DOCSLIB.ORG

Estimates of the Population of Counties: July 1, 1966*

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Estimates of the Population of Counties: July 1, 1966* Series P-25, No. 404 September 27, 1968 ESTIMATES OF THE POPULATION OF COUNTIES: JULY 1, 1966* (Report No.2) (Estimates shown here are generally consistent with those published for metropolitan counties for July 1,1965, shown in Current Population Reports, Series P-25, Nos. 371 and 378.~! They supersede the provisional metropolitan county estimates for ,July 1, 1966, shown in Report No. 378) This report presents estimates of the popu­ County estimates for 1966 for the following 20 lation for July 1, 1966, for 945 counties in 17 States were published earlier in Current Population selec,tedi States. This is the second of three Reports, Series P-25, No. 401: Arkansas, Cali­ reports ,showing population estimates for all the fornia, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, counties' in the United States for July 1, 1966. Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Min­ These estimates relate to the total resident popu­ nesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North lation in each county; that is, the civilian resident Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, population plus members of the Armed Forces Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. stationed in the area<. The States covered in this report are: METHODOLOGY Alabama North Dakota Arizona Oregon Three methods are employed by the Bureau of Colorado South Carolina the Census in developing current county estimates. Georgia South Dakota They are (1) the Bureau's Component Method It, Hawaii Tennessee which employs vital statistics to measure natural Kentucky Utah increase and school enrollment (or school census) Mississippi Washington data as a basis for measuring· net migration; Nevada Wyoming (2) a composite method, in which separate esti­ New Mexico mates are prepared for different segments of the population using different types of current data Estimates are shown for July 1, 1966, for each for each group; and (3) a housing unit method, in county in theSE! States, with the components of which estimated changes in the number of occupied population change (births, deaths, and net migration) housing units are used as the basis for estimating for the period since April 1, 1960. changes in population. * These estimates were prepared in the State and Local Population Estimates and Projections Branch, Population Division, in connection with a contractual arrangement to provide data for metropolitan areas and counties to the following Federal agencies: the Office of Civil Defense, the Economic Development Administration (Department of Conunerce), the Office of Transportation Information Planning (Department of Transportation), and the Defense Communications Agency (Department of Defense). For sale by the Superinteruf.ent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402, 15 cents. Annual subscription (Series P-20, P-23, P-25, P-27, P-28 summaries, P-60, and P'-65, combined), $5 .. 00; foreign mailing, $6.50. 2 The methodology used in developing current counties indicated as metropolitan are whole­ estimates by these three methods is discussed in county approximations to the SMSA's. A detailed Series P-25, No. 371. A detailed step-by-step explanation of the criteria used in establishing outline of Component Method II is presented in SMSA's is given in Standard Metropolitan Statistical Series P-25, No. 339. Areas, Executive Office of the President, Bureau of the Budget, 1967. For tbis report, all three methods were em­ ployed in! developing estimates for metropolitan ROUNDING OF ESTIMATES counties in all States and for the nonmetropolitan counties in Hawaii and Washington. 1 For all Estimates presented in the tables contained in remaining counties, estimates. were developed by this report have been rounded to the nearest Component Method II and the Composite method hundred for counties and to the nearest thousand only. The results of the two or three methods for States without being adjusted to group totals, were then averaged. which are independently rounded. Percentages are based on unrounded numbers. As a final step, the average estimates for the counties in each State were summed and adjusted to an independent State total published in Current FEDERAL-STATE COOPERATIVE PROGRAM Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 380. Ad­ FOR LOCAL POPULATION ESTIMATES ditional adjustments were made as needed in speciaV population groups, such as college and The estimates presented in this report are a institutlonal populations, since the regular esti­ "one-time" set of estimates prepared by the Bureau mating methodology would not be expected to reflect of the Census as a by-product of a larger project fully any large or unusual changes in these groups. now under way for a number of Federal agencies. Preparation of corresponding annual postcensal Spedial estimates for selected areas.--For a estimates for all the counties in the country is not number of areas, additional data are available for now part of the Census Bureau's program. In use in the preparation of popUlation estimates. recognition of the widespread need for small-area Such sources as special censuses conducted by the popUlation estimates of uniform quality from State Bureau of the Census since 1960 and the censuses to State, the Bureau of the Census has been de­ conducted by State or county governments have veloping a cooperative program with the States been drawn upon. Counties where estimates have for the preparation and publication of county popu­ been prepared using these special data sources lation estimates. The ultimate objective of the are footnoted in the table. cooperative program is the development and publi­ cation of State-prepared county population figures, LIMITATIONS by preferred methods, largely standarized for data input and methods mutually agreed upon by the A detailed discussion of the limitations of the States and the Bureau of the Census. various methods used in the preparation of metro­ politan county estimates and of the relationship of The selection of methods will be made on the estimates prepared by each method to the published basis of a large-scale test and evaluation program average of methods is contained in report No. 371. to be carried out when the 1970 Census results A large proportion of the counties for which esti­ become available. To date (as of September 1, mates'are presented in this report,however, 1968) 40 States have agreed to participate in the had a population under 20,000. The estimates for program, working with the Census Bureau to these smaller areas may not have as high a level achieve the goals described above. A listing of of accuracy, on the average, as those for large the States and the agencies designated by State metropolitan areas. governors to work with the Bureau of the Census on the technical aspects of the program is given DEFINITIONS in the appendix. 2 Metropolitan counties are those counties in­ During this past year, several States have cluded in standard metropolitan statistical areas published county population estimates in consul­ (SMSA's) as of June 1968. In New England, how­ tatioH with the Bureau of the Census, usmg ever, SMSA's are defined in terms of towns and Cities, rather than counties. The New England 2 For a more detailed description of the pro­ gram, see, Meyer Zitter, "Federal-State Cooperative 1 Housing unit estimates were developed for non­ Program for Local Population Estimates," The Regis­ metropolitan counties where evidence indicated that trar and Statistician, U.S. Department of Health, completeness of coverage of areas reporting resi­ Education, and Welfare, Vol. 33, No.1, January dential building permits' issued was very high. 1968. 3 methodology largely within the general framework Leonard M. Sizer, Estimates of the Population of the goals of the Federal-State Cooperative of West Virginia Counties, July 1, 1950-1966, program.···TheStaie~preparea~county-estfmates November 1967, Office of Research and De­ are contained in the following reports: velopment, Center of Appalachian Studies and Development, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia. Population Estimates of Arizona, July 1, 1967, In general, the State-prepared county population Research and Reports Section, Unemployment figures differ only slightly from those contained Compensation Division, Employment Security in this report, and the pattern of population re­ Commission of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona. distribution since 1960 is quite similar for both sets. Small differences in the two sets of esti­ mates come about because of differences in data Forrest H. Pollard, "Preliminary Estimates of input, differences in the specific methods used in the Population of Louisiana Parishes: July 1, arriving at final "average" estimates, or as is the 1966." The Louisiana Economy, Volume 1, case in Arizona, a difference in the total State No.1, April 1968, Division of Business and population to which the county estimates were Economic Research, School of Business Admin­ adjusted. istration, Louisiana Polytechnic Institute, P.O. Box 5796, Tech Station, Ruston, Louisiana. In later years, should the objectives of the Federal-State Cooperative Program for Local Population Estimates be realized, the .Bureau of C.Horace Hamilton, Estimates of the Popu­ the Census would publish State-prepared estimates lation of North Carolina Counties, 1966 and 1967, similar to those published in the above-mentioned Demographic ReportH-l, May 1968, Statistical reports in lieu of preparing its own estimates. Service Center, Budget Division, State Depart­ In all such instances, however, the sum of the ment of Adminlstrat:l.()n, Raleigh; and Carolina county estimates would be in agreement With the Population Center, University of North Carolina independently prepared State population estimates at Chapel Hill, North Carolina. ' regularly published in this series of reports. 4 ESTIMATES OF THE POPULATION OF COUNTIES, JULY 1, 1966, AND COMPONENTS OF POPULATION CHANGE SINCE APRIL 1,1960 (Asterisk (*) indicates metropolitan county. State estimates are shown to the nearest thousand, county estimates to the nearest hundred) Change, Components of change Population 1960 to 1966 state and county Net July 1, Percent Births Deaths 1966 migratIon ------l------,- -----1--'---- ALABAMA:..••....•.....•..••.•.•.
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]