DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 185/Wednesday, September 23

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 185/Wednesday, September 23 59806 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 23, 2020 / Notices 2020, has changed its format and time. resources and allow more of the rural Census. UCs are defined based on the The meeting will now be a 2-day populations within MSAs to access same criteria as UAs, but represent areas webinar and conference call only on services provided using grant funds. containing at least 2,500 but fewer than Tuesday, December 8, 2020, from 10:00 This notice seeks comments on the 50,000 people. Both UAs and UCs use a.m.–5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) and proposed methodology for designating 500 persons per square mile as their Wednesday, December 9, 2020, from areas eligible for rural health grant minimum density criterion. 10:00 a.m.–2:00 p.m. ET. The webinar programs. The other major federal definition was link, conference dial in number, DATES: Submit written comments no based on the OMB’s list of counties that meeting materials, and updates will be later than October 23, 2020. are designated as part of a MSA. All available on the COGME website: counties that were not designated as a ADDRESSES: https://www.hrsa.gov/advisory- Written comments should part of a MSA were considered ‘‘rural’’ committees/graduate-medical-edu/ be submitted to [email protected]. or, more accurately, non-metropolitan. meetings/index.html. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MSAs, in 1990, had to include ‘‘a city FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Hirsch, Public Health Analyst of 50,000 or more population,’’ or ‘‘a Shane Rogers, Designated Federal FORHP, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Census Bureau defined urbanized area Official, Division of Medicine and Rockville, MD 20857, Phone number: of at least 50,000 population, provided Dentistry, Bureau of Health Workforce, (301) 443–0835 or Email: ruralpolicy@ that the component county/counties of HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, 15N142, hrsa.gov. the MSA have a total population of at Rockville, Maryland 20857; 301–443– SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FORHP least 100,000.’’ At that time, around 5260; or [email protected]. was authorized by Congress in the three quarters of all counties in the Correction: Meeting will be a 2-day Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of United States were non-metropolitan webinar and conference call only rather 1987, Public Law 100–203, codified at and not classified as parts of MSAs. than in-person as previously 42 U.S.C. 912, and located in HRSA. After the 2000 Census, OMB also announced. Congress charged FORHP with began to classify counties using a Maria G. Button, informing and advising the Department smaller urban core. The concept of a Director, Executive Secretariat. of Health and Human Services on Micropolitan statistical area closely parallels that of the MSA, but a [FR Doc. 2020–20940 Filed 9–22–20; 8:45 am] matters affecting rural hospitals and Micropolitan statistical area is based on BILLING CODE 4165–15–P health care and coordinating activities within the Department that relate to an urban core with a population of rural health care. Since the 1990s, 10,000 through 49,999 and Micropolitan DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FORHP has also issued grants for counties are still considered non- HUMAN SERVICES programs of innovative models of health metropolitan. care delivery in rural areas. Historically, As currently classified, OMB builds Health Resources and Services applicant organizations for these grants, both MSAs and Micropolitan Statistical Administration authorized under Section 330A of the Areas around a central county, or Public Health Service Act, were counties, which contains an urban core. Revised Geographic Eligibility for required to be located in rural areas. Surrounding counties can be designated Federal Office of Rural Health Policy However, when the programs were as part of the Core Based Statistical Area Grants recently reauthorized under Section (CBSA) based on the presence of core AGENCY: Health Resources and Services 4214 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and population and/or the commuting Administration (HRSA), Department of Economic Security Act the requirement patterns of the working population. A Health and Human Services. was amended to allow organizations to county may be included in only one CBSA. ACTION: Request for public comment. apply that are located in urban areas but serve rural areas. A county qualifies as a central county SUMMARY: HRSA’s Federal Office of Historically, there have been two of a CBSA if it meets the following Rural Health Policy (FORHP) has sought principal definitions of ‘‘rural’’ that requirements: to identify clear, consistent, and data- were in use by the Federal Government: (a) Has at least 50 percent of the driven methods of defining rural areas the Census Bureau definition (https:// population in urban areas of at least in the United States. FORHP uses the www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ 10,000 population; or Office of Management and Budget geography/guidance/geo-areas/urban- (b) Has within the boundaries a (OMB)’s list of counties designated as rural.html) and the OMB definition population of at least 5,000 located in a part of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (https://www.census.gov/programs- single urban area of at least 10,000 (MSA) as the basis for determining surveys/metro-micro.html). Neither population. eligibility to apply for or receive definition defined ‘‘rural’’ directly, but Since urban areas are not defined by services funded by its rural health grant rather defined ‘‘urban’’ areas and then administrative boundaries, such as city programs. FORHP designates all designated locations that do not meet limits or county borders, they can counties that are not part of a MSA as the ‘‘urban’’ definition as ‘‘rural.’’ extend into one or more counties as long ‘‘rural’’ and eligible for rural health In the early 1990s, the Census Bureau as the population density criterion (a grant funding or services. In addition, defined ‘‘rural’’ as all areas that were minimum of 500 people per square FORHP designates census tracts within not part of an urbanized area (UA) or mile) is met. MSAs as rural for grant purposes using were not part of an incorporated area of A county qualifies as an outlying Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) at least 2,500 persons. UAs were defined county of a CBSA if it meets the codes. FORHP is proposing as densely settled areas with a total following commuting requirements: modifications to how it designates areas population of at least 50,000 people. (a) At least 25 percent of the workers to be eligible for its rural health grant The building block of UAs is the census living in the county work in the central programs so that community block, a sub-unit of census tracts. The county or counties of the CBSA; or organizations serving rural populations Census Bureau introduced the urban (b) At least 25 percent of the within MSAs will be able to apply for cluster (UC) concept for the 2000 employment in the county is accounted VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:59 Sep 22, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM 23SEN1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 23, 2020 / Notices 59807 for by workers who reside in the central the Grand Canyon which is located in determine programmatic eligibility for county or counties of the CBSA. a MSA county. Consequently, one could rural areas inside of MSAs, identified as Outlying counties are not required to argue that the Census Bureau standard rural census tracts within these MSA include any UA or UC population. In includes an over count of the rural counties. some cases, counties may be considered population whereas the OMB standard RUCA codes classify census tracts outlying because of reverse commuting represents an undercount. To address using measures of population density, into the county from other counties in these concerns and find a middle urbanization, and daily commuting. the MSA. ground between the two definitions, RUCA codes are based on the same Because Micropolitan counties are not FORHP funded the development of theoretical concepts used by the OMB to included in MSAs, they are included in Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes define county-level Metropolitan and the set of non-metropolitan counties (RUCAs) (https://www.ers.usda.gov/ Micropolitan areas. By using the smaller along with counties that are not part of data-products/rural-urban-commuting- census tract unit instead of the county, any CBSA. area-codes/) in partnership with the RUCAs permit a finer delineation of There are measurement challenges Economic Research Service (ERS) of the ‘‘rural’’ and ‘‘urban’’ areas to reflect the with both the Census and OMB Department of Agriculture. FORHP experience of residents. Using data from definitions. Some policy experts note believes RUCAs allow more accurate the Census Bureau, every census tract in that the Census definition classifies targeting of resources intended for the the United States is assigned a RUCA quite a bit of suburban area as rural. The rural population. Both FORHP and the code. Currently, there are ten primary OMB definition includes rural areas in Centers for Medicare & Medicaid RUCA codes with 21 secondary codes MSA counties including, for example, Services (CMS) have used RUCAs to (see Table 1). TABLE 1—PRIMARY RUCA CODES, 2010 Code classification Description 1 ..................................... Metropolitan area core: Primary flow within an urbanized area (UA). 2 ..................................... Metropolitan area high commuting: Primary flow 30% or more to a UA. 3 ..................................... Metropolitan area low commuting: Primary flow 10% to 30% to a UA. 4 ..................................... Micropolitan area core: Primary flow within an urban cluster of 10,000 to 49,999 (large UC). 5 ..................................... Micropolitan high commuting: Primary flow 30% or more to a large UC.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ADDRESSING the METROPOLITAN CHALLENGE in BARCELONA METROPOLITAN AREA Appendix
    ADDRESSING THE METROPOLITAN CHALLENGE IN BARCELONA METROPOLITAN AREA Appendix. Case studies of five metropolitan areas: Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Greater Manchester, Stuttgart and Zürich Case Studies of Five Metropolitan Areas: Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Greater Manchester, Stuttgart and Zürich is part of the study Addressing Metropolitan Challenges in Barcelona Metropolitan Area, which was drafted by the Metropolitan Research Institute of Budapest for the Barcelona Metropolitan Area (AMB). The views expressed herein are those of the authors alone, and the AMB cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained in this document. © Àrea Metropolitana de Barcelona June 2018 Table of contents Amsterdam . 29 Copenhagen ....................................................... 36 Greater Manchester ................................................ 42 Stuttgart .......................................................... 52 Zürich ............................................................. 60 Addressing the Metropolitan Challenge in AMB. Case Studies AMSTERDAM (Netherlands) 1. National level framework 1.1. Formal government system The Netherlands is a constitutional monarchy with that is, only binding to the administrative unit which a representative parliamentary democracy and a has developed them (OECD 2017a:21). Aside from decentralised unitary state, characterised by a strong establishing the general legal framework and setting a political tradition of broad consensus seeking in policy strategic course, the state defined
    [Show full text]
  • Charter of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee*
    ‐ THE CHARTER Part I CHARTER OF THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE* Part I CHARTER OF THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE* * State constitution reference—Authority of general assembly to provide for consolidation of cities and counties. State law reference—Metropolitan governments, T.C.A., §§ 7-1-101. Annotation—Metropolitan Charter upheld, constitutionality of enabling legislation discussed, C.T.C.A., §§ 6-3701 et seq., Frazier v. Carr, 210 Tenn. 565, 360 S.W. 2d 449 (1962). ARTICLE 1. - GENERAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE 2. - POWERS ARTICLE 3. - THE METROPOLITAN COUNTY COUNCIL ARTICLE 4. - THE URBAN COUNCIL ARTICLE 5. - THE METROPOLITAN COUNTY MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR ARTICLE 6. - THE BUDGETS AND FINANCIAL MATTERS ARTICLE 7. - BOND ISSUES ARTICLE 8. - METROPOLITAN DEPARTMENTS CHAPTER 1. - DEPARTMENT OF METROPOLITAN FINANCE RELATED FISCAL PROVISIONS CHAPTER 2. - DEPARTMENT OF METROPOLITAN POLICE CHAPTER 3. - DEPARTMENT OF FIRE CHAPTER 4. - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CHAPTER 5. - DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND SEWERAGE SERVICES CHAPTER 6. - DEPARTMENT OF LAW CHAPTER 7. - DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION* ARTICLE 9. - PUBLIC SCHOOLS* ARTICLE 10. - PUBLIC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS Metro Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, Code of Ordinances Page 1 ‐ THE CHARTER Part I CHARTER OF THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE* CHAPTER 1. - PUBLIC HEALTH CHAPTER 2. - PUBLIC HOSPITALS* ARTICLE 11. - ADMINISTRATIVE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS CHAPTER 1. - GENERAL PROVISIONS CHAPTER 2. - BOARD OF EQUALIZATION CHAPTER 3. - ELECTRIC POWER BOARD CHAPTER 4. - NASHVILLE TRANSIT AUTHORITY CHAPTER 5. - METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION CHAPTER 6. - METROPOLITAN BOARD OF FAIR COMMISSIONERS CHAPTER 7. - FARMERS MARKET BOARD CHAPTER 8. - AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION BOARD CHAPTER 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration - a Way out of the Swedish Rural Population Crisis?
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Johansson, Mats Conference Paper Immigration - a way out of the Swedish rural population crisis? 56th Congress of the European Regional Science Association: "Cities & Regions: Smart, Sustainable, Inclusive?", 23-26 August 2016, Vienna, Austria Provided in Cooperation with: European Regional Science Association (ERSA) Suggested Citation: Johansson, Mats (2016) : Immigration - a way out of the Swedish rural population crisis?, 56th Congress of the European Regional Science Association: "Cities & Regions: Smart, Sustainable, Inclusive?", 23-26 August 2016, Vienna, Austria, European Regional Science Association (ERSA), Louvain-la-Neuve This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/174634 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu Paper prepared for the ERSA conference in Vienna, August 23-26, 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Government in England: Evolution and Long- Term Trends
    RESEARCH and EVALUATION (PEER REVIEWED) Local government in England: evolution and long- term trends Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance Issue 23: 2020 http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/ojs/index.php/cjlg John B Parr Bartlett School of Planning University College London London WC1E 6BT United Kingdom Email: [email protected] Abstract This paper traces the history of local government in England (as opposed to the United Kingdom) since the early nineteenth century, and explores five long-term trends in its evolution. These are path dependence; the occurrence of major structural change; the phenomenon of policy reversal; the treatment of urban areas; and resistance to regional government. The author concludes that throughout the period under study, policy towards local government has exhibited a ‘pendulum effect’, with two opposing emphases operating in a sequential, rather than a simultaneous manner. Keywords: County, metropolitan county, unitary authority, combined authority, official region Introduction Over the last 75 years, popular interest and participation in local government in England have waned. One reason for this is the fact that central government has effectively taken control of many local- government responsibilities, either directly or indirectly. This has been accompanied (and to some extent caused) by the dependence of local authorities on central government for an increasingly large proportion of their revenues, England’s being among the highest within developed nations (Copus et al. 2017; Rhodes 1986). More generally, public interest has been diverted to issues such as globalisation, climate change, the Brexit question etc. It is also noteworthy that on those occasions when local- government issues are considered, the concern is typically with the detail of specific cases, rather than the system of public administration at the local level.
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Organization: the St. Louis Case. Commission Report
    Current Members of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (August 1988) Private Citizens James S. Dwight, Jr., Arlington, Virginia Daniel J. Elazar, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Robert B. Hawkins, Jr., Chairman, San Francisco, California Members of the U.S. Senate David Durenberger, Minnesota Carl Levin, Michigan James R. Sasser, Tennessee Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Sander Levin, Michigan Jim Ross Lightfoot, Iowa Ted Weiss, New York Officers of the Executive Branch, U.S. Government Andrew H. Card, Deputy Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs Ann McLaughlin, Secretary of Labor Vacancy Governors John Ashcroft, Missouri John H. Sununu, Vice Chairmun, New Hampshire Vacancy Vacancy Mayors Donald M. Fraser, Minneapolis, Minnesota William H. Hudnut, 111, Indianapolis, Indiana Robert M. Isaac, Colorado Springs, Colorado Vacancy Members of State Legislatures John T. Bragg, Deputy Speaker, Tennessee House of Representatives Ross 0.Doyen, Kansas Senate David E. Nething, North Dakota Senate Elected County Officials Philip B. Elfstrom, Kane County, Illinois, County Commission Harvey Ruvin, Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, County Commission Sandra Smoley, Sacramento County, California, Board of Supervisors - , A Commission Report Metropolitan Organization: I. I.I Louis Case ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS Washington, DC 20575 September 1988 M- 158 Preface This report marks the first publication in a series izational "overlays" can knit jurisdictions together at of case studies being undertaken by ACIR in an ef- key points. Economies of large scale can be cap- fort to learn more about how complex metropolitan tured without sacrificing the economies of small areas are organized and governed in our federal sys- scale. None of these good things, of course, come tem.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Rural Counties and Designated Eligible Census
    List of Rural Counties And Designated Eligible Census Tracts in Metropolitan Counties Updated Census 2010 The Office of Rural Health Policy uses two methods to determine geographic eligibility for its grant programs. As in prior years, all counties that are not designated as parts of Metropolitan Areas (MAs) by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are considered rural. Any county that is not a part of a Metropolitan Area is considered rural. Counties classified as Micropolitan are non-Metropolitan. The current list of MAs, issued in 2013, and updates are available on the Internet at http://www.census.gov/population/www/metroareas/metrodef.html Due to the fact that entire counties are designated as Metropolitan when, in fact, large parts of many counties may be rural in nature, the Office of Rural Health Policy has sought an alternative method of looking at sub-county sections of these Metropolitan counties that would allow sections to be designated rural. The Goldsmith modification was originally developed and used to identify rural Census tracts in large Metropolitan counties. The Office of Rural Health Policy has funded the development of the Rural Urban Commuting Area Codes (RUCAs) to designate "Rural" areas within MAs. Census tracts with RUCA codes 4 through 10 are considered rural for the purposes of Rural Health grants. While use of the RUCA codes has allowed identification of rural census tracts in Metropolitan counties, among the more than 60,000 tracts in the U.S. there are some that are extremely large and where use of RUCA codes alone fails to account for distance to services and sparse population.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report 1971-1992
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND FINAL REPORT 1971-1992 REPORT No 688 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND FINAL REPORT 1971-1992 REPORT No 688 <D Crown copyright 1992 This material may be freely reproduced except for sale or advertising purposes. LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Mr K F J Ennals CB MEMBERS Mr G R Prentice Mrs H R V Sarkany Mr C W Smith Professor K Young Contents Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION '...... V 2. THE COMMISSION'S GENESIS 3 i 3. THE COMMISSION'S WORK, 1971-92 5 4. THE COMMISSION AND ITS ENVIRONMENT 21 5. PEOPLE AND PROCEDURES 25 6. THE SEARCH FOR GOOD BOUNDARIES 29 7. REFLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS 35 Annexes Page A. Commission Chairmen, Deputy Chairmen, Members and Secretaries 37 B. Commission reports 1. General reports 38 2. Initial Electoral Reviews ...39 3. Principal Area Boundary Reviews 52 4. Parish Reviews 56 5. Further Electoral Reviews 57 6 Mandatory Reviews of non-Metropolitan Counties, Metropolitan Districts and London Boroughs 58 7. Other publications 62 C. Main legislative provisions, annexed to Departmental Circulars, governing the Commission's operation 63 D. Review criteria 73 E. Secretary of State for the Environment's direction of 8 May 1984 74 Section 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Local Government Boundary Commission was formally set up in November 1972, although it had operated as a Commission-designate since November 1971. It is to be dissolved on 31 October 1992. 1.2 This final report seeks to set our Commission in its historical context; summarise its 21 years' work on administrative and electoral boundaries; discuss various important issues which have emerged during these 21 years; and finally proffer some reflections and observations which may be of particular concern to the new Local Government Commission, which will be taking over our remaining work, and which may also be of interest to the general reader.
    [Show full text]
  • Voting Rights, Home Rule, and Metropolitan Governance: the Secession of Staten Island As a Case Study in the Dilemmas of Local Self-Determination
    VOTING RIGHTS, HOME RULE, AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE: THE SECESSION OF STATEN ISLAND AS A CASE STUDY IN THE DILEMMAS OF LOCAL SELF-DETERMINATION Richard Brtffault* On January 1, 1898, amid fanfare and celebration, the city of Greater New York-"the greatest experiment in municipal government the world has ever known" '-was born. The consolidation of the cities, counties, and towns on the New York State side of New York Harbor into one great metropolis was a capstone to one century of rapid eco- nomic and population growth and a fitting harbinger of a new century of urban greatness for the region and, indeed, the nation. Now, with another century mark approaching, there is a distinct possibility that the City of New York, already beset by a host of economic and social ills, may not make it to its own centennial intact. The New York State legislature has authorized the residents of one of the five boroughs2- Staten Island-to initiate a process of secession and incorporation into a separate city of their own.3 The secession of Staten Island has elicited a host of divergent reac- tions, ranging from the hyperbolic to the humorous. The proponents of secession, seeing themselves currently relegated to a "neo-colonial status"4 by an inattentive City government, dot their manifestoes with references to the American Revolution,5 Lithuania,6 the Berlin Wall, * Professor of Law, Columbia University School of Law. B.A., Columbia, 1974; J.D., Harvard, 1977. Research for this Article was supported by a grant from The Walter E. Meyer Research in Law and Social Problems Fund.
    [Show full text]
  • Forming a Metropolitan Government
    Forming a Metropolitan Government The Hows and Whys of Local Government Consolidation in Tennessee Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations Staff Information Report September 2003 TACIR Publication Policy Staff Information Reports, Staff Briefs, Staff Technical Reports and Staff Working Papers and TACIR Fast Facts are issued to promote the mission and objectives of the Commission. These reports are intended to share information and research findings relevant to important public policy issues in an attempt to promote wider understanding. Only reports clearly labeled as “Commission Reports” represent the official position of the Commission. Others are informational. The Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations 226 Capitol Boulevard Building Suite 508 Nashville, Tennessee 37243 Phone: 615.741.3012 Fax: 615.532.2443 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.state.tn.us/tacir Forming a Metropolitan Government The Hows and Whys of Local Government Consolidation in Tennessee Staff Information Report Harry A. Green, Ph.D. Executive Director and Research Director Cliff Lippard Director of Fiscal Affairs Leah Eldridge Senior Research Associate Teresa Gibson Publications Assistant September 2003 (This report is a revision of the October 1999 report) Table of Contents Preface ..............................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • December 15, 2020 PREAMBLE ARTICLE 1
    CHARTER UPDATED: December 15, 2020 PREAMBLE ARTICLE 1 - POWERS OF THE COUNTY ARTICLE 2 - THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ARTICLE 3 - THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH ARTICLE 4 - FINANCIAL PROCEDURES ARTICLE 5 - THE PERSONNEL SYSTEM ARTICLE 6 - ELECTIONS ARTICLE 7 - BOARD OF APPEALS ARTICLE 8 - GENERAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE 9 - TRANSITORY PROVISIONS RESOLUTION DISPOSITION OF FORMER CHARTER SECTIONS CHARTER INDEX CHARTER AMENDMENTS CODE ADOPTION CHARTER PREAMBLE We, the people of King County, Washington, in order to form a more just and orderly government, establish separate legislative and executive branches, insure responsibility and accountability for local and regional county governance and services, enable effective public participation, preserve a healthy rural and urban environment and economy and secure the benefits of home rule and self-government, in accordance with the Constitution of the State of Washington, do adopt this charter. (Ord. 19123 § 1, 2020: Ord. 16884 § 1, 2010). ARTICLE 1 - POWERS OF THE COUNTY Section 110 General Powers. The county shall have all of the powers which it is possible for a home rule county to have under the state constitution. Section 120 Intergovernmental Relations. The county may, in the exercise of its powers and the performance of its functions and services, agree by contract or otherwise to participate jointly or in cooperation with any one or more other governments, governmental agencies, and municipal corporations, and to share the costs and responsibilities of such powers, functions and services. Section 130 Construction. The powers of the county granted by this charter shall be liberally construed, and the specific statement of particular powers shall not be construed as limiting the general powers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Census Geography and County Typologies in the Construction of Classification Systems for Rural Schools and Districts
    Journal of Research in Rural Education, Fall, 1992, Vol. 8, No.3, pp. 47-68 The Use of Census Geography and County Typologies in the Construction of Classification Systems for Rural Schools and Districts William L. Elder University of Missouri I describe the characteristics of schools and school districts by interrelating NCES data using various Bureau of the Census and ERS county typologies. When rural school districts are defined as those where at least 75% of the students attend a school in a rural locale, then 47% ofthe nation's districts are rural and53% are urban. Rural districts account for 22.3% of all regular public schools, 11.8% of all public school students, and 13.4% of teachers. Most of our22,400 rural schools and 6.6 million rural students are in rural districts, but a sizable fraction are in urban districts as well. Differences in school size are discussed by region and county type. The analysis suggests that rural schools andrural districts are smallbecause theirpopulations are sparse and isolated, which makes the diseconomies of transportation to larger centers greater than the diseconomies of small scale. The prospects for more precise typologies of rural schools are considered in anticipation of forthcoming educational data based on the 1990 census Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding Referencing (TIGER) files, which include levels of geographic detail not previously available for rural areas. Introduction liminary way, to explore these factors by interrelating school and district data files from the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) with county demo­ Although rural schools and districts tend to be graphic files and county typologies from the Economic small compared to urban educational systems, to­ Research Service (ERS).
    [Show full text]
  • 1965 Chapter 59
    1033 OOUNTIES 59.001 TITLE VIII. Functions and Government of Municipalities. CHAPTER 59. COUNTIES. 59.001 Definitions. 59.41 Certify records as clerk of county 59.01 Body corporate. court. 59.02 Po,vers, ho,v exercised; quorum. 59.42 Clerk of court; fees. 69.03 Boards; composition; election; terms; 59.43 Payment of filing fee. substitutes; compensation; compat­ 59.44 District attorney pro tempore; assist­ ibility. ants in criminal and civil cases. 59.031 County executive in populous coun- 59.45 Assistants in other than special coun­ ties. ties. 59.033 County administrator. 59.455 Corporation counsel in special coun­ 59.04 Meetings' adjournment; absentees. ties. 59.05 Chairnla~; vice chairlnen; po'v~rs and 59.456 Corporation counsel and district at- duties. torney in special counties; duties. 59.06 Committees; appointment; compensa- 59.46 Assistants in special counties. tion. 59.47 District attorney; duties. 59.07 General powers of board. 59.475 Shawano County district attorney for 59 071 Industrial development agenCles. Menominee County. 59:08 Public worl<, how done; public emer- 59.48 When not to be city attorney. gencies. 59.485 May be town or village attorney. 50.083 lVIilwaukee county, consolidation of 59.49 Restrictions on district attorney. municipal services, home rule, met­ 59.50 Register of deeds; deputies. ropolitan district. 59.51 Register of deeds; duties. 59.09 Publication of ordinances and pro- 59.513 Including name of person drafting ceedings. instrument. 59.10 Neglect of duty. 59.514 Including tax key number. 59.11 County seat; change. 59.515 Effect of certain omissions in regis­ 59.12 Coun ty officers; terms.
    [Show full text]