EDITION 2022
HOW ALABAMA
CITIES COMPARE
An examination of revenue and expenditure data for
municipalities to provide insight and drive informed choices.
How Alabama Cities Compare,
22
(GLWLRQ
This report was made possible by support from the
Community Foundation of Greater Birmingham
3XEOLVKHGE\WKH3XEOLF$IIDLUV5HVHDUFK&RXQFLORI$ODEDPD
%LUPLQJKDP$ODEDPD
ZZZSDUFDODEDPDRUJ
2
How Alabama Cities Compare,
2022Edition
Thomas Spencer
Senior Research Associate
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 1
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3
Tax Revenues ....................................................................................................................... 5
Tax Revenue Mix .......................................................................................................................... 6
Tax Revenues Per Capita .......................................................................................................... 8
Sales Tax Revenue ..................................................................................................................... 10
Property Tax Revenue .............................................................................................................. 12
Occupational and Business License Tax Revenues ......................................................... 13
Expenditures ........................................................................................................................ 17
Police and Fire Spending ......................................................................................................... 19
Amenities ...................................................................................................................................... 19
Utilities ......................................................................................................................................... 22
Improving Municipal Reporting .................................................................................... 24
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 25
1
Executive Summary
Understanding a city’s revenues and expenditures in comparison to other
cities is a fundamental tool for effective management.
By benchmarking against neighbors, a city may discover it is spending more
than necessary. Alternatively, city leaders may conclude that a higher level of
investment puts the city at a competitive advantage, providing a higher level
of service and better quality of life for residents.
Unfortunately, making such comparisons is difficult in Alabama. Unlike other
states, cities in Alabama are neither required nor encouraged to use a uniform
chart of accounts, a standard system for coding revenues and expenditures.
Nor does Alabama have an effective system for publishing and sharing the
kind of comparable data that could be produced with a uniform chart of
accounts. For instance, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida have a statewide
reporting system that makes city and county financial information available
online in a downloadable format that allows for detailed comparisons
between peer cities or counties.
If Alabama wants to gather this data and equip its cities with a tool for
comparison, the U.S. Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of State and Local
Finances provides an existing base of information already submitted by city
governments.
In terms of tax collections, an analysis of the most recent data from the
Census survey finds:
1. Alabama cities heavily depend on sales tax, with almost 60% of revenue
coming from that source.
2. Of cities with populations more than 20,000, per capita tax collections
range from $2,674 in Homewood to $402 in Prichard.
3. Oxford has the highest per capita sales tax revenue at $1,502 per
resident.
4. Mountain Brook is the only city in Alabama to collect more in property
taxes than in sales, with 46% of municipally collected revenue coming
from the property tax.
5. Birmingham leads the cities in occupational and business licenses taxes
per capita, with that revenue contributing 42% of city tax revenue.
2
Meanwhile, on the expenditure side, the survey reveals:
1. The governments in North Alabama spend more than governments in
the rest of the state because they operate public utilities, including
municipal electricity providers.
2. Excluding utilities, Birmingham and Bessemer, both cities that receive
an influx of commuters, spend more per capita on the broad range of
municipal services. That includes topping the list for per capita
spending on police and fire.
3. Oxford tops the list in per capita spending on parks and recreation.
Smaller cities that report the operation of municipal sports, arts, and
recreation facilities rank high in this category.
4. The data offers the potential to track spending on municipal courts, jails,
solid waste disposal, and other categories of spending, but currently,
cities appear to diverge widely in how they report that information in
the survey.
Working with state officials and with assistance from the U.S. Census Bureau,
Alabama local governments could develop a more streamlined system for
generating and reporting this data. With closer agreement on how to
categorize particular revenues and expenditures, the survey could provide
clearer, more actionable comparable data. The survey includes questions on
debt. Better reporting of this data can provide more transparency to the
public. A more robust system could also provide better accountability and
oversight, potentially avoiding bankruptcy and scandal.
However, it will take leadership, likely by state officials, to gather consensus
and execute a system cities, counties, and other local entities are motivated to
participate in.
3
Introduction
Since 1989, PARCA has produced reports comparing the finances of
Alabama’s largest cities, those with populations of 20,000 or more. This
report is the latest installment of that series.
PARCA has traditionally prepared its
How Alabama Cities Compare
report
based on data gathered from the individual cities as reported in audits,
budgets, and other financial statements, and through interviews with local
officials. Because Alabama does not require cities to track or report their
finances uniformly, creating apples-to-apples statistical comparisons between
cities is difficult. The process requires extensive historical knowledge of cities’
unique accounting practices and significant restructuring of cities’ financial
reports. Moreover, the reports were much delayed.
Our 2022 edition of
How Alabama Cities Compare
introduces a new
methodology, highlights the challenges of comparing municipal finances, and
proposes a better way to collect the information in a standardized way that
should produce comparable data more quickly. After building consensus and
adjusting existing practices, such a system would save cities time and provide
the data they need to manage their affairs.
Obstacles to Comparison
Unlike other states, cities in Alabama are neither required nor encouraged to
use a uniform chart of accounts, a standardized system for coding revenues
and expenditures.
A uniform chart of accounts is not a foreign concept in Alabama. All Alabama
public schools must keep their financial data in a uniform chart of accounts.
Likewise, the Alabama Department of Examiners of Public Accounts (DEPA)
provides a chart of accounts for Alabama counties to follow.
Nor does Alabama have an effective system for publishing and sharing city
(or county) finance data. In all states surrounding Alabama and in most states
throughout the country, a statewide body or agency recommends or requires
a uniform chart of accounts. A uniform chart of accounts does not prevent a
city from adding local variations that conform with existing practices or
adding new codes or categories as circumstances arise. However, agreeing to
a general scheme of coding transactions makes comparable financial reports
easier to produce.
4
And it allows for greater transparency and public oversight.
Cities are required by Alabama law (Ala. Code § 11-43-85) to conduct an audit
once a year, and that audit, by law (Act 94-414), is to be sent to DEPA, which
serves as the repository and provider to the public of those reports.
However, compliance with these statutes is uneven. DEPA does not post city
audits on its website, though they are available by request. A search of the
catalog of filed reports makes it clear that many cities do not submit their
audits regularly. And no authority checks to see if cities are even producing
audits or any form of year-end financial statement.
Data and Methodology
The data for the comparisons in this report are drawn from the U.S. Census
Bureau’s Annual Survey of State and Local Finances. Included are the
responses from Alabama cities with populations over 20,000. Cities answer a
questionnaire in response to this survey, and the Census publishes those
responses. When data are missing, the Census Bureau attempts to obtain and
sometimes estimate those figures. Because data from Daphne and Northport
are identified as having been imputed by the Bureau rather than reported,
those cities are not included in the analysis.
This data, published in 2021, is drawn from the fiscal year 2019. However,
because Alabama fiscal years typically run from October to October, many
cities will have used audited 2018 fiscal year data to answer this survey. If the
State of Alabama and its cities collaborated on an information gathering
system, these results could be produced in a more timely fashion. PARCA will
update this dataset later this year when the Census publishes updated data.
Using Census data allows a more timely report and one that can be tested and
verified by others.
The Census has worked with other states to streamline and digitize
information production and submission, involving the state and localities. The
cities and the state can then utilize the information rather than just submitting
it to the Bureau. For the Bureau, it increases the likelihood that the surveys
are completed and submitted.
5
The comparative picture the data paints is similar to findings in previous
PARCA reports based on data collected from published reports and financial
records.
However, Census data does suffer from similar limitations as other methods of
comparing city finances, including PARCA’s previous methods.
Most notably, while the Census surveys ensure that data are reported in a
standard format, the Census does not
define
what data should be reported.
This is most clearly seen in how sales tax revenues are reported. Some
Alabama cities report all sales taxes collected by the city, regardless of the
revenue’s purpose. In contrast, other cities only report the sales tax collected
and expended by the city. Sales taxes collected by the city and transferred to
the local school system, a common practice, is not reported. Similar variances
occur with occupational taxes, transfers of revenue between governments,
and other revenue and expense sources. The report notes some identified
shortcomings and examples of situations where cities interpreted instructions
differently and took differing approaches to submitting data.
Tax Revenues
Alabama cities heavily depend on the sales tax for revenue. In most states, the
property tax is the primary source of revenue for a city. In Alabama, property
taxes are hard to raise, and their ability to produce revenue is limited thanks
to constitutional limits on tax rates and how properties are valued.
In contrast, Alabama has a relatively low state sales tax, and cities are free to
enact a sales tax. Figure 1 depicts the total revenue from each tax source
generated by all reporting Alabama municipalities. The total amount is not
meaningful, but the comparison between the sources of the tax is. In the
aggregate, Alabama cities collect three times more from sales taxes than from
property taxes.
6
Figure 1. Total revenue generated by municipal taxes in Alabama, by type
The revenue from sales taxes dwarfs the tax revenue from any other source.
Property taxes come in second, with occupational and business licenses
coming in third.
Tax Revenue Mix
Figure 2 presents the tax revenue mix of the Alabama cities that participated
in the Census survey and were over 20,000 in population. The cities are
ranked in descending order by the percentage of tax revenue from sales tax.
Most cities in Alabama get more than half their revenue from the sales tax.
The city with the lowest percentage of tax revenue from the sales tax is
Mountain Brook. Mountain Brook is the only city in Alabama where property
tax is a larger source of revenue than the sales tax.
However, the city passes almost half of that property tax revenue (44%) to its
city schools. Other Alabama cities also dedicate some portion of property tax
revenues that they raise to their schools. Reviewing the data from the Census
survey, it appears that some municipalities choose to report their total
municipal property tax amount raised while others report only the municipal
property revenue raised that is used for city purposes. Many cities also chose
to send some proceeds from the sales tax to the school system, either by
formula or annual appropriation.
7
Figure 2. Tax mix, percentage of tax revenue, by type
The cities at the bottom of the list, where sales taxes make up a very high
percentage of the tax revenue raised, tend to be regional trade hubs where
the city in question draws shoppers from surrounding areas. These are cities
where the number of retail and restaurant establishments is
disproportionately large compared to the number of city residents.
Consequently, they are more likely to see revenue losses from the Simplified
Sellers Use Tax formula.
8
Cities with a dark green portion of the bar, like Birmingham and Gadsden,
have income-based occupational taxes. Other cities with occupational taxes,
like Opelika, report that revenue as part of the occupational and business
license tax (yellow portion of the bar). This is another example of how the
data would be more informative if cities agreed on how to report that
revenue.
Tax Revenues Per Capita
The amount of tax revenue a city generates is based on the city’s tax rate and
its tax base. Obviously, higher tax rates bring in more revenue. However, the
value of a city’s tax base is also important. In Alabama, a city’s mix of land
uses and the value of the real estate in the city strongly influences how much
the property tax yields.
Cities with a higher share of residential property compared to commercial
property have a harder time generating tax revenue. Residential property is
taxed at 10% of its value, compared to a rate of 20% for business property and
30% for utility property.
Cities with a higher proportion of commercial property generate more from
both property and sales tax. Figure 3 compares Alabama cities and adjusts
the comparison for the city’s relative population.
9
Figure 3. Total tax revenue per capita
Homewood generates more total tax revenue than any other Alabama city
per capita.
The Birmingham suburb has an unusually high ratio of commercial property to
residential property. That commercial property includes properties that
generate significant revenue through retail sales. Both its commercial and
residential properties are valuable. Homewood’s tax rates are relatively high
for Alabama. Valuable property, relatively high tax rates, and a relatively low
population mean high per capita tax revenues for Homewood.
However, Homewood’s high per capita collections do not all go to city
government. Like in Mountain Brook, a portion of Homewood’s municipal
property tax is earmarked for its city schools ($9 million in 2019). The city also
sent $9 million of its sales tax to schools.
10
Sales Tax Revenue
Data drawn from the Census survey produces some expected results and
others that are surprising, at least on the surface. The surprises are the
product of the way cities collect and allocate their taxes.
For example, topping the list in per capita sales taxes is Oxford. Oxford’s total
combined sales tax rate is 10%, with 5% of that 10% going directly to the city.
Oxford is a smaller city, just over 20,000 in population, but it has a major
cluster of retail, hotels, and shopping just off Interstate 20. That produces a
large volume of sales tax activity in comparison to its population, pushing up
the city’s per capita collections. As a consequence, Oxford has a strong tax
base compared to its population and is able to support extensive city services
as well as providing support to the city school system through the sales tax
base.
On the other hand, Tuscaloosa’s ranks near the bottom in Figure 4’s
comparison of per capita sales tax collections. That doesn’t seem accurate,
considering the revenue-generating potential of the University of Alabama.
Currently, consumers in Tuscaloosa also pay 10% on purchases.
11
Figure 4. Sales tax collections per capita
The quirk lies in the way sales taxes are collected in Tuscaloosa. Tuscaloosa
County collects 3% of that 10% sales tax and then redistributes much of it to
the cities.
Tuscaloosa reports its share of the county sales tax as an intergovernmental
transfer, not a tax. Thus, Tuscaloosa’s city government derives more from the
local sales tax than is indicated by the sales taxes per capita measure.
On this Census survey, Tuscaloosa only reported proceeds from the 2% sales
tax in place in 2018. When the transfer from the county is added back in,
Tuscaloosa’s per capita revenue jumps to No. 15, just trailing Mobile and
Auburn. Tuscaloosa has since raised its direct city sales tax to 3%.
Cities lower on the per capita sales tax list tend to be primarily residential,
have a lower city tax rate, or are limited in commercial activity. Often, the
cities with a lower rate are located in a county that levies a higher sales tax
rate, like Baldwin or Montgomery.
12
For example, Fairhope has a relatively valuable base of economic activity to
tax but applies a lower rate, 2%, than most major cities. Fairhope’s rate is low,
in part, because Baldwin County imposes a 3% countywide sales tax.
Property Tax Revenue
Alabama raises less state and local property taxes per capita than any state in
the U.S. In most of the country, the property tax is the primary tax for funding
local governments. In Alabama, property taxes are hard to raise, and state
constitutional provisions control rates and valuations. Figure 5 displays per
capita property taxes.
Figure 5. Property tax collections per capita
As with other measures, the Census survey provides some basis for
comparison between cities but also shows differences in the ways cities
report some of the numbers.
13
Mountain Brook and Homewood both report municipal property tax millages
collected by the city but distributed to the school systems. Vestavia Hills also
collects property taxes that it distributes to the schools. However, when
Vestavia answers the Census survey, it only reports the amount collected for
municipal purposes. If Vestavia were to report the millage it collects on behalf
of schools, its per capita property tax revenue would be more than twice the
$459 per capita depicted above. If Homewood and Mountain Brook excluded
that municipal millage for schools, their per capita collections would be 44%
lower.
At the other end of the spectrum, Dothan and Prichard simply have low
municipal property tax rates, both at five mills. But Gadsden’s low ranking is
misleading. Gadsden collects 12 mills of property tax and sends six to the
Gadsden City Schools. Like Vestavia Hills, Gadsden’s response to the Census
survey only reports the revenue from the mills that stay with the city. The city
also receives three additional mills that are earmarked for fire protection.
Since those three mills are not strictly city property taxes, they are not
reported to the Census, but they do go to fund municipal operations.
Again, if the Census survey is to serve as a comparative tool, city finance
officials will need to agree on how to handle situations such as these.
Occupational and Business License Tax Revenues
All major Alabama cities collect some revenue from business licenses, and 25
cities in Alabama collect an occupational license tax from anyone who works
in that city. These occupational taxes are reported as income tax in some
cities, including Birmingham, Gadsden, and Bessemer. On the other hand,
Opelika lumps the revenue from its occupational tax in with other business
license revenue.
Figure 6 compares per capita occupational taxes and business license
revenue across Alabama cities with populations larger than 20,000. Also
included in Figure 6 are other license revenues and public utility taxes or
licenses. Not included are charges collected from operating public utilities.
Some cities, especially in the Tennessee Valley Authority territory of North
Alabama, operate public utilities: electricity, gas, water, and sewer. But the
revenue from billing is accounted for elsewhere in the Census survey as
charges.
The top five cities in Figure 6 have an occupational tax, even though they
differ in how they report that revenue to the Census. Occupational taxes tend
14
to be adopted in cities with a concentration of employment and large
numbers of workers commuting into the city to work. The city provides the
infrastructure and services needed to support businesses and jobs, and thus
seeks a way to capture tax support from the commuters.
Figure 6. Business and Occupational Taxes Per Capita
Occupational taxes are more common in the industrial Midwest but are also
found in the Mid-Atlantic states, the Plains, and the West Coast. The Tax
Foundation tallied 3,816 municipalities and 190 counties across the U.S. that
15
assess local income taxes, as well as some school districts and other forms of
special districts.
1
Figure 7. Tax Foundation map of states where local income taxes are collected. In states shaded dark
purple, enough data was available to estimate local income taxes as a percentage of the state’s adjusted
gross income.
In Alabama, occupational taxes tend to be clustered:
2
• Birmingham area: Birmingham, Bessemer, Fairfield, Midfield, and Leeds.
Mountain Brook has an occupational tax on the books but reduced its
rate to zero and does not collect it.
• Etowah County: Gadsden, Attalla, Glencoe, Rainbow City, and
Southside.
• Auburn and Opelika
1
“Local Income Taxes in 2019 | Local Income Tax | City & County Level,”
Tax Foundation
(blog), July 30, 2019, https://taxfoundation.org/local-income-taxes-2019/.
2
For a complete list of cities with and occupational tax see, Alabama League of
Municipalities, https://almonline.org/TaxRates.aspx#OccupationalTax.
16
In Birmingham’s case, the tax was adopted in the early 1970s as suburban
flight led to an outflow of population from Birmingham. The occupational tax
allowed Birmingham to maintain a base to support economic and
infrastructure development, transit, and other cultural amenities.
The adoption of an occupational tax is included as a general power of
municipalities under the Code of Ala. 1975, § 11-51-90(a)(1).
However, in 2020, the Legislature passed, and Gov. Kay Ivey signed Act
2020-14, which requires that the Legislature must approve any occupational
tax passed by a city. This bill came in response to the City of Montgomery’s
passage of an occupational tax, and it nullified Montgomery’s attempt. The
legislative approval requirement makes it much less likely that another city
will successfully adopt an occupational tax.
17
Expenditures
The Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of State and Local Finances also includes
information on expenditures. Figure 8 includes most general government
categories of current operations spending. It does not include utilities or
capital spending.
Cities should be interested in making comparisons of their spending on similar
functions, like police and fire, the operation of courts and jails, solid waste
collection, libraries, and parks and recreation operations.
Figure 8. Per Capita Spending on General Government Functions
18
The survey data shows promise as an analytical tool. But it is also clear that
the quality and comparability of the data would benefit from a common
approach to categorizing and reporting data.
Seeing Birmingham and Bessemer atop the ranking in per capita spending on
government is not surprising. Both cities collect occupational taxes from
residents and non-residents. The Census Bureau estimates that 80% of
Birmingham’s workforce commutes into the city. In Bessemer, 91% of the
workforce commutes in, according to the estimates. Both are at or near the
top in per capita spending on police and fire, which are the costliest functions
of municipal governments. But that’s understandable, since the population
they serve is almost double each city’s resident population. However, this may
also be affected by how cities report the data. It appears that neither
Bessemer nor Birmingham separates out corrections spending like other cities
do. That may account for higher total spending on police.
19
Police and Fire Spending
Figure 9. Per capita spending on first response services
Meanwhile, low per capita spending can be partially explained by unusual
approaches. Fairhope, for example, is served by a volunteer fire department.
That department is supported by a 1.5 mill property tax collected by the
county. Another unusual example is the City of Auburn’s fire department.
Along with its professional firefighters, Auburn supplements its workforce
with student firefighters who receive pay, tuition reimbursement, and other
benefits. The program saves the city money and provides valuable job
experience to Auburn undergraduates.
Amenities
Referring to Figure 8, it is surprising to see Pelham, Oxford, and Anniston in
the Top 10 in per capita spending.
20
All three are relatively small cities, just over 20,000 in population. However,
all three operate commercial-type enterprises under the umbrella of the city
government.
Pelham and Oxford both have golf courses. Pelham operates an ice rink and
civic complex. Oxford has a major performing arts center and a regional
athletic field complex. Anniston has two museums. Fairhope has a municipal
pier.
In all those cases, the city owns the venues, but the venues generate much of
their own revenue through events, operations, or private support. The Census
survey asks for those types of operations to be included: “Parks and
recreation—playgrounds; golf courses; swimming pools; museums; marinas;
community music, drama, festivals; zoos, and other cultural activities.”
21
Figure 10. Per capita and current operations spending on parks and recreation
There are almost endless variations in how cities operate auxiliary functions,
and it is hard to know which cities report which operations on the survey. This
is another area in which cities, state associations, and state officials could
come to a common understanding of reporting.
Even within common categories, the figures in the Census indicate that
different cities’ expenditures are reported differently. Relatively few cities, for
instance, break out correctional expenses. There is also a wide variation in
spending on judicial and legal services, as it is captured in the survey.
22
Utilities
Figure 8 excluded expenditures on utilities. Figures 9 and 10 provide a
glimpse of figures reported in the survey for municipal electric and water
utilities. These figures are not adjusted for the city population because the
utilities often serve residents outside the city limits. Most municipal electric
utilities are in the part of the state serviced by the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA). TVA generates the power. The cities resell it to customers and
maintain the local grid.
Figure 11. Total electric revenue and expenditures on operations
In some cities, additional information is provided on expenditures on utility
construction and payment of interest on debt. The centrality of the services
provided, and the scale of revenue and expenditures involved, is a reminder of
the cornerstone role that government plays. It also underlines the need for
reliable, comparable public information on their entire operations.
23
Figure 12. Water revenue and current operations spending
24
Improving Municipal Reporting
Municipal finance data would be more timely and more reliable if the State of
Alabama, working with cities, devised a standardized method for tracking and
reporting financial data. That would entail:
• Creating a uniform chart of accounts, a standard system of codes for
tracking revenues and expenditures.
• Devising a simplified reporting process through which cities could
submit financial information to a shared database for reporting to the
Census and the state.
• Task a state agency with monitoring financial reports in an attempt to
head off financial problems before they’re critical.
A standardized system would allow cities to provide comparable financial
information. Public officials, auditors, and accountants could decode a
municipality’s revenues and expenses more quickly. Citizens could compare
spending.
Most states require or recommend a uniform chart of accounts for cities.
Alabama requires one for schools. The Examiners of Public Accounts
recommends counties use a chart of accounts developed in a partnership
between the Examiners and counties.
Similarly, the state could partner with cities to create an automated method
for producing and submitting answers to the Census survey. That, in turn,
could improve the quality of response to the Census’s annual survey. The
Census Bureau has cooperated with other states to create coordinated
reporting procedures. In 27 states, a central agency gathers the data and
transmits it to the Census Bureau. In several states, a cooperative
arrangement and electronic portal, designed in cooperation with the Census
Bureau, allows state and local officials to draw on the submitted data for
comparison and analysis purposes.
Finally, Alabama needs a financial early warning system. Alabama has had
eight municipal bankruptcies since 1988, more than any other state.
Alabama tends to restrict the power of local government but, at the same
time, provides little to no oversight. Other states grant cities and counties
more operational freedom but require detailed financial reporting. Those
25
submissions are reviewed. In some cases, the state can take control of cities in
financial distress.
While Alabama cities likely enjoy their autonomy, they would also benefit
from accessible, comparable data and a climate of stable, responsible,
accountable government. The more frequent occurrence of municipal
bankruptcies here likely increases borrowing costs across the state because of
perceived risk.
Conclusion
Alabama has an inconsistent philosophy when it comes to local government.
On the one hand, the state government places constraining bonds around
local governments, controlling taxation and local government authorities.
Alabama counties lack home rule and can only exercise powers granted to
them by the Alabama Constitution or the Legislature. Cities have more
authority and police power. However, the state can and often does intervene
in local matters.
Yet Alabama state government provides relatively little regular oversight of
local government. While cities are required by state law to have an audit
performed annually, no agency checks to see that an audit is performed.
State law requires cities to submit those audits to a repository maintained by
the Department of Examiners of Public Accounts, but compliance with this
requirement is spotty. And if the audits are submitted, no one is charged with
reviewing them.
Unlike systems available in many states, including several neighbors, Alabama
cities do not have available to them a common bank of data on how municipal
governments tax and spend. And because each city is on its own to design a
code system for organizing and categorizing its finances, cross-city
comparison is difficult.
In subsequent research, PARCA intends to present options and examples
drawn from other states for creating a common store of public record data on
local government revenue and expenditures. It is hoped that this information
will inspire a conversation between cities, counties, accounting firms, and
state finance officials. Local governments already face a heavy accounting
burden. With the recent inflow of federal funding, it is more important than
ever that finances be carefully tracked and ultimately assessed for the
effectiveness of their investment.
WHO WE ARE
The Public Aairs Research Council of Alabama is a nonpartisan research
organization focused on helping state and community leaders make better-informed
public policy decisions.
WHAT WE BELIEVE
State and community leaders make better-informed decisions when provided
with unbiased, nonpartisan data and resources about the topics they care
about the most.
HOW WE WORK
We conducts non
partisan research on issues affecting the people of
Alabama so state and community leaders, and others, can make
better-informed decisions based on facts, not rhetoric.
We independently evaluate the efficacy of public
programs and services.
We offer technical and research assistance for public and
nonprofit partners to help them integrate the use of accurate data
into their work.
We engage in meaningful dialogue with state and community leaders
and others on the topics Alabamians care about the most.
WHY WE MATTER
There are many groups and organizations vying for the attention of state and community leaders. It’s often hard to
identify what’s real from alternative facts and partisan-leaning talking points. Our founders started the Public Affairs
Research Council of Alabama more than three decades ago to counter the rising tide of misinformation. They
recognized then, and it remains true today, that emotional appeals and fiery rhetoric often lead to indecision and false
choices.
Major Projects
PARCA’s research informs
major policy debates of the
day and is relied upon
by
policymakers and policy
organizations across
the spectrum.
School
Funding
Alabama First
Class Pre-K
Rolling
Reserve Act
Regional
Collaboration
Medicaid
Expansion
SUPPORT
US
205-726-2972 [email protected] @PARCA.AL
@parcalabama
@parcalabama
2022 Board of Directors
DAVID DONALDSON*
PRESIDENT
Senior Advisor to the
Chairman & CEO, Retired
Vulcan Materials Company
-Birmingham-
MACKE MAULDIN*
VICE PRESIDENT
President
Bank Independent
-Florence-
TYRONE FENDERSON, JR.*
TREASURER
Mobile-Baldwin County
Market President
Synovous Bank
-Mobile-
J.T. PRICE*
SECRETARY
CEO
LandscapeWorkshop
-Birmingham-
BETSY HOLLOWAY, Ph.D.*
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT
Vice President Marketing
and Communication
Samford University
-Birmingham-
Rose Allen
Community Volunteer
-Huntsville-
Fred Blackwell
President
Fred Blackwell Roofing
-Smith’s Station-
Stan Blanton
Managing Partner
Balch & Bingham
-Birmingham-
Preston Bolt
Member
Hand Arendall Harrison Sale
-Mobile-
Tom Brinkley
Shareholder
Maynard Cooper Gale
-Birmingham-
J.W. Carpenter
President
Prosper
-Birmingham-
Daniel Coleman
President
Birmingham-Southern College
-Birmingham-
Kate Cotton
*
Executive Director
Leadership Alabama
-Birmingham-
Leigh Davis
Vice-President, Economic and
Community Development
Alabama Power
-Birmingham-
John Driscoll
CEO
Alabama State Port Authority
-Mobile-
Brian Hamilton
CEO
Trillion Communications
-Birmingham-
Joe Hampton
President
Spire Energy
-Birmingham-
Abe Harper
President
Harper Technologies
-Mobile-
Judd Harwood
Partner
Bradley Arant Boult
& Cummings
-Birmingham-
Horace Horn
Vice President
of External Affairs
PowerSouth Energy
Cooperative
-Montgomery-
Ted Hosp
Vice President,
Governmental Affairs
Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Alabama
-Montgomery-
C. Wayne Hutchens
President
AT&T Alabama
-Birmingham-
Donny Jones
Chief Operating Officer
Chamber of Commerce of
West Alabama
-Tuscaloosa-
Cathy Sloss Jones
President and CEO
Sloss Real Estate
-Birmingham-
Mary Pat Lawrence
Senior Vice President,
Government Affairs
Protective Life Corporation
-Birmingham-
Kim Lewis
CEO
PROJECTXYZ
-Huntsville-
Deborah J. Long*
Executive Vice President,
Chief Legal Officer and
Secretary, Retired
Protective Life Corporation
-Birmingham-
Larkin Martin
Agent
Martin Farm
-Courtland-
Scott McLain*
Principal
and Managing Broker
Coldwell Banker Commercial
McLain Real Estate
-Huntsville-
David Muhlendorf
President & CEO, Retired
LDM Company
-Florence-
Charles Nailen
Owner
BBG Specialty Foods
-Dothan-
Steven Nichols
General Counsel
Mercedes-Benz USA
-Tuscaloosa-
Stratton Orr
CEO
Sexton, Inc.
-Decatur-
Alan Register
Birmingham Market
President
Regions Financial
Corporation
- Birmingham-
Dudley Reynolds
CEO, Retired
Alagasco
-Birmingham-
Lindsay Sinor*
President
Vulcan Lands, Inc.
-Birmingham-
Bryson Stephens
Chairman
EBSCO
-Birmingham-
George Talbot
Director of Government
Relations
Volkert, Inc.
-Mobile-
Beck Taylor, Ph.D.
President
Samford University
-Birmingham-
Jeff Traywick
+
Vice President, Economic
Development
Birmingham Business Alliance
-Birmingham-
Neal Wade
Director
Advanced Economic
Development Leadership
Program
-Oneonta-
* Executive Committee
+ Ex Officio
P. O. BOX 293931 · 800 LAKESHORE DRIVE · BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35229 · 205 726 2482
PARCALABAMA.ORG
P.O. BOX 293931
800 LAKESHORE DRIVE
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35229
205-726-2482
PARCALABAMA.ORG
