City of Hartford Municipal Overburden Public Policy Report August 1991

    % H is 1 @ CCLv 

  

CITY OF HARTFORD 

  

MUNICIPAL OVERBURDEN 

PUBLIC POLICY REPORT 

AUGUST 1991 

BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE ON MUNICIPAL OVERBURDEN 

 



  

CITY OF HARTFORD’S 
BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE ON MUNICIPAL OVERBURDEN 

The City’s Blue Ribbon Committee on Municipal Overburden 
is a citizen review panel created by the Court of Common 
Council and appointed by the City Manager, whose objective 
is to focus attention on problems of municipal overburden 
and provide direction for resolving those problems. 

The Committee examined the city’s tax structure, its 
impact on various classes of property, and revenue sources 
available to local government as a part of its 
deliberations. 

The Blue Ribbon Committee included: Kathleen McGrory, 
Committee Chairperson, President Emerita, Hartford College 
for Women; Thomas K. Brett, President, Business Quarters; 
Felix Adorno, President Spanish American Merchants 
Association; Julio Mendoza, Deputy Director, La Casa de 
Puerto Rico; Mario DiBacco, Franklin Avenue Merchants 
Association; Edmund F. Navarro, Executive Property 
Manager, Grove Properties Services; Larry Williams, 
President, Organized North Easterners/Clay Hill and 
Northeast Inc. (ONE/CHANE) ; Marilyn Arnum, President, 
Hartford Enterprise Zone Business Association: Andrew 
Sullivan, KPMG Peat Marwick; Michael Gorzoch, Executive 
Director, Asylum Hill Organizing Project; Dulcie Giadone, 
President, Hartford Areas Rally Together; Ray Ferrari, 
West End Civic Association; Jon Bergren, President, 
Greater Hartford Property Owners Association; Desmond 
Collins, Upper Albany Merchants Association; James 
Szerejko, Halloran & Sage; Dr. Richard Pomp, University of 
Connecticut’s School of Law: Dr. Conrad Mallett, 
President, Greater Hartford Community College; Lou Watkins, 
President, Blue Hills Civic Association; Bernadine Silvers 
Coalition to Strengthen the Sheldon Charter Oak 
Neighborhoods (CSS/CON); Malcolm O. Campbell, Jr., 
Counsel, Government Relations Department, Aetna Insurance 
Company; Henry Katz, Vice President, Government Affairs, 
The Hartford Insurance Group; and Larry Alan, Legislative 
Director, Government Affairs Department, The Travelers 
Insurance Company. 

I 

Report prepared by William J. Hunter, Assistant to the 
City Manager and Blue Ribbon Committee Staff Director. 
For further information call (203) 722-6620. 

 



  

- 2 - 

Summary 

Hartford’s economy is based on its role as a major 
insurance, finance and service center, the State Capitol 
and its strategic location. 

While Connecticut is the wealthiest state in the nation, 
with personal income per capita, 140% of the national 
average. It also has, however, some of the poorest cities 
where the quality cf life in these urban cities has 
declined drastically over the last decade. The results 
have been the loss of jobs, middle and upper income 
families, homeowners, and businesses to suburban and rural 
towns. The need for municipal services has increased 
dramatically in cities and towns, especially the poorer 
municipalities. 

This outward migration to areas surrounding Hartford has 
financially crippled the tax base of Hartford, which must 
provide needed public services for the population that 
remain behind. 

Both federal and state policies and programs have 
contributed to the decline and negatively impacted cities 
with unreasonable unfunded or underfunded mandates and 
administrative requirements, resulting in further 
abandonment of our urban centers. 

After expanding steadily for much of the 1980’s, the 
slowdown in the economy is now apparent in increased 
office vacancies and unemployment rates, slowing tax base 
growth, and weakening property tax collection. More 
families are living in poverty, the cost of addressing 
social ills is staggering and the tax base available to 
the city is eroding. Hartford is not unique among major 
Connecticut municipalities. 

In cities like Hartford, the property tax burden is 
exacerbated by the relatively higher rates of taxes than 
those faced by taxpayers in surrounding municipalities. 
These disparities have a tendency to push business 
operations out of the cities creating a spiraling effect 
whereby the tax base is diminished and the cities must 
again raise their tax rates, cut services or both. 

The City of Hartford Court of Common Council and City 
Manager should be commended for making very difficult but 
necessary budget decisions. The Council adopted a budget 
with no increase in the mill rate for FY 1991-1992 and has 
taken steps to maintain balanced operations in the face of 
weakening revenues. The Administration is urged to 
continue this policy of sound financial management in 
future budgets. Hartford’s well managed financial 
performance was a consideration in the recent renewal of 
the City’s AA municipal bond rating. 

 



- 3 - 

And, as new and improved sources of revenue are found, the 
Council should commit to the fundamental principle that it 
will implement a reduction in the city property tax 
burden. Specifically, efforts should be made to decrease 
the overall tax burden on all city taxpayers by (1) 
lowering of the mill rate; (2) reducing the commercial 
property tax surcharge. 

The overall effort should be toward the goal of making the 
City of Hartford a more competitive and more desirable 
place in which to live and work. In short, make the city 
a place to opt into, rather than out of. 

In an effort to identify those burdens weighing most 
heavily on the City of Hartford, the Blue Ribbon Committee 
on Municipal Overburden offers these findings. 

FINDINGS: 
  

Federal Aid Reductions 
  

The federal aid to Hartford declined from $25,483,900 in 
fiscal year 1981-1982 to $12,977,209 in fiscal year 
1991-1992 which has adversely affected the city. Since 
1981, federal aid has been cut in half. This federal 
disinvestment in the city has placed a burden on local 
government. 

Economic Isolation 
  

Many of Hartford residents, 33.1%, live at or below 
poverty level. According to the Bureau of the Census, 
Hartford is the nation’s fourth poorest city in terms of 
the percentage of families below poverty level. It is the 
poorest municipality in the Capitol Planning Region as 
well as the State of Connecticut. The poor and 
disadvantaged are forced to reside in urban cities due to 
the fact that these municipalities are the primary 
providers of needed services, and housing opportunities in 
surrounding towns are limited or nonexistent. 

Income Disparity 
  

City’s population is of below average wealth. Hartford 
has the lowest per capita money income of the 29 towns in 
the Capitol Planning Region. The average income of $9,802 
is 57% of the income of people who live in the surrounding 
suburbs who earn an average of $17,328. Hartford ranks 
168 out of 169 towns and the statewide average is $16,094.  



  

Concentration of Government Assisted Housing 
  

With 25% of its housing stock publicly assisted, Hartford 
has the highest concentration of publicly assisted units 
in the state. Of the state’s 92,067 publicly assisted 
housing units, Hartford had 14% or 12,553 units, although 
the city comprises only 4.3 of the state population. In 
1991, that number increased by 1818 units to 14,371. 

Homeownership 
  

Despite efforts to improve the homeownership ratio to 
renter, that figure has only improved by .5% over the last 
decade (1980-90) from 23.1% to 23.6%. Whereas the ratio 
in Hartford’s SMSA was 62.4% 

Family Housing Composition 
  

In 1990, for the first time in Hartford, the number of 
families with a single head of household (16,875) exceeded 
the number of married couple families (14,070). 

High Unemployment 
  

Hartford’s unemployment is the highest in the region with 
8.7%, twice the average unemployment rate for the capitol 
region. This does not include discouraged workers who 
have dropped out of the system and are no longer counted 
or those who are marginally employed or underemployed. 

Suburbanization 
  

Hartford continues to be the core of the metropolitan 
statistical area (MSA), but the suburbs have attracted 
both the wealthier residents, as well as some corporate 
activity. Hartford’s growth rate was 1.5% between 
1960-1970 and 1980-1990 while surrounding towns 
experienced a rapid growth in population. Outmigration 
often leaves distressed urban cities as a by-product, 
further shrinking taxpaying tax bases. As a result, 
although the city is rich in terms of the tax base, its 
residents are less well off, and service requirements, 
are higher. 

 



  

Social Welfare 
  

Hartford has the highest number of the state’s General 
Assistance Program (GA) caseload. For fiscal year 1990-91, 
Hartford had an average monthly caseload of 7,478 compared 
to 4,808 for fiscal year 1989-90. For the month of August 
1991, the monthly average was 8,914. 

Regional Quality of Life 
  

The region’s quality of life is largely dependent on 
Hartford which is its hub. The region’s stability is tied 
to the hub’s stability and growth. Individual 
municipalities in the Capitol Region cannot achieve 
success individually. Regional problems demand regional 
solutions. 

Health Profile 
  

High infant mortality rates continue to be found in 
Hartford. The risk factors for infant death, low birth 
weight and teen pregnancy remain high in the city. 
Hartford has significantly higher rates for all causes of 
mortality per 100,000 population, compared with the state 
average. 

Prevalence of Hunger 
  

Hunger is a major concern in Hartford, especially among 
low-income families with children under 12 that attend 
public schools. 

Business Climate 
  

Economic weakening is evident. Hartford continues to be a 
city reliant on its commercial and industrial base. The 
business climate in Connecticut has deteriorated in recent 
years. State taxes and the high cost of facility space in 
Hartford puts the city at a disadvantage for economic 
development and initiatives that will create jobs and 
benefit the residents. Two-thirds of what can be 
accomplished in Hartford for economic development depends 
upon the state environment. 

Public School Population 
  

With 25,279 students, Hartford has the largest public 
school system in the state, accounting for 46.3% of the 
city’s budget for 1990-1991. 

 



    

State Mandates 
  

State statutory mandates, of which there are 256, require 
municipalities to designate certain public officers, and 
define local government duties and responsibilities. The 
state provides no reimbursement for 210 mandates or 82%, 
45 or 18% are partially reimbursed, and only two state 
mandates are or must be fully funded by the state, but 
local government must comply. 

Burden on Local Property Tax Bases 
  

The city relies too heavily on the property tax for 
revenue because it lacks diverse taxing power, or ability 
to raise the required resources. It is clear that 
Hartford’s tax bases alone cannot support the cost of 
being the primary provider of public services and 
facilities that are of national, state and regional 
concern, such as stated owned facilities, major hospitals, 
colleges, religious institutions and nonprofit 
institutions. When you compare the property tax rate in 
Hartford with municipalities in the capitol region, city 
taxpayers are overburdened and Hartford is not competitive 
with its neighbors. 

Employment Labor Trends 
  

High wage manufacturing jobs have shifted from the City of 
Hartford to other towns or other states. In 1984, 
Hartford had 9,390 manufacturing jobs and in 1989 that 
figure dropped to 7,200, a loss of 2,190 jobs or a 23% 
decrease, compared with a Hartford labor market area 
decrease of 6.3% in this area. 

In an effort to provide direction for resolving those 
burdens weighing most heavily on the City of Hartford, the 
Blue Ribbon Committee on Municipal Overburden offers these 
recommendations: 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 
  

STATE INITIATIVES 
  

o Work to get the state government to create a revenue 
sharing formula which includes dedication of a 
specific percentage of state revenue to help 
distressed municipalities. 

o Work to get the state government to impose statewide 
equalization in sharing of the cost burden associated 
with providing services to the state’s poor and 
disadvantaged. 

 



  

cxmy 

- 7] - 

Support a moratorium on the imposition of new 
unfunded and underfunded state mandates. 

Support full (100%) funding of all state mandates to 
prevent cost shifting to municipalities. 

Support full (100%) state funding and administration 
of General Assistance (GA) Program. 

Support full (100%) funding by state for all 
Payment-In-Lieu-Of-Taxes (PILOT). 

Support expanding the Payment-In-Lieu-Of-Taxes 
(PILOT) program to all properties exempt by state 
statutes. 

Support full (100%) funding by state of Education 
under the GTB formula. 

Support a reexamination of the state statutes 
granting property tax exemptions. 

INITIATIVES 
  

Identify opportunities for increasing efficiency and 
improving cost effectiveness including managerial, 
operating and organizational improvements for 
immediate and long-term city benefits, including 
opportunity to adopt regional solutions for 
efficiencies. 

Eliminate redundant or duplicate documents and 
develop a form control and enhanced computer capacity 
and programs for simplifying and reducing paperwork. 

Encourage the state and the region to become partners 
in assisting the fiscal capacity of Hartford. 

Improve the city’s environment including cultural, 
historic, physical, public safety, cleanliness, 
cultural and recreational aspects to city life. 

Support programs that provide Hartford residents 
meaningful opportunities for employment and 
self-sufficiency. 

Support programs which will increase homeownership 
opportunities within the city, reduce the number of 
government assisted rental units within the city and 
increase the number of government assisted units in 
other towns. 

 



  

-8=- 

Support continuation of the residential property tax 
relief program which caps the effective tax rates on 
residential property at 1.5% after revaluation. 

Create an urban agenda specifically reflecting the 
city of Hartford’s needs, and work with a coalition 
of Connecticut urban centers to seek state government 
action on those needs. 

REGIONAL INITIATIVES 
  

Oo Support the establishment of a regional economic 
development body that would include the city’s job 
creation efforts as a priority. 

Support the Capitol Region Fair Housing Compact on 
Affordable Housing in its efforts to create housing 
opportunities. 

Support a feasibility study of the creation of a 
regional tax sharing program such as a regional sales 
tax or property tax. 

 



LIST OF CHARTS 

FOR THE 

CAPITAL PLANNING REGION 

HARTFORD 
CHART NAME RANK # 

REGIONAL / STATE 

  

PERCENT FAMILIES BELOW POVERTY LEVEL 1 

1987 PER CAPITA MONEY INCOME 29 

PER CAPITA STATE AID i 

DENSITY (POPULATION / SQUARE MILES) 1 

PER CAPITA MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURES 11 

1989-90 PER CAPITA HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES 

1989-90 PER CAPITA POLICE EXPENDITURES 

1989-90 PER CAPITA FIRE EXPENDITURES 

1989-90 PER CAPITA PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURES 

1989-90 CURRENT TAXES AS PERCENT OF TOTAL REVENUE 

1988-89 TAX COLLECTION RATE 

1989-90 PER CAPITA EDUCATION EXPENDITURES 

1989-90 PER PUPIL EDUCATION EXPENDITURES 

i
n
g
 

W
y
 

Mi
g 

11
17
 

ti
ng

 
TF
 
W
i
g
 

Wh
 

© 
M
a
 

1989-90 SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 

HOUSING UNITS IN CAPITAL REGION BY MUNICIPALITY 

oo
 
T
R
G
.
 

S
a
i
l
.
 

R
E
V
S
.
 
C
E
E
.
 

CAPITAL REGION TOTAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTED HOUSING 

EMPLOYMENT DATA: CAPITAL REGION TOWNS 1989 

~
 

Connecticut Municipal Budgets 1989 — 1990; Connecticut Public Expenditure Council ( CPEC) 
1989-90 City of Hartford Population — 133,870; Estimate by Connecticut Department of Human 

Services Connecticut Department of Housing — Production & Permit Authorized Construction 1980 & 

1990; Capital Region Council of Governments; Connecticut Labor Department — Employment Security 

Division, Office of Research & Information, 1989  



PERCENTAGE OF FAMILIES BELOW POVERTY LEVEL 

— CAPITAL PLANNING REGION -— 

PERCENTAGE OF 

REGIONAL FAMILIES BELOW 

RANK MUNICIPALITIES POVERTY LEVEL 
    

HARTFORD 33.1% 

EAST HARTFORD 8.1% 

EAST WINDSOR 7.4% 

VERNON 6.8% 

SOMERS 5.7% 

BOLTON 5.5% 

MARLBOROUGH 5.2% 

ENFIELD 5.0% 

WINDSOR LOCKS 4.7% 

MANCHESTER 4.7% 

WETHERSFIELD 4.6% 

WEST HARTFORD 3.8% 

GLASTONBURY 3.6% 

SUFFIELD 3.6% 

NEWINGTON 3.4% 

WINDSOR 3.2% 

ROCKY HILL 3.1% 

EAST GRANBY 2.8% 

GRANBY 2.8% 

FARMINGTON 2.6% 

HEBRON 2.5% 

TOLLAND 2.5% 

BLOOMFIELD 2.5% 

CANTON 2.4% 

SOUTH WINDSOR 2.3% 

AVON 2.2% 

SIMSBURY 2.2% 

ANDOVER 1.5% 

ELLINGTON 1.0% 

OO
 

® 
NN

 
QO

 
Li

 
& 

W
I
N
 

= 
[
S
E
S
 

- 
0 

BN
 
N
N
 

N
N
 

N
N
 
N
N
N
 

= 
md

 
md
 

pd
 

pd
 

pd
 

OC
 

0 
NN
 

QA
 

i 
& 

W
I
N
 

= 
OO

 
0 

0 
3 

& 
Wh

 
& 

W 

STATE AVERAGE: 9.7% 

REGIONAL AVERAGE: 4.8% 

DIFFERENCE HARTFORD vs STATE AVERAGE: 23.4% 

DIFFERENCE HARTFORD vs REGIONAL AVERAGE: 28.3%  



1987 PER CAPITA MONEY INCOME 
— CAPITAL PLANNING REGION - 

  

    

REGIONAL PER CAPITA STATE 

RANK MUNICIPALITIES MONEY INCOME RANK 

1 AVON 26,260 9 

2 GLASTONBURY 22,649 15 

3 WEST HARTFORD 22,202 17 

4 SIMSBURY 21,804 18 

5 FARMINGTON 21,612 20 

6 GRANBY 19,351 30 

1 SUFFIELD 18,556 37 

8 BLOOMFIELD 18,314 39 

9 CANTON 18,175 41 

10 BOLTON 18,029 42 

11 SOUTH WINDSOR 18,016 43 

12 WETHERSFIELD 17,687 49 

13 EAST GRANBY 17,682 51 

14 ROCKY HILL 17,203 58 

15 MARLBOROUGH 16,771 65 

16 NEWINGTON 16,323 71 

17 WINDSOR 16,217 72 

18 SOMERS 16,163 73 

19 TOLLAND 15,964 80 

20 ANDOVER 15,810 84 

21 MANCHESTER 15,549 89 

22 HEBRON 15,329 94 

23 ELLINGTON 15,189 98 

24 EAST WINDSOR 14,874 107 

25 WINDSOR LOCKS 14,544 112 

26 VERNON 14,534 113 

27 ENFIELD 13,956 121 

28 EAST HARTFORD 13,949 122 

29 HARTFORD 9,802 168 

STATE AVERAGE: 16,094 

REGIONAL AVERAGE: 17,328 

DIFFERENCE HARTFORD vs STATE AVERAGE: (6,292) 

DIFFERENCE HARTFORD vs REGIONAL AVERAGE: (7,526) 

11 

 



  

1989-90 PER CAPITA STATE AID 
— CAPITAL PLANNING REGION — 

  

  

REGIONAL PER CAPITA STATE 
RANK MUNICIPALITIES STATE AID RANK 

1 HARTFORD 1,022.62 1 

ELLINGTON 620.40 25 

3 TOLLAND 564.87 37 

4 HEBRON 536.75 38 

5 ANDOVER 498.78 49 

6 SOMERS 498.50 50 

7 VERNON 486.27 52 

8 ENFIELD 476.09 55 

9 MARLBOROUGH 454.56 63 

10 GRANBY 405.56 77 

11 EAST WINDSOR 400.07 79 

12 BOLTON 374.71 84 

13 CANTON 371.74 89 

14 MANCHESTER 371.02 921 

15 EAST HARTFORD 370.74 92 

16 SOUTH WINDSOR 341.37 99 

17 EAST GRANBY 338.75 101 

18 BLOOMFIELD 316.34 105 

19 NEWINGTON 312.38 107 

20 SUFFIELD 308.28 108 

21 ROCKY HILL 291.97 113 

22 WINDSOR LOCKS 287.84 115 

23 SIMSBURY 265.76 121 

24 WETHERSFIELD 258.00 122 

25 WINDSOR 245.84 128 

26 GLASTONBURY 244.40 130 

27 WEST HARTFORD 217.48 141 

28 FARMINGTON 171.53 148 

29 AVON 159.99 153 

STATE AVERAGE: 435.65 

REGIONAL AVERAGE: 386.64 

DIFFERENCE HARTFORD vs STATE AVERAGE: 586.97 

DIFFERENCE HARTFORD vs REGIONAL AVERAGE: 635.98 

12 

 



DENSITY (POPULATION / SQUARE MILES) 

— CAPITAL PLANNING REGION - 

  

  
  

REGIONAL DENSITY STATE 
RANK MUNICIPALITIES POP. / SQ. MILES RANK 

1 HARTFORD 7,594.51 2 

2 WEST HARTFORD 2,707.66 11 
3 EAST HARTTORD 2,697.97 12 
4 NEWINGTON 2,212.73 17 
5 WETHERSFIELD 1,973.15 20 
6 MANCHESTER 1,897.72 21 
7 VERNON 1,604.35 25 
8 ENFIELD 1,347.10 30 

9 WINDSOR LOCKS 1,343.26 31 
10 ROCKY HILL 1,190.94 33 

11 WINDSOR 894.44 46 
12 SOUTH WINDSOR 775.09 50 

13 BLOOMFIELD 737.99 53 

14 FARMINGTON 718.05 55 
15 SIMSBURY 638.35 60 

16 AVON 593.06 64 
17 GLASTONBURY 531.45 67 

18 EAST WINDSOR 376.16 85 
19 CANTON 330.72 94 
20 ELLINGTON 321.75 95 
21 SOMERS 317.35 97 
22 BOLTON 295.16 99 

23 TOLLAND 272.30 103 
24 SUFFIELD 265.13 105 

25 EAST GRANBY 247.24 107 
26 MARLBOROUGH 235.53 111 

27 GRANBY 226.85 115 
28 HEBRON 188.77 123 
29 ANDOVER 162.82 129 

STATE AVERAGE: 655.80 

REGIONAL AVERAGE: 1,127.50 

DIFFERENCE HARTFORD vs STATE AVERAGE: 6,938.71 

DIFFERENCE HARTFORD vs REGIONAL AVERAGE: 6,467.01 

13 

 



  

PER CAPITA MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURES 
— CAPITAL PLANNING REGION — 

PER CAPITA 

  

  

REGIONAL MUNICIPAL STATE 
RANK MUNICIPALITIES EXPENDITURES RANK 

1 HARTFORD 2,552.88 2 
2 BLOOMFIELD 1,890.72 17 
3 GLASTONBURY 1,820.22 21 
4 AVON 1,809.90 23 
5 WEST HARTFORD 1,804.29 25 
6 BOLTON 1,797.97 26 
7 SOUTH WINDSOR 1,791.97 27 
8 / SIMSBURY 1,764.63 30 
9 ROCKY HILL 1,704.81 35 

10 CANTON 1,701.62 36 
11 EAST GRANBY 1,656.20 44 
12 ANDOVER 1,647.93 47 
13 TOLLAND 1,646.93 48 
14 ELLINGTON 1,642.55 49 
15 HEBRON 1,636.69 50 
16 WINDSOR 1,630.38 52 
17 GRANBY 1,626.81 54 
18 FARMINGTON 1,611.73 59 
19 SUFFIELD 1,598.38 65 
20 EAST HARTFORD 1,593.04 66 
21 MARLBOROUGH 1,560.96 79 
22 WINDSOR LOCKS 1,541.32 83 
23 NEWINGTON 1,525.92 88 
24 WETHERSFIELD 1,452.97 107 
25 EAST WINDSOR 1,442.15 112 
26 \ VERNON 1,423.71 121 
27 MANCHESTER 1,388.62 132 
28 ENFIELD 1,377.15 134 
29 SOMERS 1,272.37 155 

STATE AVERAGE: 1,674.94 

REGIONAL AVERAGE: 1,652.24 

DIFFERENCE HARTFORD vs STATE AVERAGE: 877.94 
DIFFERENCE HARTFORD vs REGIONAL AVERAGE: 900.64 

14 

 



1989-90 PER CAPITA HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES 

— CAPITAL PLANNING REGION -— 

  

PER CAPITA 

    

REGIONAL HEALTH & STATE 

RANK MUNICIPALITIES SOCIAL SERVICES RANK 

1 HARTFORD 228.85 3 

2 BLOOMFIELD 53.62 18 

3 WEST HARTFORD 36.98 35 

4 GLASTONBURY 36.03 36 

5 NEWINGTON 35.22 38 

6 MANCHESTER 34.69 41 

7 EAST HARTFORD 27.67 60 

8 EAST WINDSOR 25.91 71 

9 WINDSOR 24.68 75 

10 FARMINGTON 23.57 81 

11 WETHERSFIELD 23.23 83 

12 SOUTH WINDSOR 22.78 87 

13 ENFIELD 22.17 88 

14 VERNON 19.97 98 

15 WINDSOR LOCKS 18.97 108 

16 AVON 18.88 109 

17 CANTON 18.86 110 

18 ANDOVER 17.76 118 

19 ROCKY HILL 16.87 121 

20 EAST GRANBY 16.29 124 

21 HEBRON 15.85 127 

22 ELLINGTON 15.66 128 

23 SUFFIELD 15.20 131 

24 SIMSBURY 14.59 136 

25 TOLLAND 14.24 139 

26 GRANBY 11.45 149 

27 SOMERS 11.14 151 

28 MARLBOROUGH 10.00 156 

29 BOLTON 8.76 160 

STATE AVERAGE: 65.31 

REGIONAL AVERAGE: 28.96 

DIFFERENCE HARTFORD vs STATE AVERAGE: 163.54 

DIFFERENCE HARTFORD vs REGIONAL AVERAGE: 199.89 

15 

 



4 pA vr 

  

1989-90 PER CAPITA POLICE EXPENDITURES 

— CAPITAL PLANNING REGION - 

PER CAPITA 

  
  

REGIONAL POLICE STATE 
RANK MUNICIPALITIES EXPENDITURES RANK 

1 HARTFORD 204.68 2 

2 AVON 145.15 9 - 

3 BLOOMFIELD 140.00 14 

4 WEST HARTFORD 131.92 21 

5 GLASTONBURY 130.44 23 

6 FARMINGTON 124.31 27 

7 EAST HARTFORD 121.75 28 

8 MANCHESTER 112.82 37 

9 ROCKY HILL 105.56 40 

10 WINDSOR 105.26 42 

11 NEWINGTON 102.79 46 

12 CANTON 102.17 47 

13 WETHERSFIELD 98.01 51 

14 VERNON 94.90 55 

15 EAST WINDSOR 89.67 62 

16 WINDSOR LOCKS 89.63 63 

17 SIMSBURY 80.62 NEE I 

18 ENFIELD : 80.60 76 

19 SUFFIELD 75.87 82 

20 SOUTH WINDSOR 75.60 83 

21 GRANBY 63.77 87 

22 EAST GRANBY 54.76 91 

23 ELLINGTON 39.22 101 

24 SOMERS 34.82 110 

25 TOLLAND 23.71 116 

26 BOLTON 21.07 124 

27 MARLBOROUGH 17.47 128 

28 ANDOVER 15.49 133 

29 HEBRON 13.30 135 

STATE AVERAGE: 107.43 

REGIONAL AVERAGE: 86.05 

DIFFERENCE HARTFORD vs STATE AVERAGE: 97.25 - 

DIFFERENCE HARTFORD vs REGIONAL AVERAGE: 118.63 

16 

 



il. pro 1989-90 PER CAPIFA FIRE EXPENDITURES 

— CAPITAL PLANNING REGION - 

  

PER CAPITA 

    

REGIONAL FIRE STATE 

RANK MUNICIPALITIES EXPENDITURES RANK 

1 HARTFORD 120.30 7 

2 EAST HARTFORD 103.96 11 

3 WEST HARTFORD 90.17 15 

4 EAST WINDSOR 57.66 29 

5 WINDSOR LOCKS 49.94 33 

6 ROCKY HILL 43.71 39 

7 FARMINGTON 36.32 49 

8 ANDOVER : 36.04 50 

9 CANTON 35.42 52 

10 AVON 33.22 56 

11 SOUTH WINDSOR 30.77 60 

12 ELLINGTON 26.82 70 

13 GLASTONBURY 25.44 75 

14 BOLTON 22.23 87 

15 VERNON 21.43 89 

16 HEBRON 21.42 90 

17 WINDSOR 20.75 93 

18 TOLLAND 19.89 96 

19 SOMERS 19.74 98 

20 NEWINGTON 19.21 103 

21 SUFFIELD 18.04 111 

22 WETHERSFIELD 16.68 119 

23 GRANBY 15.56 124 

24 MARLBOROUGH 11.56 136 

25 EAST GRANBY 10.60 142 

26 MANCHESTER 0.86 161 

27 ENFIELD 0.33 164 

28 SIMSBURY 0.21 166 

29 BLOOMFIELD 0.08 167 

STATE AVERAGE: 63.13 

REGIONAL AVERAGE: 31.32 

DIFFERENCE HARTFORD vs STATE AVERAGE: 57.17 

DIFFERENCE HARTFORD vs REGIONAL AVERAGE: 88.98 

Fa E 

17 

 



  

1989-90 PER CAPITA PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURES 

— CAPITAL PLANNING REGION -— 

PER CAPITA 

    

REGIONAL PUBLIC WORKS STATE 
RANK MUNICIPALITIES EXPENDITURES RANK 

1 WINDSOR LOCKS 304.18 2 
2 SOUTH WINDSOR 278.13 7 
3 WEST HARTIFZRD 235.78 19 
4 HARTFORD 227.38 26 

3 CANTON 223.26 27 
& BOLTON 214.88 29 
7 AVON 214.19 30 
8 WETHERSFIELD 210.67 35 
9 BLOOMFIELD 207.18 39 

10 WINDSOR 207.11 40 
11 EAST HARTFORD 200.27 47 
12 ROCKY HILL 199.90 48 
13 GLASTONBURY 195.21 52 
14 TOLLAND 185.21 59 
15 ANDOVER 179.61 63 
16 GRANBY 173.80 69 
17 FARMINGTON 160.88 83 
18 SIMSBURY 160.81 84 
19 MARLBOROUGH 160.65 85 
20 EAST WINDSOR 160.18 87 
21 ELLINGTON 158.19 89 
22 NEWINGTON 140.33 108 
23 HEBRON 139.09 110 
24 ENFIELD 132.66 114 
25 VERNON 132.56 115 
26 SUFFIELD 126.28 119 
27 MANCHESTER 119.08 128 
28 EAST GRANBY 113.38 137 
29 SOMERS 71.67 165 

STATE AVERAGE: 165.92 
REGIONAL AVERAGE: 180.43 

DIFFERENCE HARTFORD vs STATE AVERAGE: 61.46 
DIFFERENCE HARTFORD vs REGIONAL AVERAGE: 46.95 

18 

 



RANK 

©
 

0 
NN

 
QQ
 

Li
 

& 
W
N
 

=
 

BN
 
N
N
 

N
N
 
N
N
N
 

N
N
 

= 
od

 
pd

 
pd
 

pd
 

pd
 

pd
 

pd
 

pd
 

pd
 

©
 

® 
NN
 

QQ
 

Vi
 

& 
W
I
N
 

=)
 

OO
 

VO
 

® 
N
N
 

L
i
 

& 
W
N
 

=
O
 

REGIONAL 

MUNICIPALITIES 

AVON 

WEST HARTFORD 

GLASTONBURY 

BLOOMFIELD 

FARMINGTON 

WINDSOR 

WETHERSFIELD 

SIMSBURY 

SOUTH WINDSOR 

NEWINGTON 

SUFFIELD 

ROCKY HILL 

EAST GRANBY 

CANTON 

GRANBY 

EAST HARTFORD 

WINDSOR LOCKS 

MARLBOROUGH 

HEBRON 

MANCHESTER 

EAST WINDSOR 

ANDOVER 

VERNON 

ENFIELD 

TOLLAND 

BOLTON 

ELLINGTON 

SOMERS 

HARTFORD 

  

CURRENT TAXES 
AS PERCENT OF 
TOTAL REVENUE 
  

83.64% 

78.34% 

78.30% 

77.70% 

76.10% 

75.48% 

74.52% 

74.44% 

70.95% 

70.88% 

70.53% 

70.06% 

68.99% 

68.00% 

67.48% 

64.51% 

64.47% 

63.74% 

62.34% 

62.27% 

62.13% 

61.41% 

61.10% 

60.36% 

58.67% 

56.77% 

55.06% 

52.55% 

48.29% 

1989-90 CURRENT TAXES AS PERCENT OF TOTAL REVENUE 

— CAPITAL PLANNING REGION - 

STATE AVERAGE: 

REGIONAL AVERAGE: 

62.97% 

66.86% 

—14.68% 

—- 18.57% 

DIFFERENCE HARTFORD vs STATE AVERAGE: 

DIFFERENCE HARTFORD vs REGIONAL AVERAGE:  



1988-89 TAX COLLECTION RATE 

— CAPITAL PLANNING REGION - 

TAX 
REGIONAL COLLECTION 
RANK MUNICIPALITIES RATE 

EAST GRANBY 99.4% 

FARMINGTON 99.4% 

NEWINGTON 99.2% 

SUFFIELD 99.2% 

BLOOMFIELD 99.1% 

WEST HARTFORD 99.1% 

VERNON 99.1% 

BOLTON 99.0% 

WETHERSFIELD 98.9% 

WINDSOR 98.9% 

GRANBY 98.9% 

AVON 98.9% 

GLASTONBURY 98.8% 

SIMSBURY 98.6% 

TOLLAND 98.2% 

MANCHESTER 98.0% 

HEBRON 98.0% 

EAST HARTFORD 98.0% 

SOUTH WINDSOR 97.8% 

MARLBOROUGH 97.7% 

ENFIELD 97.7% 

ROCKY HILL 97.7% 

CANTON 97.5% 

SOMERS 97.3% 

ANDOVER 97.3% 

ELLINGTON 97.3% 

WINDSOR LOCKS 97.1% 

HARTFORD 96.9% 

EAST WINDSOR 96.6% 

  

OO
 

0 
39
 

QO
 

Li
 

& 
W
I
N
 

= 
N
N
 
N
N
N
 

N
N
 
N
N
N
 

=
 

om
 

pd
 

pd
 

pd
 

pd
 

pd
 

pd
 

pe
d 

pd
 

OO
 

0 
NN
 

A 
i 

& 
LW

 
IN
 

=
 

© 
OW

 
0 

N
O
 

i 
& 

W
I
N
 
=
O
 

STATE AVERAGE: 97.0% 

REGIONAL AVERAGE: 98.3% 

DIFFERENCE HARTFORD vs STATE AVERAGE: -0.1% 

DIFFERENCE HARTFORD vs REGIONAL AVERAGE: -1.4%  



1989-90 PER CAPITA EDUCATION EXPENDITURES 

— CAPITAL PLANNING REGION -— 

REGIONAL 

RANK 

OO
 

0 
39
 

A 
Li
 

& 
W
I
N
 

= 
N
N
 

N
N
 

NN
 
N
N
 
N
N
N
 

= 
od

 
pd
 

pd
 

pd
 

pd
 

pd
 

pd
 

pd
 

pe
d 

OO
 

0 
J 

QA
 

i 
& 

W
I
N
 

= 
OC
 

OO
 

® 
N
O
 

Wi
 

& 
W 

IN
 

= 
©
 

MUNICIPALITIES 

HARTFORD 

ANDOVER 

BOLTON 

HEBRON 

SIMSBURY 

EAST GRANBY 

ELLINGTON 

TOLLAND 

GRANBY 

SOUTH WINDSOR 

BLOOMFIELD 

GLASTONBURY 

AVON 

MARLBOROUGH 

CANTON 

SUFFIELD 

WINDSOR 

VERNON 

NEWINGTON 

WEST HARTFORD 

SOMERS 

FARMINGTON 

ENFIELD 

WINDSOR LOCKS 

WETHERSFIELD 

EAST HARTFORD 

MANCHESTER 

ROCKY HILL 

EAST WINDSOR 

  

PER CAPITA 

EDUCATION 
EXPENDITURES 
  

1,181.57 

1,155.33 

1,136.07 

1,118.94 

1,118.72 

1,109.66 

1,095.43 

1,086.21 

1,081.42 

1,063.02 

1,057.38 

1,045.02 

1,039.24 

1,032.64 

987.25 

978.76 

914.30 

904.94 

902.85 

885.71 

881.43 

877.61 

875.26 

863.56 

844.53 

811.67 

802.65 

798.06 

792.21 

STATE AVERAGE: 

REGIONAL AVERAGE: 

871.56 

980.74 

DIFFERENCE HARTFORD vs STATE AVERAGE: 310.01 

DIFFERENCE HARTFORD vs REGIONAL AVERAGE: 200.83  



1989-90 PER PUPIL EDUCATION EXPENDITURES 

— CAPITAL PLANNING REGION - 

PER PUPIL 

REGIONAL EDUCATION 
RANK MUNICIPALITIES EXPENDITURES 

    

pd
 BLOOMFIELD 8,319 

EAST HARTFORD 7,300 

ROCKY HILL 7,168 

WEST HARTFORD 7,158 

HARTFORD 7,152 

WETHERSFIELD 7,076 

EAST GRANBY 6,979 

FARMINGTON 6,645 

NEWINGTON 6,633 

GRANBY 6,544 

WINDSOR LOCKS 6,521 

AVON 6,485 

ANDOVER 6,430 

CANTON 6,424 

ELLINGTON 6,420 

VERNON 6,328 

SUFFIELD : 6,277 

ENFIELD 6,265 

GLASTONBURY 6,242 

SOUTH WINDSOR 6,234 

MANCHESTER 6,180 

SIMSBURY 6,125 

BOLTON 6,103 

SOMERS 6,092 

WINDSOR 5,974 

EAST WINDSOR 5,940 

MARLBOROUGH 5,679 

HEBRON 5,350 

TOLLAND 5,306 

OO
 

® 
39

 
A 

Li
 

& 
W
I
N
 

p
p
d
 

-
 

0 
BN
 
N
N
N
 
N
N
N
 
N
N
N
 

o
p
 

pd
 

pd
 

pd
 

pd
 

OO
 

0 
NN

 
QA

 
Li

 
& 

W
I
N
 

= 
OO

 
VW

 
0 

N
&
O
 

ni
 

& 
W 

STATE AVERAGE: 6,414 

REGIONAL AVERAGE: 6,460 

DIFFERENCE HARTFORD vs STATE AVERAGE: 738 

DIFFERENCE HARTFORD vs REGIONAL AVERAGE: 692  



  

1989-90 SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 

— CAPITAL PLANNING REGION - 

  

  

REGIONAL SCHOOL STATE 
RANK MUNICIPALITIES ENROLLMENT RANK 

1 HARTFORD 25,279 1 
2 WEST HARTFORD 7,444 11 
3 MANCHESTER 6,765 12 
4 ENFIELD 6,289 | 15 
5 EAST HARTFORD 5,706 22 
6 GLASTONBURY 4,662 25 
7 WINDSOR 4,267 30 
8 VERNON 4,248 31 
9 SIMSBURY 3,886 35 

10 NEWINGTON 3,871 36 
11 SOUTH WINDSOR 3,694 37 
12 WETHERSFIELD 2,919 50 
13 FARMINGTON 2,714 52 
14 BLOOMFIELD 2,468 61 
15 TOLLAND 2,160 70 
16 AVON 2,055 73 
17 ROCKY HILL 1,862 77 
18 ELLINGTON 1,859 78 
19 SUFFIELD 1,763 81 
20 WINDSOR LOCKS 1,611 86 
21 GRANBY 1,469 91 
22 HEBRON 1,384 95 
23 EAST WINDSOR 1,301 99 
24 SOMERS 1,296 100 
25 CANTON 1,251 102 
26 MARLBOROUGH 954 118 
27 BOLTON 728 128 
28 EAST GRANBY 685 132 
29 ANDOVER 419 146 

STATEWIDE TOTAL: 454,913 
REGIONAL TOTAL: 105,009 

HARTFORD (PERCENTAGE) OF STATE TOTAL: 5.6% 
HARTFORD (PERCENTAGE) OF REGIONAL TOTAL: 24.1% 

23 

 



  

HOUSING UNITS IN CAPITAL REGION BY MUNICIPALITY 

— CAPITAL PLANNING REGION - 

  
  

REGIONAL HOUSING UNITS PERCENTAGE 
RANK MUNICIPALITIES 1980 1990 CHANGE 3 

1 HARTFORD 55,135 57,433 4.2% 

2 WEST HARTFORD 23,967 24,948 4.1% : . 

3 MANCHESTER 18,873 22,322 18.3% 

4 EAST HARTFORD 20,220 21,335 5.5% 

5 ENFIELD 13,507 16,520 22.3% 

6 VERNON 10,771 12,629 17.3% 

( § NEWINGTON 10,555 11,782 11.6% 

8 WETHERSFIELD 9,693 11,243 16.0% 

9 GLASTONBURY 8,705 11,098 27.5% 

10 WINDSOR 8,916 10,709 20.1% 

11 FARMINGTON 6,406 8,885 38.7% 

12 SIMSBURY 6,935 8,267 19.2% 

13 SOUTH WINDSOR 5,758 8,185 42.2% 

14 BLOOMFIELD 6,550 7,853 19.9% 

15 ROCKY HILL 5,751 7,044 22.5% 

16 AVON 4,357 5,639 29.4% 

17 WINDSOR LOCKS 4,232 4,982 17.7% 

18 ELLINGTON 3,503 4,571 30.5% 

19 SUFFIELD 3,453 4,399 27.4% 

20 EAST WINDSOR 3,244 4,290 32.2% 

21 TOLLAND 3,009 3,854 28.1% 

22 GRANBY 2,691 3,555 32.1% 

23 CANTON 2,910 3,338 14.7% 

24 SOMERS 2,417 2,818 16.6% 

25 HEBRON 1,856 2,528 36.2% 

26 MARLBOROUGH 1,547 1,850 19.6% 

27 EAST GRANBY 1,440 1,679 16.6% 

28 BOLTON 1,414 1,668 18.0% 

29 ANDOVER 802 1,054 31.4% 

CAPITAL REGION 248,617 286,478 

24 

 



CAPITAL REGION TOTAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTED HOUSING 

— CAPITAL PLANNING REGION -— 

  

    

TOTAL 

REGIONAL ASSISTED HOUSING 

RANK MUNICIPALITIES as of June 1991 

1 HARTFORD 14,371 

2 EAST HARTFORD 1,823 

3 MANCHESTER 1,597 

4 VERNON 1,371 

5 WEST HARTFORD 1,110 

6 ENFIELD 892 

7 WETHERSFIELD 716 

8 BLOOMFIELD 660 

9 GLASTONBURY 574 

10 NEWINGTON 337 

11 FARMINGTON 307 

12 WINDSOR 212 

13 WINDSOR LOCKS 198 

14 ELLINGTON 158 

15 CANTON 133 

16 SIMSBURY 130 

17 EAST WINDSOR 126 

18 SUFFIELD 118 

19 ROCKY HILL 111 

20 SOUTH WINDSOR 107 

21 GRANBY 94 

22 EAST GRANBY 72 

23 SOMERS 62 

24 AVON 42 

25 TOLLAND 33 

26 HEBRON 25 

27 ANDOVER 24 

28 BOLTON 0 

29 MARLBOROUGH 0 

25 

 



  

EMPLOYMENT DATA: CAPITAL REGION TOWNS 1989 

— CAPITAL PLANNING REGION -— 

  
  

REGIONAL TOTAL . 
RANK MUNICIPALITIES EMPLOYEMENT 

1 HARTFORD 155,600 

2 EAST HARTFORD 43,220 § 

3 WEST HARTFORD 31,660 

4 FARMINGTON 24,650 

5 MANCHESTER 24,210 

6 WINDSOR 19,530 

7 WINDSOR LOCKS 19,330 

® BLOOMFIELD 19,080 

9 ENFIELD 18,190 

10 NEWINGTON 17,600 

11 WETHERSFIELD 12,330 

12 SOUTH WINDSOR 12,060 

13 GLASTONBURY 11,370 

14 VERNON 10,320 

15 ROCKY HILL 9,920 

16 SIMSBURY 9,550 

17 AVON 8,100 

18 EAST WINDSOR 5,170 

19 EAST GRANBY 4,330 

20 SUFFIELD 3,290 

21 TOLLAND 2,570 

22 CANTON 2,460 

23 ELLINGTON 1,920 

24 SOMERS 1,870 

25 GRANBY 1,530 

26 HEBRON 1,270 

27 MARLBOROUGH 1,110 

28 BOLTON 1,060 

29 ANDOVER 230 

26