At its annual meeting in August, 1955, the Governors' Conference directed the Council of State Governments to undertake a study of the problems of government in metropolitan areas and to draw recommendations for improved local governmental organization in them, including desirable changes in state legislation. The Conference resolution noted that by Census Bureau definition there already are some 170 metropolitan areas, each including a central city of at least 50,000. It pointed out that a majority of the nation's populataion lives in such areas, and that the suburbs are growing at a rate several times that of the increase of population in the country as a whole. The Governors underlined the need for studies that can lead to state action helpful in dealing with the increasingly critical governmental problems created by these developments. The resulting study by the Council, The States And The Metropolitan Problem, now has been completed and published in book form as a report to the Governors' Conference. A condensation of its concluding chapter, "The Responsibilities of the States," primarily devoted to its recommendations, is presented here. John C. Bollens of the Department of Political Science, University of California at Los Angeles, was director of the study that produced the report.

The metropolitan problem unquestionably is one of the most critical domestic difficulties facing an increasingly urban United States. It presents a major challenge to the ingenuity of the people of our democratic society. Practically nowhere has a comprehensive solution been put into operation, and the problem is becoming greater as more and more people become residents of metropolitan areas. By 1950 almost three-fifths of the nation's population lived in such areas. The trend is continuing as this decade advances. Metropolitan areas are growing spectacularly. Their local governments are increasingly incapable of satisfying public needs that extend beyond individual governmental boundaries or range of authorized functions. Many current and contemplated actions of public and private organizations that affect metropolitan area residents are being undertaken in an uncoordinated manner.

The results of continuing population growth, inadequate governmental machinery, and unrelated and sometimes conflicting governmental and private programs of national, state and local extent are readily apparent. In many localities an occasionl glance at the newspapers can reveal some of the most obvious deficiencies—deficiencies that affect people in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. We have become very familiar with dwindling water supplies and disintegrated means of distribution, water and air pollution, contradictory and un-economic land-use policies, and large-scale defects in various forms of transportation. Common also are archaic methods of sewage disposal, excessive noise, dirt and congestion, uneven provision of health and other protective services, and disruption of the metropolitan economy by unrelated decisions on industrial and commercial locations. Less publicized but highly important are inequalities imposed upon various sections of metropolitan areas in financing servies, and the impotence and frustration of attempts at citizen control.

Concern on the part of numerous governments and private organizations —national, state and local—over the seriousness and significance of the metropolitan problem is now growing rapidly. It it continues to grow, the prospects must be judged favorable for substantial improvement. More, however, is needed than general and local interest, study and support.

Although the roles of local governments and the national government are indispensable, the states are the key to solving the complex difficulties that make up the general metropolitan problem. To achieve adequate results the state governments—the legislative and executive branches and the people—need to exert positive, comprehensive and sustained leadership in solving the problem and keeping it solved.

The states should assume three responsibilities in particular: (1) adoption of legal provisions authorizing the establishment of general metropolitan units; (2) appraisal of the adequacy of local governments; and (3) creation of continuing agencies to analyze and recommend on the needs and developments of metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas.

The states should establish legal authorizations for the creation of general metropolitan units that will be adequate in functions, financing ability and structure. In some states this can be accomplished through improvement of existing state laws and constitutional provisions; in others, where no legal provisions exist, additions to the laws and constitutions rather than revisions of them will be needed. In an increasing number of states, interstate legal arrangements will be required. In all such authorizations—revised and new state laws, constitutional provisions and interstate compacts — the states occupy the central position.¹

Three principles are advisable as guides in revising or preparing legal authorizations. First, the metropolitan units should be permitted to exercise a range of functions sufficient to eliminate, or reduce noticeably, service and regulatory deficiencies that are area-wide or present in more than one locality of the area. Second, the metropolitan units should be given a broad and equitable basis for financing, including the powers to levy taxes, issue bonds and make service charges. Third, the metropolitan units should be constructed in most instances so that they are directly responsible to, and controlled by, the people of the metropolitan area in which they operate. The members of their governing bodies should be either elected by the metropolitan area residents or appointed by the governing bodies of the member local governments. The statewide importance of the activities of some metropolitan units may make it desirable to have the Governor appoint certain members of their governing bodies.

No one uniform type of general metropolitan unit can be prescribed for all metropolitan areas. Three types, however, generally have the greatest merit—the multipurpose metropolitan district, the federation arrangement, and the comprehensive urban county form.

The multipurpose metropolitan district concept calls for establishment of a territorially large district government that can perform numerous services. The federation arrangement involves the creation of a metropolitan government, a decrease in the functions of municipalities within the metropolitan area and either elimination of county governments within it or reduction in their powers. The comprehensive urban county form consists of transforming county governments into metropolitan units by authorizing them to undertake more urban functions, preferably after their structural reorganization.

The basic features of all three plans are the establishment of a metropolitan level of government to assume area-wide functions and functions which, although not area-wide are more than local; and the retention of local governments to perform strictly local activities.² These, in combination, create a metropolitan mechanism capable of fulfilling unmet needs, while

___________________________________

* Reprinted from State Government, July 1956, with permission.

___________________________________

1.    In several states, where certain activities in metropolitan areas have important impact across national boundaries, international agreements between the national governments of the United States and Canada or Mexico may he required. They will be less numerous, however, than the other forms of legal authority.

2.    The report describes the three systems in detail, together with other devices that have been used in metropolitan organization.

preserving local units for the important purposes or handling a number of public matters and providing channels for close and significant citizen participation.

All three types of preferred, general metropolitan units have their appropriate uses. Although one may be preferable to the others in particular situations, none stands out as universally superior.

The desirability of organization that provides for creation of a metropolitan unit and retention of a local level of government does not mean it is advisable to preserve all existing local governments in every metropolitan area. Some local units, for example, may have highly artificial territorial limits and may be too small for efficient and economic operation.

The methods used for placing any of the three preferred types of general metropolitan units into effect will differ among the states. In some the method selected will be for the legislature, on the basis of detailed study and analysis, to pass suitable legislation making a metropolitan unit operative. A number of metropolitan reorganizations, including city-county consolidations and large-scale annexations, have been activated through passage of state laws. Although many of the laws stipulating comprehensive area reform were enacted in tlie last century, the necessary authority currently rests with some state legislatures if they wish to exercise it.

In various states—possibly many— the method favored will be to make adoption a matter of local determination. Where this is employed, an equitable voting procedure is fundamental. Consent of the majority of the participating voters is a widely accepted standard in the process of local determination. The difficult task, however, is deciding whether one, two or multiple majorities shall be required. In some states a requirement of a single over-all vote of the people in a metropolitan area—used successfully in 1947 in connection with the Baton Rouge-East Baton Rouge Parish consolidation plan in Louisiana—will be favored. In other states two or more electoral areas will be stipulated. This may involve the combining of several governmental areas for the purpose of the election, along the lines of the legal provisions used in the St. Louis consolidation effort of 1926 and in school district consolidation proposals in a number of states beginning in the 1940's.

It seems inadvisable to have adoption depend on separate approval by a majority of the voters of each existing local government when numerous local units are involved, or to set up electoral areas so that local governments collectively containing a small portion of the total metropolitan population possess the power to block acceptance of a proposal. Likewise it seems inadvisable to grant the right of exclusive judgment on a proposition to the electorate or the governing body of one government. In brief, the requirement should apply the concept of metropolitan home rule instead of strictly local home rule. In working out an electoral formula, it should be kept in mind that the number and nature of the required majorities have contributed to the poor record of voter adoptions of metropolitan propositions.

Some states may find a third method of adopting any of the three types of general metropolitan units desirable. It is similar to that of Virginia's annexation courts and the municipal board of Ontario Province in Canada. although broader in scope. This method, as yet unused in any state, would permit a state administrative tribunal possessing quasi-judicial powers or, alternatively, judges constituting a special court, to put a metropolitan unit into effect upon determining the need and learning the desires of the people of a metropolitan area.

Two other procedures—annexation and inter-local agreements—should be available for supplementary action after general metropolitan units become operative. Adequate use of the annexation device depends in large part upon constructive revision of many state laws so that areas under consideration for annexation cannot control initiation of action and the final decision. The right to annex across county lines also is needed. Moreover, the effectiveness of annexation — especially in unincorporated sections within general metropolitan units and in urban areas starting to develop metropolitan conditions—depends partially upon making many incorporation provisions more difficult.

Authorizations of inter-local cooperative agreements similarly represent a worthwhile supplement. They are important to local governments operating within general metropolitan units unless the latter have broad grants of powers in inter-local as well as area-wide matters. They are also very valuable to local governments functioning in urban areas that are nearing metropolitan status. Proposed state laws to authorize them can be stated in broad functional terms, but it may be crucial to their legislative adoption and to their successful use locally that they provide specific means of financing the arrangements.

It is recommended, that the states undertake another responsibility that is important in solving the metropolitan problem—appraising the adequacy of their present systems of local government. Such evaluations are essential for all types of metropolitan organizations that retain local governments to undertake specific duties. They are also necessary to determine the changes needed in certain local governments, such as counties in some metropolitan areas, in order to transform them into effective general metropolitan units, and they are important in local areas that are not metropolitan.

Although the details will differ, it will be found in many states that metropolitan as well as non-metropolitan areas lack adequate systems of local government. Cities and other local governments have made much progress during the present century, most notably in organization and in internal operations, but numerous and extensive changes still are necessary. Metropolitan areas in particular have an unsatisfactory pattern—a large number of units that represent an illogical patchwork of suppliers of services and regulation. A clear indication of the deficiency of the governmental system of many metropolitan areas is the rapid and continuing rise of non-school special districts. From 1942 to 1952 these districts, many of which are small and costly, grew approximately 48 per cent in number throughout the United States.

In strengthening their local governments the states should seek to develop units that can efficiently perform their functions and that can provide opportunities for broad citizen participation in local affairs.

Local government systems have several major shortcomings that need to be rectified to make them effective performers of essential functions anil effective members of metropolitan units, These shortcomings include inadequacies in area, financing ability, administrative organization, administrative methods, and amount of discretion in the exercise of their powers. Not all of these defects are present in every state, nor are they uniform in intensity where they exist, but they are sufficiently frequent to be characterized as general weaknesses.

An excessive number of local governments exists, and many of them are too small in area. They are not large enough to perform local functions efficiently and economically and for practically all functions, they are unable to meet modern standards of service. Some of them are largely relics of a former period of importance and have little present-day vitality. Others are expedients that have been established to supplement existing local units. It is suggested that the states undertake or encourage the abolition of some of them, such as townships in some states; the consolidation of certain units—cities, towns, villages, and boroughs — with other incorporated places; and the merger of numerous limited-purpose districts with general local governments.

The example of the recent extensive

consolidation of school districts, stimulated in part by state grants and other state action needs to be applied to a major portion of the patterns of local government. Providing an adequate area is a fundamental step in strengthening the local government system. Without it the correction of many other inadequacies will have unsatisfactory results.

Many local governments have insufficient financing ability. In many instances it will continue to be insufficient even after the suggested area reorganizations occur unless the states remedy the difficulties. The needs will vary within metropolitan organizations according to the extent and nature of the functions assigned to local governments. Adequate financing ability, however, is basic to both metropolitan and local units.

The financing ability of local governments in many states is severely confined, principally by state-imposed rather than locally determined restrictions. There is a need for state studies of these restrictions, which take various legislative and constitutional forms —ceilings on property tax rates and total indebtedness; exemptions from local taxation of state-owned, veterans' and homestead property; and legislative withholding of, or specific prohibition against, authority for local governments to broaden their revenue sources. Studies by the states on other matters that bear directly on local finances are also necessary—for example, the extensiveness and distribution of state grants-in-aid and shared taxes and the methods of tax assessment and tax administration. Moreover, if under revised programs of financing an important part of local revenues is to be state-derived, the states of necessity will have to review such limitations on their own financing ability as are currently stipulated by constitutional and legislative provisions.

Improvements in administrative organization and methods are essential to strengthen many local governments. The over-abundance of independently elected policy-making and administrative officials and semi-independent boards includes many small, detached empires immune from effective central direction and control. Organizational arrangements should be simplified and more fully integrated to facilitate better performance and more adequate public accountability. Similarly, the administrative methods of many local governments require modernization. Too many local governments are not using well-rerognized and extensively tested practices concerning personnel, finance, planning and purchasing. If counties are to be converted into satisfactory metropolitan units, their shortcomings in organization and methods as well as in financing ability should first be eliminated. In some instances it may be advisable for the states to furnish direct and vigorous leadership to bring renovations in local administrative organizations and to supply supervision and technical and advisory assistance to foster stronger administrative methods.

Many local governments are also inadequate because they do not possess sufficient freedom from detailed state legislation in performing their functions. Too much legislation of this type adds to the burdens of state legislatures and diverts them from important statewide matters. It hampers local governments in their efforts to respond to the community needs of their residents. Granting broader discretion to local governments in the exercise of their powers and establishing flexible administrative supervision, consultation and technical assistance at the state level are measures that will strengthen both state and local governments and will aid in equipping local units to be effective members of metropolitan organizations.

The responsibilities of the states in establishing adequate metropolitan units and in appraising, and improving local governments are very important but are not in themselves complete answers to the metropolitan problem. The states have a further important responsibility. It is recommended that each state create or adapt an agency to aid in determining the present and changing needs of its metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. Activities of the agency should include analysis and recommendations on the effects of current and contemplated policies of all governments and major private organizations in such areas. Such a state agency will serve as a focal point of information and evaluation about metropolitan and local conditions and relations and it will develop both remedial and preventive programs. The importance of agencies of this type is not confined to states that contain metropolitan areas; they can assist in strengthening local governments both in non-metropolitan and metropolitan sections.

Numerous duties are appropriate to such a state agency. It should have continuing responsibility for studying the following matters and recommending on them to the appropriate groups and individuals:

Legal changes that are necessary for the establishment of adequate metropolitan and local levels of government.

The various methods of adopting a metropolitan form of government.

The voting procedure to be employed if local determination is used as the method of adoption.

The need for subsequent adjustments in area, organization, functions and finance of reorganized governments.

The governmental needs of local areas as significant changes start to emerge—for example, urban areas that begin to take on metropolitan characteristics.

The nature and extent of the problems of particular areas.

Interstate metropolitan areas that include part of the territory of the state.

The merits of state advisory and technical services and administrative supervision to governments in local areas.

The effect of present and proposed state government programs, including grants-in-aid, upon local areas.

The impact of existing and contemplated actions of the national government—such as fiscal policies, public utility regulation and civil defense directives—on local areas.

The results of present and planned activities of local governments, such as urban redevelopment and public housing, upon local areas.

The consequences for local areas of current and anticipated decisions of major private organizations on such matters as sites for commercial and industrial activities and location of terminal and transfer facilities.

The means of facilitating greater coordination of existing and contemplated policies of the national, state and local governments and of private associations and individuals that affect local areas.

In performing these functions, the agency should carry on active and continuous programs of research and service. It should make studies itself or in collaboration with others, on its own initiative as well as at the request of public officials or responsible private groups. When territory of its state is involved in an interstate metropolitan area, it should undertake studies in cooperation with similar agencies in adjoining states or assist interstate commissions that are created specifically for the purpose. It can be of great usefulness in assisting the Governor and legislature in their consideration of proposals affecting governments at the metropolitan and local levels.

Necessarily, such an agency will have to be staffed by a sufficient number of professionally trained, experienced and adequately compensated individuals. Although part of its activities will be highly specialized, some of its reports should be specifically designed to give the public a wider knowledge and closer understanding of metropolitan and local problems and developments.

At present these matters, basic and extremely important to the welfare of metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas, are receiving inadequate attention. Some of them are not obtaining serious scrutiny at all, and others are subject to temporary or piecemeal analysis at different levels of government.

Urgent necessity exists for systematic interrelated and continuing consideration of all of the enumerated matters through a new or reorganized state agency.

These activities can best be carried out by a single agency in each state. But their proper performance does not depend on locating the functions in the same place in all state governments. There are various possibilities.

The duties can be assigned to any one of several agencies:

A new staff agency closely associated with or in the office of the Governor.

An existing department of administration.

An existing department of finance. An existing planning, or planning and development agency that is an independent board or a part of a major department.

A new office of planning services placed in the office of the Governor or made co-equal with the budget office in an integrated department of administration or department of finance, organized along the lines suggested in the recent report of the Council of State Governments, Planning Services for State Government.

A new state planning office responsible to the Governor, created along lines suggested in the National Municipal League's Model State and Regional Planning Law of 1954.

An existing agency responsible for financial supervision of local governments.

A professional research staff serving an administrative tribunal or special court as a means for putting metropolitan reorganizations into effect.

A new permanent commission composed of public officials or private citizens or both, and aided by research analysts.

An existing or new joint legislative interim committee that functions on a continuing basis.

If the responsibilities are allotted to an existing agency, certain guides are pertinent. (1) These highly significant functions should not be made a minor phase of some part of state government. If they are assigned to a department of administration or finance, for example, or to an office responsible for financial supervision of local units, care should be taken that they are not relegated to an unimportant status because of other responsibilities of the organization. (2) Consideration should be given to whether it is advisable or inadvisable to assign these duties to an agency that currently possesses functions of a supervisory or enforcement nature. (3) The functions involved should not be allocated to organizations currently performing largely dissimilar services without first reorienting these existing activities to make them sufficiently comparable.

Whether the duties which consist of collecting and appraising data and formulating proposed action programs —are given to a new or existing agency, they should be located close to the principal centers of decision making. Otherwise their effectiveness may be negligible.

Metropolitan areas are dynamic, ever changing concentrations of people who live, work and play in the midst of a complex series of governmental and private relationships. The responsibilities of the states for the welfare of these areas are large today in terms of authorizing the establishment of adequate governmental machinery, in providing a focal point of information and analysis about metropolitan conditions and relations, and in supplying assistance, plans and services in particular fields. If the metropolitan trend continues, the population of more states will become largely metropolitan. Increasing interrelationships will develop between nearby metropolitan areas, whether or not state lines are involved. And more interstate areas will emerge. The responsibilities of the states certainly will not lessen under such circumstances. So long as there are metropolitan areas the states, in combination with the interest, support and participation of local units and citizens, seem destined to play strategic roles of much importance to the people of the nation a a whole.

The experience of the United States and other nations demonstrates that public problems change from decade to decade and from generation to generation. Such has been and will continue to be the experience with the metropolitan problem. It alters as the factors that affect it fluctuate. What are suitable solutions today may be inadequate ten, twenty or thirty years from now. What is necessary, therefore, is to appraise and act on the metropolitan problem as it currently exists, and then constantly to reappraise and act in the light of future developments. Only in this way can our governmental organizations in metropolitan areas be suitable instruments for satisfying the needs of the people.