New research reveals that cities' revenue structures -- the mix of taxes, fees and intergovernmental aid they take in -- also play a critical role, potentially putting some places at greater risk of mounting pension liabilities.
The University of Texas at Dallas study, published in the journal State and Local Government Review, provides one of the first academic analyses of what factors influence pension funding at the local government level. It finds that localities that rely heavily on property taxes tend to contribute more to their pension systems, while those that depend more on state aid for revenue often experience greater pension funding woes.
For years, some state and local governments chronically underfunded their retirement systems, particularly after the Great Recession hit. When governments face deficits, they’ll look to maintain operating budgets as cutting pension funding remains far more politically palatable than eliminating public services.
In times of economic turmoil, some sources of revenue are much more stable than others.
Governments that rely more on property taxes are generally better able to weather fiscal stress and continue to make pension contributions. (Some areas, however, did incur significant declines with the collapse of the housing market just over a decade ago.) Overall, the study reports that every 1 percentage-point increase in reliance on property taxes as a share of own-source revenues corresponds with a $3.22-per-capita drop in unfunded pension liabilities.
More volatile -- and therefore more vulnerable to economic shocks -- revenue sources include sales taxes, income taxes and charges for services. Intergovernmental aid is another a “less predictable” revenue source. According to the study, a 1 percentage-point increase in intergovernmental funds as a share of total revenues correlated with a $3.57-per-capita increase in unfunded liabilities.
"Cities that depend on less-stable revenues and also on state aid may be more focused on maintaining their operating solvency than on funding longer-term obligations," says Evgenia Gorina, the report's author.
To maintain adequate pension funding, the report recommends that cities with less-stable revenues employ stricter pension contribution rules and strengthen their budget stabilization capacity to withstand times of fiscal stress.
The findings are notable given the vast differences in how cities’ budgets are structured. According to the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy's Fiscally Standardized Cities database, which adjusts numbers to account for the budgets of overlapping jurisdictions and differences in services they provide, four cities relied on intergovernmental aid to fund more than 60 percent of their general revenues in 2016: Buffalo, N.Y.; Casper, Wyo.; New Haven, Conn.; and Springfield, Mass.
By contrast, intergovernmental aid accounted for one-fifth or less of revenues in 20 other cities.
How Much Does Your City Rely on Intergovernmental Aid?
| City | % of General Revenues | Intergovernmental Revenue | Total General Revenue |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warwick, RI | 16.5% | $61,169,747 | $370,156,702 |
| Nashua, NH | 37.4% | $165,161,385 | $441,126,665 |
| Bridgeport, CT | 58.0% | $533,890,295 | $920,634,476 |
| Hartford, CT | 57.8% | $567,654,786 | $981,442,604 |
| Boston, MA | 29.2% | $1,309,758,805 | $4,492,976,517 |
| Springfield, MA | 64.8% | $517,216,308 | $798,414,431 |
| Worcester, MA | 47.3% | $418,084,743 | $883,977,644 |
| Lewiston, ME | 46.2% | $74,970,672 | $162,254,291 |
| New Haven, CT | 61.3% | $558,068,615 | $909,868,444 |
| Aurora, IL | 37.2% | $346,403,556 | $930,064,655 |
| Providence, RI | 41.6% | $427,425,207 | $1,026,834,512 |
| Madison, WI | 32.1% | $387,674,526 | $1,206,939,882 |
| Fairbanks, AK | 50.8% | $82,913,707 | $163,361,231 |
| Manchester, NH | 33.0% | $162,107,179 | $490,758,705 |
| Anchorage, AK | 41.3% | $724,890,043 | $1,757,260,157 |
| Jackson, MS | 42.4% | $278,385,523 | $655,957,468 |
| Portland, ME | 21.4% | $71,790,617 | $335,241,909 |
| Missoula, MT | 37.5% | $85,686,687 | $228,570,543 |
| Rutland, VT | 58.6% | $48,950,070 | $83,489,566 |
| Warren, MI | 42.0% | $234,242,322 | $557,702,497 |
| Greensboro, NC | 37.8% | $431,293,496 | $1,142,461,877 |
| Durham, NC | 32.0% | $349,284,595 | $1,092,168,448 |
| Austin, TX | 10.8% | $695,049,557 | $6,419,449,776 |
| Nampa, ID | 38.1% | $87,591,219 | $230,009,492 |
| Ft. Wayne, IN | 41.0% | $375,030,601 | $915,725,311 |
| Boise, ID | 30.5% | $221,741,066 | $726,304,274 |
| Arlington, TX | 29.6% | $510,255,010 | $1,724,646,233 |
| Ft. Worth, TX | 26.6% | $1,059,908,379 | $3,989,535,552 |
| Salem, OR | 46.5% | $342,353,409 | $736,872,114 |
| Des Moines, IA | 37.7% | $458,252,245 | $1,216,536,105 |
| Columbia, SC | 19.4% | $133,164,153 | $686,394,501 |
| Houston, TX | 21.3% | $2,559,851,674 | $12,038,017,216 |
| Gary, IN | 43.6% | $143,569,040 | $328,927,937 |
| Chesapeake, VA | 38.2% | $420,010,577 | $1,098,473,644 |
| Eugene, OR | 23.3% | $217,056,817 | $933,190,454 |
| Raleigh, NC | 31.7% | $630,915,620 | $1,991,549,737 |
| Lincoln, NE | 24.6% | $336,548,099 | $1,367,906,252 |
| Corpus Christi, TX | 24.3% | $351,095,962 | $1,445,362,090 |
| El Paso, TX | 43.0% | $1,361,798,292 | $3,169,304,434 |
| Billings, MT | 29.0% | $119,848,842 | $412,628,464 |
| Virginia Beach, VA | 33.2% | $697,243,141 | $2,098,582,557 |
| Milwaukee, WI | 43.3% | $1,422,162,675 | $3,286,465,839 |
| San Antonio, TX | 24.2% | $2,361,029,724 | $9,756,407,450 |
| Nashville, TN | 17.8% | $729,758,428 | $4,097,840,708 |
| Frederick, MD | 28.0% | $133,252,773 | $476,651,373 |
| Cedar Rapids, IA | 31.9% | $192,405,743 | $604,057,440 |
| Santa Ana, CA | 51.8% | $1,045,368,823 | $2,016,979,880 |
| Huntington Beach, CA | 30.9% | $318,186,858 | $1,028,830,209 |
| Omaha, NE | 22.1% | $627,064,224 | $2,841,873,672 |
| St. Petersburg, FL | 21.7% | $254,701,575 | $1,173,983,992 |
| Garland, TX | 22.9% | $364,265,446 | $1,588,785,032 |
| Portland, OR | 27.2% | $1,074,397,546 | $3,943,214,364 |
| Topeka, KS | 37.5% | $197,896,653 | $527,627,267 |
| Sioux Falls, SD | 28.2% | $204,266,133 | $725,392,811 |
| Dallas, TX | 19.0% | $1,428,157,260 | $7,535,311,561 |
| Casper, WY | 60.9% | $216,224,996 | $355,098,082 |
| Wichita, KS | 43.2% | $687,486,673 | $1,591,656,446 |
| St. Paul, MN | 43.5% | $842,299,161 | $1,936,921,009 |
| Atlanta, GA | 16.9% | $587,802,607 | $3,479,563,958 |
| Columbus, GA | 32.2% | $225,146,357 | $699,656,932 |
| Baltimore, MD | 43.5% | $1,658,035,018 | $3,814,999,492 |
| San Diego, CA | 30.3% | $2,750,878,973 | $9,073,489,622 |
| Rapid City, SD | 18.8% | $54,320,754 | $288,748,532 |
| Richmond, VA | 35.3% | $536,458,442 | $1,520,061,327 |
| Miami, FL | 19.1% | $518,308,839 | $2,707,730,363 |
| Bakersfield, CA | 56.3% | $1,386,134,736 | $2,462,040,241 |
| Wilmington, DE | 31.0% | $153,353,448 | $494,725,724 |
| Charleston, SC | 17.5% | $138,533,945 | $792,588,029 |
| Aurora, CO | 30.5% | $555,763,727 | $1,819,917,911 |
| Salt Lake City, UT | 15.1% | $171,403,290 | $1,135,543,671 |
| Shreveport, LA | 28.8% | $282,547,250 | $981,807,496 |
| Tucson, AZ | 35.0% | $788,885,344 | $2,253,235,218 |
| Minneapolis, MN | 32.4% | $909,852,142 | $2,805,431,609 |
| Chicago, IL | 33.3% | $6,548,780,714 | $19,654,681,100 |
| Jacksonville, FL | 22.7% | $1,178,668,604 | $5,194,846,063 |
| San Jose, CA | 34.7% | $2,926,686,116 | $8,438,548,783 |
| Memphis, TN | 20.6% | $973,211,764 | $4,719,086,415 |
| Fremont, CA | 33.7% | $546,761,243 | $1,620,551,581 |
| Tampa, FL | 41.4% | $964,150,503 | $2,331,360,728 |
| Hialeah, FL | 23.9% | $308,594,136 | $1,288,527,136 |
| Huntington, WV | 32.7% | $58,548,938 | $179,157,852 |
| Kansas City, KS | 36.3% | $396,550,940 | $1,092,739,967 |
| Reno, NV | 41.8% | $532,700,297 | $1,273,952,121 |
| Knoxville, TN | 13.2% | $189,655,649 | $1,440,200,119 |
| Albuquerque, NM | 42.2% | $906,547,405 | $2,146,751,066 |
| Phoenix, AZ | 28.8% | $2,247,818,336 | $7,796,967,763 |
| Anaheim, CA | 32.0% | $864,222,745 | $2,701,452,374 |
| Lexington, KY | 23.8% | $261,709,887 | $1,097,509,845 |
| Orlando, FL | 20.8% | $371,158,112 | $1,781,304,950 |
| Bismarck, ND | 34.3% | $105,504,379 | $307,236,313 |
| Fargo, ND | 37.1% | $210,348,919 | $567,247,376 |
| Dover, DE | 22.5% | $43,628,977 | $193,923,179 |
| Columbus, OH | 31.4% | $1,577,838,154 | $5,031,011,523 |
| Riverside, CA | 46.3% | $1,251,673,104 | $2,704,333,604 |
| Norfolk, VA | 37.5% | $525,357,958 | $1,400,976,725 |
| Mesa, AZ | 30.9% | $602,981,373 | $1,949,715,633 |
| Louisville, KY | 24.8% | $687,799,892 | $2,770,376,885 |
| Indianapolis, IN | 40.4% | $2,203,252,676 | $5,451,557,749 |
| Fresno, CA | 55.8% | $1,749,344,564 | $3,133,733,736 |
| Tulsa, OK | 22.0% | $378,771,604 | $1,725,141,137 |
| Provo, UT | 28.8% | $111,645,864 | $387,815,462 |
| New York, NY | 28.8% | $32,574,984,404 | $113,230,111,272 |
| Pittsburgh, PA | 38.6% | $866,674,177 | $2,247,572,515 |
| Toledo, OH | 39.3% | $545,270,515 | $1,385,871,077 |
| Yonkers, NY | 36.1% | $643,806,589 | $1,781,274,316 |
| Grand Rapids, MI | 40.2% | $329,612,928 | $820,802,730 |
| Akron, OH | 35.8% | $368,653,941 | $1,028,503,653 |
| Cincinnati, OH | 30.4% | $658,872,733 | $2,165,130,122 |
| Modesto, CA | 41.3% | $670,825,388 | $1,623,931,312 |
| Colorado Springs, CO | 26.0% | $659,246,835 | $2,536,077,635 |
| Los Angeles, CA | 35.3% | $13,722,301,522 | $38,838,949,178 |
| Oklahoma, OK | 26.9% | $627,374,729 | $2,334,342,445 |
| Baton Rouge, LA | 22.3% | $376,498,822 | $1,690,491,900 |
| Spokane, WA | 38.0% | $421,905,125 | $1,109,141,592 |
| Tallahassee, FL | 16.8% | $181,091,334 | $1,075,901,468 |
| San Francisco, CA | 24.2% | $2,942,958,346 | $12,156,895,296 |
| Lubbock, TX | 18.3% | $317,091,303 | $1,732,485,740 |
| Rochester, NY | 57.4% | $939,545,794 | $1,635,715,230 |
| Ft. Lauderdale, FL | 15.9% | $211,884,795 | $1,334,790,707 |
| Oakland, CA | 37.6% | $1,794,541,022 | $4,766,783,627 |
| Stockton, CA | 53.9% | $1,131,579,719 | $2,099,541,470 |
| Las Vegas, NV | 37.6% | $1,326,433,113 | $3,531,758,442 |
| Las Cruces, NM | 40.5% | $135,869,370 | $335,776,879 |
| Tacoma, WA | 22.7% | $426,223,246 | $1,881,606,181 |
| New Orleans, LA | 31.7% | $761,730,166 | $2,405,197,380 |
| Syracuse, NY | 59.0% | $574,561,824 | $973,796,056 |
| Dayton, OH | 35.8% | $290,489,564 | $810,696,229 |
| Long Beach, CA | 41.7% | $1,746,249,582 | $4,189,915,361 |
| Detroit, MI | 36.4% | $1,581,658,653 | $4,342,990,748 |
| Charleston, WV | 26.2% | $70,405,068 | $268,334,206 |
| Chattanooga, TN | 16.5% | $328,130,717 | $1,984,051,512 |
| Sacramento, CA | 35.3% | $1,496,990,112 | $4,242,714,736 |
| Seattle, WA | 16.9% | $1,052,654,667 | $6,235,031,546 |
| Washington, DC | 29.1% | $3,828,506,939 | $13,171,094,502 |
| Burlington, VT | 37.7% | $117,732,782 | $312,229,504 |
| Charlotte, NC | 20.1% | $1,330,093,719 | $6,615,763,309 |
| Cleveland, OH | 27.6% | $855,566,944 | $3,101,872,184 |
| Little Rock, AR | 41.0% | $375,179,824 | $914,657,998 |
| Kansas City, MO | 18.7% | $512,655,107 | $2,748,213,901 |
| St. Louis, MO | 22.0% | $356,794,822 | $1,624,267,489 |
| Denver, CO | 16.6% | $1,014,363,459 | $6,128,393,357 |
| Buffalo, NY | 61.1% | $1,233,035,736 | $2,018,445,331 |
| Birmingham, AL | 23.7% | $303,362,936 | $1,280,808,592 |
| Ft. Smith, AR | 47.1% | $183,825,769 | $390,550,420 |
| Philadelphia, PA | 38.2% | $4,878,176,816 | $12,761,603,043 |
| Mobile, AL | 31.4% | $269,544,702 | $858,325,673 |
| Cheyenne, WY | 32.4% | $181,543,242 | $560,292,316 |
| Gulfport, MS | 18.6% | $138,030,218 | $742,685,438 |
| Montgomery, AL | 28.5% | $274,587,249 | $963,394,668 |
| Flint, MI | 36.4% | $318,613,174 | $874,391,515 |
Similar differences are apparent for property tax collections. Many cities, particularly in the Northeast, rely on property taxes for the majority of revenues when intergovernmental funding is excluded. On the high end, they fund 80 percent of own-source revenues in Bridgeport, Conn.; Nashua, R.I.; and Warwick, R.I.
But in 14 other cities, property taxes accounted for less than a quarter of own-source revenues. The share was just 10 percent in Flint, Mich.
Reliance on Property Taxes
| City | Property Tax % Own Source Revenues | Property Tax | Own Source General Revenue |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warwick, RI | 82.0% | $229,986,672 | $280,451,937 |
| Nashua, NH | 80.6% | $221,082,493 | $274,263,978 |
| Bridgeport, CT | 78.3% | $301,309,607 | $385,040,488 |
| Hartford, CT | 77.8% | $280,025,480 | $360,136,459 |
| Boston, MA | 76.5% | $2,127,267,173 | $2,780,781,295 |
| Springfield, MA | 74.2% | $187,483,493 | $252,633,903 |
| Worcester, MA | 73.7% | $289,121,036 | $392,551,933 |
| Lewiston, ME | 72.9% | $59,612,087 | $81,791,934 |
| New Haven, CT | 72.0% | $252,876,494 | $351,409,286 |
| Aurora, IL | 69.2% | $370,702,126 | $536,034,697 |
| Providence, RI | 69.0% | $343,996,899 | $498,467,187 |
| Madison, WI | 67.5% | $525,290,033 | $777,670,368 |
| Fairbanks, AK | 66.4% | $53,219,862 | $80,113,744 |
| Manchester, NH | 65.2% | $201,311,537 | $308,607,616 |
| Anchorage, AK | 64.2% | $509,724,027 | $794,298,435 |
| Jackson, MS | 63.0% | $218,904,064 | $347,519,593 |
| Portland, ME | 63.0% | $165,717,142 | $263,142,114 |
| Missoula, MT | 62.7% | $89,172,520 | $142,236,527 |
| Rutland, VT | 62.3% | $15,988,006 | $25,665,656 |
| Warren, MI | 58.1% | $175,550,601 | $302,201,798 |
| Greensboro, NC | 56.9% | $352,207,963 | $618,575,086 |
| Durham, NC | 56.8% | $380,493,011 | $670,112,262 |
| Austin, TX | 55.0% | $2,199,446,240 | $3,999,991,754 |
| Nampa, ID | 54.9% | $73,853,628 | $134,546,903 |
| Ft. Wayne, IN | 53.9% | $265,671,045 | $493,160,532 |
| Boise, ID | 52.3% | $263,266,705 | $503,479,968 |
| Arlington, TX | 52.1% | $597,047,479 | $1,146,915,761 |
| Ft. Worth, TX | 51.8% | $1,382,064,083 | $2,669,275,800 |
| Salem, OR | 51.6% | $185,441,634 | $359,227,011 |
| Des Moines, IA | 51.1% | $358,621,808 | $701,292,247 |
| Columbia, SC | 50.5% | $238,143,137 | $471,278,472 |
| Houston, TX | 50.0% | $4,475,929,088 | $8,955,144,602 |
| Gary, IN | 49.8% | $90,571,605 | $181,713,440 |
| Chesapeake, VA | 49.7% | $313,816,686 | $631,349,405 |
| Eugene, OR | 49.3% | $218,346,312 | $443,125,445 |
| Raleigh, NC | 49.1% | $594,819,589 | $1,210,764,940 |
| Lincoln, NE | 48.9% | $337,322,009 | $690,485,590 |
| Corpus Christi, TX | 48.8% | $455,786,749 | $934,220,136 |
| El Paso, TX | 48.3% | $793,345,768 | $1,641,925,625 |
| Billings, MT | 47.9% | $127,566,825 | $266,048,112 |
| Virginia Beach, VA | 47.7% | $622,381,683 | $1,304,097,068 |
| Milwaukee, WI | 46.9% | $754,720,819 | $1,610,099,128 |
| San Antonio, TX | 46.6% | $2,157,659,289 | $4,631,121,092 |
| Nashville, TN | 46.4% | $947,483,488 | $2,041,634,011 |
| Frederick, MD | 46.4% | $143,272,867 | $309,048,863 |
| Cedar Rapids, IA | 46.1% | $174,192,556 | $377,972,243 |
| Santa Ana, CA | 45.8% | $385,780,005 | $841,648,617 |
| Huntington Beach, CA | 45.8% | $280,106,937 | $611,168,943 |
| Omaha, NE | 45.8% | $616,289,685 | $1,345,009,939 |
| St. Petersburg, FL | 45.7% | $378,580,391 | $827,594,759 |
| Garland, TX | 45.7% | $317,958,711 | $695,540,894 |
| Portland, OR | 45.7% | $1,213,454,174 | $2,658,071,356 |
| Topeka, KS | 45.2% | $135,820,986 | $300,239,614 |
| Sioux Falls, SD | 45.0% | $213,727,304 | $474,954,869 |
| Dallas, TX | 44.0% | $2,589,675,600 | $5,883,317,464 |
| Casper, WY | 43.9% | $55,292,078 | $126,085,499 |
| Wichita, KS | 43.7% | $355,740,649 | $813,268,779 |
| St. Paul, MN | 43.5% | $426,349,106 | $979,703,616 |
| Atlanta, GA | 43.4% | $1,089,115,398 | $2,507,810,712 |
| Columbus, GA | 43.4% | $183,991,705 | $423,924,938 |
| Baltimore, MD | 43.4% | $855,901,297 | $1,973,998,960 |
| San Diego, CA | 42.5% | $2,222,506,339 | $5,231,826,634 |
| Rapid City, SD | 41.9% | $91,987,532 | $219,495,196 |
| Richmond, VA | 41.6% | $321,076,577 | $771,084,442 |
| Miami, FL | 40.7% | $835,722,196 | $2,053,416,924 |
| Bakersfield, CA | 40.6% | $395,282,392 | $974,515,060 |
| Wilmington, DE | 40.5% | $109,685,917 | $271,088,699 |
| Charleston, SC | 40.4% | $215,351,396 | $533,520,563 |
| Aurora, CO | 40.2% | $448,224,900 | $1,114,715,995 |
| Salt Lake City, UT | 40.2% | $352,381,613 | $877,386,693 |
| Shreveport, LA | 39.9% | $260,308,214 | $652,023,190 |
| Tucson, AZ | 39.8% | $480,993,271 | $1,208,322,456 |
| Minneapolis, MN | 39.4% | $718,329,225 | $1,821,938,327 |
| Chicago, IL | 39.3% | $4,395,421,687 | $11,186,549,990 |
| Jacksonville, FL | 38.9% | $941,791,704 | $2,423,539,488 |
| San Jose, CA | 38.4% | $2,043,683,257 | $5,315,783,668 |
| Memphis, TN | 38.1% | $797,181,420 | $2,090,685,257 |
| Fremont, CA | 37.9% | $379,665,720 | $1,001,540,467 |
| Tampa, FL | 37.7% | $472,096,742 | $1,252,405,892 |
| Hialeah, FL | 36.8% | $340,822,779 | $925,135,266 |
| Huntington, WV | 36.7% | $42,613,188 | $116,086,327 |
| Kansas City, KS | 36.6% | $145,499,987 | $397,887,421 |
| Reno, NV | 36.4% | $249,034,243 | $684,790,348 |
| Knoxville, TN | 35.9% | $208,574,373 | $581,589,879 |
| Albuquerque, NM | 35.8% | $388,993,091 | $1,087,870,235 |
| Phoenix, AZ | 35.7% | $1,413,708,653 | $3,960,249,075 |
| Anaheim, CA | 35.3% | $423,934,638 | $1,200,738,373 |
| Lexington, KY | 35.3% | $287,500,290 | $814,316,357 |
| Orlando, FL | 35.3% | $430,696,779 | $1,220,854,061 |
| Bismarck, ND | 35.2% | $64,338,422 | $182,841,903 |
| Fargo, ND | 35.0% | $115,736,801 | $330,277,576 |
| Dover, DE | 34.6% | $22,676,984 | $65,486,405 |
| Columbus, OH | 34.6% | $1,098,851,267 | $3,179,651,648 |
| Riverside, CA | 34.3% | $315,702,898 | $919,111,521 |
| Norfolk, VA | 34.3% | $266,065,087 | $774,685,890 |
| Mesa, AZ | 34.3% | $278,246,762 | $810,751,349 |
| Louisville, KY | 34.2% | $647,878,362 | $1,893,715,975 |
| Indianapolis, IN | 34.0% | $878,969,287 | $2,587,705,365 |
| Fresno, CA | 33.7% | $413,537,470 | $1,225,397,058 |
| Tulsa, OK | 33.5% | $405,861,267 | $1,212,053,818 |
| Provo, UT | 33.3% | $63,754,153 | $191,239,487 |
| New York, NY | 33.3% | $23,257,093,406 | $69,793,508,791 |
| Pittsburgh, PA | 32.8% | $390,327,013 | $1,191,123,650 |
| Toledo, OH | 32.7% | $254,126,275 | $777,396,839 |
| Yonkers, NY | 32.6% | $357,054,481 | $1,094,880,462 |
| Grand Rapids, MI | 32.6% | $145,001,240 | $444,935,073 |
| Akron, OH | 32.4% | $202,037,983 | $623,136,982 |
| Cincinnati, OH | 32.4% | $421,389,611 | $1,300,073,875 |
| Modesto, CA | 32.4% | $153,955,933 | $475,438,191 |
| Colorado Springs, CO | 32.3% | $347,144,645 | $1,074,726,510 |
| Los Angeles, CA | 32.2% | $5,839,813,904 | $18,126,969,911 |
| Oklahoma, OK | 31.8% | $494,120,241 | $1,552,071,129 |
| Baton Rouge, LA | 31.8% | $409,628,825 | $1,289,391,149 |
| Spokane, WA | 31.5% | $197,515,458 | $627,500,674 |
| Tallahassee, FL | 31.5% | $160,556,158 | $510,120,987 |
| San Francisco, CA | 31.4% | $2,424,049,992 | $7,723,234,137 |
| Lubbock, TX | 30.7% | $293,226,027 | $954,244,371 |
| Rochester, NY | 30.5% | $199,307,814 | $653,389,385 |
| Ft. Lauderdale, FL | 30.3% | $292,297,863 | $965,681,424 |
| Oakland, CA | 30.2% | $814,046,076 | $2,695,297,022 |
| Stockton, CA | 29.9% | $268,933,284 | $900,596,638 |
| Las Vegas, NV | 29.8% | $583,726,029 | $1,956,950,447 |
| Las Cruces, NM | 29.6% | $48,434,830 | $163,455,464 |
| Tacoma, WA | 29.6% | $275,003,217 | $929,161,714 |
| New Orleans, LA | 29.1% | $444,582,233 | $1,529,977,391 |
| Syracuse, NY | 28.3% | $106,339,048 | $375,949,732 |
| Dayton, OH | 28.2% | $128,809,488 | $456,069,207 |
| Long Beach, CA | 28.2% | $613,302,238 | $2,173,710,094 |
| Detroit, MI | 28.2% | $601,126,193 | $2,133,584,590 |
| Charleston, WV | 27.9% | $54,202,080 | $194,117,020 |
| Chattanooga, TN | 27.7% | $264,002,104 | $951,371,226 |
| Sacramento, CA | 26.5% | $517,809,947 | $1,951,837,710 |
| Seattle, WA | 26.4% | $1,029,404,305 | $3,893,839,336 |
| Washington, DC | 26.2% | $2,418,903,016 | $9,249,379,990 |
| Burlington, VT | 25.8% | $31,829,561 | $123,450,777 |
| Charlotte, NC | 25.4% | $1,265,395,394 | $4,986,656,850 |
| Cleveland, OH | 24.9% | $429,224,750 | $1,727,024,906 |
| Little Rock, AR | 24.7% | $131,118,537 | $531,680,354 |
| Kansas City, MO | 24.1% | $497,621,051 | $2,065,041,332 |
| St. Louis, MO | 23.9% | $294,808,450 | $1,232,191,036 |
| Denver, CO | 23.2% | $1,110,539,759 | $4,788,584,568 |
| Buffalo, NY | 23.1% | $170,770,666 | $739,502,749 |
| Birmingham, AL | 23.0% | $180,749,729 | $787,287,258 |
| Ft. Smith, AR | 20.9% | $37,344,815 | $178,399,997 |
| Philadelphia, PA | 19.2% | $1,233,996,822 | $6,428,254,481 |
| Mobile, AL | 18.0% | $98,350,898 | $546,978,235 |
| Cheyenne, WY | 13.7% | $48,554,600 | $354,789,111 |
| Gulfport, MS | 13.1% | $78,451,623 | $597,491,963 |
| Montgomery, AL | 11.0% | $75,234,995 | $685,568,548 |
| Flint, MI | 10.2% | $51,890,082 | $510,208,975 |
These revenue figures might not just indicate how apt cities are to fund their pensions but also how they’ll contend with other mounting liabilities. The study suggests “a buildup of long-term debt and pension debt may go hand in hand,” identifying a positive relationship between long-term debt and pension underfunding. Total revenues weren’t associated with unfunded liabilities.
Gorina’s analysis examined data from 2003 to 2012 for 401 localities with populations of at least 50,000, calculating total aggregate unfunded liabilities per capita for all of each city’s pension plans. Wealthier tax bases and larger concentrations of the age 65 and over population were also correlated with underfunding pensions, while more renter-occupied households were associated with smaller unfunded liabilities.
