DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 358 848 IR 054 453

TITLE Massachusetts Public Libraries in Crisis: The Burdenof Non-Resident Lending and Borrowing. Report of theSenate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight. Senate1635.

INSTITUTION Massachusetts State Legislature, Boston. SenateCommittee on Post Audit and Oversight.

PUB DATE Jun 92NOTE 70p.

PUB TYPE Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials (090)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Budgeting; Financial Support; *Interlibrary Loans;

*Library Circulation; Library Planning; *LibraryServices; Library Statistics; *Public Libraries;State Programs; *User Needs (Information); Users(Information)

IDENTIFIERS *Library Funding; *Massachusetts

ABSTRACTThis report examines the present fiscal condition and

changing nature of the system of public libraries in Massachusetts.Despite the impact of budget cuts on operating hours and staffing,the demand for library services has increased concomitantly with theinformation needs of individuals, professionals, and businesses. Manyof the municipal libraries are finding that as much as 20% to 3U% oftheir library users reside in other communities. This blurring ofservice delivery areas is causing financial strain at the local levelwhere over 87% of all library revenues are generated. The growth innon-resident circulation demands that new funding strategies beexamined in order to keep public libraries viable for all citizens.Following an introduction, the findings of the committee arepresented in three sections: (1) Public Libraries in the UnitedStates; (2) Public Libraries in Massachusetts, includingMassachusetts public library support and activity for fiscal years1988-91, as well as interlibrary loans, reciprocal borrowing, andnon-resident circulation; and (3) Conclusions and Recommendations.The first of two appendices contains tables showing total operatingincome, appropriated municipal income and total state grants as apercent of total operating income for fiscal years 1988 and 1991. Thesecond appendix shows estimated non-resident circulation costs forMassachusetts cities and towns, for fiscal years 1988 and 1990.(ALF)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educations) Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

C This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

C Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality

Points of k :ev, or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official

j . .

OE RI positron or policy

SENATE 41 N o . 16 3 54T:t4

Commonbnaltb of Aagoacbusette

Cr4 REPORT

of the

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

POST AUDIT AND OVERSIGHT

entitled

"MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC LIBRARIES

IN CRISIS: THE BURDEN OF NON-RESIDENT

LENDING AND BORROWING"

(under the provisions of Section 63 of Chapter 3of the General Laws, as most recently amended by

Chapter 557 of the Acts of 1986)

June 1992

2

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

"16,ar,1 A. Cliliors

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER IERIC)

I

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

MASSACHUSETTS SENATE

The Honorable William M. BulgerPresident of the Senate

MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC LIBRARIES IN CRISIS:

The Burden of Non-Resident Lending and Borrowing

(Senate 1635)

A Report of the

SENATE COMMITTEE ON POST AUDIT AND OVERSIGHT

Sen. Thomas C. Norton, Chairman

Sen. W. Paul White, Vice-ChairmanSen. Linda J. MelconianSen. Robert A. Havern

Senator Robert D. WetmoreSenator Christopher M. LaneSenator Matthew J. Amore llo

Prepared by the

SENATE POST AUDIT AND OVERSIGHT BUREAUState House, Room 312

Boston, Massachusetts 02133 (617) 722-1252

Richard X. Connors, Esq., DirectorJames L. Hearns, Senior Policy AnalystAndrew J. Parker, Senior Fiscal AnalystBruce J. Prenda, Esq., Bureau CounselSteven H. O'Riordan, Policy Analyst

Claudia Andrea Bennett, Policy AnalystMichelle M. Blascio, Policy Analyst

Jacqueline M. Pomfret, Policy Analyst

Principal Researcher: Steven H. O'Riordan

June 1992

S. THOMAS C. NORTONChairman

(617) 722-1114

SEX. PAUL WHITE

Vice-ChairmanJune 15, 1991

Woeninanagea& itlizzaladuzde/14,

SENATE COMMITTEE ON POST AUDIT AND OVERSIGHT

Room 312, State House Boston, MA 02133

MrOMbeW

SEN. LINDA J. NIELCONIANSEN. ROBERT A. HAVER!:

S. ROBERT D. "ETMORESEN. CHRISTOPHER M. LANESEN. N1ATTHEW J. AMORELLO

Edward B. O'NeillClerk of the SenateState House, Room 208Boston, MA 02133

Dear Mr. O'Neill:

RICHARD X. CONNOR3Bureau Dirertm(617) 722-1232

Pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 3, Section 63 as most recently amended by

Chapter 557 of the Acts of 1986, the Senate Committee on Post Audit and

Oversight respectfully submits to the full Senate the following report:

Massachusetts Public: Libraries in Crisis: The Burden of Non-resident

Lending and Borrowing.

This report is based on research by the Senate Post Audit and Oversight

Bureau. It examines the current financial condition of the

Commonwealth's public libraries and the changing nature of the services

demanded of the system.

Respectfully filed by the Senate Committe st Audit and Oversight:

Senator Thomas C. NortonChairman

Senator L rida J. Melconian

Senator W. Paul WhiteVice-Chairman

Senator obert A. Bayern

7ekOk

Senator Ch stopher M. Lane

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report by the Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight examines the present fiscal

condition and changing nature of the Commonwealth's system of public libraries.

As far back as 1890, the Commonwealth recognized the educational and economic value of

public libraries and viewed it to be in the *highest welfare to the community" to place a public

library *within easy reach of every man, woman and child in the State". Today, nearly fifty-

six percent of state residents are public library card holders. Public libraries support thelifelong learning needs of people, contribute to improving the overall quality of life, andsupport the economy of the Commonwealth. Public libraries are used to satisfy the work-related information needs for science and engineering (2.9 million visits per year), legal work

(2.4 million visits), management and administration (2.6 million visits), and sales and marketing(2.3 million visits). In fact, over 24 percent of all public library visits arc work-related.

The Commonwealth, through the Massachusetts Board of Library Coilimissioners (MBLC), has

supported and encouraged the concept of unrestricted and accessible library services to allMassachusetts citizens. Despite the impact of budget cuts on operating hours and staffing, thedemand for library services has increased concomitantly with the information needs of

individuals, professionals, and businesses.

In order to receive state library aid, public libraries must extend library services to all non-

residents who arc library card holders in other communities whit h also receive state aid. Many

of the Commonwealth's municipal libraries are finding that as much as twenty to thirty percent

of their library users reside in other communities. This blurring of service delivery areas iscausing financial strain at the local level where over eighty-seven percent of all libraryrevenues are generated. The growth in non-resident circulation demands that new fundingstrategies be examined in order to keep public libraries viable for all citizens.

FINDINGS

Public libraries in Massachusetts have fared better under the direction of theMassachusetts Board of Library commissioners than the Commonwealth's public school

libraries have under the direction of the Massachusetts Department of Education andbetter than the state's public college and university academic libraries.

In 1989, Massachusetts public libraries ranked twenty-first in total library collectionexpenditures per library; sixth in per capita collections expenditures; and eighth in average total

collection expenditures. Conversely:

In 1987, the National Center for Educational Statistics ranked Massachusetts public

school libraries and media centers forty-sixth nationally in total collection expenditures

per school (and per pupil).

In 1990, Massachusetts ranked fifty-first behind the fifty states and the District ofColumbia in library operating expenditures per student in academic libraries.

State policies and regulations through the MBLC have resulted in both increased total

library circulation and non-resident circulation. Costs associated with serving non-

resident borrowers are not reimbursed by the state.

The Massachusetts Board c Library Commissioners has supported the proliferation of

Automated Resource Sharing Networks and encouraged unrestricted library services. These

successful policies have resulted in the following:

Total Ilbrai y circulation (the lending and borrowing of library materials) increased

17.6 percent between FY1988 and FY1991.

Total non-resident circulation increased 40.7 percent during this same period.

In FY1991, more than 12.5 percent of all loans made by municipal libraries

made to non-residents borrowers.

The number of public libraries with more than 10 percent of their total circulation

accounted for by non-residents increased from 81 to 103 from FY1988 to FY1991.

were

Reductions in state appropriations to public libraries have negatively affected library

services.

Massachusetts public libraries rely on state and local support more than libraries in most other

states. Therefore, in addition to the costs associated with serving non-residents, reductions in

state aid, and fiscal constraints on local budgets have negatively affected public library

services in the Commonwealth. The Committee found that between FY1988 and FYI991:

Real state appropriations for public libraries were reduced by over 33.0 percent.

Total per capita library operating income for public libraries in Massachusetts

decreased by 16.0 percent.

Full-time equivalent (FTE) library staff's in Massachusetts have been reduced by an

average of 13.4 per,.:ent.

Expenditures on library materials (e.g. books and periodicals) were reduced by 5.3

percent.

Total per capita library holdings (the number of books and other library materials)

were reduced by 15.8 percent.

Staff and operating income reductions have forced 130 communities to reduce weekly

operating hours at public libraries by an average of 7.7 percent. Sixty communities were

at or below the minimum hours open required by the Massachusetts Board of Library

Commissioners in FY1991.

ii

Before FY1990, no municipality applied for a waiver from the state's minimum

appropriation requirement. In FY1992, forty-one municipalities requested waivers from

this requirement.

Prior to FY1992, municipalities were .:quired to appropriate an amount equal to the average

of the prior three years library appropriation plus the 21/2 percent increase allowed under

Proposition 2Vs. The Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners was allowed by statute to

grant waivers of this requirement to ten municipalities upon demonstration of fiscal hardship.

The financial pressures facing many cities and towns in Massachusetts prompted the

Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners and the Legislature to relax the Municipal

Appropriation Requirement (MAR) and allow for more waivers. The FY1992 budget allotted

an additional fifteen appropriation requirement waivers which MBLC could grant, bringing

the state total to twenty-five. The FY1992 budget also altered the maintenance of effort

standard requiring municipalities to maintain appropriations equal to the average of the past

three years plus 21/2 percent to ninety-five percent of the average appropriation for the past

three years.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Massachusetts public libraries rely on state and local support more than libraries in most other

states. Therefore, reductions in state aid, and fiscal constraints on local budgets have

negatively affected public library services in the Commonwealth.

Under these unfortunate circumstances, the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners

(MBLC) has attempted to distribute limited state dollars to as many communities as possible.

This has been accomplished by prorating some standards and increasing reliance on waivers.

Both strategies arc short term efforts, however, which will inevitably have a negative impact

on public library services. State policies which allow communities to reduce their library

appropriations and cut back on expenditures and hours of operation will affect the quality and

accessibility of the Commonwealth's system of public libraries. These strategies should

therefore be viewed as fiscal expedients and should not be pursued as standard policy for any

extended period of time.

The state grant programs and MBLC policies have encouraged the use and development of

resource sharing through automated networks. These efforts have in turn contributed to the

growth in non-resident lending across the state.

The Committee makes the following recommendations:

Chapter 78 § 19A subsection 4 of the General Laws should be funded to allow for the

reimbursement of costs associated with non-resident lending. The Massachusetts Board

of Library Commissioners should develop a formula for the reimbursement of non-

resident lending costs.

If, in FY 1991, the state, using the generic 50.34 per circulated item rate, had reimbursed cities

and towns for the cost of servicing non-resident borrowers, the cost would have been less than

S1.65 million. It is time that the Commonwealth address the consequences of past policies

which have expanded library services. The non-resident reimbursement formula should take

into account the technological capabilities of public libraries throughout the state (variation

in costs is estimated to range from S0.30 to $0.45, with some studies ranging as high as S1.50 per

item).

iii

The General Court should increase state appropriations for public library services to at

least fiscal year 1988 levels.

Between FY 1988 and FY1992 state appropriations for public library services have been reduced

by over $6.0 million while service deniand has increased. This situation has resulted in

reductions in staff and hours of operation as well as collection development throughout the

public library system. The educational and informational needs of the Commonwealth cannot

be served when public libraries cannot keep their doors open and their shelves stocked and

current.

The Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners (MBLC) should remain an

independent state agency and should continue to develop greater cooperative activities

among libraries (public, academic, school, special, institutional libraries, and libraries

serving the handicapped) throughout the Commonwealth to improve access, collection

development, and economies of scale.

It is unlikely that public libraries ht the Commonwealth would be better served by any state

agency other than the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners. The current status of

the Commonwealth's public school libraries and academic libraries (public colleges and

universities) attests to the need for focused attention on library development and planning.

The Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners (MBLC) has the statutory authority and

responsibility for the development and improvement of Massachusetts libraries and is the

designated state agency to receive and disburse federal library grants. The current governance

structure under the MBLC allows for input and policy coordination from all types of libraries

within the Commonwealth.

The MBLC has recently undergone a comprehensive planning process resulting in two detailed

reports which clearly identify the status and needs of the Commonwealth's library system.

These reports detail the situation of public, regional, special, institutional, school and academic

libraries throughout the state. With input from it's advisory boards and increased state

appropriations, the MBLC would be best able to implement the recommendations and fulfill

the goals of these programs. Therefore, the Committee doubts that the programs and planning

initiatives administered by the MBLC can be adequately maintained and expanded within any

larger state bureaucracy.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1

INTRODUCTION1

SECTION ONE: PUBLIC LIBRARIES IN THE UNITED STATES 2

SECTION TWO: PUBLIC LIBRARIES IN MASSACHUSETTS S

MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC LIBRARY SUPPORT AND ACTIVITY-FISCAL YEARS 1988 THROUGH 1991

9

Total Library Operating Income 9

Full-time Equivalent (FTE) Staff 11

Total Library Expenditures and ExpendituresSalaries and Library Materials

11

Total Library Holdings13

Hours of Operation14

Circulation15

INTERLIBRARY LOANS, RECIPROCAL BORROWING, AND

NON-RESIDENT CIRCULATION16

SECTION THREE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 22

APPENDICES27

APPENDIX I: Total Operating Income, AppropriatedMunicipal Income and Total State Grants as aPercent of Total Operating Income-Fiscal Years 1988 and 1991

28

APPENDIX II: Estimated Non-Resident Circulation Costs

for Massachusetts Cities and Towns -Fiscal Years 1988 and 4990

34

INTRODUCTION

There are over 502 public library facilities (libraries and branches) in Massachusetts. All but

three of municipalities (Hawley, New Ashford and Washington) in the Commonwealth have at

least one library facility.' These institutions arc visited about 27 million times each year.

It is estimated that there are 3.3 million registered library card holders in Massachusetts (nearly

fifty-six percent of the state's residents). Public libraries support the lifelong learning needs

of people, contribute to improving the overall quality of life, and support the economy of the

Commonwealth. Public libraries are used to satisfy the work-related information needs for

science and engineering (2.9 million visits per year), legal work (2.4 million visits), management

and administration (2.6 million visits), and sales and marketing (2.3 million visits). In fact,

over 24 percent of all public library visits are work-related.2

The Commonwealth, through the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners, has supported

and encouraged the concept of unrestricted and accessible library services to all Massachusetts

citizens. However, many municipal libraries are finding that twenty to thirty perceilt of their

users reside in other communities. This blurring of service delivery areas is causing great

financial strain at the local level where over eighty-seven percent of all library revenues were

generated in FY1991. State policy and local initiative have facilitated the growth of non-

resident lending to a point where new funding strategies must be examined in order to keep the

public library system viable in the future.

This report by the Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight examines the present fiscal

'There are 374 main libraries, the remaining 128 are branches. The three communities without public libraries do, however,

receive bookmobile services from the regional public library system.

2King Research, Inc., Massachusetts Libraries: An Alliance for the Future: Technical Report, November 1991. The remaining

17.9 percent of patrons are comprised of university employees (4.5 percent) and "other' (13.4 percent).

1

10

condition and changing nature of the services demanded of the Commonwealth's system of

public libraries.

The report places Massachusetts public libraries into a national context using standard

measures of financial support and library service deli very. The report also examines per capita

output measures of circulation, holdings, non-resident usage, per capita state and local funding

for library services, per capita expenditure data, and staffing levels.

Finally, the report makes recommendations to address the inadequacies of the current funding

of public library services.

SECTION I: PUBLIC LIBRARIES IN THE UNITED STATES

According to a recent report by the U.S. Department of Education, there were nearly 9,000

public libraries in the United States in 1989 with over 600 million books and volumes in their

collections. At that time, Massachusetts public libraries held a combined collection of 26.9

million volumes (s.xth largest in the U.S.) or 4% percent of the nation's total public library

collection.3

Nationally, public libraries reported total operating income of S4 billion in 1989. Of this total,

local governments provided eighty-one percent of operating income for library services, eight

percent came from state governments, and the remainder came from other sources including

the federal government, gifts, donations, fines and fees. While Massachusetts local governments

in 1989 contributed and average of 82.3 percent of total public library operating income state

Public Libraries in 50 States and the District of Columbia: 1989, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Departmentof Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement, April 1991.

2

1'

government contributed an average of 12.5 percent. Two years later, in fiscal year 1991, the

local government share increased by 6.5 percent to 87.3 percent of total operating income.

While state appropriations for public library services (adjusted for inflation) were reduced by

29.8 percent between FY 1987 and FY1991 (33.0 percent between FY1988 and FY1991).4

Massachusetts is above national and peer group averages in most per capita and percentage

measures related to public library income, expenditures, circulation, collections, and staffing.5

The state is above national averages in all cases except the percentage measure of total

operating income coming from federal and "other" sources. MassaChusetts public libraries rely

more on local and state financial support than most states.

Table I (page 4) describes various average per capita and percentage statistics related to public

library income, expenditures, collections, circulations, and staffing. Massachusetts ranks high

in per capita collections, first in the Northeast and among industrial states and second

nationally, and full-time equivalent staff per 10,000 populat;on, third in the Northeast and

among industrial states; eighth nationally.

Maintaining larger collections and greater user activity requires more staff to effectively

service the volumes of material and people circulating through public libraries. Therefore, it

appears that the above average staffing figure for Massachusetts can be justified due to heavier

workloads created by the exceptional inventory and circulation.

4Two library grant programs; Additional State Aid to Public Libraries program and the State Competitive Grants to Public

Libraries program were eliminated accounting for the lions share of the reductions in state appropriations between FY1988 and

FY199I.

The peer states observed included the Northeast regional states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusette,

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont; and the eleven major industrial states

according to the U.S. Bureau ofLabor statistics: California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New ork,

North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.

3

Table I. Selected Public Library Statistics - 1989.

UNITED STATES

ElevenNortheastern

States

ElevenIndustrial

States MASSACHUSETTS

Total Library Incomeper capita $17.16 $18.49 $18.78 $21.16

Local Incomeper capita $13.93 $14.19 $15.20 $17.41

Income by Source

Local 81.2% 75.4% 80.5% 82.3%

State 8.0% 7.7% 8.7% 12.5%

Federal 1.4% 1.2% 1.4% 0.4%

Other 9.4% 15.6% 9.4% 4.8%

Total Library Expenditures-

per capita $15.10 $I6.98 518.12 $19.18

Collectionsper capita

2.53

..

3.50 2.73 4.59

Circulationsper capita 5.60 5.95 5.37 6.08

Visitsper capita (est.) 2.63 3.78 3.17 4.50

Paid FTE Staff per10,000 population 4.30 4.90 4.60 6.00

However. it rn;.:st be reiterated that these interstate comparisons are being made with 1989 data.

The current financial situation of many states has required cutbacks h state appropriations

for public library services. Among the states examined, only two, California and New ierey

had greater reductions than Massachusetts in state appropriations to their public libraries

between fiscal years 1989 and 1991. Massachusetts public libraries receive well below the

regional, peer, and national average support from the federal government and other sources

(Table I, above). Reductions in state aid will, therefore, have a greater negative effect on

public library services in Massachusetts.

4

SECTION II :PUBLIC LIBRARIES IN MASSACHUSETTS

Historically, Massachusetts has been a leader in its support and development of public libraries.

The first major tax - supported public library in the United States, the Boston Public Library,

was established in 1852. By 1890, more than half of the 351 cities and towns in the

Commonwealth had municipally controlled public libraries. That same year, Massachusetts

created the nation's first state library agency, the Massachusetts Board of Library

Commissioners (MBLC).

It wasn't until 1960, however, that the state began appropriating the Library Incentive Grant

(LIG) for the direct support of public library operating costs. Today, the purpose of the

Library Incentive Grant program is two-fold: to encourage municipalities to maintain minimum

levels of library services and to provide an incentive to develop improved library services.6

The state also began to appropriate funds designed to develop and support the creation of

regional library systems. Regional grants provide inter-library loan support, bookmobile

service, technical assistance, and reference and research services to three regional and eleven

sub-regional libraries and to other libraries within the regions and sub - regions.? Any public

library system which contracts with the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners to

provide regional library service receives an annual appropriation based on a per capita amount

per square mile of its service area based on the following schedule:

6 The amounts of a LIG award are either flat grant or distributed on a per capita formula. For towns of less than 2,500

population, the LIG is equal to the town's library appropriation for the preceding year (no more than $1,250, however). For

cities and towns of 2,500 population or more the distribution is $0.50 per capita provided at least $1,250 was appropriated during

the prior fiscal year.

7 The Eastern Region located at the Boston Public Library has sub-regional libraries in Andover, Wellesley, Quincy,

Bridgewater, New Bedford, Falmouth and Boston. The Central Region located at Worcester Public Library has a sub-regional

library in Fitchburg The Western Region located at Hatfield has sub-regionals in Pittsfield, Springfield and Northampton.

5

Over 1,000 population/ square mile750 to 999 population/square mileUnder 750 population/square mile

$1.00 per capita$1.10 per capita$1.30 per capita'

Regional library aid also provides additional funds to the Boston Public Library (BPL) which

has been designated as the state's "library of last recourse ", meaning it is the library which will

provide those research and reference services which other regional and local libraries are

unable to provide. In order to fulfill its special duties, the BPL requires additional monies to

maintain and improve its extensive collections. The BPL's research library is the primary

public research institution in New England. In FY1992 the per capita appropriation to the BPL

was $0.77 per resident in the Commonwealth.

Chapter 478 of the Acts of 1987, created the Municipal Equalization Grants (MEG) program

as well as the Library Improvement Program for public library construction. The equalization

grant program was designed to provide improved library services in communities with

relatively less revenue-raising capacity by compensating libraries for disparities in municipal

funding resources. Municipal equalization awards are calculated through a formula similar

to the state "lottery distribution formula".9

All of these state aid programs are distributed to public libraries which have met certain

minimum standards of free public library service as certified by the Massachusetts Board of

Library Commissioners (MBLC). All public libraries seeking certification for state aid are

required to be: (1) open to all residents of the community for normal library services; (2) free,

in that no charges can be made for normal services; (3) open a minimum number of hours per

week based on population of service area; (4) employ trained library personnel; (5) expend a

8This formula has not been increased since FY1985.

9 The MEG formula use. the equalised property valuation (EQV) of a municipality and its population to determine each

municipality's grant amount.

6

reasonable portion of the library's total budget on library materials (again minimum

percentages are based on the population of service areas); (6) lend books to other libraries in

the state and extend privileges to the holders of library cards issued by other public libraries

on a reciprocal basis; and (7) submit an annual report to the Massachusetts Board of Library

Commissioners (MBLC) which includes the total number of non-resident loans and non-resident

circulation as a percent of the library's total circulation.10

In addition to these seven requirements, Chapter 78 f 19A requires that municipalities seeking

state aid must meet a Municipal Appropriation Requirement (MAR). Prior to FY1992,

municipz..ities were required to appropriate an amount equal to the average of the prior three

years library appropriation plus the 2* percent increase allowed under Proposition 2* The

Massachwetts Board of Library Commissioners was allowed by statute to grant waivers of this

requirement to ten municipalities upon demonstration of fiscal hardship. Before 1990, no

municipality applied for a waiver.

In FY1987, the first budget year that the equalization grant program was in place, the 319

libraries whic:2 applied for both MEG aid and incentive grants were certified and received

state aid. In FY1990, of the 321 public library systems which applied for state aid, 309 were

certified and awarded grants on the basis of meeting all statutes and regulations. Seven

municioalitics applied for waivers of the appropriation requirement and five were granted

(Brockton, Chelsea, Lawrence, Springfield, and Swampscott). Salisbury and Holyoke :,ad their

requests denied. The town of Wilmington, which was denied state aid, did not meet the

minimum materials expenditure standard.

10 Chapter 78, section 19B of the Massachusetts General Laws. Sections 7 through 34 deal with public libraries and the

Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners.

7

In FY1991, 38 municipalities applied for appropriation requirement waivers. The maximum

ten waivers allowed under statute were issued (Athol, Brockton, Chelmsford, Foxboro, Monson,

New Bedford, Southbridge, Springfield, Sunderland, and Worcester). Six municipalities

(Franklin, Hanson, Needham, Northbridge, Topsfield, and Townsend) were denied waivers

because the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioner deemed the budget cuts sustained

by the local libraries in these communities as being disproportional to other municipal services.

Forty-one communities requested appropriation requirement waivers in FY1992, signalling

g. eater financial hardship for public libraries throughout the state.

The financial pressures facing many cities and towns in Massachusetts prompted the

Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners and the Legislature to relax the Municipal

Appropriation Requirement (MAR) and allow for more waivers. The MBLC has also begun to

"prorate" some of the minimum standards (minimum hours open and minimum materials

expendittil c) in order to allow more municipalities to receive state aid.

The FY1992 budget (Chapter 138 Acts of 1991) allotted an additional fifteen appropriation

requirement waivers which the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners (MBLC) could

grant, bringing the state total to twenty-five. The FY1992 budget also altered the maintenance

of effort standard requiring municipalities to maintain appropriations equal to the average of

the past three years plus 2% percent to ninety-five percent of the average appropriation for the

past three years.

In an effort to recognize the effects of budget cuts on library services and still certify as many

libraries for state aid as possible, the MBLC began prorating certain mandatory standards in

FY 1991. Libraries seeking proration of the -hours open" and "materials expenditure" standards

8

must continue to comply with the appropriation requirement (or receive a waiver) and the

remaining five minimum standards of free public library service." Prorating is based on the

percentage reduction in local aid sustained by a community between FY1989 and FY1991. For

example, the requirements for both standards would be reduced by ten percent if a

community's FY1991 local aid figure (Chapter 70 and Additional Assistance funds) was ten

percent less than its FY1989 figure.

These strategies (waivers, relaxation of the appropriation requirement, and proration) are, in

effect, a lowering of standards which may tempt communities and the state to a dependency

on waivers and reduced standards. The efforts of the Massachusetts Board of Library

Commissioners should be viewed as fiscal expedients, not norms to be followed for any

extended period of time or encouraged as standard policy in the future.

MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC LIBRARY SUPPORT AND ACTIVITY - FISCAL YEARS 1988

THROIJGH 1991

Total Library Operating Income

Average per capita total library operating income for all public libraries in Massachusetts

decreased by sixteen percent between FY1988 and FY1991 (Table H, page 10).12 The greatest

reductions were in population groups I (1 to 1,999 population) and VII (over 100,000

population). These population groups are generally most dependent on local aid. Thirteen of

the top thirty-five per capita local aid recipient communities were in population group I and

two out of the three cities in group VII (Boston and Springfield) were among the top per capita

110pen to all residents, no charge for services, the professional personnel requirement, the inter-library loan and reciprocal

borrowing, and the reporting standards.

12 The analysis in this section is based on data reported by local public libraries to the MBLC as part of the requirements

for receiving state aid. The data is reported by population group because most of the requirements for state aid are based on

population of service area and are distributed on a per capita basis. All dollar figures are adjusted for inflation to 1991 constant

dollars.

9

local aid communities in FY1992. Municipalities in population groups II and III accounted for

an additional ten of the top thirty-five per capita Local Aid communities. APPENDIX I: "Total

Operating Income, Appropriated Municipal Income, and State Grants as a Percent of Total

Operating Income - Fiscal Years 1988 and 1991", offers public library income information by

Massachusetts city and town.

Table II. Total Public Library Operating Income & Municipal

Appropriations as a Percent of Total Income - FY1988 to FY1991.

91Population Group

Total LibraryOperating Income'

88 89 90 91

Municipal Appropriation as a

. Percent of Total Income

88 89 90

I. 1-1,999 $12.95 $14.19 $11.98 $9.17 73.3% 74.4% 71.4% 73.5%

H. 2,000-4,999 $20.41 $18.21 $18.88 $17.36 85.9% 82.0% 81.8% 83.2%

111. 5,000 -9,999 $18.71 $16.39 $17.32 $16.53 87.0% 87.9% 85.6% 86.6%

IV. 10,000-24,999 $21.75 $19.67 $20.13 $18.91 91.3% 91.5% 91.8% 91.7%

V. 25,000-49,999 $21.30 $20.92 $19.71 $19.64 89.1% 90.1% 89.9% 88.8%

VI. 50,000-99,999 $18.04 $17.51 $16.70 $16.28 90.4% 91.0% 90.7% 90.4%

V11.100,000 plus $35.28 $30.96 $32.65 $26.80 94.7% 94.6% 95.0% 88.8%

Average $21.21 $19.69 $19.62 $17.81 87.4% 87.4% 86.6% 86.1%

adjusted for inflation (1991 constant dollars).

Between fiscal years 1988 and 1991, state appropriations to public libraries were reduced by

33.0 percent, while local municipal appropriations per capita were reduced by an average of 6.0

percent. As the total operating income "pie" for public libraries shrinks, municipalities have

sought waivers and reduced their slice of the pie by as much as possible without jeopardizing

state grants. The FY1992 authorization changing the Municipal Appropriation Requirement

from the average of the prior three years appropriation plus 21/2 percent to ninety-five percent

of the average of the three prior years appropriation has also allowed communities to decrease

the municipal portion of library operating income. These reductions in operating income have

10

had an affect on public library staffing, services, the maintenance of collections (holdings),

and public library access (hours open).

Full -time Equivalent IFTES Staff

Full-time equivalent ( FTE) staff's were reduced by an average of 13.4 percent between FY1988

and FY1991 (Table III, below). The largest staffing reductions took place in communities with

populations between 25,000 and 49,999 (group V) from an average of 22.8 FTE staff in FY1988

to 17.1 in FY 1991, a 25.0 percent change.

Table III. Full-time Equivalent (PTE) Staff -

PY1988 to FY1991.

Population Group

Full-time Equivalent (FTE) Staff

88 89 90 91

I. 1-1,999 0.42 0.43 0.42 0.42

II. 2,000-4,999 2.08 2.21 2.17 1.97

111. 5,000 -9,999 4.17 4.31 4.20 3.99

IV. 10,000-24,999 10.39 10.50 9.96 9.18

V. 25,000-49,999 22.77 22.10 20.25 17.06

VI. 50,000-99,999 41.40 40.29 36.43 36.43

V11.100,000 plus 323.93 301.97 281.63 281.63

Average 57.88 54.54 50.72 50.10

Total Library Expenditures and Expenditures for Salaries and Library Materials

The Chapter 78 § 19B standards concerning state aid require that local public libraries

maintain certain professional personnel standards for library staff that they employ. This

standard may explain why the average per capita salary expenditure increased slightly between

FY1988 and FY1991 by 3.2 percent while both the average per capita total library expenditure

and average per capita materials expenditure were reduced by 0.5 and 5.3 percent respectivel;

Table IV. Total Library, Salary, and Material Expenditures Per

Capita - FY1988 to FY1991.

Population Group 88

Total LibraryExpenditures'

89 90 91

SalaryExpenditures'

89 90 91

MaterialsExpenditures'

88 89 90 91

I. 1-1.999 $9.82 $13.28 $1121 $8.87 $5.00 $7.14 $5.68 $4.74 MN $3.81 $3.30 MMII. 2.003-4.999 $15.24 $17.54 $17.98 $17.31 $9.01 $10.41 $11.03 $10.68 $3.78 $4.20 $4.18 UMIII. 5.000-9.999 $14.65 $16.03 $16.61 $15.86 $9.19 $1024 $10.61 $10.36 $320 $3.46 $3.43 $3.31

IV. 10.000-24.999 $18.06 $19.20 $19.46 $18.45 $12.18 $t2.89 $13.35 $12.79 $3.39 $3.61 $3.47 s:3.19

V. 25.000-49.999 $18.70 $20.17 $18.98 $18.99 $12.62 $13.84 $13.26 $13.49 m04 $3.19 $2.96 $2.83

VI. 50.000-99.999 $16.05 $16.96 $16.43 $16.04 $11.79 $12.58 $12.37 $11.98 $tn $2.28 $2.25

V11.100.000 plus $33.38 $30.64 $32.62 $27.04 $23.45 $21.94 $23.07 $19.32 $4.81 $4.67 $4.84 $3.81

Average $17.99 $19.12 $19.04 $17.51 $11.89 $12.72 $12.77 $11.91 $3.35 $3.62 $3.49 $3.14

adjussod for salaam (1991 constant dollars).

(Table IV, above). The average maximum salary for professional library personnel increased

by 3.5 percent between FY1988 and FY1991 accounting for the increase in salary expenditures.

Expenditures for salaries averaged 64.5 percent of total library expenditures in FY1988. In

FY1991 salary expenditures as a percent of total library expenditures increased to 66.7 percent

while the expenditures for library materials as a percent of total library expenditures

decreased 0.9 percent from being 20.1 percent of total expenditures in F'1988 to 19.2 percent

in FY1991 (Table IV, above). The reductions in per capita materials expenditures between

FY 1988 and FY1991 can be attributed to a combination of three factors: 1) reductions in total

library operating income brought on by disinvestment in libraries at the state and local levels

(Table II, page 10); 2) increases in salary expenditures (Table IV, above); and 3) the

Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners' policy to allow for the proration of the

materials expenditure requirement.

Even though the MBLC's policy requiring minimum expenditures on materials has probably

prevented these cuts from being deeper, the FY1991 policy allowing for the proration of the

12'

materials expenditure requirement is bound to have a negative effect on collections

development. It must be noted that the buying power of dollars spent on library materials has

eroded as well. The average hardcover book price has risen 11.6 percent between 1988 and

1991. Also, the federal tax code acts as a disincentive for publishers to maintain large

inventories of stock since stock is considered an asset for tax purposes. Therefore, smaller run

editions are published, providing fewer back editions in stock for shorter periods of time.

Thus, librarians are restricted by market forces, federal policies and shrinking materials

budgets in their ability to keep current their collections and to maintain quality for library

patrons.

Total Library Holdines

Table V. Total Library Holdings Per Capita -PY1988 to PY199 1.

Population Group

411M11111Fill1111Total Holdings

per capita88 89 90 91

I. 1-1,999 11.10 7.87 9.40 6.51II. 2,000-4,999 6.69 6.72 7.36 6.63III. 5,000-9,999 4.48 4.44 4.58 4.52IV. 10,000-24,999 4.11 4.15 4.22 4.23V. 25,000-49,999 4.05 3.97 3.95 4.07VI. 50,000-99,999 3.64 3.73 3.79 3.74VII.100,000 plus 8.93 6.64 8.65 6.49Average 6.14 5.35 5.99 5.17

13

Between FY1988 and FY1991 total per capita holdings" were reduced by an average of 15.8

percent (Table V,page 13). Population groups I and VII experienced the largest reductions in

per capita holdings during this period (41.4 and 27.3 percent respectively). Not surprisingly,

these same communities experienced the largest reductions in operating income (Table II,page

10),total library expenditures,salary expenditures, and expenditures for materials (Table

IV,page 12).

flours of Operation

Staff and operating income reductions have forced 130 communities to reduce weekly operating

hours at public libraries by an average of 7.7 percent between FY1988 and FY1991 (Table VI,

below). Sixty communities were at or below the minimum hours required by the Massachusetts

Board of Library Commissioners in FYI991.14 Such reductions inhibit the realization of the

state's policy of unrestricted access.

Table VI. Average Hours OpenFY1988 to FY1991.

Pe- Week -

Hours Openin a Week

Population Group 88 89 90 91

I. 1-1,999 14.09 15.11 14.71 10.00

IL 2,000-4,999 29.15 29.71 28.90 27.20

III. 5,000-9,999 38.21 37.47 38.00 34.70

IV. 10,000-24,999 53.13 53.31 51.29 47.68

V. 25,000-49,999 61.34 61.65 60.07 58.64

VI. 50,000-99,999 61.03 61.57 61.62 55.49

VII.100,000 plus 61.58 61.58 57.58 60.25

Average 45.50 45.77 44.60 41.99

"Holdinp are defined as the number of catalogued book and other materials (a.g. video cassettes and paperback books)

not including periodicals.

14605 OAR Section 4.01 subsection (3) requires the following minimum hours open per week: for libraries with populations

under 2,000 - 10 hours; populations of 2,000 and 4,999 - 15 hours; populations of 6,000 to 9,999 - 25 hours; 10,000 to 14,999 -

40 hours; 15,000 to 24,999 - 60 hours; and 25,000 and over - 63 hours.

14

*%3

Like the materials enenditure standard, the full impact of the recently instituted proration

of the hours standard on library services remains to be seen.

Circulation

All of the measures mentioned so far have dealt with the financial, human and material

resources available to and expended by public libraries in Massachusetts. On all of these

measures, public libraries have been negatively effected by reductions in state and local

financial support. However, one of the most basic services which public libraries perform --

the circulation of books and other materials -- is on the rise.

Table VII. Total Public Library Circulation

Per Capita - FY1988 to FY19 91.

Population Group

Total Circulationper capita

88 89 90 91

I. 1-1,999 7.55 7.04 9.20 10.65

II. 2,000-4,999 7.77 8.40 9.06 8.95

III. 5,000-9,999 6.19 6.59 7.10 7.15

IV. 10,000-24,999 7.04 7.81 7.94 8.57

V. 25,000-49,999 6.20 6.99 7.33 7.55

VI. 50,000-99,999 3.98 4.27 4.57 4.85

VII.100,000 plus 4.44 4.78 4.48 5.54

Average 6.17 6.55 7.10 7.61

Total per capita circulation increased, on average, 23.3 percent between FY 1988 and FY1991

(Table VII, above).15 This increased demand supports the theory that in bad economic times,

library use increases. Secondly, federal, state and local initiatives have encouraged the

sharing and circulation of library materials to larger service areas and to residents of other

l&Circulation is defined as the circulation of library materials of all types outside of the library.

15

communities.

While increased usage and circulation are desired outcomes, and the state's role is to be

applauded, the increase has not been achieved without controversy. The following section

examines the issue of non-resident lending which is a major cause of the financial

pressures on the budgeting of local public library services and explores these stresses.

INTERLIBRARY LOANS. RECIPROCAL BORROWING AND NON-RESIDENTCIRCULATION.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts encourages public libraries to "extend privileges" to

citizens of other communities. However, public libraries receiving state grants must be willing

to lend books to other public 1;braries for the use of residents of other communities.

Nevertheless, there is some flexibility under interlibrary loan conditions, because the

procedures arc adopted by the board of trustees of the lending library. However, if a library

receives any state grant, it must be willing to extend library services to non-residents -rho are

library card holders in other libraries participating in the state grant program. These services,

unlike arrangements under interlibrary loan agreements, must be on the same basis as those

accorded to residents of the community in which the library exists. For many libraries which

have found themselves serving more than twenty to thirty percent non-resident borrowers this

requirement of reciprocity has proven to be excessively demanding.

In the case of an interlibrary loan exchange, an individual may make a request through his/her

public library for a particular item shelved at another library with which it has an interlibrary

ioan agreement. The lending library sends the requested item to the library from which the

request originated (the borrower). In the case of a non-resident exchange, any individual who

has a valid library card from his/her local library may enter any other public library receiving

16

state aid and "check out" a book under the same conditions as any resident patron. As

interlibrary loan tra-sactions are not figured into the determination of the non-resident

circulation figures reported by public libraries to the Massachusetts Board of Library

Commissioners the real breadth of non-resident usage may be substantially understated.

While total statewide circulation increased slightly more than eight percent from 35.9 million

to 38.8 million between 1977 and 1991, non-resident circulation more than doubled during this

same period from over 1.8 million to nearly 4.9 million. In 1991, more than 12.5 percent of all

loam made by municipal libraries were made to non-residents, this is over twice the projected

non-resident circulation for 1977. The three heaviest lenders in 1977 (Boston, Worcester, and

Springfield) accounted for approximately thirty-one percent of all non-resident loans statewide.

In 1991, the three heaviest lenders (Boston, Springfield, and Cambridge) accounted for only 16.6

percent of the total non-resident lending statewide.16 Between FY1988 and FY1991 non-

resident circulation increased by 40.7 percent.

The proliferation of non-resident lending is also documented in the dwindling market share

of the market leaders prior to the advent of state efforts to encourage unrestricted access and

reciprocity. Note that while the top twenty non-resident lenders in 1977 accounted for 61.8

percent of all non-resident loans statewide, the top twenty non-resident lenders in 1991

accounted for only 49 percent of statewide non-resident circulation. Figure 1 (page 18)

illustrates the change in the percentage distribution of the statewide non-resident circulation

by municipal population groups in 1977 and 1991.

As shown in Figure 1 (page 18), communities in the first three population groups (municipal

populations of under 10,000) had slight increases in their share of the statewide non-resident

16 King Research, Inc. Massac.,usetts Libraries: An Alliance for the FutureTechnical Report, Appendix B.

17

MI

ill

percent of Total Statewide NRC

L. Leff 11.11.4.01111 111. -11.111111 111.1014.911 V.M411.11011 If1.1111-11.11ff V11.1110.4110

Municipal Population Groups

Mier, Pies'effete /gm Aud II I Crete leftBoom. flOI.0

Figure 1. Percent of Statewide NonResident Circulation (NRC)

by Municipal Population Groups 2.977 and 1990.

circulation between 1977 and 1991. Citics and towns of between 10,000 and 99,999 population

(population groups IV, V, and VI) picked up larger percentages of the statewide non-resident

circulation.

Much of this "spreading out' of library usage across town lines can be attributed to the state

grant programs andMassachusetts Board of Library Commissioners (MBLC) policies which have

encouraged the use and development of resource sharing in the Commonwealth. These

policies have sought to bring a multitude of free public library services to all residents of

18

Massachusetts.

There are a number of resource sharing activities taking place in Massachusetts (an estimated

140 public libraries serving over 73% of the public"), and the increased participation and

d, velopment of Automated Resource Sharing Networks has contributed greatly to the increased

non-resident lending activity in the state. Automated Resource Sharing Networks allow groups

of libraries to more cost-effectively provide library services through shared centralized

computers and databases. These databases allow patrons access to the combined collections of

all the member libraries sharing a network. Librarians can search central databases to

determine the availability of books and other items for circulation and to process interlibrary

loan requests. Many of these Automated Resource Sharing Networks include not only public

libraries but academic and special libraries thus offering access to even larger and more

specialized collections.

Eleven automated networks have been developed in Massachusetts since 1980. Much of the

impetus came from the $12.7 million in federal Library Service and Construction Act (LSCA)

and state funds dispersed through the MBLC. Local governments have invested nearly $19

million since 1980 on automated network participation.18

These investments have allowed more public libraries to open their doors to non-residents at

a time when local budgets arc being squeezed by receding state and federal support.19

Federal LSCA Title I, II and III funds were reduced by 10.3 percent in real dollars between

FYI987 and FY1990. Direct state aid to public libraries was reduced by 31.5 percent during

17Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners,Lone Rance Program 1991-1996, 1992 Supplement.

18King Research, Inc. MassachusettsLibraries: An Alliance for the Future: Technical Report, November 1991.

19set footnote 4, page 3.

19

this same period and by 33.6 percent between FY1987 and FY199 I (again adjusted for

inflation).

The dollar support available in the two primary state grant programs designed for public

library services, the Library Incentive Grant (LIG) program and the Municipal Equalization

Grant (MEG) program are not sufficient to offset the financial burden generated by the need

to meet the state reciprocity criteria. This is particularly true in local public libraries which

are serving large numbers of non-resident patrons.

Estimates indicate that circulation and reshelving labor costs an average of $0.34 per item

borrowed. This amount increases for libraries which circulate fewer than 50,000 items per

year, or nearly ninety-four percent of all public libraries in 1991. The cost figure is lower for

libraries using automated networks, and varying according to the age and level of

sophistication of the network as well. The variation in costs is estimated to range from $0.30

to $0.45, with some studies ranging as high as $1.50 per item."

The above data can be used to develop a general estimate of the cost to public libraries of

circulating materials to non-residents. For example, in 1991 Lexington reported that 19.9

percent of all library circulation was to non-resident borrowers resulting in a non-resident

circulation cost of $44,371. In Lexington's case, this is greater than the total Library

Incentive/Municipal Equalization Grant of $20,977, resulting in a "non-resident I 'cling liability"

for the Lexington public library system of $23,394. In other words, based on this model,

Lexington expended over $20,000 of its municipal budget on the provision of library services

to library card holders from other communities.

"King Research, Inc. Massachusetts Libraries: An Alliance for the Future: Technical Report, November 1991.

20

655,601 (1991 total circulation) x 0.199 (percent non-resident

circulation) s 130,504 (total non-resident circulation) x $0.34

(estimated cost in tabor per circulated item) s 144,371 (non-resident

circulation cost) - S20,977 (L1G/MEG grant) s S23.394 (the "non-resident

liability")

Lexington example "Non resident lending liability"

Obviously Lexington's net "non-resident lending liability" would actually be smaller because

Lexington residents would be utilizing the services of other libraries in neighboring

communities. However, in FY1991 the average difference between non-resident costs and state

grants for the seven communities surrounding Lexington (Arlington, Bedford, Belmont,

Burlington, Lincoln, Waltham, Winchester and Woburn) was a positive $113,295. Only Bedford

and Lincoln had "non-resident lending liabilities" ($1,388 and $4,052 respectively), indicating

that Lexington's public library was attractive to most of its neighbors.

Public libraries in Massachusetts are required to report the total number of non-resident loans

and non-resident circulation as a percent of total circulation to the Massachusetts Board of

Library Commissioners but not the city or town in which non-resident reside. Therefore, it is

difficult to determine the actual net "non-resident lending liability' for public libraries. This

exercise illustrates the fact that the service area for many public libraries in Massachusetts is

no longer contiguous with the city limits. In 1988, there were fifteen municipalities with "non-

resident lending liabilities". By 1991, this number had risen to forty-seven. APPENDIX II:

"Estimated Non-Resident Circulation (NRC) Costs for Massachusetts Cities and Towns - Fiscal

Years 1988 and 1991" offers estimates of the cost to local public library systems for providing

library services to non-residents.

21

3 0

The two communities listing the highest non-resident circulation as a percent of total

circulation are resort communities: Chilmark (53.9%) and Gay Head (49.4%). Five of the top

ten non-resident circulating libraries (in percentage terms) have non-resident lending liabilities

(Chilmark, Palmer, Auburn, Oak Bluffs, and Concord). Six of the top ten communities with

the highest non-resident circulation volume had non-resident lending liabilities (Brookline,

Lexington, Concord, Auburn, Palmer, and Danvers).

Even though the resort communities are admittedly extreme examples of the blurring of

jurisdictional lines for public :ibraries in Massachusetts the number of communities serving

more than twenty percent non-residents increased from 28 in FY1988 to 40 in FY1991. Things

have shifted statewide. The number of public libraries showing more than ten percent of their

total circulation going to non-residents increased from 81 to 103 during this same period, a 27.2

percent increase. Thus, similar to the general statewide spreading out of the non-resident

circulation distribution (Figure 1, page 18), -none and more local public libraries are circulating

a larg -r percentage of their library materials among non-residents. For many cities and towns

the issue of non-resident lending clouds the negotiations over the funding of public library

services.

SECTION THREE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Massachusetts' public libraries receive well below the regional, peer, and national average

support from the federal government and other sources. As a result, the reductions in state aid

have had a greater negative effect on public library serv:ces in the Commonwealth than in

other similarly impacted states.

The riassachusetts Board of Library Commissioners (MBLC) has attempted to distribute limited

state dollars to as many communities as possible without promoting further budget cuts or

reductions in services at the local level. This has been accomplished by prorating some

standards and increasing reliance on waivers. These strategies are short term efforts, however,

which will inevitably have an impact on public library services. These strategies should be

viewed as fiscal expedients and should not be encouraged as standard policy for any extended

period of time.

The Committee makes the following recommendations:

Chapter 78 of the General Laws should be amended to allow for the reimbursement of

costs associated with non-resident lending. The Massachusetts Board of LibraryCommissioners should develop a formula for the reimbursement of non-resident lending

costs.

If, in FY1991, the state, using the generic $0.34 per circulated item rate, had reimbursed cities

and towns for the cost of servicing non-resident borrowers, the cost would have been less than

51.65 million. With 'his small investment the inequities inherent in the public library system

in Massachusetts could have been alleviated. It is time that the Commonwealth address the

consequences of past policies which have expanded library services. The non-resident

reimbursement formula should take into account the technological capabilities of public

libraries throughout the state (variation in costs is estimated to range from $0.30 to $0.45, with

some studies ranging as high as $1.50 per item).

The General Court should increase state appropriations for public library services to at

least fiscal year 1988 levels.

Between FY1988 and FY1992 state appropriations for public library services have been reduced

by over $6.0 million while service demand has increased. This situation has resulted in

reductions in staff and hours of operation as well as collection development throughout the

23

public library system. The educational and infoimational needs of the Commonwealth cannot

be served when public libraries cannot keep their doors open and their shelves stocked and

current.

The Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners (MBLC) should remain an

independent state agency and should continue to develop greater cooperative activities

among libraries (public, academic, school, special, institutional libraries, and libraries

serving the handicapped) throughout the Commonwealth to improve access, collection

development, and economies of scale.

It is unlikely that public libraries in the Commonwealth would be.better served by any state

agency other than the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners. The current status of

the Commonwealth's public school libraries and academic libraries attests to the need for

focused attention on library development and planning.

The Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners (MBLC) has the statutory authority and

responsibility for the development and improvement of Massachusetts libraries and is the

designated state agency to receive and disburse federal library grants. The current governance

structure under the MBLC allows for input and policy coordination from all types of libraries

within the Commonwealth.

The twelve-member State Advisory Council on Libraries (SACL) is required by the federal

Library Service and Construction Act (LSCA). The SACL's membership includes

representatives from public, academic, school, special, institutional libraries, and libraries

serving the handicapped. The SACL advises the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners

(MBLC) on the development of the state's long range planning and reviews all grant proposals

for LSCA funds. The MBLC is also advised by the Network Advisory Committee (NAC) on

issues related to resource sharing, interlibrary cooperation, and networking. Its membership

24

is as broadly representitive as the SACL's.

In contrast, public school libraries and media centers receive no specified state appropriations

for developmental purposes or special support from the Massachusetts Department of

Education. There appears to be no comprehensive comparative data collected by any state

agency to assist in identifying the needs of public school libraries and to support planning.

In 1987, the National Center for Educational Statistics (U.S. Department of Education) ranked

Massachusetts public school libraries and media centers forty-sixth nationally in total collection

expenditures per school (and per pupil). In 1990, Massachusetts ranked fifty-first behind the

fifty states and the District of Columbia in library operating expenditures per student in

academic libraries (in public higher education institutions).21 Conversely, in 1989,

Massachusetts public libraries ranked twenty-first in total library collection expenditures per

library; sixth in per capita collections expenditures; and eighth in average total collection

expenditures.22 Public libraries in Massachusetts have fared far better under the direction

of the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners than the Commonwealth's public school

libraries have under the direction of the Massachusetts Department of Education and better

than the state's public college and university academic libraries.

The MBLC has recently published a comprehensive Lou Range Program which has

clearly identified the status and needs of the Commonwealth's library system including the

situation of public, regional, special, institutional, school, and academic libraries throughout

the state. Also, King Research, Inc. has conducted a statewide library development study

21King Reseamh, Inc., Massachusetts Libraries: An Alliance for the Future; Technical Report, November 1991.

22P ublic Libraries in 50 States and the District of Columbia: 1989, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department

of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement, April 1991.

25

assessing the cooperative activities of Massachusetts libraries and detailing strategies for the

improvement of library services for the residents of the Commonwealth. With input from it's

advisory boards and increased state appropriations, the MBLC would be best able to implement

the recommendations and fulfill the goals of these programs. Therefore, the Committee doubts

that the programs and planning initiatives administered by the MBLC can be adequately

maintained and expanded within any larger state bureaucracy.

26

APPENDICES

IttA

t1,

,stz

...t.

4:4,

2ill'

A.i-

rim

4.; 1

1;k

ov.s

.

.)-1

:47,

Tot

al

OP

nlin

tP

op.

lam

es

MU

NIC

IPA

LIT

YO

m"

(atIi

nsee

d) 1911

HIN

GT

ON

JV$1

77,3

16

Tot

al

OP

endi

agIn

com

e

CT

ON

CU

SIM

ET

DA

MS

GA

WA

MLF

OR

DE

SE

/UR

Y

1991

$192

,303

Apr

op.

Apr

a,.

Vi

Lig

Man

ic.

Man

ic.

Meg

Meg

boom

sW

m*

Gra

nts

Quo

ta

%to

tal

%to

tal

%to

tal

%Io

ta

1911

119

9119

1$19

91

al%

14.9

9.9%

1.2

ND

OV

ER

RLI

NG

TO

NS

IIBU

RN

HA

M

MIL

AN

OT

HO

LT

TLE

BO

RO

UB

UR

NV

ON

1Y E

R

7 A

RN

ST

AB

LEto

RR

E

BE

VE

RLY

BIL

LER

ICA

BLA

CK

ST

ON

EB

LAN

EF

OR

DB

OLT

ON

BO

ST

ON

BO

UR

NE

BO

XB

OR

OU

GH

$739

,310

$754

,271

$396

,194

$412

,547

$46,

020

$56,

171

$13,

231

$14,

521

$33,

639

$39,

991

$21,

074,

497

320,

537,

974

$244

751

$261

,751

541.

177

$49,

994

91.3

%90

.2%

79.4

%

15.2

%

103.

0%

94.7

%

95.2

%

93.3

%

5.1%

9.4%

20.6

%14

.1 %

7.0%

2.1%

5.1%

6.4%

ar

199,

003

51.1

41,5

0457

1,55

5

$147

,012

5100

,306

51,2

69,4

36$7

2,45

7

90.5

%65

.3 %

70.2

%

91.0

67.3

711

7.7%

6.9

2.4%

2.0

1.3%

1.9

rqA

VA

ILA

BL

E

. -'

-4 c...

lJ

'PE

ND

IX I

.

MU

NIC

IPA

LIT

Y

Pop.

Gro

up

Tot

al

Ope

ratin

gIs

tear

re

(adj

uste

d)'

1911

Tot

al

Ope

ratin

gIn

com

es 1991

App

rop.

M m

ak.

boom

s%

tota

l19

11

App

rop.

Mus

ic.

lem

ma

%to

tal

1991

Lig

Meg

Gra

nts

%to

tal

1911

1.4

Meg

Goa

ds%

tota

l19

91r

MU

NIC

IPA

LIT

Y

Pop.

Gro

up

Tot

al

Ope

ratin

gIn

com

e

(adj

uste

d) 1911

Tot

al

Ope

ratin

gIn

com

e 1991

App

rop.

Mus

ic.

Lw

ow%

tota

l19

1$

App

rop.

Mun

k.bo

oms

%to

tal

1991

Lig

Meg

Gra

nts

%to

tal

1911

Ug

Meg

Gra

nts

Stot

al19

91

1R1M

FIE

LD

ri$1

9,00

7

,.90

.6%

9.4%

.D

IGH

TO

NQ

I$1

8,30

999

.40.

0

tRO

CK

IVN

VI

51.3

04,6

1251

,038

,022

16.3

%$7

.355

110

.1%

11.7

%%

DO

UG

LA

Srr

$54,

134

$sa

666

Pars

100.

010

.0%

9.4

qRO

OK

FIE

LD

El

$:27

,572

529.

150

79.4

%84

.14

14.1

%13

.9%

,D

OV

ER

C$1

12.3

33$1

29,2

6179

.1%

73.4

3.2%

2.6

;RO

OK

LIN

EV

I$2

,196

,654

$2,1

31.8

9694

.4%

95.1

%2.

1%2.

0%.

DR

AC

UT

V52

64,5

7952

53,2

4819

.5%

59.1

10.2

%11

.8

AU

CK

LA

ND

1$1

6,19

7$1

7,15

771

.4%

77.3

%17

.1%

15.3

%;i ;,p

,

DU

DL

EY

LII

584,

621

$96,

078

85.6

%51

.113

.1%

12.5

BU

RL

ING

TO

NIV

5416

,578

$494

,836

94.4

%95

.2%

4.5%

3.6%

DU

NST

AB

LE

0$2

9,47

153

5,40

171

.1 X

11.9

7.2%

6.2

CA

MB

RID

GE

V7

$2,2

74,7

08$2

4.54

,830

91.0

%96

.1%

3.9%

3.2%

t Dux

suat

rIV

$150

,077

$361

,744

18.5

%91

.03.

3%3.

0

CA

NT

ON

IV$4

51,5

1355

05.3

7697

.5%

95.7

%3.

6%3.

1%..,

EA

ST B

RID

GE

WA

TE

R1'

V$2

14,1

64$1

0167

7$4

.9%

94.1

5.9%

5.6

CA

RLI

SLE

17$1

15,3

41$1

13,3

7990

.2%

15.7

%1

2.5

X0.

0:,.

EA

ST B

RO

O1C

FIE

LD

I52

0,15

052

2,72

012

.1%

85.3

-14

.5%

11.0

CA

RV

ER

IV$7

4,54

6$9

4.39

61W

.0%

18.0

%15

.0%

13.9

i''E

AST

LO

NG

ME

AD

OW

IV53

0602

31$3

35,7

0096

.9%

91.1

4.3%

4.1

CH

AR

LE

MO

NT

1$6

,271

57,7

5546

.3%

61.4

%35

.6%

21.1

%ii

EA

STH

AA

f11

$13,

190

$101

,852

97.1

%N

J3.

3%28

CH

AR

LT

ON

111

547.

605

$57,

412

69.2

%77

.1%

19.9

%17

.4%

ti i .it"

:41. ';' 1,,, 3 '.E

AST

HA

MPT

ON

IV51

44,8

0751

61,5

0076

.5%

73.8

15.8

%13

.3

CH

AT

HA

M17

151

16.4

55$1

46,1

1554

.1%

51.4

%3.

7%2.

7%E

ASI

ON

IV51

70,9

74$1

92,1

597.

2%30

.911

.2%

9.6

CH

EL

MSF

OR

DV

$759

,746

5685

,844

94.3

%92

.2%

3.9%

4.3%

ED

OA

RT

OW

N11

$136

,511

5192

,313

85.7

%17

.71.

2%1.

0

clIE

LSE

AV

1165

,493

$318

,622

89.3

%91

.4W

10.7

%10

.1%

EO

RE

MO

NT

I56

,345

$6,4

1573

.0%

62.0

27.0

%11

.1

CH

ESH

IRE

a$6

,659

$6,1

4764

.2%

94.4

%43

.1%

69.9

%E

RV

INO

I$1

0,14

314

.3%

16.6

%

CH

EST

ER

1$1

1,13

7$1

2,91

135

.9%

45.1

%19

.6%

13.5

%E

SSE

XU

K;6

,411

$26,

396

74.2

%74

.99.

9%8.

6

CH

EST

ER

FIE

LD

159

,650

59,7

5574

.7%

79.4

%21

.215

21.6

%E

VE

RE

TT

V15

45,1

41$5

37,2

117

9.1.

es92

.46.

4%5.

5

CH

ICO

PEE

VI

1584

,563

$707

,573

16.7

%81

1.5

%I

13.3

%11

.9%

FAIR

HA

VE

NIV

1244

,,795

317,

419

96.6

%90

.07.

5%5.

2

CH

ILA

,(A

AK

154

2.45

5$5

8,14

984

2%85

.4%

3.3%

2.2%

FAL

L R

IVE

RV

757

61,3

77$8

13,1

106

98.2

%97

.823

.5%

17.1

CL

AR

KSB

UR

G1

513,

198

516.

197

69.4

X73

.4%

24.1

%22

.9 %

;*"

;AL

MO

UT

HV

5731

,333

$779

,111

11.2

%87

.72.

7%25

CL

INT

ON

IV$1

34,7

02$1

31.0

4410

3.0%

St 7

%12

.3%

0.0%

><

4 ,s

FTT

CH

BU

RO

V$8

70.1

6457

97,1

7285

.2%

123

7.1%

6.7

CO

HA

SSE

TII

I$2

51,0

3552

52,1

9794

.1%

89.7

%2.

5%Z

3%. :

FLO

RID

A1

5I,5

66$3

,809

46.9

%61

.144

.4%

37.1

CO

LR

AIN

1$1

2,11

93$1

6,01

872

.9%

74.7

%0.

0%14

.5%

, FO

XF1

OR

OU

GH

IV$3

35,0

1052

99.1

6095

.3%

100.

04.

9%5.

1

CO

NC

OR

Div

$831

,273

$161

,651

823%

19.6

%'

1.6%

1.51

VFR

AM

ING

HA

MV

I$1

,427

,267

$1,3

56,5

1691

0%92

.34.

2%4.

2

CO

NW

AY

1

FRA

NK

LIN

IV$2

17,6

8652

78.7

2190

.4%

97.2

9.6%

0.0

CU

MM

ING

TO

N1

34,4

8754

.472

56.9

%58

.1%

39.1

%37

.7%

r.,..

FRE

ET

OW

N11

151

2,40

012

5,75

0er

s.sx

629

25.9

%2L

O

DA

LT

ON

111

$99,

123

5106

.274

91.6

%92

.615

11.

4%7.

2 %

"G

AR

DN

ER

IV51

29,6

66.1

303,

7e)

92. 9

%31

.11.

3%1.

4

FA N

vEns

IV55

50.5

56$5

66,2

3779

.2%

15.9

Si4.

1%3.

6 %

"O

AT

HE

AD

1$1

2627

$15,

491

87.6

%83

.711

.1%

1.1

DA

RT

MO

UT

HV

$431

,306

$469

,509

99.7

%19

.3%

6.2%

5.6%

:.G

EO

RG

ET

OW

N17

1$1

03,5

9251

07.6

1793

.3%

514.

26.

2%5.

7

DE

DII

AM

IV54

91,7

9753

60,5

4891

.4%

93.9

%4.

9%3.

9%G

ILL

1

DE

ER

FIE

LD

II55

5.59

056

2.55

585

.0%

17.1

i1.

5%49

%G

LO

UC

EST

ER

V54

46.9

21$4

81,2

1979

.5%

79.1

6.0%

5.0

IWN

NIS

IV51

01,2

1351

.5%

2.3%

GO

SHE

N1

$5,2

52$4

.114

136

.1%

37.2

32:3

%N

J

PPE

ND

IX I

.

Pap.

MU

NIC

IPA

LIT

YG

roup

Tai

lT

otal

Ope

ratin

gO

pera

tiag

Inco

me

loom

s.

(adj

uste

d) 1911

1991

App

rop.

App

rop.

Mus

ic.

Mun

k.

tom

e*Io

wan

%to

tal

%to

tal

191$

1991

Lig

Lig

Meg

Meg

Gra

nts

Gna

ts%

tota

l%

tota

l

1911

119

91

Pop.

MU

NIC

IPA

LIT

YG

roup

Tot

alT

otal

Ope

ratin

gO

pera

ting

Inco

me

!MO

OD

(adj

uste

d) 1911

1991

App

rop.

App

rop.

Mus

ic.

Mam

ie.

Inco

me

Iaco

no

%to

tal

%to

tal

1911

1991

Lig

Lig

Meg

Meg

Gra

nts

Gna

ts%

tota

l%

tota

l

191$

1991

GO

StvO

LD

1

.H

UL

L1I

I$1

37,7

00$1

30.3

7315

.2%

101.

011i

7.3%

6.5

GR

AFT

ON

IV$1

33,0

14$1

66,4

4314

3 1

96.1

9.1%

761

IfU

NII

iWIT

OI

$14,

156

$15,

001

15.5

%19

.3%

21.4

%20

.6

G R

AN

DY

111

$47,

014

$41,

131

91.1

%15

.716

.1%

15.1

%;`

,.. I

PSW

ICH

IV$2

24,2

20$2

66,1

3997

1%96

.6%

4.9%

3.9

91.5

%11

.6%

1.K

ING

STO

NH

I$1

41,2

17$1

65,1

4294

.1%

17.2

%5.

4%4.

9

GR

AN

VIL

LE

1$1

7,91

711

.7%

90.2

5.1%

3.97

1r.

LA

KE

VIL

LE

ra15

7,06

1D

UO

17.4

%69

.0%

12.6

%0.

0

G R

EA

TB

AR

RIN

GT

ON

E$1

61,0

97$1

92,5

22

GR

EE

NFI

EL

DIV

$291

,251

$316

,319

37.0

%16

.11

1.3%

4.1%

T.:

LA

NC

AST

ER

111

$146

,506

$126

,349

SOS%

74.5

%5.

4%5.

4

GR

OT

ON

117

$133

,313

$141

,631

95.1

%71

.01

5.21

4.91

1`.L

AN

ESB

OR

OU

GH

II$1

1,31

6$1

2,46

965

.3%

66.7

134

.4%

2I.9

GR

OV

EL

AN

Dtr

i$5

5,37

4$4

9,13

175

.9%

73.1

% 4

1.2%

11.0

%*

LA

WR

EN

CE

VI

$120

,599

$644

,507

17,5

%79

6%'

12.4

%12

.7

HA

DL

EY

11$4

1,11

513

.0%

9.4%

!L

EE

HI

$129

,715

$133

.810

14.6

%19

.31

5.4%

4.6

HA

LIF

AX

M$1

9,20

2$9

5,43

390

.3%

96.3

%1.

3%7.

8%t

LE

ICE

STE

RIV

$71,

776

$71,

651

13.4

%12

119

.5%

17.9

i IA

MIL

TO

N11

1$1

57,4

724

$175

,617

95.1

%96

.51

4.4%

3.57

',L

EN

OX

III

$213

,157

$213

,374

21.2

%22

73.

3%22

ti A

MPD

EN

$45,

621

$53,

124

14.7

%17

.41

12.1

%10

.4%

LE

OM

INST

ER

V$5

35,5

21$5

51,3

5490

1%91

.41

7.l%

7.7

HA

NC

OC

K1

,L

EV

ER

E7T

1$7

,312

$10,

365

71.1

X10

.7%

21.1

%20

7

1 I

AN

OV

ER

1V$1

92,0

50$1

93,0

5589

.0%

17.1

%5.

6%5.

4.!

'"L

EX

ING

TO

NV

$1,2

41,1

59$1

,297

,301

15.7

%16

.6%

1.9%

1.6

HA

NSO

N11

1$6

0,45

1$1

6,91

691

.5%

I03)

0% 1

1.9%

0.0

1;L

EY

DE

NI

$4,9

39$5

,013

67.7

%61

.31

33.1

%12

5

HA

RD

WIC

K$1

7,05

3$1

9,06

751

.4%

41.9

1 21

.0%

20.7

11;

(L

INC

OL

NH

I$1

52,0

77$4

17,5

7595

.7%

96.6

%1.

1 %

1.4

HA

RV

AR

DIV

$144

,717

$172

,142

81.0

%17

.1%

12.

0%9.

6%;

UT

TL

ET

ON

LU

$134

,752

$166

,350

92.1

%91

.4%

4.1%

3.5

HA

RW

ICH

IV$1

43.7

41$1

17,2

2411

0.2%

12.1

%'

5.1%

3.1%

LO

NG

ME

AD

OW

1VL

cd.1

,319

$311

,201

93.4

%95

.11

5.4%

5.2

HA

TFI

EL

D$2

3,53

532

4,16

915

.5%

100.

01 1

4.5%

13.1

%-5

LO

WE

LL

VI

$853

,5a1

$612

,475

77.3

%90

.9%

13.9

%16

.6

HA

VE

RR

ILL

VI

$771

,341

006,

215

72.9

%72

.9%

7.4%

za-

LU

DL

OW

IV11

16,0

39$1

77,0

6537

.3%

15.4

%12

.9%

13.9

11A

WL

EY

1D

OE

SN

OT

HA

VE

A P

UB

LIC

LIB

RA

RY

LU

NE

NB

UR

O11

1$1

14,5

05$1

16,0

9494

.6%

119.

114

1.9%

7.1

ri1E

A 7

74I

$7,7

70$1

0,11

176

.1%

17.3

%20

.3%

13.0

%L

YN

NV

I$1

,034

,355

$616

,315

17.5

%92

.4 1

9.5%

0.0

HIN

GH

AM

IV56

96.1

50$7

45,4

5151

3,77

0$1

3,36

2

14.0

%10

.9%

0.9%

2.1%

58.2

%58

.0%

16.

4%18

.91

LY

NN

F7E

LD

IV$2

11,7

39$2

94,0

3791

1 X

9951

3.4%

2.9

IIIN

SDA

LE

I

MA

LD

EN

VI

$779

,397

$799

,611

St 1

%10

.7%

1.9%

7.7

HoL

BR

OO

KIV

$171

,213

5171

,111

MS

%10

0.01

1.1%

7.0X

MA

NC

HE

STE

R -

BY

-TH

E -

III

$122

678

$138

,950

$195

,119

$266

,717

96.1

%90

1%3.

4%2.

7

91.7

%95

.4 1

6.9%

5.4

HO

LD

EN

iv12

10,9

6213

25.7

0892

. 1 X

92.5

%5.

4%4.

3%M

AN

SFIE

LD

IV

HO

LL

AN

D11

36,3

1257

.552

67.7

%14

.7%

29.

6%0.

0%M

AR

BL

EH

EA

DIV

$593

,757

$500

,913

97.3

%97

.5%

27%

2.5

HO

LL

IST

ON

IV$1

65,1

62$1

91,1

05

$435

,103

$196

,724

91.1

%14

.1%

7.7%

6.4%

63.5

%49

.7%

' 14.

9%0.

0%

MA

RIO

N11

MA

RL

BO

RO

UG

HV

$11,

513

596,

592

$505

,569

$577

,160

61.5

%74

.6%

3.9%

3.0

91.2

%16

.61

660%

4.1

1101

. Y

OK

E'

V

I IO

PED

A L

E11

593.

831

$19,

113

91.2

%91

.4%

4.6%

0.01

1M

AR

SHFI

EL

DIV

$326

,126

$327

,921

92.9

%90

.6%

16.

7%6.

2

HO

PKIN

TO

NII

I$1

42.0

1912

.6%

1.l%

MA

SHPE

E11

757

4,45

3$8

9,01

695

.1%

95.0

14.

3%6.

0

II U

RSA

RO

STO

N11

$21,

145

524.

251

al X

86.6

%,

11.6

X13

.4%

MA

TT

APO

ISE

ITII

I56

4,16

759

4,63

195

.9%

91.6

18.

2X5.

2

IV32

81.9

1952

79,3

00. .

. . .

_

92.6

%10

3.01

7.3%

6.7%

I M

A M

AX

°IV

$122

,601

$114

371

91.3

%95

.1%

t3 1

l.7

4 2

'PE

NO

IX I

.

MU

NIC

IPA

LIT

Y

Pop.

Gro

up

Tot

al

Ope

ratin

gIn

com

e

(adj

uste

d) 1911

t

Tot

al

Ope

ratin

g[m

ouse 19

91

A p

prop

.M

usic

.In

com

e%

tota

l19

11

App

rop.

Mim

ic.

Inco

me

%to

tal

1991

Lig

Met

Gra

nts

%to

tal

1911

11

Lig

Meg

Gra

nts

%to

ad19

91

.,- `. i

Pop.

MU

NIC

IPA

LIT

YG

roup

Tot

al

Ope

ratia

gIn

com

e

(adj

uste

d) 191S

Tot

al

Ope

ratia

gbo

or

1991

App

rop.

Mee

k.lo

oms

%to

tal

1911

1

App

rep

.M

imic

.In

com

e%

tota

l19

91

Lis

Meg

Gra

nts

%lo

ud19

1$

Lig

Meg

Gra

nts

%to

ed19

91

f E

DF7

EL

DIV

$152

,491

$169

,012

928%

19.2

%6.

5%5.

6%'N

OR

FOL

K11

7$1

47,5

1751

9170

191

.6%

95.9

%14

%4.

2%

I E

DFO

RD

VI

5125

,341

5770

,711

91.9

%92

.3%

10%

7.7%

1"N

OR

TH

AD

AM

SIV

$173

472

$197

,191

94.4

%11

.5%

20.4

%15

.7%

f E

DW

AY

M$1

40.4

1951

19,5

1999

.2%

96.6

%6.

4%5.

3%N

OR

TH

AN

DO

VE

RIV

1160

,177

5367

,309

17.3

%19

.61_

5.6%

5.3%

1E L

RO

SEV

$552

,407

$493

,649

90.6

%94

.0%

5.5%

5.1%

II:

NO

RT

H A

TT

LE

BO

RO

UG

IV52

19,2

34$2

.12,

191

11.0

%19

.41

11.5

%11

.0%

TE

ND

ON

1112

0,14

252

2,44

110

.9%

19.1

%

99.6

% 1

17%

92.7

17.

9%

0.0%

7.3%

NO

RT

H B

RO

OK

RE

LD

053

6,51

154

5,15

196

.1%

10.1

%15

.9%

12.6

%

f E

RJU

MA

CII

I57

4,31

1$8

0.11

1.N

OR

TH

RE

AM

()IV

$116

,415

$150

,419

93.1

II

98.7

16.

011

0.0%

I E

TH

UE

NV

5291

,061

$317

.164

31.0

%60

.91'

14.

9%11

.2%

NO

RT

HA

MPT

ON

V$7

47,7

61$1

64,9

1677

.4%

81.2

%4.

1%3.

7%

fiD

DL

ER

OR

OU

GH

IV$2

14,3

19$2

72,0

5110

.1%

11.5

%7.

4%7.

0%z

NO

RT

HB

OR

OU

GH

IV11

70,5

71$4

2134

096

.3%

94.3

%28

%25

f ID

DL

EFI

EL

D1

$2,1

6324

.1%

74.0

%N

OR

TH

BR

IDG

EIV

$192

,333

$63,

423

65.0

%39

.4%

9.5%

0.0%

1 ID

DL

ET

ON

III

$107

,277

$136

,221

96.5

%96

.1%

3.1%

3.2%

NO

RT

HFI

EL

Dla

$522

40$5

6,15

693

.1%

19.6

%5.

0%4.

7%

f IL

FOR

Div

$690

,644

$601

,037

912%

95.1

4.0%

4.2%

NO

RT

ON

IV$1

25,7

1111

.3%

13.1

%

in_u

nntY

.TV

$191

,565

$177

,708

90.1

%10

0.0

7.6%

7.7%

NO

RW

EL

L11

152

65,5

25$2

11,0

9595

.9%

96.3

%3.

1%2.

7%

if L

LL

SII

I$9

6,46

7$1

00,3

5411

1%17

.77.

3%7.

2XN

OR

WO

OD

V56

55,W

009,

990

i95

.7%

92.9

%4.

3%3.

1%

IIL

L V

ILL

E17

512,

266

512,

174

100.

0%10

0.0

26.1

%25

.2%

OA

K B

LU

FFS

0$4

1,79

4$4

6,61

991

SS

95.5

%4.

0%3.

3%

fn.T

ON

V$6

44.3

41$5

79.5

6392

.5%

94.9

3.1%

4.0%

OA

XH

AM

1$1

1,29

0$1

4,09

312

9%16

.015

.2%

14.1

%

.10N

RO

EI

iO

RA

NG

E11

1$1

11,5

61$1

07,0

1714

.4%

110.

110

.4%

11.5

%

.iON

SON

111

5109

, Ill

592,

1140

79.0

%14

.49.

7%1.

1%O

RL

EA

NS

EU

$191

225

$223

,291

92.7

%96

.2%

2.1%

1.1%

(ON

TA

GU

EII

I51

44,6

54$1

43,7

0391

.2%

94.5

7.3%

6.9%

OT

IS1

i cO

NT

ER

EY

151

1,66

991

.5%

1.9%

OX

FOR

DIV

$150

703

$145

.15'

999

.211

19.0

110

.9%

11.0

%

MO

NT

GO

ME

RY

I$1

,200

13.3

0.0%

PAL

ME

RIV

$270

,962

5301

,710

92.4

%93

.1 %

6.2%

5.5%

MO

UN

T W

ASH

ING

'TO

N1

PAX

TO

N11

$57,

609

$518

9010

.3%

1041

7.3%

6.4%

vAH

AN

TII

$112

067

$114

,017

96.7

%97

.23.

0%21

%PE

AB

OD

YV

187.

717

$917

,731

926%

93.1

X5.

3%4.

1%

vAN

TU

CK

ET

111

SOPE

LH

AM

I$6

,613

:7,7

07-

60.1

1961

.410

33.4

%21

.5%

NIA

TIC

KV

5717

.446

$716

,130

490

7%17

.13.

1%3.

6%F

PEM

BR

OK

EIV

$136

,727

$172

446

19.5

%17

.9%

11.2

%14

%

Y E

ED

HA

MI

V$7

60.3

6654

37,2

0110

0.0%

94.1

2.9%

0.0%

PEPP

ER

EL

LIV

$114

,552

$177

,077

94.2

%90

.31

15%

0.0%

YE

W A

SHFO

RD

1D

OE

S N

OT

1194

E A

PUB

LIC

IJB

RA

RPE

RU

151

,156

51.7

2662

1 %

49.0

139.

9%56

.1%

YE

W B

ED

FOR

DV

I$1

,917

,191

51,1

92,4

0312

.0%

13.6

9.6%

1.2%

PET

ER

SHA

M1

$15,

291

540,

336

9.9%

11.6

15.

3%4,

4

YE

W B

RA

INT

RE

E1

$6,2

6271

.2%

21.0

%PH

ILL

IPST

ON

1$5

,627

$6.1

0059

.5%

623

322%

31.4

YE

W M

AR

LB

OR

OU

GH

1$7

,190

$16,

505

76.6

%96

.123

.4%

0.0%

PIT

TSF

IEL

DV

$690

,707

$665

,276

11.5

%19

.7%

9.6%

11.1

18

NE

W S

AL

EM

1$6

,864

$10,

074

65.3

%79

.021

.3%

21.1

%'=

v:-.

AIN

FIE

LD

I$6

041

56,6

4170

.3%

74.6

%26

.0%

21.4

%

NE

WB

UR

YM

519,

229

594,

619

94.3

%97

.117

%6.

1 X

PLA

INV

ILL

EII

153

1.16

9$1

21,2

71SI

. 1 I

I95

.21

17.0

%5.

2%

NG

WO

UR

Y P

OR

TIV

1339

,141

1352

,164

91.7

%91

.14.

1%4.

4%PL

YM

OU

TH

V$5

9143

3$6

60,1

3217

.1%

90.6

15.

7%5.

4%

NE

wry

lyyr

$1.1

62.1

38$1

,231

945

93.4

%94

.13.

7%3.

5%PL

YM

PTO

Nn

111,

711

$34,

121

92.4

%93

.7e

7.6%

69%

4

4 ,)

BE

ST C

OPY

AW

IUB

LE

PEN

OIX

I.

MU

NIC

IPA

LIT

Y

Pap.

Om

"

Tot

al

Ope

ratin

gW

ooer

(adj

tuA

ed)

1988

Tot

al

Ope

ratin

gIn

com

e 1991

A p

prop

.M

anic

.lo

cona

s%

iota

'19

11

A p

prop

.M

anic

.W

ane

%to

tal

1991

Lig

Meg

Orn

ate

Gna

ts%

fata

l19

11

Lig Kit

%to

tal

1991

:M

UN

ICIP

AL

ITY

Pop.

Om

"

Tot

al

Ope

ratin

gIa

cono

(adj

utte

d) 1981

1

Tot

al

Ope

ratin

gIn

eorn

a 1991

A9P

eolt.

Moa

k.In

com

e%

tota

l19

88

A p

ro".

Mam

ie.

lam

er%

tota

l19

91

Lig

Meg

Gra

nt.

%to

tal

1981

1

LIS

Meg

Gra

nts

%to

tal

1991

INC

E77

3N$3

6,12

2$4

0,91

713

.2%

17.5

11.

1 X

7.21

.:.

SOM

ER

VIL

LE

VI

5413

4354

$1,2

13,1

6115

.7 X

36.2

1.2%

6.0%

'ovI

NC

E77

WN

$122

,560

$132

,404

94.0

%95

.7%

it1.

7% I

SOU

TH

HA

DL

EY

IVt

$303

,730

063,

739

970%

97.1

7111

5.9%

RN

CY

VI

$1,5

72,2

24$1

,526

303

92.2

X91

.0%

5.6%

,-

5.4%

.)!,

SOU

TH

AM

PTO

N$5

6,66

6$4

7,02

014

.0%

1C0.

09.

2%11

.2%

IND

OL

PHV

5343

,024

5374

,769

19.6

%92

.3%

1.9%

1.1%

,-so

urfl

acm

ouG

Hin

5131

,132

5159

,512

91.8

%97

.13.

9%3.

2%

I Y

NH

AM

W$5

1,12

3$5

3,61

567

.9%

16.6

%,

20.0

%if

11.2

%1

SOU

TH

BR

IDG

EIV

$307

,209

$243

,235

91.5

%13

.61.

5%6.

2%

:AD

EN

°IV

$510

,927

$511

,769

93.4

%9L

1113

16.

2%4.

0% ',

sour

n W

IC1C

W$7

5,67

3$9

3,31

979

.1%

11.2

115%

11.2

%

3101

30T

HW

01,7

60$4

4,14

166

.6%

68.1

%21

.7%

20.7

%

f...4

SPE

NC

ER

ivV

13,

118

$137

,110

62.9

%54

.013

.9%

11.5

%

TV

ER

.EV

1277

.945

1270

,441

11.0

%13

.8%

11.0

%17

.5%

SPR

ING

FIE

LD

V54

,181

,931

13,1

44,7

1095

.1%

77.6

4.6%

6.0%

a IM

ON

D1

$10,

013

$11,

321

74. 7

X13

.5%

20.1

%16

.5 %

4.ST

ER

LIN

GE

a51

03,9

04$1

07,6

1497

.7%

94.1

6.1%

6.5%

XIE

EST

ER

S19,

790

$21,

251

79.4

%11

.220

6%20

.7 '

7:ST

OC

KB

RID

GE

$125

,090

24.1

0.0%

r )C

1CL

AN

DIV

5206

,376

$239

,019

89.1

%89

.05(

9.3%

Z3%

'.' A

STO

NE

HA

MIV

$433

,742

$414

,563

97.2

%93

.35.

0%0.

0%

riC

KPO

RT

Ill

$143

,171

$151

,290

96.2

%96

.1%

3.8%

3.2%

STO

UG

HT

ON

V$4

11,6

7055

07,1

0196

.3%

99.2

6.2%

5.6%

OW

E1

522,

102

93.9

%62

%ST

OW

III

$101

,950

$106

841

72.3

%76

.64.

5%4.

2%

OW

LE

T55

5,00

)01

SO

!92

. 8 X

92 1

X7.

2%t.2

%ST

UR

BIU

:DO

Err

if$7

3,93

2$1

74,9

3783

.0%

91.7

9.0%

4.5%

0 Y

AL

STO

NI

$11,

021

59,7

9575

.9%

804%

19.3

%22

.0%

sum

mer

Iv$3

71,3

6953

65,9

7696

. 1 X

97.6

3.2%

3.1%

i ISS

EL

L1

$12,

727

513,

775

82.9

%10

.0%

19.7

%20

.0%

SUN

DE

RL

AN

D$4

2,51

4$3

7,65

391

.7%

16.3

3.1%

7.9%

117L

AN

D$7

0,45

3$6

4,41

775

.5%

10.6

%1.

7%9.

3%SU

TT

ON

W$4

4,11

6$7

0,13

680

.1%

19.5

1.1%

10.1

%

4 L

EM

V56

65,1

3857

76,9

7716

.1%

18.7

%6.

0%4.

11%

SWA

MPS

CO

TT

IV57

12,2

01$1

05,2

6393

.1%

17.7

3.7%

3.5%

4LIS

BU

RY

M15

1.80

75.

57,5

9710

0.0%

13.1

% 1

1.8%

8.61

1 ,:!

.SW

AN

S L

4ft

,51

01,7

6751

21,7

7792

1%19

.016

.1%

14.6

%

A N

DIS

FIE

LD

1 IV55

,462

5260

,199

$5,2

4911

26,1

43

71.9

%91

4%72

.4%

23.

6%93

.9%

3.2%

27.1

1*'1

3.3%

PT

AU

NT

ON

V55

77,7

36$5

25,2

7116

.0%

14.1

12.3

%9.

1%

A N

DW

ICH

TE

MPL

ET

ON

ID$2

6,46

116

.4%

23.0

%

4110

11S

V52

45,9

1952

55,6

6194

.3%

89.2

% 9

.9%

9.6%

-T

EW

KSB

UR

YV

$220

,973

szm

no17

.9%

19.4

12.0

%11

.4%

4 V

OY

1

,.-T

ISB

UR

Y$1

96,4

11t3

.00.

0%

C7T

UA

TE

IV$3

61,4

11$2

97.4

1716

.9%

90.9

%4.

6%0.

0' T

OL

LA

ND

1

EE

KO

NK

IV$2

04,0

3132

25,5

0193

.1%

94.6

%6.

4%5.

7% .

TO

PSR

EL

DM

2166

,872

$177

,212

96.3

%,3

.93.

2%00

%

i 1,4

RO

NIV

$349

.944

$771

.949

97.4

%97

.0%

4.0%

3.7%

,T

OW

NSE

ND

1$7

3,33

110

0.0%

12.9

%

f iir

tlEL

D11

$46,

955

549,

307

94.5

%91

4I 5

.5%

5.0%

TR

UR

OI

$21,

490

522,

308

76.1

%11

.7%

7.1

X5.

9%

i (E

LB

UR

NE

1151

3,86

511

9,05

741

.4%

77.0

%4

3.1%

13.2

%T

Y N

GSB

OR

OU

GH

III

$73,

106

$93,

112

17.9

%89

.7%

10.2

%8.

3%

I IE

RD

OR

N11

$119

, 754

$146

345

94.5

%17

.0%

2.1

X2.

1 X

TY

RIN

GH

AM

I

i IIR

LE

YII

I$4

6,89

955

0,08

184

.6%

83.6

% 1

5.4%

15.7

%U

PTO

NII

533,

375

07.5

4714

.7%

17.1

%13

.0%

11.6

%

IME

WSB

UR

YIV

5574

.674

$625

,644

91.1

%96

.1%

'3.

9%3.

4%U

XB

RID

GE

Ill

$111

,416

$136

335

71.7

%16

.0i

3.2%

7.9%

inur

sauR

y1

$5,7

4057

,613

19.0

%41

.2%

34.

1%27

.1%

V+

AK

EFI

EL

DV

$626

,156

$629

,454

96.0

%1

92.9

%4.

0%3.

7%

. tar

t itiT

TIV

.52

91.9

1051

06.7

6199

.1 %

95.0

% 5

.1%

0.0%

,WA

LE

SI

$10,

533

$9,4

1468

.6%

91.5

%24

.3%

33.9

%

EN

DIX

I.

MU

NIC

IPA

LIT

YPo

p.G

roup

Tot

al

Ow

ed's

Inco

me

(adj

usie

d) 191$

Tot

al

Ope

ratin

gIs

oo . 19

91

Am

or.

App

rop.

Mie

le.

Mun

k.lo

coin

gbr

oom

s

%to

tal

%io

ta'

191$

1991

Lig

Meg

Gre

ats

%to

tal

191$

Lig

Meg

Gre

ats

%to

tal

1991

*,.; 4

MU

NIC

IPA

LIT

YPo

p.G

roup

Tot

al

Ope

ning

ther

ms

(adj

uste

d) 1911

Tot

al

Ope

ratin

gIa

cono

1991

App

lop.

Mun

k.L

eone

%O

W 1911

App

rop.

Mun

k.lo

om.

%to

tal

1991

Lig

Meg

Gre

ats

%to

tal

191$

Lig

Meg

Gre

ats

%to

tal

1991

LPO

LE

IV$3

55,0

13$3

65.7

3192

.5%

93.5

5.3%

5.2

't

WIL

LIA

MSB

UR

GII

$219

44$3

5,51

111

.5%

21.9

%13

.1%

9.9%

LT

HA

MV

IST

A 1

4258

5171

591

.5%

93.1

7.l%

5.9

;lW

ILL

IAM

STO

WN

W51

26,9

48$1

31,7

170

1000

%95

.6%

7.7%

6.0%

RE

III

$09,

624

$132

,796

65.1

%63

.110

.7%

11.0

-'W

ILM

ING

TO

NT

V13

60,2

71$3

73,9

6195

.7%

96.9

%1

4.3%

4.0%

RE

NA

MIV

$111

,194

$221

,409

t$3%

19.3

11.5

%9.

2,:f

WIN

CH

E1V

VO

NII

I$1

4, V

1$9

3,41

175

.9%

511%

113

.0%

0.0%

RR

EN

11$5

4,30

556

1,21

975

.1%

15.1

10.3

%10

.3' W

INC

HE

STE

RIV

5701

511

5652

,054

95.7

%92

.251

12.

4%2.

4%

R W

ICK

1$1

373

$1,2

1551

.3%

60.9

20.2

%11

.61,

LW

IND

SOR

I

sID

NG

TO

N1

DO

ES

NO

TH

AV

E A

PUB

LIC

LE

MU

R'

WIN

TH

RO

PIV

$221

,144

$216

,111

010

00%

15.2

%9.

3%7.

2%,

TE

R T

OW

NV

5106

4,17

551

,099

,215

5+6.

4%

97.4

2.9%

2.6

WO

BU

RN

V55

17,1

6354

93,0

1592

.0%

95.6

6.7%

6.7%

Y L

AN

DIV

$355

,050

$311

750

97.0

%95

.52.

l%2.

5W

OR

CE

STE

RV

II$3

,713

,126

$1,0

1165

293

.1%

91.7

5.1%

6.3%

BST

ER

IV$1

44,0

1031

37,4

2994

.4%

96.6

12.7

%13

.71.

WO

RT

IDN

OT

ON

I51

2,64

451

5,32

551

.2%

40.1

%15

.9%

12.3

%

1 L

ESL

EY

V$1

,052

,455

51,0

50,1

7696

.3%

97.4

2.0

1.9

;. , '

mtE

rrni

Am

DT

5111

651

5101

,741

925%

91.2

%7.

5%1.

7%

ILFL

EE

TII

$90,

414

$121

,745

90.6

%88

.11.

1%1.

3Y

AR

MO

UT

HIV

1179

,007

$209

,011

74.6

%75

.9%

1.1%

7.0%

ND

EL

LI

$7,2

5651

0,56

672

.4%

10.4

27.6

%19

.6IJ

.

.

BE

ST o

r i7

,1fA

ILA

BL

E. ,

4 S

WH

AM

II$1

11,2

39$1

29,2

4192

.2%

95.4

3.0%

28

ST B

OY

LST

ON

III

5139

,196

$152

, 792

111%

111

4.4

X3.

7

ST B

UD

GE

WA

TE

RID

$128

,606

5141

375

1000

%92

.15.

4%4.

3

ST B

RO

OK

FIE

LD

II$3

1,75

953

4,57

962

1 X

60.7

12.4

%12

.1

ST N

E W

HO

! Y

IIaz

562

591,

167

90.5

%91

.73.

7%3.

4

ST, S

PRIN

GFI

EL

DV

5406

.547

5401

,150

92.1

%92

.07.

4 X

7.1

ST V

OC

KB

RID

GE

1$7

.519

51,3

1566

.7%

66.7

26.0

%22

.3

ST T

ISB

UR

YI

$50,

267

$611

7797

.1 %

95.7

3.0%

21

sTB

OR

OU

GH

IV$3

69,4

31$4

3140

3r.

2%93

.12.

9%2,

4

STFI

EL

Dv

s651

.492

1519

.960

73.7

%75

.47.

2%1.

6

sTFO

RD

1V$7

17,0

77$5

48.0

3195

.7%

93.7

3.4%

2.6

%T

IM M

PTO

NI

514,

114

515,

450

70.3

%72

.513

.1%

13.2

3

VT

MIN

STE

RII

I$9

4,63

551

01,1

9611

.3%

91.5

5.9%

5.9

c T

ON

IV$4

44,9

5655

05,2

7497

.1%

19.5

1.1

%1.

4z

sTPO

RT

IV51

30,1

66$1

39,1

6192

.4%

81.7

11.3

%9.

7'

5Tw

000

IV54

1166

115

2111

510

0.0%

91.2

2.1%

1.1

'

y M

OU

TH

VI

5109

,191

5680

,977

90.2

%96

.47.

7%0.

0

4 T

EL

1,

1$1

7,19

0$2

1,27

491

.9%

71.9

12.1

%1.

0

i IV

AN

IV51

00.3

89$1

09,1

2079

.318

75.4

17.9

%14

.6I

IIR

AllA

tifIV

$250

.69.

152

72.1

8119

.9%

90.7

5.2%

t1.

MU

NIC

IPA

LIT

Y

Pop

.

Gro

up19

88

TO

TA

LS

TA

TE

GR

AN

TS

(LI

G/M

EG

)

1988

*19

91

TO

TA

LC

ircul

atio

n

1988

1991

Non

-Res

iden

tC

ircul

atio

n

as a

Per

cent

of

Tot

alC

ircul

atio

n

1988

1991

Est

imat

edN

on-R

esid

ent

Circ

ulat

ion

CO

ST

(NR

C c

irc.

x $0

.34)

1988

BN

IE:::

:',.

f.::

>...

......

.....J

,A

PPE

ND

IX n

:,

Est

imat

ed N

on-R

esid

entC

ircu

latio

n (N

RC

),

for

Mch

uset

tsC

ities

and

Tow

nS's

:::!

.:,:.

ears

....1

988.

0419

91

Cos

ts..

.

' ''',

.'''

'`',

-,?

.....,

'

MU

NIC

IPA

LIT

Y

Pop.

Gro

up19

88

TO

TA

LST

AT

E

GR

AN

TS

(LIG

/ME

G)

1988

*19

91

TO

TA

LC

ircu

latio

n

1988

1991

Non

-Res

iden

tC

ircu

latio

n

asa

Per

cent

of

Tot

alC

ircu

latio

n

1988

1991

Est

imat

edN

on-R

esid

ent

Circ

ulat

ion

CO

ST

(NR

C c

irc.

x $0

.34)

1988

:.;':'

.:;:;'

;i:i;i

:;:::;

Ng:

I.:

AB

ING

TO

N4

$17,

496

$15,

858

52,6

7578

,388

3.57

%6.

3%$6

39 1

1;:::

:,::::

::::6

::::$

1;67

9'.

AC

TO

N4

$16,

150

$14,

559

185,

862

227,

321

15.1

3%12

.60/

01,

561

......

......

......

......

.

AC

US

HN

ET

3$1

2,97

5$1

0,85

218

,982

16,4

621.

11%

1.8%

V72

:::::

::;::.

::::::

::::::

:::;::

:: S

UM

:

AD

AM

S3

$18,

082

$17,

160

74,1

5071

,132

11.0

9%8.

8%$2

,795

ii;g

::::::

1::i:

::::::

:.$2,

128.

:

AG

AW

AM

5$3

2,91

5$3

2,72

016

2,23

724

8,94

9

....

1.40

%5.

8%$7

71 iN

$4,9

09

ALF

OR

DI

$83

;:i.::

:;:.::

:::::i

:::i::

::::::

:::g-

,:: $

AM

ES

BU

RY

4$1

8,18

9$1

5,20

711

7,90

03.

27%

3.1%

$1,3

11$1

,1 2

3i

AM

HE

RS

T5

$55,

258

$50,

912

263,

056

366,

519

20.2

9%34

.5%

$18,

151

1::::

:::1:

i:::';

i::42

,993

.

AN

DO

VE

R5

$22,

061

$20,

713

337,

909

447,

080

16.0

9%33

.0%

$18,

490

1:::.

,:::`

,:::::

: $50

,162

.

AR

LIN

GT

ON

5$4

6,28

1$3

9,87

536

9,73

74.

97%

10.8

%$6

,250

li:::

:;A:::

::: $

15;3

65

AS

HB

UR

NH

AM

3$5

,231

$6,2

3327

,909

32,9

82

..

30.5

9%37

.7%

$2,9

02 i:

:::::1

.,W.::

:::!.,

.- $

4,22

8

AS

HB

Y2

$2,0

099,

562

260%

$85

1;:::

::::,:

i:;'::

::i'::

:::i::

:::::5

:::::'

, $0.

AS

HF

IELD

1$2

,202

$2,2

0712

,686

26,7

510.

43%

.0.

4%$1

9 1:

i...:'

,..''''

,,:s.

:...-

:.,; $

36

AS

HLA

ND

4$4

,016

43,7

8032

,980

1.43

%0.

0%$2

13 ::

i.: .

.:: ..

. ....

......

... ..

......

.....

-

$0

AT

HO

L4

$14,

477

$16,

012

96,4

2887

,091

13.7

3%15

.0%

$4,5

02 ::

::: $

4,44

2

AT

TLE

BO

RO

5$4

1,83

5$4

0,27

514

0,97

118

2,17

49.

84%

9.0%

$4,7

16 i.

::::::

::;;::

::'i'i

l''.i

$5,5

75

AU

BU

RN

4$1

5,83

6$1

4,57

714

8,40

022

4,65

825

.47%

37.9

%$1

2,85

2 ...

:;;:.i

.;:'i'

:$2

8,94

9

AV

ON

2$4

,612

$4,2

4925

,557

26,0

8021

.93%

35.8

%-

......

.-

$1,9

06 1

:;::::

:.::::

::::::

:::.::

$3;1

74.

..«.:-

-

AY

ER

3$7

,577

$6,9

1526

,457

35,2

1716

.33%

18.9

%$1

,469

:::::

::::0

11:::

;$2,

263

BA

RN

ST

AB

LE5

$27,

504

$25,

169

385,

120

440,

708

10.0

7%12

.2%

$13,

185

R:::

:':;;:

::::.$

18,2

81':

BA

RR

E2

$5,9

51$6

,429

17,1

9318

,259

10,5

429,

37r

1.45

%0.

5%$8

5 ::;

-...:

-,:.:

:-..,

',..::

.;,:.

$31.

33.9

6%0.

0%\

$1,2

17 ::

-::.:

.::-:

::.:-

.'::,

$0

BE

CK

ET

1$1

,850

$1,8

13

BE

DF

OR

D4

$10,

196

$9,7

3015

3,36

519

2,88

111

.50%

17.5

%$5

,998

:'

'' $

11,4

76

4 adju

sted

for

infla

tion

(199

1co

nsta

nt d

olla

rs)

LES

T C

OP

Y A

VA

ILA

BLE

5

_M

UN

ICIP

ALI

TY

Pop

.

Gro

up19

88

TO

TA

LG

RA

NT

S

1988

*

ST

AT

E

(LIG

/ME

G)

1991

TO

TA

L

1988

Ci ,

:ula

tion

1991

Non

-Res

iden

tas

a

Tot

al

1988

Circ

ulat

ion

Per

cent

of

Circ

ulat

ion 19

91

Est

imat

edN

on-R

esid

ent

Circ

ulat

ion

CO

ST

(NR

C c

irc.

x $0

.34)

1988

n::.:

::::.:

::::::

:::49

91.1

BE

LCH

ER

TO

WN

4$1

2,23

4$1

4,76

327

,427

43,1

920.

0%i::

:::i::

1:i::

:::::M

;IF:.:

0.$0

BE

LLIN

GH

AM

4$1

8,49

6$1

6,93

253

,840

77,2

570.

28%

1.9%

$51

ti:.::

:;1::.

:':';:

ig99

BE

LMO

NT

4$2

2,33

6$2

0,12

124

8,13

931

7,62

512

.08%

12.7

%$1

0,19

1 it:

::?;'i

':;..$

13,7

15'

BE

RK

LEY

2$4

,235

$4,7

3012

,255

9,80

20.

98%

0.0%

$41

::::::

::,:::

:.:,i:

::::;:

::::::

::'::,

..: $

01

BE

RLI

N2

$2,5

58$2

,491

$15,

668

18,5

130.

49%

1.6%

$26

i:::::

::';::

:::::

$101

BE

RN

AR

DS

TO

N1

11,7

92:::

::?:g

::::::

:::::.

$0

BE

VE

RLY

5$3

7,89

4$3

4,63

821

8,28

226

9,20

111

.12%

14.4

%$8

,251

i,iiii

::::i:

iii:::

$13

0 80

BIL

LER

ICA

5$3

7,39

0$3

7,54

318

0,31

020

0,26

84.

11%

7.8%

$2,5

18 iP

::::::

Iii:$

5:31

1.''

BLA

CK

ST

ON

E3

$9,4

77$1

0,07

99,

282

19,3

050.

0%$.

:::.;:

::::::

::::::

g.:ii

:'::::

::.$0

BLA

ND

FO

RD

1$1

,958

$1,9

9114

,559

4,91

90.

21%

0.4%

$11

:K;;g

:.`;::

:':::i

i:::::

::ii::

:.:::$

7..-

BO

LTO

N2

$2,3

66$2

,498

10,9

0911

,537

0.47

%0.

4%$1

7 ::'

:;::::

;:::::

;.::::

::::::

::::::

::1: $

16;

BO

ST

ON

7$5

79,8

37$5

45,7

451,

820,

000

2,78

4,19

613

.26%

13.9

%$8

2,04

9 :g

:$13

1;58

1 .

BO

UR

N4

$13,

460

83,4

6291

,125

30.5

7%6.

6%$8

,674

<: :

:=<

:: ::;

::, $

2,04

5

BO

XB

OR

OU

GH

2$2

,682

$2,4

9826

,971

32,5

694.

32%

3.0%

$396

:.:?:

::::::

::::.:

K:::

: $33

2

BO

XF

OR

D3

$4,9

55$5

,153

50,8

6952

,627

0.62

%0.

8%$1

07 .;

:':.::

::::::

::::::

::11.

:: $1

43

BO

YLS

TO

N2 5

$3,4

25$3

,212

27,0

4038

,706

2.44

%2.

1%$2

25 ::

.::!!.

:::::1

$27

6

BR

AIN

TR

EE

$34,

450

$32,

061

172,

640

184,

047

0.94

%0.

6%$5

50 <

: i.::

:$3

75

BR

EW

ST

ER

3$4

,840

$5,5

9367

,087

104,

030

9.65

%9.

79%

13.9

%26

.6%

$2,2

00ii.

::::ii

:::0:

,.:!:

$4,9

16

$4,5

98::"

:::3'

:,' $

16,0

43

BR

IDG

EW

AT

ER

4$2

3,27

7$2

3,12

313

8,08

817

7,38

9

BR

IMF

IELD

2$1

,785

18,3

974.

43%

$277

t::::.

..-.,.

:::t.$

0

BR

OC

KT

ON

6$1

31,9

80$1

21,1

4431

6,73

127

5,88

212

.26%

3.9%

$13,

203

F:M

i: $3

,658

BR

OO

KF

IELD

2$3

,881

$4,0

3914

,931

29,7

050.

0%

BR

OO

KLI

NE

6$4

6,80

5$4

3,24

047

4,19

859

4,46

021

.66%

24.8

%$3

4,91

8 't:

.:::::

::::.:

$50

,125

-BU

CK

LAN

D1

$2,7

78$2

,728

9,14

712

,472

8.06

%4.

941c

$251

1:.:

:::::?

::!.:?

:.:' .

::: $

208

BU

RLI

NG

TO

N4

$18,

578

$17,

874

114,

276

162,

757

6.09

%7.

9411

:$2

,366

'::.

::::..

:::: $

4,37

2

CA

MB

RID

GE

6$8

8,93

8$7

8,56

063

7,33

778

0,56

615

.40%

20.5

%$3

3,36

0 M

:::::g

$54,

405

CA

NT

ON

4$1

6,66

7$1

5,43

411

9,68

219

7,11

57.

41%

8.7%

$3,0

15:::

::::::

::::::

:::::

$5,8

31

CA

RLI

SLE

2$2

,936

78,2

7982

,992

1.09

%0.

3%$2

90:::

::::;Z

.:::::

::::;;

:.;:.

$85:

CA

RV

ER

4$1

1,15

2$1

3,11

844

,129

46,5

890.

61%

3.5%

$92

:: »

:: ::`

:';:::

`$55

4.

CH

AR

LEM

ON

T1

$2,2

31$2

,176

8,59

810

,800

0.0%

''':::

'; S

O

CH

AR

LTO

N3

$9,4

84$9

,986

32,1

0256

,802

1.46

%8.

4%$1

59 .:

:).::

::i::,

:; $1

,622

CH

AT

HA

M3

$4,3

45$3

,948

88,6

6789

,086

6.58

%13

.4%

$1,9

85..

::::::

$4;0

59

= a

djus

ted

for

infla

tion

(199

1co

nsta

nt d

olla

rs)

iLS

T C

OP

Y A

VA

ILA

BLE

MU

NIC

IPA

LIT

Y

Pop

.

Gro

up19

88

TO

TA

LG

RA

NT

S

1988

*

ST

AT

E

(LIG

/ME

G)

1991

TO

TA

L

1988

Circ

ulat

ion

1991

Non

-Res

iden

tas

a

Tot

al

1988

Circ

ulat

ion

Per

cent

of

Circ

ulat

ion 19

91

Est

imat

edN

on-R

esid

ent

Circ

ulat

ion

CO

ST

(NR

C c

irc.

x $0

.34) ,.,

.19

88iii

:6;i;

mi::

5::1

1

CH

ELM

SF

OR

D5

$29,

412

$29,

739

266,

368

287,

862

15.2

9%20

.4%

$13,

848

$1:i:

::::::

:::.;?

$19,

966

CH

ELS

EA

5$3

8,98

8$3

2,11

988

,391

102,

985

3.80

%3.

3%$1

,142

:::,

;::' $

1,15

5

CH

ES

HIR

E2

$2,8

69$4

,295

11,5

94N

::::::

::::::

':f::.

' $0

CH

ES

TE

R1

$2,1

82$1

,744

11,0

6612

,500

13.1

0%11

.8%

$493

i::i:

:::a:

::::::

::::::

::$50

2

CH

ES

TE

RF

IELD

1$1

,541

$2,1

066,

809

11,6

415.

14%

5.9%

$119

i::::

:'11:

:::4:

::::::

::, $

234:

CH

ICO

PE

E6

$77,

671

$84,

326

170,

570

207,

142

2.50

%2.

9%$1

,447

:::::

::1::;

::::::

::::::

$2,0

42

CH

ILM

AR

K1

$1,4

07$1

,267

24,0

6226

,187

57.6

0%50

.1%

$4,7

12::g

:: ::

::.$4

;461

.

CLA

RK

SB

UR

G1

$3,1

87$3

,704

17,0

2514

,846

0.82

%1.

2%$4

7 11

:::M

OW

$61

::

CLI

NT

ON

4$1

6,55

546

,786

56,1

933.

70%

14.4

%$5

89 ti

:'::::

::::::

::::::

$2,7

51

CO

HA

SS

ET

3$6

,236

$5,7

3579

,308

82,0

550.

0%:::

::::::

::::::

::::::

::::':

$0

CO

LRA

IN1

$2,3

9010

,633

11,2

500.

39%

0.4%

$14

I':*:

::1:::

:':::i

':Pi4

5

CO

NC

OR

D4

$13,

477

$12,

732

222,

975

273,

014

22.9

1%27

.7%

$17,

371

::::,:

:.$2

5,71

2

CO

NW

AY

1

CU

MM

ING

TO

N1

$1,7

54$1

,686

4,83

14,

792

0.10

%0.

5%$2

:::::

::P:::

:::::M

:;:::i

$8

DA

LTO

N3

$8.3

45$7

,637

55,0

5867

,100

27.6

0%33

.8%

$5,1

67 1

:],'i:

::::::

::::::

::: $

7,71

1

DA

NV

ER

S4

$22,

397

$20,

624

194,

836

216,

870

28.0

4%33

.6%

$18,

576

1.M

$24:

775

DA

RT

MO

UT

H5

$26,

826

$26,

371

171,

802

281,

478

12.8

3%15

.5%

$7,4

95 iN

g $1

4,83

4

DE

DH

AM

4$2

4,09

3$2

1,14

911

2,69

611

9,35

810

.59%

6.4%

$4,0

56 1

1:::?

: $2,

597

DE

ER

FIE

LD2

$4,7

20$4

,965

36,8

0142

,738

1.78

%2.

3%$2

23 1

::::::

::::::

::::::

::: $

334

DE

NN

IS4

$2,3

57

$0

DIG

HT

ON

314

,413

17,7

290.

0%.::

:':3,

':i:::

::::.:

.::::i

:". $

0

DO

UG

LAS

2$5

,415

$4,7

8214

,502

22,2

740.

06%

0.09

6$3

zfi:

' ::::

:,,i-:

v.: :

:: $3

DO

VE

R2

$3,6

15$3

,373

35,0

0546

,576

6.38

%6.

6%$7

60 1

::(:%

::' $

1,04

5

DR

AC

UT

5$2

6,89

7$2

9,90

899

,224

105,

961

19.1

3%19

.6%

$6,4

55 ;:

::::;:

i',:::

$7,0

61

DU

DLE

Y3

$11,

713

$12,

020

49,9

3869

,358

7.36

%0.

0%$1

,250

ii':"

1:i':

::':i:

::::.:

$0

DU

NS

TA

BLE

2$2

,109

$2,2

0314

,201

24,5

645.

13%

3.4%

$248

!::::

0::::

,$2

84

DU

XB

UR

Y4

$11,

562

$10,

689

103,

284

116,

033

4.13

%4.

4%$1

,451

::::::

::. fJ

.::::$

1,73

6

EA

ST

BR

IDG

EW

AT

ER

4$1

2,69

2$1

1,60

244

,707

67,9

923.

67%

2.4%

$557

::,..

.:::::

::::::

::::::

::$55

5

EA

ST

BR

OO

KF

IELD

1$2

,929

$2,4

8918

,998

21,9

961.

08%

1.3%

$70

,$:

::::::

:.::,,

,;:'::

,:$97

EA

ST

LO

NG

ME

AD

OW

4$1

3,09

3$1

3,69

013

4,95

018

6,63

523

.63%

28.3

%$1

0,84

1 '0

:::::.

::::::

$17,

958

EA

ST

HA

M2

$2,7

27$2

,868

49,0

5867

,334

11.9

5%20

.5%

$1,9

93 >

< ?

: :i

:>:$

4;69

3

EA

ST

HA

MP

TO

N4

$22,

948

$21,

465

56,1

9568

,858

1.23

%2.

3%$2

35 :'

: ::::

:::::

::$5

38

1:

adju

sted

for

infla

tion

(199

1co

nsta

nt d

olla

rs)

LES

T C

OP

Y A

VA

ILA

BLE

5,4

MU

NIC

IPA

LIT

Y-

Pop

.

Gro

up19

88

TO

TA

LG

RA

NT

S

1988

*

ST

AT

E

(LIG

/ME

G)

1991

TO

TA

L

1988

Circ

ulat

ion

1991

Non

-Res

iden

tas

a

Tot

al

1988

Circ

ulat

ion

Per

cent

of

Circ

ulat

ion 19

91

Est

imat

edN

on-R

esid

ent

Circ

ulat

ion

CO

ST

(NR

C c

irc.

x $0

.34)

1988

'.::

::,i:.

:199

1

EA

ST

ON

4$1

9,20

1$1

8,47

868

,991

0.00

%.e

.:1,,,

,.....

......

.,$1

:.:::

:-;::

:::::;

:::: $

0

ED

GA

RT

OW

N2

$1,6

48$1

,859

36,2

9346

,117

34.7

2%44

.3%

$4,2

85 1

::.i.:

;.:'::

:::.::

:::, $

6,94

6

EG

RE

MO

NT

1$1

,713

$1,5

883,

771

4,92

721

.13%

19.2

%$2

71 .1

:;'M

::::$

:;::::

. 3

ER

VIN

G1

$1,6

857,

643

0.35

%$9

lliii:

iti;i1

..i:::

::::::

::$7:

::*; $

101

:

ES

SE

X$2

,632

$2,2

5816

,789

23,7

78a0

0%8.

8%

EV

ER

ET

T5

$34,

980

$32,

593

105,

907

9't.4

031.

97%

0.9%

$711

!.::::

:::,:i

:ii::k

:':: $

298

FA

IRH

AV

EN

4$1

8,32

1$1

6,57

781

,902

101,

542

9.73

%9.

1%..

......

$2,7

111:

::::i:

::::g

$3,

142

FA

LL R

IVE

R6

$179

,503

$144

,740

198,

572

235,

876

2.00

%4.

5%$1

,350

RO

gi: $

3,60

9 ::

FA

LMO

UT

H5

$19,

697

$19,

478

309,

996

328,

117

9.18

%9.

2%$9

,673

::::f

fig:::

$10,

263

,

FIT

CH

BU

RG

5$6

2,00

5$5

3,08

725

3,15

828

8,35

126

.90%

31.2

%$2

3,15

1til

:::::

430,

588'

FLO

RID

A1

$1,5

82$1

,438

5,47

99,

612

0.0%

ggi,:

::::g

::: $

0 .

FO

XB

OR

OU

GH

$16,

569

$15,

260

110,

307

136,

853

12.3

5%12

.2%

-$4

,633

1::'

::::.:

1::::

:!;:::

:$5,

677

FR

AM

ING

HA

M6

$60,

208

$57,

071

540,

013

633,

912

23.1

3%27

.5%

$42,

461

::::::

::::::

:::::4

59,2

7.1.

.

FR

AN

KLI

N4

$20,

918

84,3

7812

1,90

52.

04%

3.8%

$586

::1:

::::::

::::::

04.1

c575

:

FR

EE

TO

WN

3$8

,385

$8,9

2920

,049

24,9

323.

68%

4.7%

$251

::'::

:::'':

'g*;

4391

:1-

::::..

::.,..

......

..

GA

RD

NE

R4

$27,

350

$25,

528

181,

548

171;

c80

17.5

5%6.

7%$1

0,83

1:::

::::::

::.:':

::: $

3,91

1.'

GA

Y H

EA

D1

$1,4

04$1

.258

3,93

74,

050

0.0%

::.:::

:::;.:

::;::I

::::::

::: '

;:.:-

.::::-

:. $0

'

GE

OR

GE

TO

WN

3$6

,384

$6,1

1450

,178

51,6

452.

24%

2.9%

$383

.t:::

::::::

i:':':

:::$5

09-4

GR

L.::

::::::

:::;::

::::::

:: .:.

$0

1

GL(

A.J

CE

ST

ER

5$2

6,96

1$2

4,33

515

1,13

818

2,30

21.

34%

2.09

4$6

89 .0

::::::

:::::4

1',2

40

GO

SH

EN

1$1

,705

$1,6

956,

600

6,32

50.

0%/

:.'.::

.-':'

...:'.

..:.'.

...:

.:.-:

: $0

GO

SN

OLD

1,

.1:.:

;:.:::

::::::

:::i::

::::::

::::i.

:g .i

. $0

'

GR

AF

TO

N4

$13,

049

$12,

721

45,4

1171

,521

0.30

%4.

7%$4

7 ::'

"''.

$1,1

43

GR

AN

BY

3$7

,585

$7,2

7721

,788

21,5

077.

20%

4.6%

$533

:i::.

:.,:..

:.:::.

.:-..$

336

GR

AN

VIL

LE1

$2,0

84fi:

::::::

$111

V:*

::::::

:::::,

:::-:

:$0:

GR

EA

T B

AR

RIN

GT

ON

3$8

,239

$7,4

2263

,475

67,1

4020

.97%

19.9

%$4

,526

Mil:

::::4

:::::

$4;5

43 i

GR

EE

NF

IELD

4$2

4,75

0$1

5,06

711

1,23

013

1,23

919

.37%

22.0

%$7

,325

if:.:

:::1:

::::::

::V $

9;81

7'

GR

OT

ON

3$6

,897

$7,0

0947

,470

76,8

851.

94%

1.8%

$314

:::::

:r.i,

;:.:::

R.::

::::i:

::::$

471

GR

OV

ELA

ND

3$6

,177

$5,3

9434

,300

34,3

242.

56%

2.4%

$299

i.:::

:::::]

.:' ..

......

......

......

......

$28

0:

HA

DLE

Y2

$3,8

76

-....

..4.-

-....

..:::

:-

.

.:.:::

.:. $

0

HA

LIF

AX

3$7

,395

$7,4

3632

,593

34,2

207.

21%

7.6%

$799

-:':'

;:::::

..:.-

$88

4

HA

MIL

TO

N3

$6,9

32$6

,199

63,0

2480

,070

10.9

8%13

.9%

$2,3

54;::

.:;:"

. $3,

784.

= a

djus

ted

for

infla

tion

(199

1 co

nsta

ntdo

llars

)..L

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

MU

NIC

IPA

LIT

Y

Pop

.

Gro

up19

88

TO

TA

LG

RA

NT

S

1988

*

ST

AT

E

(LIG

/ME

G)

1991

TO

TA

L

1988

Circ

ulat

ion

1991

Non

-Res

iden

tas

a

Tot

al

1988

Circ

ulat

ion

Per

cent

of

Circ

ulat

ion 19

91

Est

imat

edN

on-R

esid

ent

Circ

ulat

ion

CO

ST

(NR

C c

irc.

x $0

.34)

1988

1::::

!::;::

.:::.:

1991

HA

MP

DE

N2

$5,8

:32

$5,5

8030

,783

38,7

773.

12%

3.2%

$327

:::N

::::1

:igiii

ii:'::

::.-$

422

HA

NC

OC

K1

HA

NO

VE

R4

$10,

765

$10,

369

83,6

5686

,294

0.00

%0.

5%

HA

NS

ON

3$1

1,41

525

,666

22,2

530.

82%

1.3%

.... .

. ....

..,..

$71

iiiiii

ii:.',

:*.::

::.:::

::K&

:::: $

98...

......

..,.:.

.....

HA

RD

WIC

K2

$3,5

75$3

,937

7,73

46,

269

1.09

%1.

0%$2

9$2

1

HA

RV

AR

D4

$17,

303

$16,

450

45,1

8558

,946

0.0%

HA

RW

ICH

4$7

,346

$7,0

3591

,907

100,

047

7.66

%8.

7%$2

,393

MIN

.':$2

,959

.

HA

TF

IELD

2$3

,702

$3,2

5717

,551

19,4

580.

0%

HA

VE

RH

ILL

6$5

7,97

5$5

6,78

519

9,63

526

2,41

011

.31%

13.8

%$7

,674

0:,:

iii..:

i1:::

:$12

',312

:

HA

WLE

Y1

DO

ES

NO

TH

AV

E A

PU

BLI

CLI

BR

AR

YIii

na:::

::::1

:::iie

:.

HE

AT

H1

$1,5

78$1

,414

14,1

4014

,034

1.77

%0.

9%...

,$8

5 M

iii:::

::::::

:::i::

::::i:

::$4

31

$6,9

08.;:

$16,

753

HIN

GH

AM

4$6

,425

$16,

005

300,

413

370,

480

6.76

%13

.3%

HIN

SD

ALE

1$2

,262

$2,5

236,

303

9,75

99.

19%

11.6

%$1

97 Ii

iii.:?

:.::::

::::::

::::;:

ii:i::

:$38

5

HO

LBR

OO

K4

$13,

935

$12,

567

55,1

7461

,709

2.00

%2.

2%$3

74 .;

,:,:::

::::::

::::::

::::::

.'$46

2::

HO

LDE

N4

$15,

179

$13,

891

73,1

1515

4,61

07.

00%

17.9

%$1

,740

::s.

:,::::

::::::

::i:::

ti.:;-

v9.,4

143:

HO

LLA

ND

2$2

,015

13,5

166,

212

0.07

%0.

0%$3

11!

i:ti.:

:::§:

::Min

g::

HO

LLIS

TO

N4

$12,

809

$12,

319

54,0

2884

,784

0.34

%4.

4%$6

2 :::

:'.:.'

.:':::

::':::

::1:::

'.:.$

1;26

8

HO

LYO

KE

5$6

4,94

285

,153

66,6

684.

91%

0.0%

......

$1,4

21:::

::::::

:::::t

:::i:k

iiiii:

.:::.:

:::::

$0

HO

PE

DA

LE2

$4,3

5239

,576

27,7

055.

10%

3.5%

$686

1:::

::::::

V:::

:::gi

..::.:

$33

01

HO

PK

INT

ON

3$2

,607

75,6

3411

A3%

$2,9

39 t:

1:::n

:::::I

NM

.: $0

HU

BB

AR

DS

TO

N2

$2,5

38$3

,239

8,32

911

,482

0.97

%1.

0%$2

8 tif

:i::::

:::6:

::::::

::111

:::.$

39

HU

DS

ON

4$2

0,48

9$1

8,74

112

3,61

016

9,07

916

.25%

0.06

%19

.60t

0.0%

$6,8

31 ii

i;::::

0:1:

1:$1

_11"

;267

::'

$7 5

121i

16:::

::::::

:iff$

0..:,

HU

LL3

$9,9

99$8

,506

32,1

3932

,188

HU

NT

ING

TO

N1

$3,0

28$3

,087

8,29

811

,600

0.02

%2.

0%$1

4:::

:::.::

:g0i

::':::

:$79

IPS

WIC

H4

$11,

030

$10,

288

85,5

8810

0,25

72.

12%

7.4%

$616

:::::

:.::..

::::;:

;::::.

. $2,

522H

KIN

GS

TO

N3

$7,9

31$8

,142

58,2

2352

,868

5.62

%10

.2%

$1,1

12 C

iii:::

::glig

:::$1

;833

.

LAK

EV

ILLE

3$7

,169

19,1

3028

,863

0.00

%0.

0%M

.::'6

'Ili::

in:::

::::::

:::.$

0

LAN

CA

ST

ER

3$7

,910

$6,8

2940

,642

49,4

098.

12%

16.2

%$1

,122

:10:

::::::

:'42,

721

LAN

ES

BO

RO

U G

H2

$3,9

19$3

,732

10,5

2012

,280

0.0%

LAW

RE

NC

E6

$101

,354

$81,

740

124,

659

127,

014

6.44

%12

.2%

$2,7

31

LEE

3$6

,945

$6,2

0641

,248

4.36

%6.

0%$6

12 in

1::.:

::::::

:::::.

$840

:

LEIC

ES

TE

R4

$14,

017

$12,

839

25,3

0430

,973

0.92

%1.

6%i

$79

1,::i

::::.:

;:!:;:

:::::

.;-:':

:::::

$168

,

." =

adj

uste

d fo

r in

flatio

n (1

991

cons

tant

dol

lars

),,L

.S1

CO

PY A

VA

ILA

Ri

MU

NIC

IPA

LIT

Y

Pop

.

Gro

up19

88

TO

TA

LG

RA

NT

S

1988

*

ST

AT

E

(LIG

/ME

G)

1991

TO

TA

L

1988

Circ

ulat

ion

1991

Non

-Res

iden

tas

a

Tot

al

1988

Circ

ulat

ion

Per

cent

of

Circ

ulat

ion 19

91

Est

imat

edN

on-R

esid

ent

Circ

ulat

ion

CO

ST

(NR

C c

irc.

x $0

.34)

1988

i.f:::

:i:.

':'...

199

1

LEN

OX

3$7

,084

$5,0

6458

,662

73.8

0230

.85%

37.7

'$6

,153

LEO

MIN

ST

ER

5$4

1,70

0$4

2,55

017

2,63

221

2,29

70.

90%

12.0

'$6

,397

1::1

1,:::

:.:,i,

::.1:

' $8,

662

LEV

ER

Err

1$2

,126

$2,1

454,

133

6,79

20.

0'

LEX

ING

TO

N5

$23,

137

$20,

977

549,

900

655,

801

15.1

2%19

.9. .

$28,

277

la::'

:;i:::

:i:::?

::$44

,371

.,

LEY

DE

N1

$1,6

67$1

,650

4,87

33,

847

0.0

.i.:

:::...

:.:,::

::1.::

::ii.:

::::::

.;::::

:::::.

$0

LIN

CO

LN3

$6,2

87$5

.938

80,5

0911

3,84

49:

774.

29.5

.$5

,411

kiig

::i!::

-:-$

11.,4

119

LIT

TLE

TO

N3

$6,5

24$5

,850

76.2

5610

4,02

67.

47%

9.2.

$1,9

36 P

;M:4

3,25

4.

LON

GM

EA

DO

W4

$-, 5

,874

$16,

275

166,

629

146,

502

1.62

%3.

4 .

$919

Mai

-;'::

-:'c

.:-$1

-494

-:

LOW

ELL

6$1

18,7

43$1

13,9

8215

5,53

123

5,26

55.

85%

11.5

'$3

,096

i::::

:%:::

:iiii-

i:.:-

.4...

9,1-

99:.

LUD

LOW

4$2

3,96

9$2

4,64

761

,357

64,8

338.

74%

4.2

$1,8

22 g

iii:V

gii;I

ii.11

:492

6--.

LUN

EN

BU

RG

3$1

0,24

8$9

,020

54,7

1056

,250

2.16

%2.

5.

$402

t::::

::g:::

;:::::

::i.;i

:i.: $

478

LYN

N6

$98,

258

174,

802

124,

118

3.60

%3.

5.

$2,1

42 1

1::::

::R:::

:::$1

;477

LYN

N F

l ELD

4$9

,653

$8,3

8615

8,63

512

7,36

111

.38%

21.9

$6,1

36 M

::::::

::::::

:i.::$

9,48

3 .

MA

NC

HE

ST

ER

-BY

-TH

E3

$422

8$3

,783

5353

78.

43%

MA

NS

FIE

LD4

$13,

462

$14,

314

7569

311

9666

3.18

1.

MA

RB

LEH

EA

D4

$15,

933

$142

9623

4,34

015

2,77

47.

70%

9.4

'$6

,133

4:::

:'::::

i!:::i

.:::;4

4:88

3

MA

RIO

N2

$3,1

57$2

,914

47,2

3646

,788

MA

RLB

OR

OU

GH

5$3

0,38

2$2

8,49

420

3,56

2

MA

RS

HF

IELD

4$2

2,05

1$2

0389

79,5

12

MA

SH

PE

E3

$3,2

26$5

,333

32,7

0352

,404

0.33

%

M A

TT

AP

OIS

ET

T3

$5,3

50$4

,956

30,6

5038

234.

72%

2.4

'$4

92:::

::::::

:i::::

::::R

ii.:::

::::

MA

YN

AR

D4

$10,

118

$9,9

4430

,588

45,3

7513

.28%

0.0

'$1

,381

'::.::

.::§'

::::::

:::;t:

:::i?

::::0

:',,$

0"

ME

DF

IELD

4$9

,988

$9,5

2580

,512

99,3

753.

47%

0.0'

$949

1::.

:-:::

::::::

%::-

:'..::

::::::

::::-

;:ir.

.-:.$

0

ME

DF

OR

D6

$65,

899

$59,

189

167,

096

247,

253

5.49

%6.

63,

119

Rit:

:::::.

:1.3

5;54

8.'

ME

DW

AY

3$8

,942

$10,

054

70,3

3992

,628

7.31

%9.

9$1

,748

t::::

;:::::

::::::

::::::

:43,

118

-

ME

LRO

SE

5$3

0,32

6$2

8,41

419

8,30

023

0339

10.8

8%13

.5$7

,334

:::-

i:-:::

:::':-

:::::

$10,

5'73

ME

ND

ON

2$3

,161

5651

6214

5.59

%$1

07

ME

RR

IMA

C3

$5,9

01$5

,857

27,9

8743

435

0.73

%1.

5'$6

9 t:i

ii:c:

::::::

::c::'

::.:::

',:42

22.

ME

TH

UE

N5

$43,

369

$43,

197

0389

313

4913

3.5.

.$2

,002

i.:i.

.:.:.:

' :

MID

DLE

BO

RO

UG

H4

$21,

135

$18,

920

5,85

o82

,779

5.76

%5.

8.$1

,485

:::.::

:::i!,

.::.:,

:::.:'

$1,

632

MID

DLE

FIE

LD1

$1,6

013,

180

0.94

%$1

0

= a

djus

ted

for

infla

tion

(199

1 co

nsta

nt d

olla

rs)

6 :)

MU

NIC

IPA

LIT

Y

Pop

.

Gro

up19

88

TO

TA

LG

RA

NT

S

1988

*

ST

AT

E

(LIG

/ME

G)

1991

TO

TA

L

1988

Circ

ulat

ion

1991

Non

-Res

iden

tC

ircul

atio

n

as a

Per

cent

of

Tot

alC

ircul

atio

n

1988

1991

Est

imat

edN

on-R

esid

ent

Circ

ulat

ion

CO

ST

(NR

C c

ure.

z $0

.34)

1988

r..

7''

i!.i

MID

DLE

TO

N3

$4,1

25$4

,352

28,2

1641

,012

1.31

%1.

1%.

...$1

25 ::

:::iii

ii:::;

:11:

::i.:;

i:!:-

:$15

3 .

MIL

FO

RD

4$2

7,46

6$2

5,81

614

1,13

621

1,69

018

.00%

32.8

%$8

,637

HIN

S.2

3,60

8:

MIL

LBU

RY

4$1

5,05

4$1

3,76

352

,691

68,0

332.

18%

2.8%

$391

ang

::::::

::.$6

48

MIL

LIS

3$7

,069

$7,2

3853

,522

59,3

582.

87%

3.6%

$522

t::::

::::1

:::::V

M:s

7v:

MIL

LVIL

LE2

$3,2

05$3

,070

4,89

77,

233

1.47

%2.

0%$2

4 f:K

.:::e

t:::::

:$49

'

MIL

TO

N5

$24,

789

$23,

440

183,

795

223,

938

0.0%

-....

'''f:

:::.,:

-:,::

:.:.$

()

MO

NR

OE

1

:::;:'

:::::,

,4,:'

::::.c

$0

:

MO

NS

ON

3$1

0,54

8$7

,533

20,5

38-

4.22

%2.

5%$2

94M

I:V;1

1:$1

24.'

MO

NT

AG

UE

3$1

0,52

2$9

,951

49,3

3955

,254

9.47

%4.

8%$1

,589

gni

a::::

::$90

2:::.

i,$8

85 M

::::::

::::ig

eil::

:$0'

:

MO

NT

ER

EY

1$1

,654

$1,5

045,

177

6,17

350

.30%

0.0%

MO

NT

GO

ME

RY

13,

900

.:::.:

':5:::

::::.'

::::::

::::::

:IN::.

$0..

MO

UN

T W

AS

HIN

GT

ON

1

:.....

.,...

::..

.:..

.::'::

::::::

::::::

:'::::

i:::::

.:::::

:0:.$

0

NA

HA

NT

2$3

,403

$3,1

8648

,628

25,4

891.

67%

1.0%

4,

8.96

%10

.8%

$276

:':::;

::::'.

:::::.

::::;:

:9.-

;;:,1

::!:::

$87:

.ii:::

:;:i1

::::::

:;:i::

:..;:i

i:::::

::::::

::$0.

i

$6,9

89tii

:::Iti

ii.:i'

...$9

;867

'

NA

NT

UC

KE

T3

$3,7

5740

,417

NA

TIC

K5

$27,

602

$25,

541

229,

374

267,

064

NE

ED

HA

M5

$22,

152

302,

311

284,

237

7.46

%12

.2%

$7,6

64 1

:40$

11';'

,790

:

NE

W A

SH

FO

RD

1D

OE

SN

OT

HA

VE

AP

UB

LIC

LIB

RA

RY

NE

W B

ED

FO

RD

6$1

84,2

20$9

7,36

537

3,33

533

2,24

46.

74%

7.6'

.$8

,551

t::,..

11:::

:::::.

:::-$

8,58

5

NE

W B

RA

INT

RE

E1

$1,7

52$1

,669

9,02

0tf;

g::::

::::::

n0:::

:$0

NE

W M

AR

LBO

RO

UG

H1

$1,6

791,

561

.f. :'

.:: $

0

NE

W S

ALE

M1

$1,9

46$2

,124

5,40

69,

484

0.00

%0.

0%2:

:'.::;

:n:::

::#:::

:.$0

NE

WB

UR

Y3

$5,1

11$5

,779

20,5

7128

,558

3.05

%8.

1%$2

14 ::

:.::it

gi:1

:7:::

:::::$

786

NE

WB

UR

YP

OR

T4

$16,

215

$15,

378

102,

357

478,

566

125,

441_

544,

028

19.4

3%19

.1%

7.15

%9.

7%$6

,762

'.:.:

§:::i

:':n

$8,1

46.

$11,

638

::::::

::''::

::::$

17,9

42

NE

WT

ON

6$6

8,97

2$6

4,28

5

NO

RF

OLK

3$8

,004

$8,3

0571

,513

125,

521

4.25

%9.

5%$1

,034

Mig

g:.:$

4;35

4.'

NO

RT

H A

DA

MS

4$3

5,35

4$3

1,11

069

,562

59,5

994.

75%

5.39

4$1

,124

li.:!

1::$

1.:"

, $1,

074

NO

RT

H A

ND

OV

ER

4$2

0,26

5$1

9,59

912

6,65

998

,854

7.30

%0.

0%$3

,146

,.::.:

:,:.::

:::::,

.....

.... .

$0

NO

RT

H A

TT

LEB

OR

OU

G4

$25,

292

$25,

719

89,3

9081

,650

6.71

%1.

6%$2

,040

1:::

:ik:::

:::$4

44

NO

RT

H B

RO

OK

FIE

LD2

$5,8

06$5

,667

24,5

7229

,069

2.58

%0.

0%$2

16 -

1:i::

:::-;

:::',:

.ii:'1

:t:,::

.:: $

0

NO

RT

H R

EA

DIN

G4

$11,

120

48,9

6856

,904

2.06

%2.

5%\

$343

.i;::

:.;::'

':::::

,;.::.

:1.::

::$48

4

NO

RT

HA

MP

TO

N5

$35,

948

$32,

369

208,

346

259,

727

0.0%

i.';

:..:,:

:::..:

1':::

:::' $

0

NO

RT

HB

OR

OU

GH

4$1

0,44

6$1

0,51

113

1,62

616

0,98

48.

32%

12.5

%$3

,725

::$6

,842

.

' = a

djus

ted

for

infla

tion

(199

1co

nsta

nt d

olla

rs)

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

MU

NIC

IPA

LIT

Y

Pop

.

Gro

up19

88

TO

TA

LG

RA

NT

S

1988

ST

AT

E

(L1G

/ME

G)

1991

TO

TA

L

1988

Circ

ulat

ion

1991

Non

-Res

iden

tas

a

Tot

al

1988

Circ

ulat

ion

Per

cent

of

Circ

ulat

ion 19

91

Est

imat

edN

on-R

esid

ent

Circ

ulat

ion

CO

ST

(NR

C c

irc.

x $0

.34)

......

,....,

......

.....,

..

1988

0:.?

::::::

::::::

::::::

::.1

1...

.....:

,.,

NO

RT

HB

RID

GE

4$1

8,34

766

,454

45,1

759.

89%

10.7

'$2

,234

DIA

:.::::

:;::::

::: $

1 ;6

43

NO

RT

H F

l ELD

2$2

,620

$2,6

6233

,123

30,4

441.

36%

1.2'

$153

1:::

::::1

::::$

124;

NO

RT

ON

4$1

7,35

9$1

5,11

944

,972

61,6

670.

74%

6.6'

$114

eag

e:$1

484:

:-

NO

RW

ELL

3$8

,159

$7,5

4966

,683

5.16

%5.

'$1

,171

A:::

::::::

:411

-A66

:

NO

RW

OO

D5

$28,

017

$25,

025

230,

041

215,

943

4.07

%5-

0' '

$3,1

87 V

ISM

:$3;

671.

':::

OA

K B

LUF

FS

2$1

,661

$1,5

4411

,825

17,2

9447

.64%

46.0

'$1

,915

r-7

4270

5 .

OA

KH

AM

1$2

,024

$2,0

8310

,282

15,6

580.

84%

1.0'

$29

L.:,.

......

......

.,..2

453

$111

i:nag

n264

:

OR

AN

GE

3$1

2,38

4$1

2,34

136

,512

38,7

980.

90%

2.0

OR

LEA

NS

3$4

,039

$3,9

8710

5,01

091

,763

35.8

0%34

.6'

$12,

781

1:::1

::-i1

:::$1

0;79

51

OT

IS1

ialil

iign§

40.::

.

OX

FO

RD

4$1

6,49

3$1

6,02

749

,674

63,0

371.

89%

2.4'

$319

Mng

g.

PA

LME

R4

$16,

721

$16,

685

149,

047

186,

358

26.9

3%39

.6'

$13,

648

::::::

:g'$

25.9

91'.

$514

-3;

..:ia

iti:::

:.:i.;

:if::.

$64T

.

PA

XT

ON

2$4

,190

$3,7

6632

,126

38,0

544.

70%

5.0'

PE

AB

OD

Y5

$47,

259

$44,

193

131,

542

227,

919

4.10

%15

.7'

$1,8

35 fi

::::::

::::::

:412

;166

'

PE

LHA

M1

$2,2

21$2

,194

3,60

35,

587

6.80

%74

.0$8

3 _t

::;:::

.:4:::

::::::

:$'0

406:

PE

MB

RO

KE

4$1

5,38

0$1

4,58

863

,656

61,3

150.

0t::

::1:::

:::=

::::::

::::;:

:::::t

$0

PE

PP

ER

ELL

4$1

0,10

067

,086

92,4

001.

43%

3.6

$325

ON

E*0

31::,

.

PE

RU

1$1

,618

$2,1

182,

631

2,71

23.

9ft:

MIN

W$3

6'::

PE

TE

RS

HA

M1

$1,8

53$1

,782

9,52

39,

399

1.91

%2.

3$6

2 R

igg:

::::::

Q:::

:-$7

4

PH

ILLI

PS

TO

N1

$1,8

11$1

,918

5,07

56,

226

2.17

%2.

5$3

7 ;,:

ilian

g..T

$53'

:

$14,

062

ME

:.$12

,797

):

PIT

TS

FIE

LD5

$65,

484

$53,

608

374,

545

321,

697

11.0

4%11

.7

PLA

INF

IELD

1$1

,573

$1,4

284,

564

6,79

31.

84%

1.6

$29

.f.i::

:::i::

:::::i

*r$3

7'.

PLA

INV

ILLE

3$6

,607

$6,2

899,

039

34,4

931.

11%

22.8

'$3

4 00

42,6

74::

PLY

MO

UT

H5

$34,

279

$35,

524

180,

424

195,

669

3.45

%2.

9$2

,117

tiiil

ing$

L929

.::'

$81

Sili

iiIii0

11:$

248

:1

PLY

M P

TO

N2

$2,4

05$2

,338

13,8

3911

,072

1.71

%6.

6

PR

INC

ET

ON

2$2

,920

$2,9

5729

,446

37,0

500.

0gf

inaa

::' $

0 '

PR

OV

INC

ET

OW

N2

$2,6

25$2

,298

22,4

5321

,146

3.39

%4.

3$2

59 F

,':IN

I:::::

$1e.

S30

9'...

QU

INC

Y6

$88,

603

$82,

020

389,

667

409,

501

4.91

%6.

6$6

,504

Egt

e.S

9,18

9

RA

ND

OLP

H5

$30,

596

$30,

444

179,

919

234,

618

8.50

%10

.9$5

,202

li.:1

;:00:

::i*:

$8;6

95.,

RA

YN

HA

M3

$10,

391

$9,7

7236

,636

40,1

560.

48%

0.9

$60

igtt$

123

RE

AD

ING

4$2

1,62

2$2

0,79

827

7,12

829

5,97

68.

03%

9.4

$7,5

62 :$

9 ;4

59

RE

HO

BO

TH

3$9

,101

$9,2

8312

,844

20,4

990.

0::'

::::::

::::::

::::::

::::':

i:::::

:::',.

$0 .

= a

djus

ted

for

Infla

tion

(199

1 co

nsta

ntdo

llars

)B

ES

T C

OP

YA

VA

ILA

BL

E

MU

NIC

IPA

LIT

Y

Pop

.

Gro

up19

88

TO

TA

LG

RA

NT

S

1988

*

ST

AT

E

(L1G

/ME

G)

1991

TO

TA

L

1988

Circ

ulat

ion

1991

Non

-Res

iden

tas

a

Tot

al

1988

Circ

ulat

ion

Per

cent

of

Circ

ulat

ion 19

91

Est

imat

edN

on-R

esid

ent

Circ

ulat

ion

CO

ST

(NR

C c

irc.

x $0

.34) ..

1988

......

1991

'

RE

VE

RE

5$5

0,00

9$4

7,29

240

,207

49,7

390.

34%

0.6%

$46

> "

:<<

;> :$

101

RIC

HM

ON

D1

$2,0

09$1

,869

7,17

17,

096

0.79

%1.

5%$1

9 Iil

i.::::

:M:::

:::;$

36

RO

CH

ES

TE

R2

$4,0

84$4

,400

7,15

517

,182

2.91

%2.

4%$7

1 f::

::0:4

;tiiii

:;;:$

140.

RO

CK

LAN

D4

$19,

115

$17,

527

68,2

7272

,439

0.61

%1.

4%$1

42 :.

::::::

:::$:

::::::

:6:$

345'

RO

CK

PO

RT

3$5

,489

$5,0

4476

,607

89,1

840.

0%ta

ggg:

:"i:;

.$0

RO

WE

1$1

,406

15,4

941.

71%

$90

::::::

::::::

::::ii

:M-:

;:;:::

:.:$0

.

RO

WLE

Y2

$3,9

45$4

,313

16,6

5520

,194

0.80

%1.

2%$4

5 M

ing:

';:::$

82.

RO

YA

LST

ON

1$2

,126

$2,1

544,

425

7,70

10.

0%S

igin

iga'

::$0.

::

RU

SS

ELL

1$2

,502

$2,7

607,

218

11,7

031.

90%

2.5%

$47

rr"':

1:::1

::$9

RU

TLA

ND

2$6

,161

$5,9

6736

,585

43,5

773.

41%

3.7%

$424

E:::

,.....

..,:.,

::$E

r

SA

LEM

5$3

9,93

8$3

7,19

016

5,70

122

0,39

811

.34%

4.60

%8.

996I

3.0%

$6,3

91 M

ISIR

$6,6

69',

SA

LIS

BU

RY

3$6

,946

$4,9

7541

,095

31,1

38$6

43 1

§::in

g:$3

18.%

SA

ND

ISF

IELD

1$1

,562

$1,4

583,

584

4,21

55.

83%

39.5

%$7

1 $i

::.:;:

10:::

:::::$

566:

'

SA

ND

WIC

H4

$8,3

93$1

0,66

110

3,47

416

3,87

42.

15%

7.0%

$755

t::,.

.,..,:

$3,6

00.

SA

UG

US

5$2

4,27

9$2

4,49

178

,330

84,1

011.

24%

5.2%

$330

001

0.41

.;487

,

SA

VO

Y1

.:::::

:::::t

:M:.*

,A.,,

:.$0

,,....

.,....

......

....,

SC

ITU

AT

E4

$16,

786

135,

549

141,

989

0.99

%2.

5%$4

54 ,;

::::::

!::::i

i.I:-

'::$t

207

SE

EK

ON

K4

$12,

999

$12,

836

108,

631

146,

633

20.9

8%41

.5%

$7,7

49 r

::$2

0,69

0

SH

AR

ON

4$1

4,13

4$1

4,05

014

4.57

215

2,68

72.

18%

1.9%

$1,0

71 ',

':0N

:$98

6.,

SH

EF

FIE

LD2

$2,5

82$2

,445

18,1

7525

,898

0.0%

SH

ELB

UR

NE

2$2

,747

$2,5

1428

,588

37,3

348.

71%

7.8%

......

...

$847

:::;:

::::::

::::.:

::::::

::::::

.$99

0

SH

ER

BO

RN

2$3

,344

$3,0

5336

,271

43,0

986.

90%

8.8%

:,.:..

,:i*.

i..i.;

....-

...-,

$850

P.i.

:i::::

::;N

:$1;

289'

SH

IRLE

Y3

$7,2

37$7

,876

12,6

4817

,001

1.16

%1.

7%$5

0 ?i

:1:::

::.?.

'1:Ii

::::N

::::::

:i:-$

913.

'

SH

RE

WS

BU

RY

4$2

2,69

1$2

1,35

919

5,46

822

7,14

25.

90%

'9.

5%$3

,922

1:::

::r.V

.il$7

,337

.

SH

UT

ES

BU

RY

1r

$1,9

59$2

,102

3,70

212

,123

0.27

%0.

4%$3

1:::

.:i',:

::;:::

14:::

::.::.

1:1;

::.$1

6

SO

ME

RS

ET

4$1

7,14

413

7,51

614

3,69

511

.51%

0.0%

$5,3

82 Ii

i0:::

:ii:;:

i.::::

::.:::

::::::

::::.:

:S

O.

SO

ME

RV

ILLE

6$9

3,77

8$7

6,60

414

6,83

82.

07%

3.5%

$1,0

32 ;i

:ii:',

1:5:

:R$2

,549

SO

UT

H H

AD

LEY

4$2

1,43

8$2

1,44

415

8,91

718

6,58

220

.27%

19.1

%$1

0,95

1 ::1

:::::5

.01$

12,1

17.

SO

UT

HA

MP

TO

N2

$5,2

15$5

,272

29,8

4331

,102

2.79

%1.

0%$2

83 i.

.,::::

:::4:

::::::

::$10

6

SO

UT

HB

OR

OU

GH

3$5

,389

$5,0

3072

,735

76,7

154.

53%

4.5%

$1,1

21 1

:r.',

.'s:F

:!i::

$1,1

74

SO

UT

HB

RID

GE

4$2

6,01

1$1

5,15

911

3,28

710

9,22

127

.16%

29.4

%$1

0,46

1 i:'

:$10

,918

SO

UT

HW

ICK

3$1

0,23

3$1

0,50

437

,118

39,5

543.

57%

3.4%

$450

:::,:

::::1

1::.:

1;:::

:::,::

::$45

.7

adju

sted

for

infla

tion

(199

1co

nsta

nt d

olla

rs)

bEST

CO

PYA

VA

ILA

LL

E.

6 if3

MU

NIC

IPA

LIT

Y

Pop

.

Gro

up19

88

TO

TA

LS

TA

TE

GR

AN

TS

(LI

G/M

EG

)

1988

1991

TO

TA

L

1988

Circ

ulat

ion

1991

Non

-Res

iden

tC

ircul

atio

n

as a

Per

cent

of

Tot

alC

ircul

atio

n

1988

1991

Est

imat

edN

on-R

esid

ent

Circ

ulat

ion

CO

ST

(NR

C c

irc.

x $0

.34)

1988

.O.N

.E10

91

WA

RW

ICK

1$1

,690

$1,5

316,

799

7,49

30.

0%!

..

.....

$0

WA

SH

ING

TO

N1

DO

ES

NO

TH

AV

EA

PU

BLI

CLI

BR

AR

Y:::

.i:!:.

::.:::

::::::

::::'

SO

WA

TE

RT

OW

N5

$31,

405

$28,

325

222,

929

257,

388

14.2

9%17

.9%

$10,

831

iiii;:

:;:i::

:1::

.,665

::

WA

YLA

ND

4$9

,999

$9,5

8011

1,96

615

7,55

87.

73%

14.3

%$2

,943

Zii:

::0:::

:: $7

,660

1

WE

BS

TE

R4

$18,

319

$18,

838

81,0

7483

,507

3.1%

N::!

::!:i1

11:::

'::1:

::.:1

4880

WE

LLE

SLE

Y5

$21,

081

$19,

660

415,

412

398,

533

28.5

6%32

.5%

$40,

344

i;:-.

,:::"

:.$44

,038

WE

LLF

LEE

T2

$1,6

53$1

,580

58,7

9577

,528

16.0

0%18

3%$3

,198

§1?

dig

$4,9

29.::

WE

ND

ELL

1$2

,000

$2,1

282,

875

7,08

61.

57%

1.7%

$15

NM

*

1WE

NH

AM

2$3

,336

$3,5

6975

,436

65,3

2834

.50%

31.3

%$8

.848

tn:;-

:-:S

$8;9

52-:

:::

WE

ST

BO

YLS

TO

N3

$6,1

67$5

,585

40,8

4051

,837

2.52

%3.

9%$3

51 tg

oi:m

::-$6

87-:

.

WE

ST

BR

IDG

EW

AT

ER

3$6

,893

$6,1

8528

,428

27,4

1912

.16%

7.5%

$1,1

75 ii

;.::0

$01$

699

'

WE

ST

BR

OO

KF

IELD

2$3

,934

$4,2

0134

,490

48,5

180.

23%

0.3%

$27

',:':'

::':::

:::.M

.:$49

WE

ST

NE

WB

UR

Y2

$3,0

70$3

,094

86,4

7110

3,41

18.

09%

13.4

%$2

,380

:1:1

1:11

:!:i::

:::I$

4711

-;

WE

ST

SP

RIN

GF

IELD

5$2

9,96

6$2

9,01

314

1,03

217

0,54

13.

30%

6.6%

$1,5

84 ::

:::',:

::5.::

::::::

:$3.

,827

.-.

WE

ST

ST

OC

KB

RID

GE

1$1

,958

$1,8

736,

750

8,14

17.

61%

18.6

8%11

.8%

1$1

75 .!

i:1.§

:igi::

::::::

:*:::

:::$3

27,:.

18.6

%!

$1,4

62 N

::::::

:n::!

::,:.$

1 ;8

53

WE

ST

TIS

BU

RY

1$1

,498

$1,3

5923

,018

29,3

06

WE

ST

BO

RO

UG

H4

$10,

653

$10,

393

125,

467

149,

237

10.9

9%17

.9%

$4,6

86 i;

.:::::

:.;:i:

i:::::

:::::.

$9,0

83

WE

ST

FIE

LD5

$47,

583

$50,

468

281,

901

407,

405

10.4

5%13

.2%

$10,

013

.::::.

!.:ii;

:::::i

::$18

,284

WE

ST

FO

RD

4$1

3,14

1$1

4,15

311

0,77

717

9,15

73.

93%

10.1

%$1

,479

i::::

::::::

::::i:

:' $6

;152

WE

ST

HA

MP

TO

N1

$2,0

53$2

,046

9,77

813

,549

0.30

%0.

2%$1

0.

>'<

;::.:.

::$9

WE

ST

MIN

ST

ER

3$5

,618

$5,9

6332

,662

45,2

360.

73%

3.2%

$81

t:::::

:::01

.,:.:.

.:.$4

92',

WE

ST

ON

4$8

,069

$7,2

5113

9,60

615

8,23

816

.42%

16.6

%$7

,792

f::::

04;:$

8,93

1::

WE

ST

PO

RT

4$1

4,84

0$1

3,51

158

,742

72,3

490.

84%

3.1%

$167

?: g

:-,::

: $76

3

WE

ST

WO

OD

4$1

0,39

5$9

,632

156,

139

179,

089

17.0

6%17

.7%

$9,0

57 t:

:::::-

;16$

10,7

78:

WE

YM

OU

TH

6$6

2,44

622

3,17

119

7,56

85.

95%

5.4%

$4,5

13 i:

::::::

ii-::.

;;-::i

$3,

827.

-

WH

AT

ELY

1$2

,082

$1,8

5214

,710

26,2

240.

68%

1.90

%0.

3961

$34

i:::::

:':;::

::::.;

..-:-

::"-

$27.

3.4%

$205

P.-

::::;.

::::::

-: .$

502

WH

ITM

AN

4$1

7,97

8$1

5,95

231

,729

43,4

04

WIL

BR

AH

AM

4$1

3,11

6$1

3,10

713

5,36

523

1,36

24.

30%

4.2%

$1,9

77 IM

I::::5

1::$

3;30

4

WIL

LIA

MS

BU

RG

2$3

,148

$3,5

1020

,040

28,5

693.

11%

4.1%

$212

.::1

::0:::

k:::.

.::.:$

398

WIL

LIA

MS

TO

WN

3$9

,834

$8,3

6166

,366

80,0

434.

10%

14.8

%$9

25 V

:::W

:i:::

$4,0

28

WIL

MIN

GT

ON

4$1

5,32

2$1

5,01

110

5,00

413

0,11

85.

08%

10.6

%$1

,813

i::::

:::-:

:i.:"

:$4;

689

WIN

CH

EN

DO

N3

$11,

027

34,9

1942

,689

2.19

%1.

9%$2

59 ::

::::::

:::k.

::::::

.;::$

276:

t37

adiu

sted

for

Infla

tion

(199

1 co

nsta

nt d

olla

rs)

,;EST

CO

PYM

AIL

AB

LE

k

MU

NIC

IPA

LIT

Y

Pop.

Gro

up

1988

TO

TA

LG

RA

NT

S

1988

STA

TE

(LIG

(ME

G)

1991

TO

TA

L

1958

Cir

cula

tion

1991

Non

- R

esid

ent

as a

Tot

al

1988

Cir

cula

tion

Perc

ent o

fC

:icul

atio

n 1991

Est

imat

edC

ircu

latio

n(N

RC

cir

c.19

88

Non

-Res

iden

tC

OST

x $0

.34) v,

:.-0

,:

:::i,-

:.1

WIN

CH

EST

ER

4$1

6,90

8$1

5,90

222

8,07

723

7,24

57.

54%

8.6'

.$5

,850

':::::

::::::

::::::

:$6,

937

WIN

DSO

R1

WIN

TH

RO

P4

$21,

160

$20,

664

59,5

5368

,407

0.34

%0.

0$6

9:::

:::::

::::::

:.ii::

:::':'

:::':$

0

WO

BU

RN

5$3

4,75

3$3

3,16

599

,238

126,

307

1.65

%1.

1$5

561:

::;:::

:::':i

1::::

:;::.:

:::::i

,:$47

2f

WO

RC

EST

ER

7$2

13,6

21$1

90,3

2878

4,31

470

7,20

414

.95%

16.4

$39,

871

i.:Z

,::;:4

039,

434

WO

RT

HIN

GT

ON

1$2

,010

$1,8

829,

867

19,1

671.

77%

4.1

$60

1::::

::fM

"::;:

:::, $

267

WR

EN

TH

AM

3$8

,855

$9,0

0346

,963

50,6

141.

58%

1.3

$252

.::,..

.:i:

::::,

$224

YA

RM

OU

TH

4$1

5,68

7$1

4,62

416

5,05

515

2,65

67.

98%

11.2

$4,4

79::'

::::::

:::;N

::::::

; $5,

813

70

= a

djus

ted

for

Infla

tion

(199

1 co

nsta

nt d

olla

rs)