DOCUMENT RESUME Revenue Sharing: Its Use By And Impact
DOCUMENT RESUMEED 081 097TITLEINSTITUTIONSPONS AGENCY,REPORT NOPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROMEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORSEA 005 361Revenue Sharing: Its Use by and Impact on StateGovernments. Department of the Treasury. Report tothe Congress.Comptroller General of the U.S., Washington, D.C.Congress of the U.S., Washington, D.C.; Department ofthe Treasury, Washingtor., D.C.GAO-B-1462852 Aug 7363p.U.S. General Accounting Office, Room 6417, 441 GStreet, N W , Washington, D.C. 20548 (Order No.B-146285, 1.00)MF- 0.65 HC- 3.29Educational Finance; *Federal Legislation; *FederalState Relationship; Property Taxes; *ResourceAllocations; *Revenue Sharing; *Tax RatesABSTRACTThe results of the G.A.O. Is State-by-Stateinvestigation of the status of the 1.7 billion distributed to 50State governments and the District of Columbia for 1972 are reportedin this pamphlet. The investigation attemptkA to assess the actualimpact of revenue sharing in such areas as tax reduction, changes inbudget priorities, and increased funding for programs. The findingsreflect the subjective assessments by knowledgeable State officialsof the broad fiscal impact that revenue sharing funds would have ontheir States. Gm
FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPYRevenue Sharing: Its Use By.And im act On State Governments;t/3y11t:,'(lt Of tile,n()1,Oh' 7'i iIV/711f.,'TA 7'U.S DEPARTMENT CF HEALTHEDUCATION & WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION;THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODuCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICYAUG.2,1973
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATESWASHINGTON. D.C. 20548B-146285To the President of the Senate and theSpeaker of the House of RepresentativesWe are reporting on the use of revenue sharing funds bythe 50 State governments and the District cf Columbia.We made our review pursuant to the Budget and AccountingAct, 1921 (31 U.S.C. 53); the Accounting and Auditing Act of1950 (31 U.S.C. 67); and the State and Local Fiscal AssistanceAct of 1972 (86 Stat. 934).We are sending copies of this report to the Director, Office of Management and Budget, and the Secretary of the Treasury.Comptroller Generalof the United States
ContentsPageDIGEST1CHAPTER123INTRODUCTIONMethod used to allocate funds to StatesThe five-factor formulaThe three-factor formulaAmounts allocated to State governmentsRestrictions on use of fundsSTATUS OF CALENDAR YEAR 1972 FUNDSStatus of fundsAmounts authorized for expenditureAmounts expendedAmounts proposed for expenditureAmounts invested and interest earnedUSES AND ANTICIPATED EFFECTS OF REVENUESHARINGPlanned and actual uses of fundsFunds authorized for expenditureExpended fundsPlanned use of fundsFactors influencing use of fundsAnticipated effects of revenue VITIES OF EACH STATE AND THE.DISTRICTOF COLUMBIA23SCOPE OF REVIEW58Principal officials of .the Department of theTr.easury having an interest in the mattersdiscussed in this report59APPENDIX
COMPTROLLER GENERAL'SREPORT TO THE CONGRESSREVENUE SHARING:ITS USE BYAND IMPACT ON STATE GOVERNMENTSDepartment of the Treasury B- 146285DIGESTWHY THE REVIEW WAS MADEtwo installments--the first in ecember 1972 and the second in January 1973.About 3.4 billion wentto local governments, and about 1.7 billion went to the States andthe District of Columbia.The Revenue Sharing Act provides fordistributing approximately 30.2 billion to State and local governmentsfor a 5-year program period beginningIt directs theJanuary 1, 1972.Comptroller General to review thework done by the Department of theTreasury, the State governments, andthe local governments so that theCongress may evaluate compliance andoperations under this new and fundamentally different kind of FederalAs of March 31 this year, the Statesand the District of Columbia had- -authorized the expenditure of 390.1million and expended 242.7 million of this amount,aid.- -developed reasonably definitiveplans for using an additional 840.6 million,This report, concerning GAO's reviewof the status of the 1.7 billiondistributed to 50 State governmentsand the District of Columbia for calendar year 1972, is the first of aseries of reports on revenue sharing.--developed no specific plans forusing the remaining 515.5 million,and--earned a total of about 21 million from investing revenue sharing funds.FINDINGS AND' CONCLUSIONSThe act gives State and local governments wide discretion in deciding howrevenue sharing funds will be used.Of the total amount authorized orplanned for expenditure, GAO identified the specific uses for about 957.9 million. About 58 percentof this amount was being directedtoward education.About 5.1 billion in revenue sharingfunds for 1972 was distributed inTear Sheet. Upon removal, the reportcover date should be noted hereon.1
FunctionRevenue sharing fundsas of March 31, 1973AuthorizedPlanned forfor expenditureexpenditureTotal(millions)Education Public safetyPublic welfare and social servicesCorrectionsRecreation and natural resourcesGeneral controlFinancial administrationGeneral public buildingsSalary increases and employee retirementDebt retirement and interestInsurance benefits and repaymentsAssistance and subsidiesOther37.311.2TotalAbout 377 million, or 39 percent ofthe 957.9 million, was designatedfor capital expenditures--mainly construction and land acquisition. 482.133.8 16.86.6 165.3 792.6 957.95.3program might be discontinued hadresulted, or was expected to result,in the use of the funds for capitalimprovements or other nonrecurringexpenditures.Although the States generally hadfollowed or were following theirnormal processes in authorizing expenditures of revenue sharing funds,restrictions on the funds and concernover discontinuance of the programhad a definite impact on decisionsregarding use of the funds.The actual impact of revenue sharingon a State may be quite differentfrom and more elusive than the apparent impact indicated by the usea State makes of its funds. When aState uses the funds to wholly orpartially finance an activity whichthe State's own revenues previouslyfinanced, it becomes difficult toobjectively identify the actualOfficials of 28 States said thatFederal restrictions on the use ofthe funds had influenced their decisions.Generally, this meant thatthe States used or intended to usethe funds in programs or activitieswhich would simplify compliance.impact.The actual impact would appear elsewhere because the freed funds couldallow the State toOfficials of 18 States, includingsome of the 28 discussed above, indicated that concern over the possibility that the revenue sharing--reduce its tax rates,--improve its overall financial position by increasing the amount of2
uic.tligated funds at yearend,funds would help to permit someform of tax relief.- -increase the amount of funds available for another specific program,- -Officials of 16 States anticipatedthat the funds would postponefuture tax increases.- -slightly increase funding for allState programs,- -Officials of 14 States expectedthe funds to increase, at leasttemporarily, the yearend balanceavailable for appropriation inthe succeeding year.- -postpone a planned tax increase, or- -achieve a combination of these.The actual impact of revenue sharingis further complicated by such thingsas changing State budget priorities,changing amounts of revenues available to a State from its own sources,and the relatively insignificant contribution that revenue sharing fundsmake to total State revenues.RECOMMENDATIONS OR SUGGESTIONSThis report contains no recommendations or suggestions.MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATIONBY THE CONGRESSGAD asked knowledgeable State officials to subjectively assess thebroad fiscal impact that revenuesharing funds would have on theirThe Federal Government has begun aprogram which involves a new andfundamentally different approach toproviding aid to State and localgovernments. This and future GAOreports should assist the Congressin evaluating this new approach.States.- -Officials of 18 States said theTear Sheet3
CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTIONThe State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972(Public Law 92-512), commonly known as the Revenue SharingAct, provided for distributing approximately 30.2 billionto State and local governments for a 5-year program periodbeginning January 1, 1972.Because the Congress, in considering the act, concluded that State and local governmentsfaced severe financial problems, a purpose of the act was tohelp insure the financial soundness of such governments.The funds provided under the act are a new and different kind of aid because the State and local governments aregiven ,ide discretion in deciding how to use the funds.Other Federal aid to State and local governments, althoughsubstantial, has been primarily categorical aid which generally must be used for defined purposes. The Congress concluded that aid made available under the act should providerecipient governments with sufficient flexibility to use thefunds for their most vital needs.The Office of Revenue Sharing, Department of the Treasury, is responsible for administering the act, including distributing funds to State and local governments; establishingoverall regulations for the program; and providing such accounting and auditing procedures, evaluations, and reviewsas necessary to insure that recipient governments complyfully with the act.Approximatley 5.1 billions in revenue sharing funds forcalendar year 1972 were distributed to recipient governmentsin two installments--the first in December 1972 and the second in January 1973. About 1.7 billion went to the 50 Stategovernments and the District of Columbia, and about 3.4 billion went to local governments.The Revenue Sharing Act directs the Comptroller Generalto review the work of the Treasury, the State governments,1The Revenue Sharing Act appropriated about 5.3 billion forcalendar year 1972.About 200 million was temporarilywithheld to make adjustments.
and the local governments so that the Congress can evaluatecompliance and operatior.s under the act.We plan to submitreports to the Congress at appropriate times during the revenue sharing program, to provide it with a periodic overviewof the status, uses, and effects of the funds. This reporton the status of the 1.7 billion distributed to the 50 Stategovernments and the District of Columbia for calendar year1972 is the first of these reports.The final Treasury regulations governing the revenuesharing program had only recently been issued when our fieldwork was completed in April and May 1973. Also the Treasuryhad not prescribed the format for the States to use inreporting how they had expended revenue sharing funds, andmost States had not spent any of their funds.For these reasons, as well as our desire to provide theCongress with early information, we did not assess Stan,government compliance with the restrictions and requirementsof the act and the regulations.In future reviews we willassess compliance, as well as efforts of the Office of Revenue Sharing to insure that recipient governments complyfully with the act and the regulations.METHOD USED TO ALLOCATE FUNDS TO STATESTwo formulas--a five factor formula and a three-factorformula--are used in allocating revenue sharing funds amongStates and the District of Columbia.Both formulas are usedin computing tentative allocations for each State, and eachState's allocation is then derived using the formula thatyields the higher amount.The five-factor formulaThe factors used in this formula are (1) total population, (2) urbanized population, (3) population inverselyweighted for per capita income, (4) State individual incometax collections, and (5) general tax effort.The first threefactors are designed to take need into account. Populationis used because it often tends to be directly related tofinancial needs.Urbanized population is used because thecosts of providing services are generally higher in urbanizedareas.The factor of population inversely weighted for percapita income is used because poorer areas generally havegreater financial difficulty in providing government services.6
These three factors are given equal weight in allocatingtwo-thirds of the available funds.The remaining two factors are intended to provide anincentive for States and localities to meet their financialneeds with their own tax resources. The factor of Stateindividual income tax collections was made separate to encourage this form of taxation. The general tax effort factortakes into account all taxes collected by the State andlocal governments.Both of these factors are given equalweight in allocating the remaining one-third of the funds.The three-factor formulaThis formula allocates funds on the basis of the State'spopulation, per capita income, and tax effort in relation tothat of other States.The three-factor formula tends toresult in higher allocations to those States with a low percapita income and a high tax effort in relation to otherStates.AMOUNTS ALLOCATED TO STATE GOVERNMENTSThe five-factor formula was used to compute the allocation for the District of Columbia and 19 States, includingCalifornia, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, andNew York. The three-factor formula was used for 31 States,including Alabama, Georgia, Maine, South Dakota, andWest Virginia.Approximately one-third of the allocation to a State isdistributed to the State government; the remaining two-thirdsis distributed among the eligible local governments. TheDistrict of Columbia is treated as a State and a localgovernment, so it receives both the State and the localshares of the allocation.For calendar year 1972 State governments receivedamounts ranging from 2.1 million for Alaska to 190.4 million"for New York.On a per capita basis, Ohio received theleast aid and Mississippi received the most. The averagedistribution on a per capita basis was 8.59. Figure 1 onpage 9 shows the total and per capita amounts of funds thatthe 50 State governments and the District of Columbiareceived.7
RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF FUNDSIn general, the act permits a State government to userevenue sharing funds for whatever purpose it deems appropriate if the funds are expended in accordance with the,State's laws and procedures for expending its own revenues.But to receive its full allocation, a State government generally must provide its local governments with fiscal assistance that equals or exceeds such assistance prior to revenue sharing. Also, a State government may not use revenuesharing funds in a way which discriminates against race,color, sex, or national origin.A further restriction prevents a State government fromusing the funds either directly or indirectly to match Federal funds under programs which make Federal aid contingenton a State contribution.The act also'requires that, undercertain circumstances, employees paid with the funds must bepaid at least at the same wage rates as other State employees.Further, laborers and mechanics employed by contractors orsubcontractors to perform work on a construction projectwhere 25 percent or more 0; the project costs are paid withrevenue sharing funds must be paid wages at rates not lessthan the prevailing rates determined by the Secretary ofLabor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act.To insure that revenue sharing funds are spent in accordance with the act, each State government must create atrust fund in which it must deposit all such funds receivedand the interest earned on them. Each State is required tofollow the fiscal, accounting, and auditing guidelines established by the Office of Revenue Sharing.Finally, each State government must submit reports tothe Office of Revenue Sharing on how it used its revenuesharing funds and how it plans to use future funds. Thesereports must be published in the press and must be madeavailable to other news media so that the public can be keptfully informed.
FIGURE 1CALENDAR YEAR 1972 REVENUE SHARING FUNDSDISTRIBUTED TO THE 50 STATESAND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIAPER CAPITA AMOUNTS RECEIVEDTOTAL FUNDS RICT OF ISSOURI;:i;;;T.:.;;;.6.6NEBRASKA12.6NE.33NEW HAMPSHIRE5.49077.98- 7 116.3DELAWAREWA7 08.111.2COLORADO.,.11.4210 226 997.729.95911.1NEW MEXICONEW YORKNORTH CAROLINANORTH DAKOTA7 971086 64iimlemaME7 541.10 841L06,10 10.1081393981719 0113.126 199.51e310.95190.4---,10 4444.0.7.211.6169.2OHIO.17.1PENNSYLVANIA19.9RHODE ISLAND-7.8SOUTH CAROLINA.19.1OREGONT 6223.9wommin 71SOUTH ST GTON.34.4VIRGINIA.11.719.9UTAH6553,9NEW JEnt.EY.6149120.-2.1ALASKAOKLAI TOMA610SA529.3.1.3922.8.13.0713.19 753.29.701041.259THE DISTRICT OF COLOMBIA'S PER CAPITA AMOUNT SAS COMPUTED NT TAAING O \ F- I itIRD OF rm. DI: Ricl 'N to! At GRAN! Am',DIVIDING THAT BY ITS POPULATION. OF THE 521.7 MILLION RFCEII ED RV fir Milli I. i.7.7 911111K w IS II,GOVERNMENT AND Sli.5 MILLION SAS ITS SHARE AS 4 LOCAL GoITFMENT.bTICE SIN OF THE WOHNP FOR A11 STATES DOES 601 EVIIA1 TOI Al9Iis in) Rik ll tourAN 4 SI III.
CHAPTER 2STATUS OF CALENDAR YEAR 1972 FUNDSThe 50 State governments and the District of Columbiareceived approximately 1.7 billion in revenue sharing fundsfor the first year of the revenue sharing program. The fundswere a retroactive payment because they applied to calendaryear 1972 but were provided in December 1972 and January1973.The Congress concluded that funding should'be retroactive because some State and local governments already hadconsidered the aid in their budgets.e act requires State governments to provide forfunds in accordance with the laws and proceduresexpending t.1that apply to their own revenues, most State legislatures hadto appropriate the funds.SinceSTATUS OF FUNDSAmounts authorized for expenditureMost of the State legislatures were in session betweenJanuary 1 and March 31, 1973; however, many had not passedlegislation on the use of revenue sharing funds. As ofMarch 31, 14 States had legally authorized the expenditureThese authorizationsof all or part of their 1972 funds.covered about 390.1 million of the 1.7 billion received.Amounts expendedOf the 14 States that authorized the use of 1972 revenue sharing funds, 5 had expended a total of 242.7 million asof March 31, 1973. New York transferred all of its 1972revenue sharing funds, 190.4 million, to its general fundand had expended the funds by March 31, 1973, the end of itsfiscal year. Hawaii also had expended all of its funds- 7.7 million--and Alabama, Idaho, and Pennsylvania had spentpart of their funds.Amounts proposed for expenditureIn addition to these 14 States, 24 States and theDistrict of Columbia had reasonably definite plans for theuse of funds totaling 840.6 million. These plans wereC)
generally shown in budget proposals which the Governors sentto the State legislatures. Officials in the remaining 12States told us that they had no definite plans as ofMarch 31, 1973.Figure 2 on page 12 summarizes the overall status of the1972 revenue sharing funds as of March 31, 1973.AMOUNTS INVESTED AND INTEREST EARNEDAbout 1.4 billion, or 82 percent, of the funds wereinvested as of March 31, 1973.Investment practices variedconsiderably among the States.Some States placed all oftheir revenue sharing funds in a single type of investment,such as U.S. Treasury bills or bank certificates of deposit.Other States placed their funds in several different typesof investments.Some States commingled their revenue sharingfunds with other State funds in a common investment pool.The interest earned on investing the funds by 46 Statesand the District of Columbia totaled about 21.2 million asof March 31, 1973, as shown in table 1 on page 13.for 42States and the District of Columbia, we calculated or obtained State officials' estimates of the interest that hadaccrued through March 31; however, the interest shown forthe other four States--Arkansas, Florida, Montana, andNevada--is the actual amount and does not include accruedinterest.11
FIGURE 2STATUS OF 1972 REVENUE SHARING FUNDSDISTRIBUTED TO THE 50 STATE GOVERNMENTS ANDTHE DISTRICT. OF COLUMBIAMARCH 31, 1973(MILLIONS)TOTAL FUNDS DISTRIBUTED 1,747.2AMOUNT PROPOSED FOREXPENDITURE1,230.7390.1AMOUNT AUTHORIZED FOREXPENDITURE242.7AMOUNT EXPENDEDl2
Table 1Amount of Revenue Sharing Funds Investedand Interest Earned as of March 31, 1973GovernmentCalendar year 1972 fundsAmount investedAmount received(000 forniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareDistrict of kaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth est .27.823.97.832.080.39.94.834.425.222.843.i3.251 .747.551 440 244.07.269.219.117.1Amount ofinterest 30938522956253521.160aRevenue sharing funds were invested with other State funds, and the accounting records did not showthe interest applicable to revenue sharing funds as of March 31, 1973.bThe amount of interest actually received; it does not include interest accrued as of Math 31, 1973.cRevenue sharing funds were expended before March 31, 1973.dMost of the revenue sharing funds were initially put into short-term investments. Upon maturity, allof the invested funds were placed in the State's general fund to finance ongoing State operations. Ineffect the funds were loaned to the State's general fund until the legislature could appropriate them.13
CHAPTER 3USES AND ANTICIPATED EFFECTS OF REVENUE SHARINGThe Revenue Sharing Act gives State governments almosttotal freedom to determine how to use revenue sharing funds;that is, they may use their funds for any purpose that islegal and valid under State law. But the act and the related Treasury regulations contain certain requirements thattend to preclude a State from considering revenue sharingfunds and its own revenues as one fund source available forexpenditure among the various State programs and activities.The requirements, particularly those for reporting (seech. 1), make it mandatory for a State to separately identifythe programs or activities that it plans to finance whollyor partially with revenue sharing funds and to account forthe uses actually made of the funds.The permanent regulations published by the Treasury inApril 1973 require the States to maintain accounting recordsin sufficient detail to permit (1) the tracing of revenuesharing funds to establish that the use of the funds did notviolate the act and (2) the preparation of the required reports.PLANNED AND ACTUAL USES OF FUNDSFunds authorized for expenditureAs of March 31, 1973, about 390.1 million was authorized for expenditure, of which about 165.3 million wasdesignated for specific uses.State governments used various methods to designate theuses to be made of the funds. Most often the State legislatures appropriated the funds for particular purposes or projTheOther States, however, used different methods.ects.Virginia State legislature, for example, appropriated thefunds but gave the Governor authority to designate theirGeorgia and Indiana followed a similar prospecific uses.cedure.Of the 165.3 million designated for specific uses, 54.6 million was to be used for capital expenditures, including 28.8 million for construction, 4.5 million for14
land, 12.1 million for the improvement of existingstructures, 1.5 million for equipment, and 7.2 million forIn addition, the States designatedthe retirement of debt.about 57.1 million to be transferred to local school districts for operating and maintenance expenses.Table 2 below shows the amount of funds authorizedfor expenditure by function.Table 2Amount Of Revenue Sharing FundsAuthorized For ExpenditureBy Function As Of March 31 1973FunctionFor direct State useOperationsCapitalandoutlaymaintenanceFor transfer to othergovernment al(millions)Education:Higher educationLocal schoolsOtherHospitals:Mental institutionsGeneral hospitalsOtherHighwaysPublic safetyPublic welfare andsocial servicesCorrectionsRecreation andnatural re3ourcesGeneral conirolFinancialadministrationProtective inspectionand regulationGeneral publicbuildingsIndustrial developmentVeterans servicesState employeeretirementDebt retirementInterest on debtGeneral supportTotal 9.0 0,51.11.0 37.34.07.24.07.2 546 53.4 57.3b224.8224.8 224.8 390.1aTotals do not add due to rounding.b9.5a59.1Represents revenue sharing funds that were not designated for specific uses.15
Expended fundsAs of March 31, 1973, theexpended revenue sharing fundsabout 62 percent of the 390.1able tr Identify the followinglion was expended.State governments hadtotaling 242.7 millionmillion authorized. We werepurposes for which 52.3 mil-PurposeAmount(millions)Aid to local schoolsRetirement of debtPayment of interest on debtLand acquisition for recreationCapital improvements and equipmentat hospitalsCapital improvements and equipmentat educational institutionsCompletion of parksMiscellaneous, including prison care,foster home support, and help to thedisabledTotal 38.93.74.01.52.8.4. 5. 5 52.3New York transferred its 1972 funds totaling 190.4million to the State general fund to help defray rising general fu'd expenditures. The State did not designate thespecific uses of the revenue sharing funds; and because thefunds were commingled with other State revenues, we couldnot identify the specific uses.Revenue sharing funds were only a small part of NewYork's general fund, which totaled about 8.3 billion forthe fiscal year ended March 31, 1973. Expenditures from theState's general fund fall into four broad categoriesfinancial assistance to local governments; operation of departments, boards, and commissions in the executive, legisla ive, and judicial branches; capital construction; anddebt service.New York officials said that reports on the use of thefunds could be prepared by allocating revenue sharing fundsto specific general fund expenditure categories.
Planned use of fundsAs of Mz.rch 31, 1973, .24 States and the District ofColumbia had established reasonably definitive plans forusing 840.6 million of revenue sharing funds.The plans were generally shown in budget proposalssubmitted by the Governors to the State legislatures. Thelargest amount, 482.1 million, was proposed for education,most of which would be transferred to local school districts.The second aid third largest amounts, together constituting 123 million, were proposed for recreation and natural resources and for hospitals, respectively.Table 3 on page 18 shows the amount of funds plannedfor expenditure by function. Although these funds were notlegally authorized for expenditure, table 3 should providean indication of the areas in which the funds are likely tobe used.Factors influencing use of fundsAlthough the States generally had followed,or werefollowing their normal appropriation processes, restrictionson the use of revenue sharing funds and concern over discontinuation of the program definitely affected decisionson how to use the funds.Officials of 28 State governments told us that Federalrestrictions on the use of the funds had influenced theirStates' decisions.These States were concerned primarilywith the prohibition against using the funds either directlyor indirectly for matching under other Federal aid programs.Several State officials indicated that, to avoid possiblecomplications, they had specifically directed funds to areaswhich did not involve other Federal aid programs.17
Table 3Amount of Revenue Sharing FundsPlanned for Expenditureby Function as of March 31, 1973FunctionFor direct State useOperationsCapitalandoutlamaintenanceFor transfer to othergovernmental er(millions)Education:Higher educationLocal schoolsOtherHospitals:Mental institutionsGeneral hospitalsOtherHighwaysPublic safetyPublic welfare andsocial servicesCorrectionsRecreation andnatural resourcesGeneral controlFinancial administrationAirportsProtective inspectionand regulationGeneral publicbuildingsIndustrial developmentend promotionHousingVeterans servicesSalary increasesState employeeretirementDebt retirementInterest on debtInsurance benefitsand repaymentsAssistance and subsidyOther miscellaneousGeneral supportTotala5101.8357.0a23.3 64.3 .031.19.83.514.612.86.578.51.77.7 .26.90.3317.9 .35.0.06c 286.724.416.816.28.216.8.01.1c 36.0 134.6SILL;648.0.48.0 48.0a 840.6aTotals do not add due to rounding.bRevenue shari
DOCUMENT RESUME. EA 005 361. Revenue Sharing: Its Use by and Impact on State Governments. Department of the Treasury. Report to . to review the work of the Treasury, the State governments, 1
sharing sectors, including peer-to-peer sharing, online staffing, car sharing, sharing the accommodation and music streaming will make more than half of the total worldwide income (PwC, 2015). The global revenue of sharing economy will grow to US 335 billion by the end
Jan 17, 2009 · 446F VECTOR-BORNE DISEASES. Revenue 446G. REVENUE - REAL TIME Revenue. 446H AEROBIOLOGY. Revenue 446I. . USHC PHARMACY CREDIT CARD SALES Revenue. Student Hlth Svc Use Only 4531. ASSESSED STUDENT FEES Revenue. 4532 VOLUNTARY STUDENT FEES. Revenue . GIFT SHOP INCOM
CHAPTER TWO Revenue Accounting and Reporting Procedures 9 2.1 Revenue Chart of Accounts 9 2.2 Taxes 11 2.3 Other Revenue 11 . 4.10.1 Auditing the revenue money receipts, the auditor shall verify 31 4.11 References for Revenue Auditing 32 ANNEXURES 35. REVENUE MANUAL 2019 1 INTRODUCTION
Strategies to Optimize Your Pharmacy Revenue Cycle 9/2/2020 5 Presentation Outline 1. Optimal Revenue Cycle Management Program 1. Creating a case for a revenue cycle program 2. Revenue cycle program structure 3. Involving pharmacist leadership 4. Put a revenue cycle program to practice 2. Revenue Improvement and Preservation Strategies 1.
multiple (investors will receive M 1 dollars for every dollar invested) and a revenue-sharing proportion, over an investment horizon of uncertain duration. Academic/practical relevance: We analyze the revenue-sharing contract approach to crowdfunding, and we assist the firm to determine its optimal contract parameters to maximize its .
With simple file sharing, the act of enabling file sharing on a folder and specifying the type of access is simplified to the following choices: Whether to enable sharing for the folder The name of the share Whether to allow network users to change files in the folder The Sharing tab for simple file sharing is shown in the following figure.
We name the coordinated time- or space-sharing scheduling as time-space sharing scheduling. Although Hawk [10], Mercury [26], and Eagle [9] all employ a mixed scheduling policy of time-sharing and space-sharing, they do not consider to coordinate time- or space-sharing scheduling among differenthorizontallayers. Instead, they simply employ .
Whether black holes could form under realistic conditions was a question that puzzled Roger Penrose. The answer, as he later recalled, appeared in the autumn of 1964 during a walk with a . colleague in London, where Penrose was professor of mathematics at Birkbeck College. When they stopped talking for a moment to cross a side street, an idea ashed into his mind. Later that after - noon, he .
