance project
could assist by identifying better tools to
be used in gauging fiscal conditions of cities.
8.
Current Federal Programs
A. HUD
-- Carla Hills will be meeting with us soon
to review HUD's approach to urban questions.
B.
Transportation
-- Judy Hope has been reviewing "urban"
questions with DOT staff.
CC: Art Fletcher
Steve McConahey
Pat Delaney
GERALD LIQUEST = FORD
Lynn May
Allen Moore