regional programs are designed; and (2) it can be the organizational module for these Federal and State districting efforts. Insofar as Federal and State substate programs involve either larger areas than or alternative organizations to the single-county metropolitan areas, the county's jurisdiction diminishes somewhat in importance as a basis for metropolitan governance. When the county - whether a singlecounty SMSA or the suburban "building block" in a multicounty metropolitan area-is used as both the area and the jurisdiction to implement districting objectives, its importance as an area wide government is enhanced. A-95 clearinghouses. Less than half of the A-95 clearinghouses in the unicounty SMSA's for which 1973 information was available were coterminous with county boundaries. Fifty-four of these clearinghouses were coterminous with a single county and eight metropolitan clearinghouses were coterminous with a multicounty SMSA. On the other hand, 52 A-95 clearinghouses had larger jurisdictions than their respective unicounty metropolitan area, while six were larger than their multicounty SMSA. 32 Six unicounty SMSA areas were not covered by a clearinghouse. Counties in Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Michigan were more frequently coterminous with metropolitan clearinghouses. All of the unicounty SMSA's in Texas and most of those in New Jersey were parts of multicounty clearinghouses. Table IV-20 summarizes the extent of geographic overlapping of A-95 agencies in the 34 States having single-county SMSA's. Other Federal substate programs. While there has been mixed success in conforming A-95 clearinghouse jurisdiction to county government boundaries, the experience with most other Federally supported programs that operate through regional organizations has been even less promising. Only two of nine major Federal programs using substate districts (see Table IV-21)- the HUD "701" planning assistance program 33 and the OEO Community Action Agencies- rely on counties for their own functional jurisdictions. In four other regional programs Resource Conservation and Development Districts, Economic Development Districts, Air Quality Control Regions, and Local Development Districts -no unicounty SMSA is the basic organizational module, 34 In three programs - Comprehensive Health Planning Regions, Law Enforcement Planning Districts, or Cooperative Area Manpower Planning Councils-single counties are utilized as planning areas less than 20 percent of the time. The cumulative effect of this geographic overlapping means that only a handful of single-county SMSA's serve as a foundation for most of the Fed erally encouraged substate districting efforts. Only 11 of the 127 unicounty SMSA governments surveyed were the basic jurisdiction for as many as four Federal programs. Moreover, 58 of them exhibited geographic coterminality with none or only one of all 10 of the major districting programs. In short, the single-county SMSA has been used only sparingly by the Federal and State governments as the areawide administrative and planning unit. Substate Planning and Development Districts. Unicounty SMSA governments play a limited role in substate planning and development districts established by State governments. Only five of the 127 single-county metropolitan areas are coterminous with substate district boundaries, and four of those five jurisdictions have exceedingly large areas and could be truly considered as geographic regions. While there is only infrequent geographic coterminality between unicounty SMSA's and substate planning and development districts, occasionally States have provided for county representation on these bodies. Arkansas, Kentucky, New Mexico, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia require that at least a majority of the governing board be public officials. Georgia, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, and Virginia specifically provide for county representation of these bodies. In these States, then, unicounty SMSA governments have direct access to substate district decision-making processes. However, most States have not used single-county SMSA's as geographical or organizational building blocks for regional planning and development efforts. Organizational Coterminality Where the unicounty metropolitan area serves as the geographical basis for a State or Federal sub state program, almost invariably the county itself is not the administrative agency. Instead, either an independent, single-function areawide body or a multifunctional regional council performs this role. In only 17 of the 142 possible interfaces examined was a single-county SMSA government the vehicle. for the administration of one or more Federal substate programs. Even where a council of governments or metropolitan planning commission is responsible for administering substate programs in a unicounty area, the influence of the county government tends to be indirect. As Table IV-22 shows, in the 29 single-county SMSA's for which information was available, 35 metropolitan planning agencies were frequently confederal in nature, dominated by city and municipal representatives or their appointees, funded mainly from non-local sources, and staffed by a small number of planners and administrators. These 29 unicounty metropolitan planning agencies were usually responsible for less than half of the 10 major Federal regional programs. The bulk of them handled two to four Federal programs, usually including A-95, “701", and transportation planning. On the other hand, unicounty metropolitan planning agencies rarely, if ever, administered substate community action, comprehensive health, or manpower planning programs (see Table IV-23). In only two instances was the metropolitan planning agency a subordinate unit of the county government (Atlantic and Cumberland Counties, New Jersey); in 11 other cases, the county rather than the regional planning. body was responsible for the substate program. Direct county administration was most prominent in the community action and air quality control areas. The relative absence of district piggybacking on unicounty SMSA governments, at least in the jurisdictions surveyed, seems to impair the usefulness of single-county metropolitan planning organizations. Among the obstacles to effectiveness most frequently cited by the directors of these bodies were participation in Federal programs, tenuous relationships with substate districts, and insufficient financial support. 36 SUMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This chapter deals with the unicounty SMSA, in which counties are potentially the most readily adaptable form of areawide government, and with the central county or large suburban fringe county in a multicounty SMSA, which is the most suitable. building block for a metropolitan, governance system. Before arriving at some conclusions regarding the prospects of these counties assuming such pivotal positions, it is desirable to summarize the major findings in connection with the present role and responsibilities of metropolitan county governments, particularly those in unicounty areas. It should be kept in mind that much of the supportive data is derived from a 1970 mail survey of all counties and a 1972 follow-up questionnaire to unicounty SMSA's. The response rates were 34 percent for the former and 68 percent for the latter. Hence, the data base for parts of this chapter is a sample of the single-county SMSA universe. A second caution in interpreting the information on county structural, functional, and fiscal characteristics involves the degree to which counties may be unable to take certain actions due to restrictions imposed by State constitutions or statutes. As indi Table IV-21 Overlapping of Federal Substate Districts and Unicounty SMSA Boundaries: 1971 Source: Maps developed by the Office of Policy Coordination, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 1971. cated earlier, only 15 States have charter counties, although others have authorized limited forms of home rule. Thus, even if a particular public service is needed and the county is willing to assume responsibility for delivery, the State may make this difficult or impossible. -There are 127 single-county metropolitan areas in the United States, comprising nearly half of the SMSA total. Texas, California, and Florida all have 10 such metropolitan areas and about 20 percent are concentrated in the States of Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio. -38.2 million people reside in unicounty SMSA's. These areas have a population range from 60,000 to 7 million persons. Yet 88 percent of all such metropolitan areas are under 400,000 population, compared with 48 percent of all multicounty SMSA's. - Unicounty metropolitan population growth was greater between 1960 and 1970 than for SMSA's as a whole. Unlike most multicounty metropolitan areas, however, central cities in a large number of single-county areas have been able, through inmigration and annexation, to hold on to a large proportion of the SMSA population. Moreover, in many unicounty SMSA's the outside-central-city areas tend to be rural rather than suburban. - Fifteen States currently have home rule charter counties. - Fifty-four percent of the unicounty SMSA's function under a county commission form of government, as do many central and suburban counties in multicounty SMSA's. In 13 States, all singlecounty SMSA's operate under a commission form. - Thirty-nine percent the single-county of SMSA's have a council-administrator form of government, and 8 percent have elected county executives. Unicounty SMSA's with such modernized structures govern 25.1 people, or two-thirds of the total population living in single-county metropolitan areas. - Close to 40 percent of the unicounty SMSA jurisdictions surveyed administered library, specialized health care, parks and recreation, solid waste disposal, and water and air pollution services. Less than 25 percent had assumed responsibility for fire protection, airports, mass transit, refuse collection and sewage disposal, public housing, urban renewal, and industrial development. The urban service delivery activities of central and suburban multicounty SMSA counties have been confined largely to hospitals, libraries, and parks and recreation. - Less than a third of all single-county SMSA's surveyed have adopted zoning or subdivision regula tions for incorporated areas, and less than 40 percent have reviewed or commented on land-use controls in incorporated areas. Between 20 and 30 percent have exercised no land-use controls in any portion of their jurisdiction. -Single-county SMSA governments, and to a lesser degree central and suburban fringe counties in multicounty areas, have not markedly diversified their expenditure and revenue responsibilities. With a few major exceptions (urban counties in California, Florida, Maryland, and New York), they rarely utilize non-property taxation and only infrequently incur significant expenditures for functions that are not traditionally State-assigned. - Unicounty, central, and suburban county governments have exercised supervision over special districts through the power to approve their formation, budgets, and tax methods and rates, as well as the leverage gained by provision of financial aid. For the most part, however, they have rarely attempted to control special districts through consolidation or abolition. - Over 65 percent of all unicounty SMSA governments surveyed exhibited some form of functional intergovernmental cooperation with their constituent local units, most often in planning, health, corrections, police, and highways. Welfare, hospitals, natural resources, housing and urban development, and water supply were less likely to be areas of collaboration. -Thirty-four percent of the unicounty and multi hensive health, law enforcement, or manpower. Unicounty SMSA involvement in State-established substate planning and development districts. has been more limited than in the case of Federally encouraged districting efforts. Only such counties are coterminous with substate planning and development districts, and fewer than 10 States provide for county representation on the governing boards of their substate organizations. - At the local level, only 29 of the 127 singlecounty SMSA jurisdictions have locally sponsored metropolitan planning organizations that are coterminous with county boundaries. In these cases, however, the metropolitan planning organization has generally been accorded administrative responsibility for two to four Federally funded programs using substate districts. To sum up, the available evidence on the structure and functions of single- and multicounty metropolitan areas suggests a number of conclusions regarding their willingness and capacity to serve as areawide governments. Despite several successful modernization efforts during the 1960's, over half of the unicounty SMSA jurisdictions have not yet responded to the need for county reorganization, due to State-imposed constraints on home rule or to county reluctance to take advantage of permissive statutes. While many metropolitan counties have been heavily involved in the performance of traditional responsibilities and are becoming more active in regional functions, they have not generally extended their services on a countywide basis. There has been limited unicounty and multicounty SMSA cooperation with constituent suburban and central city jurisdictions in the provision of public services. through transfers of functions, interlocal contracts and joint service agreements, or other approaches. As a result, special districts often perform what might otherwise be county services in unincorporated territory, although sometimes they are supervised but not controlled by the county. The Federal and State governments have bypassed many metropolitan counties as the geographical or organizational foundation for some substate regional planning, development, and administrative efforts. In short, the performance record to date is mixed. On balance, for a variety of reasons-including State restrictions, municipal programs, and county. reluctance- the majority of unicounty SMSA jurisdictions have only occasionally acted as general purpose areawide governments. At the same time, in New York, California, Florida, and Maryland, urban counties have assumed this role. Central and suburban county governments have not usually served as effective urban building blocks for a metropolitan governance system. |