17 These conclusions, as well as those relating to forms of government and age of settlement, are based upon an analysis of 1960 census data by Thomas A. Dye in "Urban Political Integration: Conditions Associated with Annexation in American Cities," Midwest Journal of Political Science (November 1964), pp. 430-66.

18 Dye, "Urban Political Integration," pp. 445-446.

19

Age is determined by Dye by decades passed since the central city of the metropolitan area first attained a population of 50,000.

20 Voluntary Municipal Merger Procedures (Advance draft), Massachusetts Legislative Research Council Report, March 11, 1970, p. 17a.

21 Frank S. Sengstock, Annexation: A Solution to the Metropolitan Area Problem, Michigan Legal Publications (Ann Arbor Legislative Research Center, University of Michigan Law School, 1960).

22National League of Cities, Adjusting Municipal Boundaries: Law and Practice (Washington, D.C.: The League, 1966), p.4.

23 National League of Cities, Adjusting Municipal Boundaries. . ., pp. 77-354 passim.

24 Fifteen States allow the electorate of the annexing municipality to determine independently of other groups whether territory should be added. Sengstock, Annexation: A Solution to the Metropolitan Area Problem, p. 18.

25 National League of Cities, Adjusting Municipal Boundaries. . p. 198. Regarding practices in Texas, see Stuart A. McCorkle, Municipal Annexation in Texas (Austin: Institute of Public Affairs, University of Texas, 1965).

26 Forstall, "Changes in Land Area. . .”, p. 87.

27 McCorkle, op. cit., p. 28-30, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Number of Inhabitants, U.S. Summary (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971), pp. 171-178.

28 National League of Cities, Adjusting Municipal Boundaries. . ., p.15.

29 National League of Cities, Adjusting Municipal Boundaries..., p.16.

30 Chester W. Bain, Annexation in Virginia (Charlottesville: University of Virginia, 1966), pp. 234-36.

31 Local ad hoc annexation bodies have been authorized or utilized in Washington and New Mexico. Annexation boards in New Mexico have never functioned. In Ohio, county boards of supervisors sit as discretionary boundary adjustment review boards. The Iowa legislature has provided for a statewide City Development Board with discretionary boundary review powers, which will become operational in 1974. See M. G. Woodruff III, "Systems and Standards of Municipal Annexation Review: A Comparative Analysis," Georgetown Law Journal 58 (MarchMay 1970) pp. 743-775.

Nevada employs local advisory commissions in annexation actions in most counties.

The State of Wisconsin provides an advisory administrative review of certain annexation proposals. All municipalities in Wisconsin counties over 50,000 are required to submit any proposed annexations to the head of the Bureau of Planning in the Department of Local Affairs and Development. Cities in counties of under 50,000 may do so if they wish. Although the statute charges the administrator to consider whether the proposed boundary change is in "the public interest," in practice review has been limited to the statutory guidelines of whether the territory to be annexed will receive better governmental services and whether the configuration of the area to be annexed and its location in relation to the annexing jurisdiction are satisfactory. The

43 LeCates, California Local Agency Formation Commissions, pp. 48, 58.

44 In the 1970-71 appropriation bill the Oregon legislature directed its boundary commissions "...to begin to investigate such special districts as soon as possible and to initiate proceedings to consolidate, or eliminate such districts and transfer their functions to other units of government, i.e., cities, county service districts, or multiple service metropolitan service districts. . . Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission, 1971-72 Summary of Activities (Eugene, Oregon, 1972), pp. 3-4.

In 1965, the California legislature passed a District Reorganization Act which attempted to enhance the ability of LAFCO's to control special district incorporation and growth.

45 John Goldbach, Boundary Changes in California: The Local Agency Formation Commissions (Davis, California: Institute of Governmental Affairs, University of California), pp. 88-90; Intergovernmental Council on Urban Growth, Local Agency Formation Commissions, (Sacramento, 1966), pp. 26-27; John A Rehfuss, "Boundary Agreements - A Solution to the Annexation Struggle," Public Affairs Report, VIII, No. 3, June 1967.

46 Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission, 1971-72 Summary of Activities, p. 4.

47 Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, "Summary of City-County Consolidation Developments” (Information Bulletin No. 69-26, 1969), p. 1.

48 Boston-Suffolk County (part) (1822), Philadelphia-Philadelphia County (1854), New York City consolidation (1898), and Honolulu Honolulu County (1907).

49 Vincent L. Marando and Carl Reggie Whitley, "CityCounty Consolidation: An Overview of Voter Response," Urban Affairs Quarterly, December 1972, p. 181.

50 These numbers exclude the Virginia consolidations since the

cities and counties were separate entities and had no history of cooperation. Indianapolis is also excluded since it was consolidated by the State legislature rather than by referenda.

51 David G. Temple, Merger Politics: Local Government Consolidation in Tidewater Virginia (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1972), pp. 175-183. His generalizations were based on the first three city-county consolidations in that State and on the consolidation of the cities of Newport News and Warwick. Earlier (in 1952), Warwick County had become the City of Warwick.

52Temple, Merger Politics. . ., p. 5.

53 Temple, Merger Politics. . ., pp. 171-172. Although this was written before the Suffolk-Nansemond County consolidation, it is applicable to that merger also.

54York Willbern, "Unigov: Local Government Reorganization in Indianapolis," in Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Substate Regionalism and the Federal System II, Ch. 2 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, forthcoming).

55. New County, U.S.A. Report: City-County Consolidation Seminar" (Washington, D.C.: National Association of Counties Research Foundation, 1972), p. 4.

56 Willbern "Unigov: Local Government Reorganization in Indianapolis," p. 63.

57 Willbern, "Unigov: Local Government Reorganization in Indianapolis," pp. 30-31.

58 John DeGrove (ed.), "Southern Regionalism," in Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Substate Regionalism and the Federal System II, Ch. 1 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, forthcoming).

61 DeGrove, "The City of Jacksonville: Consolidation in Action," p.3.

62 William C. Havard and Floyd L. Corty, Rural-Urban Consolidation: The Merger of Governments in the Baton Rouge Area (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1964), ch. 1., pp. 32-36.

63 Willbern, "Unigov: Local Government Reorganization in Indianapolis," p. 50.

64 John DeGrove (ed.) "Southern Regionalism," in Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Substate Regionalism and the Federal System II, Ch. 1 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, forthcoming).

65 Willbern, "Unigov: Local Government Reorganization in Indianapolis," p. 61.

66. Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance," in Aaron Wildavsky, ed. American Federalism in Perspective (New York: Little, Brown and Co., 1967), p.51.

67 See John G. Wofford, "Transportation and Metropolitan Governance," in Lowden Wingo, ed., Metropolitanization and Public Services (Washington: Resources for the Future, 1972), pp. 23-27. Charles M. Haar, "A Federal Role in Metropolitanism," in Lowden Wingo, ed., Reform of Metropolitan Governments (Washington: Resources for the Future, 1972), pp. 87-88.

68 Committee for Economic Development, Reshaping Government in Metropolitan Areas (New York, 1970).

69 Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, The Crisis Continues (Washington, D.C., 1972), p. 18.

70 The Committee for Economic Development, in Reshaping Government in Metropolitan Areas (New York, 1970), p. 20,

calls for a federated government in which the lower tier would be "a community-level government system comprised of ‘community districts.' These units might consist of existing local governments with functions readjusted to the two-level system, together with new districts in areas where no local unit exists."

71 See Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations,

The New Grass Roots Government? Decentralization and Citizen Participation in Urban Areas (Washington, D.C., 1972) and Advisory Commission on Intergovernment Relations, Fiscal Balance in the American Federal System, 1, (Washington, D.C., 1967), pp. XXI-XXII.

72 Melvin B. Mogulof, Five Metropolitan Counties, (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1972), p. 78.

73 John DeGrove, "Metropolitan Dade County," ACIR Unpublished manuscript, 1972, Mogulof, op. cit., pp. 82-83.

74 Mogulof, Five Metropolitan Governments (Washington,

D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1972) p. 12.

75 Mogulof, Five Metropolitan Governments, p. 67.

76 Ted Kolderie, "Governance in the Twin Cities Area of Minnesota," in Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Substate Regionalism and the Federal System II, Ch. 4 (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, forthcoming).

77 Dade County Metropolitan Study Commission, Final Report and Recommendations (Coral Gables, Florida, June 1971), P. 46.

78 Mogulof, Five Metropolitan Governments, p. 114. 79 Mogulof, Five Metropolitan Governments, p. 109. 80 Mogulof, Five Metropolitan Governments, p. 110.

81 See Council on Environmental Quality, The Quiet Revolution in Land Use Control (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971), pp. 136-155.

82 Harold Kaplan, Urban Political Systems: A Functional Analysis (New York: Columbia Press, 1967), pp. 129-156. 'Mogulof, Five Metropolitan Governments, pp. 102-103.

831

84 Governor Wendell Anderson, in his 1972 "State of the State" message called for direct election of the members of the Council.

85 John DeGrove (ed.) "Southern Regionalism," in Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Substate Regionalism and the Federal System II Ch. 1, (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, forthcoming).

86 John C. Bollens and Henry J. Schmandt, The Metropolis: Its People, Politics, and Economic Life (2nd ed.), (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1970), p. 320.

87 DeGrove, "Metropolitan Dade County,” p. 16.

88 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, The Social and Economic Status of the Black Population in the United States, 1971 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), p. 124.

89 Ibid

90 One student observes that the school busing issue could lead to more restrictive annexation laws stipulating voter approval in some States, and could cloud the future for city-county consolidation. Letter, Robert E. McArthur, February 16, 1973.

91 Richard A. Watson and John H. Romani, "Metropolitan Government for Metropolitan Cleveland: An Analysis of the Voting Record," Midwest Journal of Political Science, November 1961, pp. 365-390. Henry J. Schmandt, Paul G. Steinbicker and George D. Wendel, Metropolitan Reform in St. Louis (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1961).

92 Vincent Marando, "Local Governmental Reorganization:

An Overview" (National Academy for Public Administration, unpublished manuscript, 1972), p. 39.

93 Brett W. Hawkins, Nashville Metro: The Politics of City County Consolidation (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1966), pp. 132-133.

94 Bollens and Schmandt, The Metropolis, op. cit., pp. 382383; Parris N. Glendening and J. W. White, "Local Government Reorganization Referenda in Florida: An Acceptance and a Rejection," Florida State University, Governmental Research Bulletin, (March, 1968).

95 Temple, Merger Politics. . ., P.

50.

96 Richard A. Martin, Consolidation: Jacksonville-Duval County (Jacksonville: Crawford Publishing Company, 1968), p. 224.

97 Quoted in DeGrove, "The City of Jacksonville: Consolidation in Action," p. 17.

98 Lee Sloan and Robert M. French, "Black Rule in the Urban South," in Blacks and Metro-Politics, I, No. 1 (Washington, D. C.: Joint Center for Political Studies), p. 18.

99 Telephone interview, William Lyon, Lexington, Kentucky,

December 13, 1972.

100 Willbern, "Unigov: Local Government Reorganization in Indianapolis," p. 35.

101 Willbern, "Unigov: Local Government Reorganization in Indianapolis," p. 35.

102Tobe Johnson, "Metropolitan Government, A Black Analytical Perspective" (Washington: Joint Center for Political Studies, 1972), p. 14.

103 Ted Kolderie, "Regional Arrangements in the Twin Cities Area of Minnesota," ACIR unpublished manuscript, 1972. p. 53. 104 4Johnson, "Metropolitan Government...," pp. 14-15.

105 The old City of Jacksonville was 42 percent black, the consolidated government - 25 percent; the City of Indianapolis 25 percent, Unigov-17 percent; Old Nashville-38 percent, Nashville-Davidson County - 20 percent; in the Lexington area the black population's percentage dropped only three percentage points, from 22 to 19 percent. The black percentages of both the old and new government of Columbus, Georgia, stand at about 30 percent. The old city, much expanded by annexation, contained about 95 percent of the total areas population prior to consolidation. The exceptional consolidation is Jacksonville, where the black population at the time of merger had two of nine members; today the 19-member merged Jacksonville council has three black members. The two black representatives serving immedi

ately before consolidation were the first of their race to serve on the council in this century.

106 Willbern, "Unigov: Local Government Reorganization in Indianapolis," pp. 76-78.

107 Willbern, "Unigov: Local Government Reorganization in Indianapolis," pp. 69-70.

108 DeGrove, "The City of Jacksonville: Consolidation in Action," p.8.

109 League of Women Voters in Indianapolis, Unigov: What It Is-What It Isn't (Indianapolis: Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce, 1972), p. 15.

110McArthur, "The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County," p. 15; DeGrove, "The City of Jacksonville," p. 9.

111 DeGrove, "Metropolitan Dade County," p. 9, McArthur, "The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County," p. 14; Mogulof, Five Metropolitan Governments, p. 46. 112 Lexington Herald, November 2, 1972.

113 Quoted in Willbern, "Unigov: Local Government Reorganization in Indianapolis," p. 89.

114Gordon Kean, Jr., "The Baton Rouge Plan,” (mimeographed), p. 4.

115 The Commission, Report and Recommendations (Coral Gables, Florida, June 1971), pp. 43-67.

116McArthur, The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County," p. 19.

117 League of Women Voters of Indianapolis, Unigov: What It Is-What It Isn't (Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce, 1972), p. 25.

118DeGrove "The City of Jacksonville: Consolidation in Action," p. 10.

119 DeGrove, "The City of Jacksonville: Consolidation in Action," p. 19.

120

William H. Wilken, "Metropolitan Service Centralization: Its Impact and Future," (monographed, mimeographed), December 1972, pp. 40-81; DeGrove, "The City of Jacksonville: Consolidation in Action," pp. 9-13; Kolderie, "Regional Arrangements in the Twin Cities Area of Minnesota"; Kean, "The Baton Rouge Plan"; Willbern, "Unigov: Local Government Reorganization in Indianapolis," pp. 65-72; Mogulof, Five Metropolitan Governments, pp. 56-80.

121 Mogulof, Five Metropolitan Governments, p. 56.

Census Bureau figures for 1970 show that approximately 30 percent (63.8 million) of the American people live outside the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA's), in non-metropolitan areas covering more than 95 percent of the Nation's total land area. So talking about the urban majority without taking rural America into account does not give the full picture.

These non-metropolitan areas contain 85 percent of the Nation's county governments, 80 percent of the townships, and 70 percent of the municipalities, in addition to 67 percent of all local special districts and authorities, and 45 percent of the newstyle substate districts described in Volume I of this report.

This chapter briefly examines the characteristics of the Nation's non-metropolitan local governments and focuses primarily on those features which distinguish them from metropolitan local governments. In addition to describing counties, municipalities, and townships, this chapter probes the use of intergovernmental agreements for the joint performance of local functions.

The term "non-metropolitan" is used here as a general adjective to describe local governments located outside of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Unless otherwise indicated the statistics used represent an SMSA/non-SMSA breakdown. For example, the number of non-metropolitan counties was obtained by subtracting the number associated with SMSA's from the U.S. total.

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN
NON-METROPOLITAN AMERICA

One of the major problems in non-metropolitan areas is local governments. Their sheer number is staggering. Of the 78,218 units of local government reported in 1972 by the Bureau of the Census, 56,033 were outside of SMSA's. Such a figure might be viewed more favorably if the majority of those governments were operating at maximum effectiveness and efficiency, but that is not the case. In a 1968 report, ACIR found:

Rural governmental institutions are frequently unable to provide the type of public services needed. They were originally designed with less acute problems in an age of greater self-sufficiency. They can adjust only with difficulty to declining population. Local government expenditures per person in such areas are disproportionately high for what frequently are inadequate levels of service. Furthermore, the small

local governments are frequently illequipped to undertake the planning and development activities necessary to overcome their handicaps.2

Several tables in this section underscore the large percentage of non-metropolitan local governments which serve small, highly dispersed populations. In looking at them, the question of economies or diseconomies of scale inevitably arises. There is no consensus at this time as to precisely what population size or density is most nearly ideal for minimizing per capita expenses in providing governmental services, or what the upper and lower population levels are at which costs go up.3 Nevertheless, it is generally conceded that very small governmental units, particularly tiny general-purpose local governments, almost always suffer diseconomies of scale (higher per capita costs) in their servicing activities.

Table VI-1 reveals that 70 percent of all nonSMSA counties have populations under 25,000; 71 percent of all non-SMSA townships have populations under 1,000; and 62 percent of all nonSMSA municipalities have populations under 1,000. A large number of these governments have a difficult time providing adequate services to their citi zens. Subsequent sections of this chapter on counties, townships, municipalities, and intergovernmental agreements will probe this issue more thoroughly.

To discover the sources of many of the problems facing non-metropolitan local governments, one must turn to the technological revolution that has occurred in the production and processing of natural resource commodities. The drop in employment in these and related industries, with the concomitant decline in local businesses and severe outmigration, has frequently left non-metropolitan counties, townships, and municipalities with diminishing tax bases and thinly spread-out populations. The cost of providing even traditional services has risen enormously, while the money to pay for them has dwindled. Moreover, the demand for new services has grown rapidly while the money for providing them has not. Professor Eber Eldridge, writing in the 1971 Yearbook of Agriculture, sums up this situation: