central cities and 16 percent of the suburban municipalities. The lower percentage for non-metropolitan governments is again due primarily to the much smaller number of available sources of service packages and the smaller demand for services.

Central cities, suburban communities, and nonmetropolitan municipalities all reported more agreements for receipt of services from counties than from any other unit of government (see Table VI-11). The next most frequent provider of services to both central cities and non-metropolitan governments was State government; for suburban communities, it was another municipality, probably a central city in most cases. Of the non-metropolitan municipalities that reported having agreements for the receipt of services, 62 percent had agreements with counties, 29 percent with State governments, 21 percent with other municipalities, 21 percent with school districts, 21 percent with special districts, and 11 percent with public authorities. However, in each case the percentage of non-metropolitan municipalities having such agreements was smaller than that of either suburban municipalities or central cities. Here is more evidence of the limited participation of non-metropolitan municipalities in intergovernmental agreements.

Non-metropolitan municipalities are slightly more likely to provide services to other governments under contract than are suburban municipalities, but they provide services much less frequently than central cities do. In a non-metropolitan area, one municipality may be the only unit of government with the capability, albeit limited, of providing services to other governments; whereas in metropolitan areas, there are likely to be a number of capable providers of services, including central cities, counties, and private firms, so that suburban municipalities are less likely to be called upon to provide services to other governments.

Although only a small percentage of the survey respondents reported having terminated agreements, central cities terminated agreements with greater frequency (12 percent) than suburban (5 percent) or non-metropolitan (3 percent) municipalities (see Table VI-11). This may be partly due to more careful evaluation of agreements by central cities, since data also show that cities with council-manager organizations (more of which are central cities) are most likely to terminate agreements. That nonmetropolitan governments terminate agreements least often is probably due mainly to their having few if any alternative sources of services. It may also be affected by the fact that fewer of the nonmetropolitan municipalities have professional managers who can evaluate agreements closely.

Large municipalities are more likely to enter into agreements for joint provision of services or for

joint construction or leasing of facilities than small ones (see Table VI-10). Non-metropolitan municipalities, most of which are small, enter such agreements with less frequency than either central cities or suburban governments. The data show that, of the responding municipalities, 31 percent of the nonmetropolitan governments entered agreements for joint provision of services, as opposed to 39 percent of the suburban and 62 percent of the central city governments. With respect to agreements for joint construction or leasing of facilities, only 18 percent of the responding non-metropolitan municipalities participated while 40 percent of the central cities and 22 percent of the suburban municipalities did.

As part of a 1971 ACIR-NACO-ICMA survey of county governments, counties were asked to answer several questions dealing with intergovernmental agreements. Agreements were categorized according to three types: county-to-local services agreements, joint county-local agreements, and joint countycounty agreements. Of the counties responding to the pertinent question, about one-third indicated that they provided services to local governments under contract. About 75 percent of these were non-metropolitan counties. About 38 percent of the responding counties indicated that they provide services on a joint basis with other local governments, and again, 75 percent of them were non-metropolitan. With regard to providing services jointly with other county governments, 30 percent of the responding counties indicated that they are parties to such agreements; 83 percent of the affirmative answers came from counties in non-metropolitan areas.

Thus, it is clear that many metropolitan counties are acquainted with the interlocal agreement mechanism. However, remembering that 85 percent of all counties are non-metropolitan, it should not be implied from this limited survey that there is necessarily a greater incidence of county agreements in non-metropolitan areas. The data do not adequately address this question, but it is likely that the proportion of all non-metropolitan counties involved is actually lower than in metropolitan areas, thus paralleling municipal patterns.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

-The majority of local governments in the United States are in non-metropolitan areas: 70 percent of the municipalities, 85 percent of the counties,

80 percent of the townships, and
67 percent of the special districts.

This might be expected, since over 95 percent of the Nation's land area is non-metropolitan, but only about 30 percent of the Nation's population lives in

or administrative leadership much less frequently than metropolitan counties (16 vs. 41 percent).

- Non-metropolitan townships have an average population only one-seventh as great as metropolitan townships (1,134 people vs. 7,266); their average budget is only one-eighth as large ($55,949 vs. $439,846); their average staff is only ten people; the bulk of their expenditures are for highways and education; they spend disproportionate amounts on financial administration and general control; and in only half the States with townships has the chief administrator form of organization been used.

- Local governments in non-metropolitan areas use inter-local cooperation agreements for the performance of their functions much less frequently than those in metropolitan areas (43 vs. 75 percent).

- Municipal annexation in non-metropolitan areas accounts for 42 percent of the Nation's citizens who were annexed in the decade of the 1960's, while four of the 13 post-World-War-II city-county consolidations occurred in non-metropolitan areas.

Clearly, local governments in non-metropolitan America find it difficult on their own, as presently constituted, to provide efficient and effective services for their people. There are three basic ways to remedy this situation: (1) greater and more coordinated use of intergovernmental service agreements - a partial solution at best, (2) greater use of umbrella multi-jurisdictional organizations- as discussed in Volume I of this report, and (3) reorganization of existing units. This last option, of course, is the primary subject of this volume.

Footnotes

Bureau of the Census, 1972 Census of Governments, I. 2Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Urban and Rural America: Policies for Future Growth (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, April 1968), p. 59.

3 For a full discussion of this point see Chapters I and IV in Volume IV of this report.

4 Eber Eldridge, The Yearbook of Agriculture (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1971), p. 245.

5 For a more comprehensive discussion of counties, see ACIR,

Profile of County Government (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, December 1971).

"The ACIR's Profile noted 3,049 organized county governments, counting four more of Alaska's boroughs than did the Bureau of the Census, and counting Richmond County, Georgia, which has been consolidated with the City of Augusta.

7Bureau of the Census, City-County Data Book, 1967. Ex

cludes Rhode Island, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. Includes independent cities in Maryland and Virginia; also Denver, Philadelphia, St. Louis, San Francisco, and the five boroughs of New York City.

8The financial volumes of the 1972 Census of Governments were not yet published when this chapter was prepared.

9Bureau of the Census, 1972 Census of Governments, I. 10 International City Management Association, The Municipal Year Book 1972 (Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1972), p.15. ICMA, The Municipal Year Book 1972, p. 15.

12 Bureau of the Census, Finances of Municipalities and Townships, 1967 Census of Government, IV. 13B

Bureau of the Census, 1972 Census of Governments,I. 14 Bureau of the Census, 1962 Census of Governments, I, and 1967 Census of Governments, I.

15 Clyde F. Snider, Local Government in Rural America (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957), p. 238.

16 Lane W. Lancaster, Government in Rural America (New

York: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1937), p. 72.

17 The 39 townships in Washington are found only in urban areas and serve primarily as limited-purpose, special urban governmental units.

18 County governments were also shown to spend large sums on highways in non-metropolitan areas.

19 Eugene P. Dvorin and Arthur J. Misner, Government Within the States (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1971), p. 142. 20 Lane W. Lancaster, Government in Rural America, pp.

78-79.

21 Bureau of the Census, Number of Inhabitants: United States Summary, PC(1)-A1, Tables 30 and 38 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, December 1971). The total figures of over six million treated as annexation the governmental consolidations involving Indianapolis, Jacksonville, and Nashville.

22 For a more comprehensive discussion of intergovernmental agreements, see Chapter III of this volume.

231972 survey of 5,900 incorporated municipalities undertaken jointly by ACIR and the International City Managenient Association. Response rate was about 40 percent.