v»EPA Results of the
1994 EPA Survey of Small
Local Governments
-------
-------
RESULTS OF THE
1994 EPA SURVEY
OF SMALL LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS
j
-------
-------
The 1994 EPA Survey of Small Local Governments
was conducted to provide information to the U S
Em ironmental Protection Agencv for use in regula-
tory planning and clev elopment The impetus for
the survey came trom new policv directives issued in
1992 related to the Regulator) Flexibihtv Act of 1980
These directives emphasized EPA's responsibility to
consider the impact of its regulations on small gov -
ernments scrv ing populations less than 50,000 The
directives also ensure that these small governments
have input in the regulatory development process
More recent legislation, such as the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 and the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, have
also reiterated the importance of including small
governments in EPA's regulatory process The
results of the 1994 Surv ey of Small Local
Go\ ernments \\ ill inform and enhance EPA's regula-
tory activities with improved data on the characteris-
tics of small gov ernments and their communities
The survey sampled 10% ot small general purpose
governments — counties, municipalities, and town-
ships — in the United States with populations less
than 50,000 The high response rate to the survey
(80"u) was achiev ed through the v oluntarv coopera-
tion of 2,775 respondent governments and the assis-
tance of mam small gov ernment officials in the
dev elopment ot the survey Within EPA, the dev el-
opment ot the surv ev was guided b\ a committee
composed of representatives of several program and
support offices who determined the content of sur-
v ev questions Officials in other federal agencies
concerned with small governments, professionals in
academic circles, and the pn\ ate sector prov ided
additional assistance
The survey addressed twelve subject areas to
determine how, regulatory env ironments affect small
go\ ernments These areas are
• information sources used by small governments
concerning the content and implementation of
environmental regulations,
• the presence of facilities and activities affecting
environmental quality within small government
jurisdictions,
• drinking water prov ision,
• wastewater systems,
• landfills,
• recycling and household waste disposal,
• pollution prevention,
• underground and aboveground storage tanks,
• community right-to-know laws,
• land use planning,
• government financing ot environmentallv-relat-
td services, and
• small gov ernment contacts concerning govern-
ment activities and serv ices
This report on the survey is presented in two sec-
tions Section 1 presents results of the surv ey in table
format with a short narrative discussion Section 2
describes the background, dev elopment, and
statistical methodology of the survey A copy ot the
Survey Questionnaire is included in the Appendix
Information on obtaining data files is presented at
the back of the report
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 RESULTS OF THE SURVEY
A Reading the Survey Results
B Information Sources Used by Small Go\ ernments
C Facilities and Acti\ ities Associated with Em ironmental Quality
D Drinking Water
E Wastew ater Treatment and Disposal
F Landfills
G Rec\ cling and Household Waste Disposal
H Pollution Prevention
I Underground and Abo\ eground Storage Tanks
J Community Right-to-Know
K Land Use Planning
L Funding Sources and Uses
M Small Go\ ernment Contacts
N Small Go\ ernment Comments
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY
A Background on the Survey
B Participants in Survey Development
C Sun ev Research Plan
D Survey Design
E Instrument De\ elopment
F Statistical Design
G Sur\e\ Implementation
H Data Processing
I AnaH sis of Sun ev Results
J References
APPENDIX
Sun ey Questionnaire
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS / FURTHER ASSISTANCE
Acknou ledgments / Further Assistance
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Information Sources
Table 2 Facilities and Activities Associated with Environmental Quality
Table 3 Drinking Water
Table 4 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
Table 5 Landfills
Table 6 Rec\ cling and Household Waste Disposal
Table 7 Pollution Pre\ention
Table 8 Underground Storage Tanks
Table 9 Abov eground Storage Tanks
Table 10 Commumtv Right-to-Knou
Table 11 Land Use Planning
Table 12 Funding Sources and Uses
Table 13 Percent of Governments Providing Staff Contacts
Table 14 Percent of Small Go\ ernments Submitting Comments
Table 15 Distribution of Comments on Environmental Legislation
3
6
6
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
11
11
45
45
46
46
47
49
51
54
56
57
65
83
14
16
19
20
22
24
31
33
35
37
38
39
10
11
11
-------
Table 16 Survey Strata, Sampling Frame, and Sample Sizes 50
Table 17 Standard I rrors for Percentage Results (based on various analysis class sizes and for the total
expected survey sample si/e, with an 80% response rate) 51
Table 18 Response Kates by Type of Government and Survey Phase 55
Table 19 Summary of Phase I and Phase I! Field Operations 55
Table 20 Analysis Classes and Sample Sizes 56
Table 21 Standard Errors for Counties by Subclass and Percentage Finding 57
Table 22 Standard Errors for Municipalities by Subclass and Percentage Finding 57
Table 23 Standard Errors for Townships bv Subclass and Percentage Finding 58
Table 24 Standard Errors for Overall Sample by Percentage Finding 58
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Small Go\ ernments by Type and Size 3
Figure 2 Standard Errors for Counties (bv Subclass and Percentage Finding) 4
Figure 3 Standard Errors for Municipalities (by Subclass and Percentage Finding) 4
Figure 4 Standard Errors for Townships (bv Subclass and Percentage Finding) 5
Figure 5 Standard Errors for All Government Types, All Subclasses 5
Figure 6 Cumulative Response Rates at Start of Each Survev Activity, Phase I 52
Figure 7 Cumulative Response Rates at Start of Each Sur\ev Activity, Phase II 53
Figure 8 Counties in U S by Population Size 58
Figure 9 Municipalities in U S with Populations less than 2 500 59
Figure 10 Municipalities in U S with Populations from 2,500 to 9,999 59
Figure 11 Municipalities in U S with Populations from 10,000 to 50,000 60
Figure 12 Townships in U S with Populations less than 2,500 60
Figure 13 Townships in U S with Populations from 2,500 to 9,999 61
Figure 14 Townships in U S with Populations from 10,000 to 50,000 61
-------
SECTION 1. RESULTS
OF THE SURVEY
-------
-------
SECTION 1. Results of the Survey
A Reading the Survey Results
The 1994 Sun e\ of Small Local Governments was
conducted by EPA from March 1994 to May 1995 A
mail-in questionnaire was sent to government offi-
cials (such as mayors, citv managers, citv clerks) in a
sample drawn from the 37,588 small general purpose
go\ernments in the United States serving popula-
tions less than 50,000 Zero population go\ernments
were excluded from the final data files thereby
reducing the total Gen ernment size from 37,588 to
37,548
The results of the sun ev are compiled in Tables 1-
12, beginning on page 14 Results are show n tor
each t\pe ot "general purpose" go\ ernment* sur-
\eved —2,248 counties, 18,751 municipalities, and
16,549 townships In each table, the survey results
for each lev el ot go\ ernment are also broken dow n
ues in Tables 1-12 bv the number of go\ ernments
pro\ ided in Figure 1 For example, in the first ques-
tion in Table 1, 73% of counties ser\ ing populations
less than 10,000 indicated that then statt had access
to a personal computer This represents a total of
531 countv go\ ernments ( 73 x 728, the number of
counties serving populations less than 10,000)
f igures 2-5 present estimates ot the standard
errors of the data for counties, municipalities, town-
ships, and nil governments The standard error is a
measure, ot the probable accuracy or precision of
estimates derived from the sur\e\ data To interpret
a standard error estimate for the survey results
using Figures 2-5 first, find the appropriate figure
foi the le\ el of go\ ernment concerned Second,
locate the percentage \alue from Tables 1-12 on the
horizontal axis ot the graph Next, follow the value
\eiticalh to the relevant curve Finalh, follow the
intersected point on a
Figure ]. Srn.il] Governments by Typ* and Size
Governments By Size
D 10 000 50 000 • 2 500-9 999
1-2,499
COUNTIES
2248
MUNICIPALITIES
18751
TOWNSHIPS
16,549
Governments By Type
n COUNTIES/ 2,248
B MUNICIPALITIES/18751
• TOWNSHIPS/ie 549
Counties
<10000
Number of
Governments
728
10000 50,000
Total
Municipalities
<2 5000
1520
2248
13,293
2,500 - 9 999
3,602
10000 50,000
Total
Townships
1,856
18,751
<2,5000
12752
2,500 9,999
10000 50000
Total
2,820
Total
b\ size ot population served (kss than 2,500, 2,500 to
9,999, and 10,000 to 50,000) These size categories
were selected to support EI'A's program needs
The results in Tables 1-12 refer to the percent of
governments in a government type and/or si?e cate-
gory that responded positively to the survey ques-
tion Figure 1, which also appears at the top ot
Tables 1-12, shows a bieakout of the numbers of
counties, municipalities, and townships b\ size cate-
gory and t> pe of gov ernment To determine the
numbers of gov ernments represented by the percent-
age findings in Tables 1-12, multiply the percent v al-
straight line to the lett
vertical axis of the graph
to read off the standard
error estimate
For example, the stan-
dard error estimate for
the 73"<> ot counties sen -
ing populations less than
10,000 whose staff had
access to a personal com-
puter is approximately
6 3 "o (as show n bv the
top curve in Figure 2) To
calculate the correspond-
ing standard ei ror in
numbers of gov ern-
ments, multiply the stan-
dard eiror in percent bv
the subclass si/e in num-
bers For the cited exam-
ple, this is calculated as
0 063 x 728 giv ing a
standard error estimate
of 46 (gen ernments)
Tables 1-12 also include results tor 'All
Governments," which refers to all gene»ral purpose
governments in the United States serv ing popula-
tions less than 50,000 However, the statistics for
"All Gov ernments' may be skew e'd b\ the large
number ot governments with populations under
2,500, particularly when such governments differ
977
16,549
All Governments
37548
The perceitages in the pie charts are
based en ME number of government
responses by size and category provided in
the above Mble
* Ltmial fuifiif* x<>11 """<"'*• an Mjwuh (< ^iii m/irio ii/f/JOii
i tViiidVt1 ii/iif j'/ty-uii/li/U \ iiiimtufiifi'it-mi/i>i j'liifo'ti
feu n^liif^ nia\i bi. (nut al ntuinnf>alttii'-> E\ilndid fioni tin -' I n
-------
Counties
10,000-49,999
T-inomoinoinoinomomoinom
m o>
O) 0>
Percentage Finding in Tables of Results
Figure 3.
•>s anu r'ercentape Finding!
700
650
600
550
_ 500
e 450
"5 400
» 350
| 300
1 250
35 200
1 50
1 00
050
000
Municipalities
2,500-9,999
Municipalities
10000-49999
All municipalities
<50 000
t- IO
o m
CM rg
m
co
o m
m vn
in
co
o tn
r-- N-
o m o m CD
oo oo o> o> o
Percentage Finding in Tables of Results
1
-------
Figure 4. Standard Errors for Townships (by Subclass and Percentage Finding)
35
c
8
Q>
"E
to
700
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
1 50
1 00
050
000
200
1 50
Townships
10,000-49,999
Townships
2,500-9 999
A
All Townships
<50,000
Percentage Finding in Tables of Results
Figure 5. Standard Errors for All Governments by Types, All Subclasses
55
c
1
c
w
55
1 00
050
000
o 10 o
1- T- OJ
CM
o
CO
in
ro
in
o
m
in
o
co
in
co
o
GO
in
oo
o
o>
o>
o>
Percentage Finding in Tables of Results
j
-------
substantially from larger gov ernments Statistics tor
"All Governments" were computed only for ques-
tions where the\ would not result in over counting
due to geographic o\ erlaps Maps showing the loca-
tions of the sur\ e\ population by type and size of
government are presented at the end of the report
(Figures 8-14) More detailed information on the
methodological and procedural aspects of the survey
is presented in Section 2 of this, report
B Information Sources Used by Small
Governments
How do small general purpose governments obtain
information about environmental regulations7 Small gov -
emment's ability to effective!) comment on proposal regu-
lations and to comply with mandates rests on the a\ ailabili-
ry of relevant information sources Two questions w ere
posed to assist in the evaluation of current and future
means of dissemination of information (See Table 1) The
first question concerned whether the respondent or staff
had access to a personal computer for local government
business, and whether a modem was also available The
second question was posed to identify the sources respon-
dents relied upon for information about new or revised
regulations and for technical guidance on implementing
env ironmental regulations
In 1994, just ov er half of small community gov emments
in the U S had access to a personal computer, while only
21 "<. had both computers and modems av ailable to them
How ev er, these figures v aned among gov emment types
and sizes Computers—and moderns to a lesser extent—
were av ailable to most respondeits working for county
government, and for municipal and township gov ern-
ments serving populations ov er 2,500, suggesting that dis-
tributing regulatory information via diskette or online
could be feasible However, only a quarter of the smallest
townships and half of the smallest municipalities had com-
puters Of these, even fewer also owned modems, indicat-
ing that other modes of information dissemination will
remain important to several thousand small governments
The most common sources of information for small gov-
ernments about the content and existence of environmental
regulations were state env ironmental agencies and other
state agenaes One exception u as the smallest townships,
w hich turned to countv gov emments as their primary
source of information The next most commonly cited
sources of information w ere U b EPA, associations, techni-
cal publications, engineering sen ices, and local new spa-
pers The Federal Rcgistei was not cited as a particularly
common source — only 15% of small gov ernmenb men-
tioned using it, although municipalities with populations
ov er 10,000 cited using the Fedetal Rey*tcr much more often
(46"<>) The least common source of information on envi-
ronmental regulations w as electronic bulletin boards, ated
by fewer thar 1% of small governments nationwide
A similar pattern held for sources of technical informa-
tion or implementing environmental regulations
C Facilities and Activities Associated with
Environmental Quality
Knowledge of the kinds of facilities owned or
operated bv small governments or located within
their boundaries can assist in the ev aluation of direct
and cumulative impacts of regulatory actions
Information was gathered on 31 types of facilities
and operations which profile the "env ironmental
landscapes" of small gov ernments (See Table 2)
These types of facilities include airports, drinking
water and wastewater systems, electric generating
facilities, w aste incinerators and waste disposal sites,
and manufacturing plants Additionally, the extent
small governments participated in envn onmental
management programs was explored The programs
inventoried levels of concern and protection for
aquifers, recharge areas, wellheads and watersheds,
drainage and flood control, erosion and soil conser-
vation, and industrial development
The types of facilities small governments owned
or operated v aned more greatly by type of gov ern-
ment than by size of gov ernment Counties were
more hkelv to own airports, landfills, aboveground
and underground storage tanks and gravel pits,
although the actual numbers of municipalities and
townships owning such facilities w ere greater in
some cases Water and wastewater systems (i e,
drinking water treatment systems, wastewater treat-
ment systems, combined sewer overflow systems,
and storm water management systems) were owned
predominantly by municipalities Fewer than 2°/<> of
local governments owned chemical or pesticide stor-
age sites, asphalt plants, asbestos disposal facilities,
or ha zardous waste sites
The location of facilities or operations related to
environmental quality paralleled ownership patterns
but at greater lev els of incidence As would be
expected, electric utilities, waste incinerators, and
heav v industries (i e , pulp and paper mills, petrole-
um refineries, lead smelting plants, etc ) were not
commonlv found within the boundaries of small
governments, fewer than 10"« reported such facili-
ties A.lso as might be expected, waste disposal facil-
ities are often operated outside the more residential
areas of municipalities and townships and many are
multi-junsdictional facilities Thus, for example,
55% of counties reported the existence of a landfill
within then boundaries, but only 6% of municipali-
ties and 12"<> of townships did so
-------
The existence of resource protection programs was
closel\ related to the geographic and population size
of the jurisdiction mvoh ed Counties, for example,
were more likely than municipalities and townships
to report aquifer and watershed protection programs,
as well as drainage/flood control and erosion con-
trol/soil consen ation programs Similarly, govern-
ments ser\ ing populations greater than 10,000 were
more likely than their smaller counterparts to ha\e
resource consen ation programs in place Water
resource programs were supported bv 20-40% of the
larger counties, municipalities, and townships, the
more established programs of drainage Control and
soil conservation were reported b\ 30-70% of the
larger governments Few of the small townships and
municipalities participated in am of these resource
protection programs
D Drinking Water
Understanding how small communities handle
their drinking water svstems will help EPA in c\ alu-
atmg the effects of regulations concerning drinking
water quality Four questions were posed to charac-
terize drinking w ater pro\ iders and the pre\ alence
and reasons for upgrades, to drinking water s\ stuns
(See Table 3)
Drinking w ater prov iders were primarily munici-
pal governments in municipal jurisdictions In coun-
ty and township jurisdictions, 86-87"<> of government
respondents cited household wells as the most com-
mon source of drinking water, although state or
other local go\ ernments and local independent
authorities were also frequent pro\ iders to county
and large township residents The greatest diversity
of pro\ iders existed m counties and in townships
with populations over 10,000 While 50".. of munici-
palities indicated that they prov ided drinking water
outside their boundaries, few counties or townships
did so
Of the governments that prov ided drinking water,
83% reported that they had upgraded their drinking
water systems since January 1, 1989, or had work in
progress or planned upgrades in 1994 The prev a-
lence of upgrades varied by size of population
serv ed, with 50-75% of the smallest governments
reporting upgrades compared to over 90% of the
larger governments
The most common reason that drinking water sys-
tems were upgraded was to increase system capacity
The second most common reason was to meet
revised or additional state or federal drinking water
requirements Other motivating factors were health
concerns in the larger townships and counties, and
the replacement of outlived distribution or treatment
systems in the larger municipalities Many survey
respondents wrote in other reasons why systems
were upgraded, such as extending service to new
customers and replacing worn components of water
sv stems
E Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
Three of the four questions posed to small govern-
ments about their wastewater treatment and disposal
sv stems paralleled those asked about the provision
of drinking w ater who prov ides the serv ice,
whether sv stems were being upgraded, and the rea-
sons for upgrades (See Table 4) Responses to these
questions can indicate the capacity of governments
to meet further treatment requirements A fourth
question, which asked how sewage sludge is han-
dled, establishes a baseline on current practices
which will be useful in assessing the impacts of
recent regulations
The prov ision of w astew ater treatment by small
go\ ernments followed patterns similar to their prov i-
sion of drinking w ater Wastew ater treatment
pro\ iders w ere pnmarilv municipal gov ernments in
municipal jurisdictions, whereas household sewage
sv stems and state or other local government
providers predominated in counties and townships
Also, as w ith w ater systems, the greatest vanerv of
prov iders existed in counties, municipalities, and
townships w ith populations over 10,000
Nationallv, the predominant methods of dealing
with sewagL sludge were land disposal (44%) and
land application (%"<>) Most townships, however,
transferred their sewage sludge to facilities not
ow ned b\ them
An average ot 62".1 of small governments reported
recent upgrades of their w astew ater systems, this
was about 30"i> ftwer than the number ot small gov-
ernments reporting upgrades of their drinking water
sv stems Smaller governments reported far fewer
upgrades than larger governments only 22"<> ot
townships strv mg populations under 2,500 reported
upgrades of their wastewater systems, while 93% of
municipalities serving over 10,000 reported
upgrades
In contrast to drinking water system upgrades, the
most common reason (65".1) reported for upgrading
waste-water systems was to meet revised or new state
or federal requirements
Additional reasons for upgrades cited by counties
and municipalities were to increase capacity and to
replace old systems, in townships, health concerns
ranked equally with the replacement of old systems
J
-------
F Landfills
Landfills mav be active or inactive, hazardous or
non-hazardous Information about the number of
landfills being operated bv small governments
allows bttter measures of the potential impacts of
regulations and broader evaluations of options for
solid waste rules The costs of post-closure care con-
tributes information about the effects of landfill reg-
ulations Information on ownership and numbers of
hazardous vvaste landfills indicates the extent to
which small general purpose governments are par-
ticipating in this industry
Table 5 presents the survev data on landfill clo-
sures, OVN nership, financing, and upgrades A
greater percentage of counties than municipalities or
townships reported associations with landfills, either
owning or operating acti\ e landfills or having closed
landfills since January 1,1989 Close to 40% of coun-
ties, compared to tewer than 15% of municipalities
or townships, reported owning or operating acti\ e
landfills or closing landfills However, the number
of municipalities associated \\ith landfills (- 1,500),
though comparatn elv small, eclipsed that of coun-
ties (~ 800) or townships (~ 1,000) Most govern-
ments reported ov\ mng or operating one acti\ e land-
fill, only 10"<> of counties reported two or more acti\ e
landfills
Compared to other pnmarv cm ironmcntal infra-
Structures such as drinking water and wastewater
services, information on funding sources of landfills
has been incomplete The results of the sun ey indi-
cate how the sources of tunds used for the operation
and maintenance of landfills v arv according to the
type of government The most common funding
sources were tipping fees in the larger counties and
municipalities, refuse collection fees in municipali-
ties under 10,000, and taxes in townships Post-clo-
sure costs on inactive landfills were paid by only 7"»
of small governments, primarily counties About
90% of governments paid post-closure costs on only
one landfill
Most small governments owning landfills indicat-
ed that they had upgraded their landfills since
January 1,1989 By far the most frequent reason
(90%) cited for the upgrade was to meet revised or
additional state or federal regulations Upgrades to
increase the capacity of landfills were important to
counties and municipalities as well
The only governments reporting ownership or
operation of hazardous waste landfills in the survey
were county governments All of the larger counties
reported having only one ha/ardous waste landfill,
the smaller counties all reported ha\ ing two
G Recycl ing and Household Waste Disposal
Several aspects of the administration, financing,
and le1 el of participation in waste disposal pro-
grams were inv estigated in the survey for both haz-
ardou1- and non-hazardous household w aste materi-
als (See Table 6) The answers given will assist in
evaluating the impacts of regulatory options
The first set of questions examined w nether small
gov ernments manage or finance recycling programs
for a number of different materials, or participate in
recycling programs managed by other entities
Aluminum cans, other metal cans, glass, newspaper,
and plastic recycling programs w ere the most com-
mon recycling programs reported nationally in small
gov ernment jurisdictions For most of these materi-
als, 10 15% of small governments reported managing
or financing their own recycling programs, and
another 10-20% participated in programs managed
bv someone else The larger municipalities w ere the
most activ e in recycling, about 50% of municipalities
serv ing populations 10,000 to 49,999 managed or
financed recycling programs for aluminum cans,
other metal cans, glass, newspaper, and yard waste,
another 30"c of these municipalities participated in
recycling programs tor these waste materials
A second set of questions in Table 6 investigated
who ti ansports refuse, recyclables, and yard waste to
the disposal or recycling site Most waste transport
is handled by a combination of individual residents,
private firms, and the larger municipalities
Individual residents were cited as the transporters of
recyclables and vard waste in 60-80% of counties and
small townships, they were least involved in the
transport of refuse in municipal jurisdictions (18-
22"'«) In the larger townships, private firms were the
most frequent transporter of all types of household
waste
A third set of questions concerned the type of
receiv ing facilities used for refuse and recvclables,
and ownership of such facilities The receiving facil-
ities cited most frequently were landfills (76%) and
recv cling centers (60%) Composting facilities were
reported by just over half of the larger townships
and municipalities Least common destinations were
incinerators (5-10%) Landfills were typically owned
either by counties or by private firms, recycling cen-
ters and incinerators, generally, by private firms
H Pollution Prevention
Pollution prevention is defined as any practice
that reduces or eliminates the creation of pollutants
The survey canvassed eight specific types of pollu-
tion prevention activities or programs within local
-------
go\ ernments (See Table 7) These programs were
energy conservation, source reduction or recycling
for haz.irdous waste, non-hazardous waste, and
municipal waste, reduction in use of toxic chemicals,
wastewater pretreatment, water conservation or re-
use, and other programs
For each ot these activ ities, the majority of small
gov eminent respondents surveyed (50-80%) were
unaware of the existence of a pollution pre\ enhon
program in their jurisdictions The most commonlv
reported programs of which respondents were aware
were energv conservation, industrial and municipal
waste source reduction or rec\cling, and wastewater
pretreatment Howe\ er, most governments reported
that thev did not participate in such programs The
chief exceptions were the programs managed or
financed by the larger municipalities Such pro-
grams include municipal waste source reduction or
recycling (53%), wastewater pretreatment (39%), and
water conservation (31%)
I Underground and Aboveground Storage Tanks
Among the activ ities ot small local governments,
those relating to ow nership of underground and
aboveground storage tanks and their contents and
maintenance are not well known The information
gathered bv this survey will help establish a useful
baseline to evaluate regulations and characterize
small government activ ities (See Tables 8 and 9)
In general, a greater percentage of larger gov ern-
ments owned storage tanks than smaller govern-
ments, and more governments of all types and sizes
owned tiboveground storage tanks (39% nationally)
than underground storage tanks (24%) The number
of undei ground storage tanks most frequently
reported in use was two, except in the smallest
municipalities, where one tank was tvpicallv in use
The tvpical number ot aboveground storage tanks in
use was also two, except in municipalities and town-
ships with populations less than 2,500 where the tvp-
ical number w as one Fewer than 20% of small gov -
ernments reported owning underground or abov e-
ground -.toragc tanks that w ere not in use
Gasoline was top ranked fuel found in under-
ground storage tanks with other fuel or petroleum
products ranking second This preference was
reversed with respect to aboveground storage tanks,
most of which contained other fuel or petroleum
products Also, many gov ernments indicated that
they stoied other substances in their aboveground
tanks which were not included on the surv ev roster
The most common other substance cited for both
underground and aboveground tanks was water,
with diesel fuel following at a not-very-close second
About 45% ot small gov ernments owning both
underground and abov eground storage tanks report-
ed that they had recently purchased new or
improv ed equipment, improv ed their tanks, or con-
structed new ones The most prominent reason for
upgrades was to meet revised or additional state or
federal storage tank requirements For underground
tanks, existing tanks that reached the end of their
useful life was ranked equally as high as require-
ments Local health concerns were cited least often
Other reasons cited for upgrades to abov eground
storage tanks w ere to increase storage capacitv,
address obsolescence, replace underground storage
tanks, and conduct regular maintenance and con-
struction of new facilities
J Community Right-to-Know
Various entities in small governments are respon-
sible for record-keeping responsibilities associated
with the use or storage of hazardous materials Two
questions were posed to determine which of four
tvpical organizations keep certain essential records
The determination of other organizations inv olv ed in
record-keeping was also an information goal
As Table 10 shows, in most counties, both Material
Safety Data Sheets and Hazardous Material
Inventory Forms were maintained by the local emer-
gencv response committee In municipalities and
tow nships, these records were kept most often by the
fire department In write-in answers, counties also
cited emergency services and county government
offices Municipalities mentioned city clerks, city
department heads, public works departments, and
water and wastewater treatment plant operators
Townships often cited road commissioners and
tow nship selectmen or offices
K Land Use Planning
Two questions in the surv ey (See Table 11) target-
ed land use information, useful to the performance
ot risk assessments on Superfund sites These ques-
tions also identify the small gov ernment types most
likelv to experience the greatest changes in environ-
mental quality by the year 2000
The existence of land use plans such as master
plans or conservation plans varied greatly by size
and tvpe of government As would be expected, the
larger jurisdictions more often had land use plans in
effect, tor example, 31"(1 of the smallest municipali-
ties had land use plans in place, compared to 92%> of
municipalities serv ing populations betw een 10,000
and 49,999 Howev er, ^"o of counties ot all sizes
had land use plans in place
J
-------
Patterns in current land use also \ aned greatlv bj
size and tvpe of government The predominant use
of land in counties and in smaller townships (those
with populations less than 10,000) was rural or agri-
cultural, with residential uses coming in second For
municipalities and for townships with populations
more than 10,000, residential uses comprised the
major portion of land Land uses other than those
specified in the questionnaire were identified bv
many governments, thev included state and federal
lands, Native American lands, institutional uses by
schools, churches and hospitals, public transporta-
tion—airports, railroads, streets highway s—and
nght-of-v\ avs utilities and landfills, v\ater courses,
wetlands, and floodplamb, vacant or undeveloped
land, and conservation, forested and open space
areas However, these other uses comprised no more
than 10% of the estimated total land use
Most small governments anticipated relatively
marginal changes in land usage over the next five
years The most substantial changes predicted by
2000 were a 5% increase in residential use in the
largest si^e townships, and a 5% drop in rural/agri-
cultural uses in townships serving populations of
2,500 to 9,999 Most gov ernments predicted a v erv
modest l°o rise in commercial land use b\ 2000, and
either a zero or l"o rise in industrial uses
L Funding Sources and Uses
Table 12 pjofiles the financial instruments used to
fund capital and operating costs of services associat-
ed with env ironmental protection The data provide
an overview of the budgetary commitments of small
governments In addition, this information is useful
in evaluating options for tapping other funding
sources for environmental protection
Small governments cited taxes (75"») as the most
frequently cited source of capital and operating
funds, follow td bv permit fees, user fees, and state
loans or grants Townships relied particularly heav i-
1} on taxes foi 82"<> of their funding Larger counties
and municipalities tended to ha\e more diverse
sources of funding, including general obligation
bonds, lederal loans and grants, and revenue bonds
The ••ourcei of funds used for environmental pro-
tection varied by type of program and by type of
government Taxes were the most frequently indicat-
ed source of funds by all governments for stormwa-
ter management, underground storage tanks, and
abov eground storage tanks The situation is more
complex for water and waste svstems, where a larger
numbei of funding sources apph For wastewater
treatment, drinking water supply and treatment, and
solid waste handling and disposal, user fees repre-
sented i largi r source of funding than taxes for
almost all small governments Bond issuance provid-
ed 10-11"« of funding for wastewater and drinking
water systems among municipalities, with state loans
and grants providing another 12-14%
There are numerous programs that compete with
env ironmental programs for a slice of the budget of
small gov ernments The final question in Table 12
delineates the various activities and programs which
small gov ernments undertake Services and pro-
grams supported by small governments var\ accord-
ing to the si/e and tvpe of government in general,
countv gov ernments funded a wider range of ser-
v ices than municipalities or townships, including
jails or prisons (94%), police forces (89%), streets or
highway maintenance (81%), libraries (71%), and
social service programs (65%) Municipalities and
townships, by contrast, were more likely to fund
streets/highway maintenance and fire departments
as then top two spending priorities, with municipali-
ties also supporting police forces and parks/plaving
fields/golf courses As would be expected, larger
jurisdictions supported a wider range of serv ices
Table 13. Percent of Governments Providing Staff Contacts
Percent of
Community Infrastructure and General Information
Finance
Air Pollution Control
Drinking Water Supply
Wastewater Treatment
Pesticides
Solid Waste and Recycling
Hazardous Waste
Hazardous Materials/Toxic Substances
Stoiage Tanks
County
6S
61
22
3
-------
Table 14. Percent of Small Governments
Submitting Comments
Population
Size
<2,500
2,500-9,999
>10,000
Total
Counties
13
<
20
18
Municipalities
16
15
14
15
Townships
17
13
16
16
than smaller ones, for example, 74% of the larger
municipalities funded recreational facilities such as
stadiums, arenas, and swimming pools, compared
with only 16% of the smaller municipalities
M Small Government Contacts
The last formal question in the survey requested
that respondents pro\ ide government contacts for ten
subject areas related to topics in the questionnaire (See
Table 13) Although intent of this question was to
assist survey personnel in clarif\ ing survey responses,
the information also provides a useful profile of staff
resources in small governments
The most frequently pro\ ided contacts in all types
of governments concerned community infrastructure
and general information, and gov ernment finances
The availability of contacts on environmental protec-
tion tended to reflect the types of services provided by
governments For example, drinking water and
wastewater contacts were provided by over half of the
respondent municipalities, w hereas solid waste and
recycling contacts were provided by o\ er half of the
counties Contacts on air pollution control were pro-
vided least often across all types of government
N Small Government Comments
The final page in the survey questionnaire con-
tained the question, "Is there anything else you'd like
to tell EPA7" Approximately 16% of the survey partic-
ipants responded with comments, this percentage did
not vary greatly bv size or type of government (See
Table 14)
Although survey respondents remarked on a range
of topics, the Agency particularly inv ited comments
about the experiences of small governments in com-
Table 15. Distribution of Comments on
Environmental Legislation
Legislation
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
Clean Water Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act
Clean Air Act
Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation
and Liability Act
Percent
of Remarks
33
28
27
5
3
3
plying with environmental regulations These com-
ments were tallied according to their legislative ref-
erence (See Table 15) Mot>t of the comments con-
cerned the Resource Conserv ation and Recovery
Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking
Water Act Information on obtaining copies of the
comments submitted by small governments is pre-
sented at the back of this report
-------
-------
TABLES OF RESULTS
-------
TABLE 1. INFORMATION SOURCES
I he availability o! information sources to
small governments is related to their
ability to effectively comment on pro-
posed regulations and to comply with
mandates, (wo questions were posed to
ion ot eurrent ana
future means ot diss
Governments By Size
10,000 50,000 /
2 500 9,999 I
1 2,499 \
COUNTIES
2,248
MUNICIPALITIES
18751
TOWNSHIPS
16549
Results show the percent of governments in
each category that responded positively
a personal computer for your
government's business?
Have access to computer
Have access to computer with modem
What organizations or people provide
your government wrth information
about the existence and terms of new
or changed environmental regulations?
State Dept of Mat Resources or Stats |PA
Other state gov dept or extension services
US Environmental Protection Agency
Other federal agencies or extension services
County government
Associations
Contracted engineering services
Citizen volunteers
Electronic bulletin boards
Technical publications
Radio or television
Federal Regfster
Other sources
73
31
77
«?
40
!
46
50
52
35
*
21
81
52
76
88
48
50
65
47
22
3
8
31
33
27
4
52
16
82
58
58
32
45
37
39
9
1
4
43
29
37
12
4
87
55
m
70
69
36
42
53
69
ts
3
5
65
27
33
30
&
94
63
93
71
71
42
43
71
72
10
4
11
61
32
38
46
5
23
6
53
50
31
27
69
%
13
t3
1
3
35
51
7
1
67
27
73
65
44
32
55
56
41
17
1
5
30
46
14
2
65
51
74
56
40
29
48
62
50
21
3
11
55
29
46
24
3
-------
Table I, continued
6%
Governments By Types
n COUNTIES / 2,248
j§ MUNICIPALITIES/ 18 751
| TOWNSHIPS / 16,549
What ortanizattoiB or
your government with technical
pidanee m haw to implement
environmental regulations?
State Dept of Nat Resources or State EPA
Other state gov dept or extension services
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Sflwrfeder?! agefleies or extension services
County government
Associations
Citizen volunteers
Electronic bulletin boards
Telephone hotlines
Technical publications
Radio or televtsion
Local newspapers
Other sources
58
56
33
33
35
43
42
13
2
4
26
11
13
13
0
67
m
38
37
47
52
40
17
3
5
41
n
15
18
3
66
48
43
25
37
31
41
5
29
11
13
6
3
73
58
44
33
49
69
9
1
3
50
10
11
16
6
78
63
53
31
32
60
72
12
2
10
63
10
9
20
4
41
41
22
21
33
13
B
18
14
23
4
1
58
52
30
27
47
44
43
9
1
2
27
11
15
7
3
60
45
26
23
35
48
47
13
1
7
44
7
9
6
J
-------
TABLE 2. FACILITIES & ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Knowledge of the kinoS
owned or operated by s
ments, or located \vithii
direcf and cumulative impacts of tv^
torv actions. Information was gathe
on 31 types ot tacilities and operatio
which profile the "environmental la
scapes" of small governments.
Results show the percent of governments in
each category that responded positively
Governments By Size
10 000 50,000 /
2,500 9,999 j
1 2,499
owned or operated in whole or in part, by
Airport
Drinking water treatment system
Combined sewer overflow system
Electric utility (coal-powered)
Electric utility (petroleum-powered)
Electric utility (natural gas-powered)
Electric utility (nuclear powered)
Steam generating unit (other than electric
utility boiler)
Sewage sludge combustor
Incinerator handling industrial or
commercial waste
Incinerator handling waste from local
Other incinerators, capable of handling
over 5 tons per day
Chemical manufacturing plant
Chemical storage site
Pesticide storage site
Petroleum refinery
Primary metals manufacturer
Pulp or paper mill
Asphalt plant
Lead smelting plant
Stationary gas turbine
Vehicle emissions testing factlriy
Gravel ptts
Asbestos disposal
Hazardous waste treatment, storage or
disposal facility
i
n •
10
4 !
4
10 j
0 j
0
0
0
0
t
i
0
i
I
0
2
2 '
0 f
2 j
8
"i
2
2 i
2
f
10
21
4
2i
27
t
f
8
2
31
13
13
5
11
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
4
0
9
0
3
0
0
0
23
10
6
COUNTIES
2,248
MUNICIPALITIES
18751
TOWNSHIPS
16,549
6
59
54
19
25
1
2
1
<1
<1
2
<1
1
<1
<1
<1
3
2
<1
-------
Tnbli 2, contmiud
Governments By Type
D COUNTIES/2,248
H MUNICIPALITIES/18,751
• TOWNSHIPS/16,549
Aboveground petroleum storage tank
Underground petroleum storage tank
Are any of the foiiowing facilities or
operations located within your
government's boundaries?
Drinking water treatment system
Combined sewer overflow system
Storm water management system
Eiectrte utility {coal-powered)
Electric utility (petroleum-powered)
Electric utility {natural gas-powered)
Electric utility (nuclear powered)
Steam generating unit {other than electric
utility boiler)
Sewage sludge combustor
Incinerator handling industrial or
commercial waste
Incinerator handling medical waste
Incinerator handling waste from local
government jurisdiction
Other incinerators capable of handling
over 5 tons per day
Chemieal manufacturing plant
Chemical storage site
Petroleum refinery
Primary metals manufacturer
Pulp or paper mill
Asphalt plant
Stationary gas turbine
Vehicle emissions testing facility
Gravel pits
Asbestos disposal
Hazardous waste treatment, storage or
disposal facility
Lanrffiil
Aboveground petroleum storage tank
Underground petroleum storage tank
71
73
67
44
50
2
17
0
2
13
27
0
4
0
15
0
2
0
71
2
44
63
54
78
78
81
44
51
8
12
13
3
7
16
1
1
12
26
27
6
8
9
37
1
3
4
65
13
15
59
72
67
•3 / «f / &
6
12
8
4
54
49
15
24
2
3
2
1
<1
1
1
1
1
-------
promote any of the following programs1'
Aquifer protection program
Recharge area protection program
Wellhead protection program
Erosion control/soil conservation program
11
4
21
tl
11
10
14
20
8
24
25
27
31
46
30
IS
32
32
33
39
4
1
3
3
7
13
4
15
w
14
28
14
32
33
24
21
3t
27
37
33
-------
TABLE 3. DRINKING WATER
Understand
in now small a
us were pos
icteri/e drinking \vater providers ,mij
the prevalence and reasons tor upgrade
Governments By Size
Q 1000050,000
B 2 500 9 999
• 1 2 499
COUNTIES
2,248
MUNICIPALITIES
18,751
TOWNSHIPS
16549
Results show the percent of governments in
each category that responded positively
governments boundaries?
Your small government
State or other local governments
Local independent authority [1]
Regional authority [2]
Community association
Private firms
Households (from their own wells)
Others
outside its boundaries7
replying Yes
Since January 1,1989 has your government
upgraded drinking water systems (e g, purchased
new or improved equipment, constructed new
pipelines or facilities, improved existing ones)?
Include work m progress or planned to begin in 19941
% replying Yes
Why was the drinking water system upgraded7
To increase its capacity
To meet revised or additional state or
federal drinking water requirements
To respond to local health concerns
To replace a distribution/treatment system
system that had reached the end of tts life
Other reasons
[1] A separate organization operating public
facilities from within your government for
one or more local governments
{2J An organization with a charter or policy
dictating how commingled funds of its
members are used to provide services for your |
government and other local governments
12
55
31
4
24
6
82
14
56
63
0
21
0
21
17
as
47
15
30
22
100
90
51
45
28
22
69
10
7
6
3
4
26
5
46
73
54
50
24
44
18
76
13
9
7
1
9
27
4
62
92
69
54
22
49
15
72
16
13
12
1
16
25
4
55
93
76
51
23
22
4
10
7
4
6
6
87
78
32
57
21
50
11
19
28
23
3
9
13
84
10
86
61
58
42
25
20
33
52
28
12
7
27
75
5
13
96
79
48
22
13
-------
TABLE 4. WASTEWATER
I hivr ot tin* lour uik'stjotis posud ir
nnkmt; \vaU'r: \vlio provu
ice, ivhcthcr s\ struts u'i'tx>
Governments By Size
C! 10 000 50,000
| 2 500 9,999
11 2 499
COUNTIES
2,248
MUNICIPALITIES
18,751
TOWNSHIPS
16,549
Results show the percent of governments in
each category that responded positively
governments boundaries?
Your small government
State or other local governments
Local independent authority [1]
Regional authority f2)
Community essoctations
Private firms
Households (from their own septic systems)
Others
If your government provides wastewater
Incinerated
Applied to the land (land spreading)
Disposed m the land (e 9, lagoon,
landfill, monofill pit)
Dried and pelfettzed
Trartsfered to a distributor or marketer
Transfered to a facility not owned
by your government
Other handling method
[1] A separate organization operating public
facilities from within your government for one
or more local governments
[2] An organization with a charter or policy
dictating how commingled funds of its
members are used to provide services
for your government and other local
governments
52
20
2
2
61
8
0
0
42
0
50
8
19
75
20
5
15
14
75
6
0
48
56
0
10
10
64
7
3
3
1
2
33
5
<1
29
51
3
3
12
12
72
18
6
12
0
2
26
1
1
49
42
5
5
23
10
69
26
10
18
2
3
30
3
4
61
31
6
to
29
8
8
9
3
1
1
2
89
2
0
39
23
3
27
10
27
34
12
5
79
6
2
28
31
6
13
48
11
33
48
13
19
6
11
74
5
4
17
12
0
13
63
13
-------
Governments By Type
D COUNTIES/2248
• MUNICIPALITIES/18,751
• TOWNSHIPS/16 549
upgraded its wastewater system (e g, purchased
tt*w or improved equipment, constructed new
pipelines or facilities, or improved existing ones)1'
begin in 1994
% replying Yes
Why was the wastewater system upgraded7
To increase its capacity
To meet revised or additional state or
federal wastewater requirements
To respond to local health concerns
To replace a distribution or treatment system
that had reached the end of its useful life
Other reasons
84
42
0
41
0
50
81
81
30
39
10
55
49
63
24
41
14
82
60
67
31
48
14
93
58
84
20
52
17
22
34
60
20
33
27
63
47
62
38
35
23
72
66
61
39
39
6
-------
TABLE 5. LANDFILLS
unions or non-
lit in the sun ev milu
dt' different tvpes <>! I,
Jes the num-
or open
tor LindtilK. vo
Governments By Size
n 10.000 50-000
I 2,500 9,999
• 1 2,499
v'iisle\\Mler services, inlonvuitu
In'en incomp
Results show the percent of governments in
each category that responded positively
Sine* January 1,1389, has your government
closed any landfills [1p
% replying Yes
Does your government own or operate {in whole
or iR part) any aetiva landfills?
%isp1yina, "Yes"
And if yes, haw many?
One
Two or more
for the operation and maintenance of its
Refuse collection fees
Taxes
Tipping fees
Unspecified general revenues
Other fund raising methods
Since January 1,1989, has your government
upgraded Us landfills (« 9, purchased new or
improved equipment, constructed new facilities or
improved existing o»OT)? Include work
or work planned to begin in 1994
% replying Yes
• represents no response applicable
* represents incompatible data tfiat can
not be combined
[11 Respondents were instructed to exclude
unpenmitted land disposal sites
or transfer stations from consideration
COUNTIES
2248
MUNICIPALITIES
18,751
TOWNSHIPS
16,549
5
2
100
27
73
0
34
7
20
71
10
4
100
m
100
25
50
~n~ •
0
75
9
S
100
St
49
0
27
0
24
49
-------
Table 5
Governments By Type
[J COUNTIES 72248
• MUNICIPALITIES/is 751
• TOWNSHIPS /16,549
Why were landfills upgraded'
To meet revised or additional state or
federal waste disposal requirements
To respond to local health concerns
Oftsr reasons
(in whofe or in part) any hazardous waste
[21 Respondents were instructed to answer
"No" to this question rf they were not farosiiar
with the definition of hazardous waste
provided in the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
And rf yes, how many7
One
Two
Does your government pay post-closure costs
for any inactive landfills'
% replying Yes"
And rf yes, how many'
-------
TABLE 6. RECYCLING AND HOUSEHOLD WASTE DISPOSAL
Several aspects ot the administration.
financing, and level of participation in
waste disposal programs were investi-
gated in the survey tor both hazardous
and non-ha/ardou*- household waste
materials. The answers given will assist
in evaluating the teasjbilih ot alternatn e
rviiuKitorv options and their impacts.
Governments By Size
10,000 50 000 /
'
2 500 9,999
1 2 499 \
Results show the percent of governments in
each category that rpsponded positively
of the following household waste materials
wrthm your government's boundaries
Not aware of any recycbng program
Your government manages or finances program
Your government participates in program
that is managed by someone else
Your government does not participate in
existing program
Other metal cans
Not aware of any recycling program
Your government manages or finances program
Your government participates in program
Your government does not participate m
existing program
Glass
Not aware of any recycling program
Your government manages or finances program
Your government parfictpates in program
that is managed by someone else
Your government does not partietpate in
existing program
Newspaper
Not aware of any recycling program
Your government participates in program
that is managed by someone else
Your government does not participate in
existing program
30
21
12
38
46
IB
14
25
20
i
14
23
!
40
20
13
291
14
25
22
46
32
22
29
24
24
20
33
21
25
21
35
COUNTHS
2248
MUNICIPALITIES
18,751
45
9
23
20
55
7
21
14
51
8
22
16
50
9
23
16
15
27
29
29
34
24
25
17
25
26
28
20
22
27
30
22
4
51
32
19
13
48
23
13
8
53
30
13
6
§3
31
13
TOWNSHIPS
16549
43
9
14
20
46
8
14
17
44
9
14
18
45
9
13
18
25
19
21
27
28
20
21
23
24
21
22
25
27
2D
20
25
10
39
23
22
11
39
23
21
12
38
23
21
13
38
22
22
-------
7uWr b
Governments By Type
O COUNTIES / 2 248
| MUNICIPALITIES/18,751
H TOWNSHIPS/16,549
Not aware of any recycling program Q 58
Your government manages or finances program IE] 14
Your government participates tn program
that is managed by someone else IR1 13
Your government does not participate in
existing program El 15
Plastic
Not aware of any recycling program ^ 54
Your government manages or finances program 85 14
Your government participates in program
that is managed by someone else iH 10
Your government does not participate in
existing program El 23
Used Oil
Not aware of any recycling program Ql 58
Your government manages or finances program Ha 12
Your government participates tn program
that is managed by someone else
Your government does not participate in
existing program lal 23
Yard Waste
Not aware of any recycling program ^ 56
Your government manages or finances program iH 17
Your government participates in program
that is managed by someone else OH 4
Your government does not participate in
existing program Hi 25
Batteries
Not aware of any recycling program ^9 54
Your government manages or finances program Ici 14
Your government participates in program
that is managed by someone else El 2
Your government does not participate m
existing program B3 30
Other materials
Not aware of any recycling program
Your government manages or finances program Q 10
Your government participates in program
that is managed by someone else B 0
40
21
13
28
27
22
20
33
37
16
16
35
46
16
12
28
39
14
12
37
80
7
64
5
16
12
53
8
21
15
70
3
g
)4
69
13
8
7
72
2
9
14
89
1
3
47
20
19
14
30
25
25
20
4$
12
15
27
39
36
15
to
52
7
16
26
82
6
5
18
42
29
14
14
48
29
12
18
26
27
31
23
48
24
8
32
17
22
29
77
13
6
$3
7
10
15
47
8
13
17
59
4
8
14
64
3
6
11
60
4
7
14
75
2
5
41
14
17
20
33
ts
18
21
51
10
12
18
54
14
9
14
53
11
11
15
72
6
4
23
31
21
19
17
34
24
21
30
25
14
24
22
34
17
21
28
26
16
25
72
10
4
Continued OH (>nge 26
-------
lahk
Your government does not participate in
existing program
Please describe the waste disposal program for
hazardoBs waste (e.§., paint cans, pesticide
containers) within your governments boundaries
Not aware of any such program
Year government manages or finances program
Your government participates in a program
managed by someone else
The program exists without your
government's participation
from households within your government
boundaries to the disposal or recycling sites?
(non-recyclable*}
Your government
A municipal or township takes the waste
Another county government takes the waste
If your government HI a nnmictpalltr-
Another local government takes the waste
County government takes the waste
Another local government takes the waste
County government takes the waste
Individual residents
Local independent authority
Private firms
Recyclables (excluding yard waste)
Your government
If your government is a county
A municipal or township takes the waste
Another county government takes the waste
If your government is a municipality
Another loca! government takes the waste
County government takes the waste
48
6
14
16
17
33
2
52
2
2
52
13
18
2
12
46
13
14
17
45
2
5ft
14
6
69
13
3
53
2
15
11
14
2
3
22
8
t
61
9
1
6
7
4
24
15
37
1
2
18
4
1
60
28
•i
2
35
13
36
16
48
1
2
18
2
2
58
35
1
4
44
2
14
19
2
3
54
6
1
47
49
I
20
3
3
37
5
1
79
31
21
31
29
17
14
3
25
3
&
65
24
-------
Table d unitiniud
Another local government takes the waste
County government takes the waste
Individual residents
Local independent authority
Regional authority
Private firms
Yard Waste
Your government
if your government is a county
A municipal or township takes the waste
Another county government takes the waste
Another local government takes the waste
County government takes the waste
Another local government takes the waste
County government takes the waste
individual residents
Local independent authority
Regional authority
Private firms
Are refuse or recyclables from households within
your government's boundaries delivered to any of
the following receiving facilities, and if yes, who
Landfill
% replying "Yes"
Landfill is owned partly or wholly by
Your government
If your government is a county
A municipal or township government owns ft
Another county government owns it
If your government is a municipality
Another local government owns tt
County government owns it
If your government is a township
Another local government owns ft
County government owns it
79
D
2
27
10
25
73
2
2
29
81
35
20
11
62
12
7
51
10
40
38
6
2
46
19
68
9
1
40
48
4
1
30
79 El 82
36
16
10
33
31
3
2
51
47
3?
2
37
83
8
31
34
3
2
54
54
37
2
2
43
2
34
88 K] 66
11
1
4
64
4
1
32
1
1
2
87
3
1
22
86
1
10
32
3
5
49
4
1
61
6
4
2
55
4
1
44
75
4
S
23
12
7
31
4
0
58
29
13
1
38
3
0
49
72
6
6
25
Contimtitl on ftagt 28
-------
Table 6, loiilnnii ii
Local independent authority
Regional authority
Private firmfst
% replying "Yes*
Your government
If your govefBRttnt it • coanty:
A municipal or township government owns it
Another local government owns it
County government owns it
II yew gewnMimt« a township:
Another local government owns it
County gwerrnnent owns tt
Regional authority
Private firm(sj
(Mm- incinerator «r your gowrmnttift
waste combuster
% replying Yes"
Incinerator is owned partly or wholly by
NyoarfownmiratitacouBty'
A municipal or township government owns it
Another county government own* rt
if your government ra a monieipaHfy:
Another local government owns it
Another local government owns it
County government owns it
Regional authority
Private firm{$)
31
24
24
8
22
10
S3
8
24
16
6
43
11
14
4
11
6
44
8
25
17
8
14
5?
5
6
48
10
2
14
25
8
11
43
6
0
11
26
9
9
40
5
6
56
21
0
2
18
. SIJ
11
62
5
t--
* "^ -
0
S
&
0
*:
2
7
60
36
4
23
4
39
45
4
$
0
6?
fl
0
33
-------
lahlt t> (.ontinuttl
(paper, cans, bottles or other mixed recyclables)
% replying Yes
Recycling center or MRF
Your government
A municipal or township government owns it
Another county government owns it
Another local government owns it
County government owns it
Another local government owns it
County government owns it
Locaf trtdspertdent authority
Regional authority
Prtvate firmfej
Transfer statiart
Your government
If your government is a county
A maracHpal or township government owns A
Another county government owns it
If your government is a municipality
Another locsf f&vernment ownsrt
County government owns it
If your government is a township
Another local government owns it
County government owns it
Local independent authority
Regional authority
Private firm(s)
58
17
10
16
3
60
44
47
7
10
8
0
26
62
31
24
e
10
47
42
24
6
6
10
32
50
4
25
11
5
53
22
9
37
4
6
37
68
6
36
4
7
37
82
16
13
5
66
34
20
5
23
5
7
43
60
27
t
6
51
16
9
28
5
€
32
74
8
19
5
6
58
39
24
10
22
6
9
31
55"
85
19
3
10
17
11
31
10
10
31
Continued on
30
-------
Composting facility
% replying "Yes"
Your government
If your government is a county
A municipal or township government owns ft
Another county government owns it
If your government is a municipality
Another local government owns it
County government owns it
If your government is a township
29
26
28
It
County government owns it
Local independent authority
Regional authority
Private firm(s)
Any other facility
% replying Yes
7
0
32
24
19
16
34
10
13
0
3
32
6
4
27
39
5
17
4
4
32
51
38
12
2
19
4
6
36
33
6
3
31
25
23
6
25
4
36
43
14
13
0
0
33
-------
TABLE 7. POLLUTION PREVENTION
Ytllution prevention is (.lolini'd as ,inv
iractice th.it reduces ur eliiniiwtes the
re.ifion <>/ polluf.mts I he sur\ ev c.in-
'dssed seven six-cilic tvpes of iiollntioi
i.'t\ n
Governments By Size
| 10,000 50000
I 2,500 9 999
I 1 2 499
Results show the percent of governments in
each category that responded positively
prevention programs or activities within your
Energy conservation
Not aware of such a program
Your government manages or finances
the program or activity
Your government is a participant in a
program/activity managed by someone else
Program/activity exists without your
governments participation
Hazardous waste source reduction or recycling
Not aware of such a program
Your government manages or finances
the program or activity
Your government is a participant in a
program/activity managed by someone else
Program/activity exists without your
government's participation
Non-hazardous industrial waste
source reduction or recycling
Not aware of such a program
Your government manages or finances
the program or activity
Your government is a participant m a
program/activity managed by someone else
Program/activity exists without your
governments participation
Municipal waste source reduction or recycling
Not aware of such a program
Your government manages or finances
the program or activity
Your government is a participant at a
program/activity managed by someone else
4
2
23
71
4
6
15
73
8
2
13
63
12
4
63
2
6
27
58
9
17
IS
52
10
16
23
44
19
16
COUNTIES
2248
MUNICIPALITIES
18751
TOWNSHIPS
16,549
79
2
3
10
78
2
7
7
79
2
6
8
71
7
10
59
7
10
21
67
4
13
13
60
10
10
17
41
29
19
49
10
15
28
52
13
27
14
50
15
19
22
22
53
24
77
1
1
13
71
2
7
13
76
2
5
10
75
6
5
79
2
5
11
m
5
11
11
68
3
10
14
58
13
14
67
3
4
22
40
16
17
24
55
5
10
27
33
36
11
Continued on page 32
-------
Government By Type
D COUNTIES/2,248
H MUNICIPALITIES ,'18,751
• TOWNSHIPS/16 549
governments participation
Toxic chemicals (including household toxics)
waste reduction
Not aware of such a program
Your government manages or finances
the pretgram csr activity
Vour government is a participant in a
Program/activity exists without your
Not aware af such a program
Your government manages or finances
the program or acttwty
Your government is a participant in a
Program/activity exists without your
Water censanatioii or re-use
Your government manages or finances
the program er activity
Your government is a participant in a
Program/activity exists without your
government's participation
Not aware of such s program
Your government manages or finances
Your government is a participant in a
program/activity managed by someone etee
Program/activity exists without your
17
91
2
4
2
01
33!
0
23!
0|
25
72
6
H
10
54
3
S
39
71
2!
97
1
0
1
b
84
1
5
4
76
13
2
2
83
6
2
3
93
<1
<1
<1
8
74
1
H
10
49
25
10
11
63
18
e
10
93
1
1
1
7
55
8
22
18
35
33
17
10
49
31
1§
a
96
1
J
1
84
1
I
7
81
J
2;
to
11
38
5
10
II
17
n
38
15
50
14
13
19
21
35
-------
TABLE 8. UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
•uln itii> ot --mall l Mil,ill >'l>\
Governments By Size
Q 10,000 50,000
B 2,500 9,999
• 1 2,499
COUNTIES
2,248
MUNICIPALITIES
18751
TOWNSHIPS
16549
Results show the percent of governments in
each category that responded positively
any underground storage tanks7 Consider both
tanks in use and not in use
% replying "Yes"
How many of your gwenwieBt'*
underground storage tanks are currently
in use? [1]
Number m UM.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10-14
15-19
>20
How many of your governments underground
storage tanks are currently not HI «s«? [1]
0
I
2
3
4
5
>5
I Respondents were asked to provide their
best estimate
not available
11
24
47
S
6
0
6
89
0
0
5
62
7
18
30
20
7
6
6
2
2
86
9
4
0
13
19
54
15
7
4
69
17
8
5
20
38
20
6
3
3
1
1
1
75
10
6
7
1
2
W
30
15
22
S
3
2
4
1
3
I
2
80
8
5
2
1
3
1
11
14
33
41
6
4
2
1
80
15
5
35
21
39
18
11
3
87
9
3
t
61
5
5
22
16
6
13
7
5
5
2
4
7
5
Conttnutd on page 34
-------
lable 8 conttmu'i
Government By Type
L] COUNTIES/2248
j§ MUNICIPALITIES/18,751
• TOWNSHIPS/16 549
contain any of the following substances, whether
or not the tank* are currently in use?
Gasolme
Heating oil used on premises
Other fuel or petroleum products
Other chemicals
Sines January 1,1989, has your government
replaced or upgraded its underground storage
constructed new tanks or improved existing ones)
include wort IB progress or planned to
begin in 1994
% replying Yes'
Why were the underground storage
To increase storaga eapaetty
To meet revised or additional state or federal
(replacement monitoring concerns)
To respond to local health concerns
The existing tanks reached the end
Other reasons
-------
TABLE 9. ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKS
Governments By Size
110,000 50,000
| 2 500 9 999
1 2 499
COUNTIES
2248
MUNICIPALITIES
18751
TOWNSHIPS
16549
Results show the percent of governments in
each category that responded positively
any aboveground storage tanks' Consider both
; m ase and not m use
% replying "Yes"
storage tanks are currently in use7 [1]
Number m use
fl
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10-14
How many of your governments aboveground
storage tanks are currently net in use? [1]
Number not in use
0
1
2
3
4
5
[1j Respondents were asked to provide
their best estimates if an exact answer
was not available
4
19
27
20
8
11
4
4
4
96
20
24
9
14
6
5
1
4
5
2
5
97
3
33
4
52
28
6
4
3
1
1
1
89
7
2
1
1
36
3!
14
7
2
4
1
1
2
92
6
1
57
32
23
18
12
5
4
93
6
1
33
3
44
39
11
3
<1
-------
Tabk 9 lonttnmti
Government By Type
n COUNTIES/2248
| MUNICIPALITIES/18,751
• TOWNSHIPS/16,549
uoMy of yoBf doverRBients
tanks contain any of the following substances,
whether or not Hie tanks are currentfy In ate?
Sasdme
Heating oil used on premises
Other chemicals
replaced or upgraded any of its aboveground
equipment constructed new tanks or improved
existing ones}? tnclade work in progress
or planned to begin in 1994
% replying "Yes
To increase storage capacity
To meet revised or additional state or federal,
aboveground storage tank requirements
To respond to local health concerns
The existing tanks reached the end of
their useful life
Otherraassns
23
71
4
54
34
07
12
25
9
19
55
30
74
14
26
17
38
1
34
40
30
:52
g
23
47
12
66
6
15
44
27
67
15
22
23
12
13
10
12
48
24
€6
12
17
n
48
27
BL
1
19
40
17
55
9
27
26
m
29
-,74-
0
1
50
25
8
33
-a.
58
26
JM
16
to
50
34
0
34
--
-------
TABLE 10. COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
rospoiisibmti
u ith (ho iis(> or stniM^i
((•ri,)k m,]v be borne I
in sin, ill ^oxvrnnK'n
lour typk.ll or-.
ll]/dlH>ns) kl'OL"
Governments By Size
1000050,000
2,500 9,999
1 2,499
COUNTIES
2,248
MUNICIPALITIES
18751
TOWNSHIPS
16549
Results show the percent of governments in
each category that responded positively
in your government7 Indicate each entity that
keeps records
Code Enforcement/Safety Officer
Local Emergency Response Committee
State Emergency Response Committee
Others
4*
29
53
18
Forms (MIFs) in your government? Indicate each
Code Enforcement/Safety Officer
Local EiRerpncy Response Committee
State Emergency Response Committee
Qthses
34
25
52
15
27
56
21
23
23
52
16
44
16
15
9
23
12
12
7
15
70
35
30
10
32
24
28
9
19
32
29
12
44
5
12
4
10
19
22
9
23
22
3
9
3
8
52
16
23
10
50
10
18
6
18
57
29
31
11
21
23
10
-------
TABLE 11. LAND USE PLANNING
•mation, useful tn the pe
jse questions also
identify the small government types
most likely to experience the greatest
chanties in environmental quality by
Governments By Size
Q 10,000-50,000
B 2,500-9,999
• 1-2,499
COUNTIES
2,248
MUNICIPALITIES
18,751
TOWNSHIPS
16,549
Results show the percent of governments in
each category that responded positively.
(e.g., "master plan," "comprehensive plan,"
. v ^',, , VA 'ov_^,?,vA >..''\'s.^ 'VV* y . > .>, o V , ^''."
-•• :>H > X v
within your government's boundaries is
the year 2000?
Present land use (averages of percepts):
Commercial
Light Industrial
Residential
Parks and Recreation
1
\y „
13
'•&&
'.•*$,
6
year 2000 (differences in i _
Commercial
Light Industrial
> "• >*• •?*'/* "• " 'r "" j'r
' -fn3 % ' '' ""*"•'*•' *"''"<• "" ' o '% ' ^ 'Xf'x'
Residential
,/,vyaii^irieuliuf«l-
Parks and Recreation
+1
w%-;
+i
+L
+1
5;
2
* '%<»'
18
10
•^5
• :',-^'
3
;,;^r
71
+1
>*
+1
+4
':$!
0
13
5
Wf
6
+1
+1
0
0
11
^$t*
6
?""':<;5
53
6
1
16
3
.',;<;
"ff^
+1
+1
0
p}
0
+2
0
6
^
3
33
4
+1
#-
+1
^ ^ ,^
+3
"
o
7
'-?f-J
5
' J\
45
-.*
7
+1
•f»{
+1
+5
;%'•
0
-------
TABLE 12. FUNDING SOURCES AND USES
instruments used to fund capital and
erating costs ol services associated
h environmental protection. The da
Iso provide an overview of the bud-
getarv commitments of small govern-
ments, useful in evaluating the availabi
ly of additional funding sources for em
ronmental protection and the nature of
competing demands for resources.
Results show the percent of governments in
each category that responded positively.
Governments By Size
10,000-50,000
2,500-9,999
1-2,499
COUNTIES
2,248
MUNICIPALITIES
18,751
TOWNSHIPS
16,549
operating funds were used by your government.
Community fundraising
Revenue bonds (excluding refunding)
K H >•?<.*«
a
-------
Table 12, continued
Government By Type
COUNTIES / 2,248
MUNICIPALITIES/18,751
TOWNSHIPS/16,549
Community fundraising
Revenue bonds
ipM$1iri$9
EPA loans or grants
State loans or grants
Taxes
User fees
jrftiBps
Other special assessments
Community fundraising
Revenue bonds
EPA loans or grants
State loans or grants
Taxes
User fees
Other special assessments
Community fundraising
bligation bonds
Revenue bonds
EPA loans or grants
State loans or grants
-------
Table 12, continued
Other sources
Underground storage tanks
Bank loans
General obligation bonds
RDA loans or grants
Other federal loans or grants
Donations
Impact fees
Permit fees
Other sources
Aboveground storage tanks
Bank loans
General obligation bonds
RDA loans or grants
Other federal loans or grants
Donations
fmpactfees
Permit fees
Other sources
Other activities
Bank loans
General obligation bonds
RDA loans or grants
Other federal loans or grants
Donations
^ < -ayM
->C'-,> ,.^KB?S
t»v ^ ', *\*/W , > 5.
Impact fees
-------
Table 12, continued
Permit fees
Other sources
Does your government budget funds for any of
Public secondary schools
Private secondary schools
Colleges or universities
Hospitals (including all inpatient care
pjovtisrWf$ytoeffiMti 0filuie«sr
Outpatient medical or mental health
Nursing homes
°,.,°°f /'-\-y, -c'"$m^$^% $»&&!&:,•
Other social service programs
Fire department
32
15
Mainstreet/downtown redevelopment
^ ~-~%f. ^:A^C^1*&^
Streets or highway maintenance
Libraries
Parks, playing fields, or golf courses
•>/-K''° :,.'•'- -,>>-;:;;''/,<<;;^W^S:-WwwtS''
Recreational beaches, shorelines,
Other recreational facilities such as
ff •'•i-'V-f., JSiiiS! VV."V
10
66
59
91
'.#:
84
68
45
26
• Mr<«rv
15
14
:se;
64
56
87!
96
:^:
jr*.
79
v>i
73
58
9
>V' *
69
6
;^l"
87
<' > ,- "
32
^^°"K ''
67
1
23
85
28
;#
.'!•/•
98
55
92
14
1
1
47
91
44
\&
99
, " >
64
;3&
93
14
1
^
2
na
I- :3.,
1
\ *z -.*
11
68
76
>** '•X/*'
16
17
17
1
1
.:m'
32
86
-M;
4
;
•fc
«»v
85
47
*
55
28
3
5
50
-<-" '
''*"
73
9
85
55
•%&i
>w*
75
-------
SECTION 2.
BACKGROUND AND
METHODOLOGY
-------
-------
SECTION 2. Background and Methodology
A. Background on the Survey
In April 1992, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency revised its implementation guidelines for the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980. The revision
widened the Agency's requirement for performing
analysis measuring the impact of its regulations on
small governments. Small governments are defined as
general purpose governments serving populations less
than 50,000. Because of their limited resources to fol-
low regulatory developments and have their views
represented, the revision also stipulated that special
effort be made to keep such small governments
informed about regulatory initiatives.
In October 1992, EPA established the Small
Community Information and Data Program (SCIDP)
within the Office of Regional Operations and
State/Local Relations, as part of an effort to enhance
the role of state and local governments in environ-
mental policy-making and implementation. An initial
goal of SCIDP was to create a national, integrated
database containing information on local governments
*rom existing sources. SCIDP staff began by identify-
.ig Agency information needs in this area and investi-
gating the availability of existing data. It soon became
clear that EPA had no comprehensive means to char-
acterize the environmental circumstances of small
communities.
The 1994 Survey of Small Local Governments was
undertaken to collect information on environmentally-
related facilities and activities in small communities
that was otherwise unavailable and that would enable
EPA to perform more accurate economic and regula-
tory analysis. In addition to generating information
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the survey
also supports EPA's activities related to the following
statutes:
• Clean Air Act, Section 114(a)
• Clean Water Act, Section 308(a) & (b)
• Safe Drinking Water Act, Section 1445 (a)
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
Sections 8003(a), 9005(a), 3007
• Toxic Substances Control Act, Section 8(a)
• Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992, Section
109
• Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
• Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996
The overall objectives of the survey were to:
• Obtain information that EPA could use to better
meet the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
• Identify a representative sample of regulated
communities and the cumulative ways in which
communities may be regulated by EPA.
• Identify how environmental services are provid-
ed to small communities.
• Obtain information to support the analysis of
financial issues concerning environmental pro-
tection in small communities.
B. Participants in Survey Development
The survey was developed through the participa-
tion of EPA personnel, other federal officials, officials
of local governments, representatives of associations,
and other professional experts. U.S. Office of Budget
and Management guidelines concerning data collec-
tions were also observed.
Within EPA, a Survey Design Committee was
formed, composed of senior level representatives
from program offices and support offices. Members
of the committee brought important environmental
expertise and experience with community officials
on environmental protection matters. A subcommit-
tee of senior agency economists was formed to iden-
tify specific data needs for analysis pertinent to regu-
latory flexibility. The Office of Regional Operations
and State/Local Relations provided administrative
as well as technical support. The following offices
participated in the survey's development:
• Office of Air and Radiation
• Office of Air Quality Planning Standards
• Office of Administration and Resources
Management
• Office of General Counsel
• Office of Pesticides Programs
• Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
• Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances
• Office of Research and Development
• Office of Resource Management
• Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
• Office of Water
Staff from other federal agencies were consulted
for their experience in regulatory flexibility analysis,
small community issues in their program areas, and
research methods. These agencies were:
• Rural Development Administration, U.S.
Department of Agriculture
• Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture
• Governments Division, U.S. Bureau of the
Census
-------
Officials of state and local gen ernmenrs and repre-
sentatives of governmental associations contributed
important insights on the views of small government
officials toward environmental regulations and the
impact of these regulations on small communities
Consultations included telephone contacts, personal
interviews, tocus groups, and pre-tests Participants
in focus groups and pre-tests prov ided detailed
rev lews of final drafts of the sur\ ev instruments and
tests of surv ey administration procedures that were
crucial to the success of the survev In all, 70 associa-
tions, state agencies, and local governments partici-
pated in the review of the survev
Experts from additional organisations provided
advice on a range of topics, including small commu-
nity regulatory compliance, survey research conduct-
ed by gov ernmental bodies, and statistical survev
design These organizations were
• Department of Public Administration, Penn
State, University Park
• Division of Environmental Health, World
Health Organization
• Illinois Institute for Rural Arfairs, Western
Illinois Unn ersit)
» Rand Corporation
• Robert A Raposa Associates
• Special Projects Office, University of Kansas
• Westat, Inc
C Survey Research Plan
Following are the elements of the survey research
plan that guided the dev elopment of the survey
(1) Survey Design Specifying the target population
of the survey, target respondent, type of sur-
v ey, confidentiality, requirements of respon-
dents
(2) Instrument Development Determining the con-
tent and design of the questionnaire and other
survey materials, conducting tocus groups
(3) Stattbtual Design Specitving the level of data
precision, the sample design and the surv ey
frame, draw mg the sur\ ey sample, determin-
ing sample weights
(4) Survey Implementation Distributing the surv ev
questionnaire to the survey sample, designing
procedures to maximi/e response to the sur-
vey, conducting record-keeping, and imple-
menting a pre-test of the surv e\
(5) Data Pnuewny Keying data, determining
missing data protocols, designing and con-
structing data files
Each of these components is discussed in more
detail in the following sections
D Survey Design
The target population of the surv ey consisted of all
general purpose governments in the U S with popu-
lations less than 50,000 This is consistent with the
definition of a small government provided in the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 In 1992, there
were 37,588 small general purpose governments in
the US
The categories of general purpose governments
utilized bv the survey were those defined b> the U S
Bureau of the Census (1992)
COUNTY An organized local gov ernment, autho-
rized in state constitutions, and established to pro-
vide general government This includes those gov -
ernments designated as counties, parishes (in
Louisiana), and boroughs (in Alaska)
MUNICIPALITY An organized local gov ernrm nt
author zed in state constitutions and statutes and
established to prov ide gov ernment for a specific
concentration of population in a defined area This
include s gov ernments designated as cities, v il
lages, boroughs (except in Alaska) and to\\ ns
(except in six New England stati s Minnesota, ^--'
New York, and Wisconsin) ^
TOWNSHIP An organized loon!government
authorized in state constitutions and statutes and
established to provide governnunt for areas
defined without regard to population concentra-
tion This includes those governments designated
as towns in Connecticut, Maine (including planta-
tions), Massachusetts, Mmnisou, New Hampshire
(including organized locations), New York, Rhode
Island, Vermont, and WisLonsrn, plus townships in
other states
In 1992, the U S Bureau of the Census reported
that there were 2,248 counties, 18,788 municipalities,
and 16,552 townships with populations less than
50,000 in the United States (Census of Governments
1992)
Tht> target respondent of the survey was an othcial
(e g, ma> or, city manager, city clerk) of a small gov -
ernment in the surv ey sample Target respondents
identified from the 1992 Census of Governments
-------
Address File compiled by the U S Bureau of the
Census
The collection method of the survey was a self-
administered, "paper and pencil" mail survey The
questionnaire was sent by first class mail to targeted
respondents at the addresses provided in the 1992
Census of Governments Address file
General guidelines regarding participation in the
survey were
• The surveyed governments were promised nei-
ther anonymity or confidentiality However,
survey respondents were offered complete confi-
dentiality concerning their identity
• Respondents were asked to provide information
to the Agency voluntarily
• No remuneration was provided to respondents
• Respondents were asked to participate only in a
single data collection
• Respondents were not required to retain records
as a condition of participation in the survey
• Respondents were not asked to submit any doc-
uments or documentation
• Respondents were asked to provide written
responses within 30 days, which is the shortest
period allowed under Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) guidelines
• Respondents did not have to submit information
or maintain information beyond that which is
required under OMB Circular A-102 and A-110
or their state government
E Instrument Development
Developing the survey instrument mvoK ed deter-
mining the content and style not only of the ques-
tionnaire, but also of sev eral aspects of the mail-out
package and subsequent correspondence and con-
tacts The goal of these efforts was to maximize par-
ticipation in the survey In general, the Total Design
Method (TDM) advocated by Dillman (1978) was fol-
lowed
1 Information Content
An initial list of the types of data relevant to small
governments was developed and reviewed by the
Sur\ ey Design Committee This list was then
reviewed by advisors to determine which data items
were the most relevant to information needs, what
w as the best quantitative form in which to obtain
data (e g, annuahzed figures, unit measurements,
rate measurements), and which data were already
a\ ailable from existing sources, such as the SC1DP
database These efforts resulted in a refined list of
data items for inclusion in the survey
2 Design Considerations
An iterative approach was taken m the develop-
ment of the survey instrument The Surv ey Design
Committee reviewed the questionnaire several times,
considering the content and form of each draft Also,
each draft was reviewed from a technical perspective
by survey specialists to help ensure that the ques-
tions would elicit the desired responses At late
stages of development, focus groups and personal
interviews with small government officials were con-
ducted to refine the survey materials
Survey specialists scrutinized the wording of indi-
vidual questions and the sequence of questions The
following TDM criteria were applied to the wording
of each question
• Will the words be understood in a similar man-
ner by all potential respondents7
• Does the question contain unknown or confus-
ing abbreviations or unconventional phrases7
• Is the question too vague to be accurately
answered7
• Is the question too precise to be answered by
most respondents7
• Is the question biased, which would influence
the response7
• Is the question objectionable7 Might it seem
incriminating or invasive7
• Does the question demand too much knowledge
or thought7
• Is the question really two questions, which may
lead to an ambiguous answer7
• Does the question contain a double negative,
which would confuse the respondent7
• Are the answer choices to the question mutually
exclusive7
• Have we assumed too much knowledge in the
scope of answer choices7
• Is the question outside the scope of experience
of the typical respondent7
• Is the question technically accurate in its phras-
ing or array of answers7
• Has an appropriate time reference been provid-
ed7
• Can the responses be compared to existing
information available to the Agency7
• Are the questions, though concise, cryptic about
what information is sought7
-------
The order ot the questions in the questionnaire
was also examined with respect to specific TDM
principles
• Questions should be ordered along a descend-
ing level of importance to the respondent This
enhances the respondent's sense of relevance
about the survey and increases the probability
of questionnaire completion
• Questions that are similar in content should be
grouped together and according to the form of
question This reduces the mental effort
required of the respondent to answer a number
of questions and encourages thoughtful answers
by presenting a logical question sequence
• Sections should be ordered to create a flow and
continuity of subject matter throughout the
questionnaire This principle of building cogni-
tive ties throughout the questionnaire encour-
ages the respondents' cooperation
Seven focus groups and three personal interviews
were conducted with representatives of small com-
munities in different geographic regions of the
United States The objective of these reviews was to
ensure that decisions made by the Survey Design
Committee and its advisors were valid The focus
groups and interviews were conducted sequentially
so that appropriate modifications could be made to
the survey instrument prior to each review
Questions ot primary importance posed in these
review sessions were
• Are these data available to the intended respon-
dent m your government7
• Are the questions understandable and meaning-
ful to you7
• Would you be inclined to complete and return
this questionnaire'
Further objectives of these rev iews were to
• Determine the consistency of interpretation of
the questions by typical respondents
• Ascertain the acceptability of individual ques-
tions (i e , avoid questions considered to be
intrusive or potentially damaging)
• Estimate the burden to small governments of
participating in the survey
• Determine if questions concerning environmen-
tal serv ices provided by small communities
were comprehensrv e enough
• Determine if the information requested would
be readily known to a target respondent, and
thereby a\ oid the need to consult records or
other persons in completing the questionnaire
• Assess the attitudes of local governments
toward the Agency collecting such information
Local government representatives provided valu
able feedback on all the survey materials including
the questions, the instructions, the cover letter, and
the mailing materials For example, the format of
the questionnaire was redesigned to minimize
respondent failures to observe skip patterns among
questions The resulting redesign used arrows and
boxes to emphasize the skip instructions, and to
draw the respondent's eye to the response column
quickly Other improvements occurred with respect
to vocabulary, for example, it was found that
"dumps" were not synonymous with "landfills "
These reviews also resulted in a less bureaucratic
presentation of the materials and elimination of all
but the most basic instructions The efforts
described abo\ e resulted in the following specific
features of the surv ey intended to maximize
response
• A mail-out booklet was designed that was
attractive and compact yet conveyed the official
nature of the survey The 8fi x 11 inch booklet
contained the official cover letter, the question-
naire, and a reply envelope with a postage-paid
block affixed to the inside front cover of the
questionnaire to make returning the question-
naire as convenient as possible The booklet
was sealed with a circle wafer and addressed
with a selt-adhesive label for mailing
• The cover letter included with each question-
naire expressed EPA's concern about environ-
mental protection m small communities,
explained the purpose of the surv ey, and
encouraged participation The letter originated
from the Office of Regional Operations and
State/Local Relations under the signature of the
Manager of the Small Community Information
and Data Program whose telephone number
was given should the respondent wish to con-
tact him directly
• The mail-out booklets were color-coded by type
of government for ease of handling
• If the target respondent was unable to partici-
pate in the survey, he or she was asked to for-
ward it to the most appropriate person
-------
• A toll-free help-line was established to assist survey
respondents from 9 a m to6pm Eastern Tune,
Monday through Friday, and the number was adver-
tised throughout the questionnaire
• Instructions were fully integrated into the body
of the questionnaire to improve comprehension
and completion
• The questionnaire was limited to 44 clearly-stat-
ed questions that a knowledgeable respondent
could complete in 10 to 30 minutes
• Each type of government was asked the same
questions, except for minor wording differences
• Difficult or burdensome questions were
removed from the questionnaire to increase the
number of successfully completed sur\ eys
These measures also helped to eliminate item
non-response
• Skip patterns in the questionnaire allowed
respondents to omit questions and sections that
were not relevant to their government
• Questions were designed for ease of response,
with moi>t designed as simple Yes/No questions
« The respondent was provided an opportunity to
express an opinion and elaborate on any of the
questions at the end of the questionnaire
• Respondents were offered a free copy of the sur-
\ ey results
The sur\ ey questionnaire is included in the
Appendix to this report
F Statistical Design
The statistical design identified the study popula-
tion or sampling frame, established the level of
desired precision for sample estimates, determined
the sample size, determined the method of sampling
the population, and drew the representative sample
I The Sampling Frame
The sampling frame for the survey was extracted
from 1992 Census of Government data files available
m Fall 1993 The Census of Governments contains
addresses and descnptiv e and financial data on the
more than 83,000 general and special purpose gov-
ernments in the U S The sampling frame consisted
of the 37,588 active general purpose county, munici-
pal, and township governments in the U S serving
populations less than 50,000
2 Sample Design Criteria
Three criteria guided the survey sample design
(1) government sizes and services, (2) desired statisti-
cal precision of results, and (3) the target response
rate for the survey
(1) Governments serving populations less than 250
were both \ ery numerous and known to sup-
port few services or facilities pertinent to the
sur\ ey Moreover, the sampling rate of smaller
governments was set to half that of larger gov -
ernments This allocation allowed an increased
sample of the larger governments and
improved the statistical reliability of estimates
dem ed for them
(2) A statistical level of precision was selected to
allow inferences to be made to the entire sur-
vey target population as well as to subclasses
In selecting the level of precision, one specific
objective was that an estimate of 50% based on
at least one-fifth of all the sampled govern-
ments would be associated with a 95% confi-
dence interval of ±5%
(3) A target response rate of 80% was selected for
the survey The survey response rate was calcu-
lated as the percentage of governments that
returned completed questionnaires in the sur-
\ ey sample The target response lev el was con-
sistent with Office of Management and Budget
guidelines, and with rates achieved in previous
similar surveys
Applying these criteria to the sampling frame
yielded a survey sample size of 3,444 small general
purpose governments Details of the sample selec-
tion process are provided in Table 16, which indicates
population subclass sizes, sampling rate and expect-
ed sample sizes
3 Data Accuracy
A key element in determining an effective sample
design is obtaining an estimate of the population
variance, S^ (see Kish, 1965) In this survey, because
-------
Table 16. Survey Strata, S.impl
Stratum
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Population served
by government
0-249
250-499
500-999
1 000-2,999
3,000-9,999
10,000-19,999
20,000-50,000
Total
Number of governments
in frame
7,732
5,080
5,998
8,566
5,859
2,332
2,021
37,588
ing Frame and Samp]
Sampling
interval
196
98
98
98
98
98
98
Sample
size
395
519
613
875
598
238
206
3,444
e Sizes
Expected sample size based
on an 80% response rate
316
415
490
700
479
190
165
2,755
the results desired were proportions, S2 could be
approximated based on the binomial distribution
and simple random sampling The actual sample
design was a stratified design, with communities
with less than 250 persons sampled at half the rate of
other communities For design purposes, the gains
from the stratification were ignored in computing
standard errors This resulted in some over-estima-
tion of the standard errors Howev er, the gain from
the stratification would be modest, so that the over-
estimation would not be appreciable Under simple
random sampling, the \ anance for an estimated pro-
portion was
j A A A
Sz = P(l-P)/n where P is the estimated proportion
of occurrences in the population
To obtain an estimate of the standard error of P
given \ anous sample sizes (n) from the population
of size (N) according to P, the following formula
was applied (see Kish, 1965)
se (P,n)= [(l-n/NJS2!1/2
A design effect was calculated to adjust the esti-
mates of standard errors to take account of the lower
sampling fraction for the smaller communities This
design effect was computed as
D2 =1 + [W(1-W)(K-1)2]/K where W is the pro-
portion of communities vvith populations of
250 or less in the sur% ey frame and K is the
ratio of the sampling fraction for go\ ern-
mentb serving populations greater than 250
(about 1 in 10 or 0 1) to that for governments
ser\ ing populations of 250 or less (about 1 in
20, or 0 05) Thus, in this study, K = 2 (i e
01/005)
To estimate the design effect on a sample of all
communities less than 50,000, W = 0 206 (i e,
7,732/37,588), giving D2 = 1 08 or D = 1 04 This
statistic indicates that the sample standard error esti-
mates are greater than those that would be obtained
from a simple random sample by a factor of 1 04
Table 17 presents standard errors adjusted for the
design effect for likely sun ey percentage results
based on different subclass sample sizes The figures
were calculated by multiplying the standard errors
based on simple random sampling by the value of D
= 1 04 The last column gives the standard errors for
percentage results calculated for the expected sur\ ey
sample of 2,755, based on an 80% response rate to a
mail-out of 3,444 questionnaires The other columns
give the standard errors for percentage results basod
on other subclass sizes that were thought hkelv to
occur in the analysis of survey responses These
results assume that communities, with populations of
250 or less are represented in the sample m propor-
tion to the sampling design
-------
Table 17. Standard errors for percentage results (based on various analysis class sizes arid for the total expected survey
sample size with an 80"<> response rate)
Percent Result
95"n or 5"<>
90",, or 10",,
75"<, or 25%
50"..
Subclass Sample
200
1 6
22
32
37
500 1
1 0
1 4
20
23
,000 1
07
10
14
1 7
Size
,500
06
08
12
14
2,000
0^
07
10
1 2
Expected Total
Sun ev Sample Size
2,755
04
06
09
10
To meet the second design criterion, estimates of
95"<» confidence limits were calculated according to
p ± 95% C L = p ± ts[di] s e (p)
where ts[df| = 1 96 setting df = infimtv
These calculations indicated that a sample of 2,755
(based on a sun ev iespouse rate of 80"u of the sur-
vey sample of 3,444) would yield estimates of per-
centage results with adequate precision For exam-
ple, the 95% confidence inten al associated w ith a
result of 25".. is bounded from 23 2% to 26 8%
Concerning subclasses, Table 17 indicates a result of
50"<» based on a subclass size of 200 having a stan-
dard error of ±3 7% and giving a 95% confidence
inten. ai ranging from 42 6"., to 57 4% This result
does not exceed the sample design criteria, however,
since a subclass si7e of 200 is less than the minimum
design criterion subclass size specified as one fifth of
the total sample si/e (i e , 551)
4 St'kLtton of tin Sin 111/ SamfiU
\ stratified s\ stematic sampk of small gov ei n-
ments was obtained by applying a sampling inten al
of 19 6 to the first stratum consisting of governments
sen ing populations less than 250, and an mterv al of
9 8 to all other population strata sizes (See Table 16)
Probabilit\ sampling was performed independently
w ithin each stratum Prior to selection, the units
within each stratum were sorted in order of the ten
EPA regions, and within region, bv state, and bv t\pe
of gov ernnunt (i e, counties, tow nships, and munici-
palities) Systematic sampling within stratum yield-
ed implicit stratification bv EPA region, state, and
type of government
G Survey Implementation
/ Data Collection Schedules
The mail-out of the questionnaires was targeted
tor late winter when small government officials ha\e
the fewest competing demands on their time This
w as identified as a kev factor in achiev mg coopera-
tion of respondents and maximizing the survey
response rate
The surv ev target return date w as set at 30 davs
after the initial mail-out to allow timely follow-up
procedures Follow-up procedures were developed
to encourage target respondents to complete and
return their questionnaires These procedures con-
sisted of postcard reminders, reminder letters accom-
pan\ ing remails of the mail-out package, and follow-
up telephone calls The procedures were conducted
as follow s
(1) Tw o w eeks before the due date of the initial
mail-out, a postcard was sent to each target
respondent with a reminder of the question-
naire' due date and a reque-st for the respon-
dent to participate in the survey The postcard
also contained the 800 telephone number and
the survev manager's telephone number for
respondents to obtain additional information
or sun ev materials Reminder postcards were
the same color as the mail-out package to rein-
force respondent recognition
(2) One week after the due date of the initial mail-
out, nonrespondents were sent another mail-
out package with a reminder letter This letter,
printed on bright yellow paper for attention,
extended the questionnaire return date bv two
-------
Figure 6. Cumulative Response
Activity, Plmse I
o>
oc
o>
^
o
Initial Reminder Due Date Second First Second
Mailout Postcard Mailout Calls Calls
Survey Activity
End
weeks, and encouraged participation in the
survey
(3) If there was still no response, a reminder call
was made bv a trained interv lewer The inter-
viewer established whether the questionnaire
had been received and determined if the
respondent wanted another mail-out package,
perhaps sent to another person or address If
an additional instrument was requested, it
was sent within 24 hours Call records, main-
tained for each respondent, preserved an
accurate account of the calls made and actions
taken
The survey was implemented in two phases due
to funding circumstances This rv\ o-stage imple-
mentation did not affect an\ of the survey design
considerations described above In Phase I, a strati-
fied systematic sample of 3,000 governments was
selected from the first five strata representing small
governments with populations under 10,000 In
Phase II, a stratified systematic sample of 444 gov-
ernments with populations from 10,000 to 49,999,
was drawn from the last two strata The survey
operations followed the same format in each phase
Phase I began in March 1994 with the initial mail-
ing of 3,000 questionnaires to 74 counties, 1,552
municipalities, and 1,374 townships Phase II began
in June 1994 with the initial mailing of 444 question-
naires to 155 counties, 190 municipalities, and 99
townships The target date for returning of ques-
tionnaires by respondents in Phase I and II was April
1994 and July 1994, respectively
Two weeks prior to the Phase I and Phase II target
due dates, reminder postcards were sent to the gov -
emments that had not responded Reminder post-
cards were sent to about 2,200 target respondents in
Phase I, and 375 in Phase II
A week after the Phase I and Phase II due dates,
follow-up packages were mailed to the governments
that had not responded About 2,200 remails were
made in Phase I, while 275 remails were made in
Phase II
Reminder calls v\ ere placed to non-respondents
by trained telephone interviewers during April 1994
and September 1994 in Phase I, and during August
and September 1994 and March 1995 in Phase II
Extensive effort was required to obtain names and
telephone numbers of the targeted respondents as
these were not available from the sample frame
General or switchboard telephone numbers of go\ -
ernments were obtained from directory assistance
-------
Figure 7. Cumulative Response Rates at Start of Each Survey Activity, Phase 11
s£
M
c
w
3
0)
K
«>
>
re
3
E
3
o
ono/*
AH%
70%
Afi9/«
50%
4noA
30%
20%
m%
n%
_^*l*^f
^^^^^
^^^^^
^^^
^r
S^
^•^ ^^^^^^ r on/
^^^^^^^ JJ/u
^^^ *SOOA 30 /o
^S^ 28% J J /0
^X^^10W
Initial Reminder Due Date Second First Calls Second Third Calls End
Mailout Postcard Mailout Calls
Survey Activity
enabling target respondents of the survey to be iden-
tified by inquiry Often, respondents serving the
smallest governments could only be contacted at
their homes
2 Survey Rcu'ipt Control System
A computerized receipt control s\stem was estab-
lished to ensure that questionnaires returned to the
Agency b\ respondents were processed efficiently
and could be located at each processing stage The
control system allowed the survey manager full
knowledge of the status of each questionnaire at any
time Individual bar codes printed on the address
labels attached to the back of each questionnaire
were the key to this system
Each questionnaire received was promptly logged
in to the s\ stem data file by scanning its bar code
Am changes in the address or telephone number of
respondents gi\ en in response to the first question in
the questionnaire \\ere also recorded As the ques-
tionnaire mo\ ed through data processing channels,
its handling record was updated The system data
file thus permitted the survey manager to monitor
the cumulative receipts of questionnaires and exam-
ine the response rate to the survey by date and other
variables
3 Pre-ti^t of tin. Surra/
A pre-test is the implementation of the full set of
survey processing procedures on a small scale Its
purpose is to evaluate all aspects of the survey
implementation procedures and materials to ensure
that the data collection processes are efficient and
accurate, and that data integrity is preserved at each
processing stage In addition, the pre-test pro\ ides
additional feedback on the survey instrument itself
as it goes through mail receipt, self-administration,
and return
The surv ey pre-test was conducted with a random
sample of 27 governments nine counties, nine
municipalities, and nine townships drawn from the
surv ey frame Mail-out packages were sent in
February 1994 The returned questionnaires were
carefully tracked as they went through receipt
acknovs ledgment, data entry, data cleaning, error
checking and resolution, data imputations, data tab-
ulation, and documented data file creation
A number of small changes resulted from the pre-
test The most significant finding concerned the
development of data imputation rules for missing
answers
-------
4 Surcey Response
The response rates achiev ed by each sun ey oper-
ations activity from the initial mail-out to the end of
the field period are shown for Phase I and Phase II
in Figures 6 and 7, respectively Response rates in
the initial stages of Phase I were higher than those
during the initial stages of Phase II, which may have
been a function of the time of year the phases were
conducted However, the ultimate response rates
achiev ed in each sun ev phase u ere similar
Response rates tor the different types of go\ ern-
ments sampled in each sun e\ phase w ere fairl\
similar, indicating that government size, categorized
at levels of <10,000 and from 10,000 to 50,000, did
not affect response rate With respect to type of gov-
ernment, response rates of municipalities and town-
ships were slightly higher than those of counties,
regardless of general size category (See Table 18)
Based on comments receu ed b\ the small communi-
ties helpline and heard during the reminder calls,
the most t)pical reason for non-response was lack of
staff time to fill out the questionnaire
The results of the held sun e\ operations are
summarized in Table 19 The sun ey w as successful
in achieving a response rate (81 '<») slightly greater
than targeted Field operations of the survey were
terminated in May 1995
H Data Processing
7 Data Imputation
Rules for imputation concerned fixe types of
questions (1) questions with Yes or No responses,
(2) questions with Yes, No, Don't Know responses,
(3) branching questions, (4) two-stage questions and
(5) numerical answers The rules w ere as follows
(1) Questions with Yis, No RiNfwises As observed
in the survey pre-test and confirmed by calls
to pre-test participants, many respondents
who circled "Yes" or "No" responses left
unmarked line items in the same questions to
w hich their implied response was a "No "
Thus, if a respondent marktd "Yes" or "No" to
any line within a question, each line with no
circled answ er w ithm the same question was
coded as a "No ' An exception was applied in
"Other" line responses if the respondent
wrote in an answer but failed to circle "Yes," a
"Yes" answer was imputed This rule was
applied to Question 3A, Q3B, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q9,
Q10, Qll, Q13, Q17 Q19 Q25, Q27, Q31, Q33,
Q36, Q38, Q43, and Q44
(2) Question with Yes, K'o, Don t Know Response*
Lines unanswered in questions with some lines
answered were coded as missing The lack of a
response was thus interpreted as the question
line bem g inapplicable This rule was applied
to Q39 and Q40
(3) BiaiiLlung Questions Several parts of the ques-
tionnaire used branching questions, in which
respondents were instructed to skip one or more
questions if their answer to a lead question was
'No " Prior to data entry of each questionnaire,
lead and branching questions w ere \ isuallv
re^ lewed Skip patterns were enforced using
toiward logic and backward logic In cases
where respondents had marked "No" to lead
questions, associated branch questions answers
were coded as blanks Coding of cases where
the respondent had answered branch questions
but tailed to answer the lead question as "Yes"
were resoh ed on an individual basis These
rules applied to Q2, Q8/Q9, Q12/Q13,
Q15/Q16, Q17, Q18/Q19, Q18/20, Q20/Q21,
Q22/Q23, Q29/Q30, Q31,Q32 and Q32/Q33,
Q34/Q35, Q36, Q37 and Q37/Q38 Forward
and backward logic were also applied to two
inferred branching patterns associated with
Question 6, line 1 and Question 10, line 1
(4) Single-Stage Table Question*, Two questions, Q24
and Q28, contained a "Not aware" answer in
addition to descriptive answers In cases where
no part of the question was answered, the entire
question was set to missing In cases where at
least one answer in the question was circled,
lines with missing answers were coded "Not
aware "
(5) Double-Stage Table Questions Two questions,
Q27 and Q43, consisted of a first stage of Yes,
No responses which branched to a second stage
if the answer to the first stage was "Yes "
Imputation rule (1) above was applied to the
fust stage Then, branching patterns were
checked If a response occurred in the second
stage, the first stage answer was coded to "Yes"
arid the unanswered parts of the second stage
were coded as "No " A "No ' first stage answer
resulted m the corresponding second stage
answers being set to missing Differentiating
stcond stage answers in this manner allowed
the correct computations to be made for second
stage percentages for "Yes" first stage responses
-------
Table 18. Response Rates by Type of Government and Survey Phase
Type of
Go\ eminent
County
Municipality
Tow nship
lotai
Phase I
No of Target Response
Respondents Rate
74 70%
1,552 83",,
1,374 79",,
3,000 81",,
Phase II
No of Target Response
Respondents Rate
155 73%
190 87%
99 78%
444 80'%,
Overall
Survey
Response Sample
Rate Size
72% 165
83",, 1,448
79% 1,166
81",, 2,779
Table 19. Summary of Phase I and Phase II Field Operations
Sun, ev
Phase Frame
1 33,235
II 4,353
Sample
Size
3,000
444
Expected
Response
2,400
355
First
Mailout
Date
March 1994
June 1994
End of
Data Collection
October 1995
Mav 1995
Achieved
Number of
Responses
2,423
356
(6) Numerical Ansuvr** Two types of questions
asked the respondent to fill in blanks with
numerical answers The first type concerned
numbeis of storage tanks in use and not in use
(Q29, Q35) If a \ alue greater than zero was
entered in either blank and the other blank
was not filled in, the omitted answer was
imputed as /ero The second type of question
concerned Q42, in v\ hich respondents w ere
asked to pro\ ide their percentage estimates of
land use types within their government's
boundaries currently and in the future Entries
in each column were checked to determine
they summed between 90% and 110"u If a
sum was outside this range, the hardcopv
questionnaire was examined Anv irregulari-
ties not resoh able were set to missing
2 Data Fik ^
A PC-based suuey receipt control system was
used to track questionnaires from receipt through the
\ arums stages of data processing Iw o tv pts of data
file foimats were prepared The pnmar\ data tile
format uas designed to contain the responses coded
from each questionnaire for Questions 2 through 45,
with each record in the file representing a single
respondent go\ t rnment The second file format w as
designed to contain the remarks receiv ed on the last
page of the questionnaire to the query, "Is there am -
thing else that \ ou'd like to tell EPA7" These com-
ments were entered verbatim into the second file
along with indexes to their content The information
pro\ ided in Question 1 was recorded in the sur\ e\
receipt control system file
Data entry for the primary data file was per-
formed on batches of 100 questionnaires, with 100",,
key verification on each questionnaire Discrepancies
between the first and second keying were reviewed
bv a senior ke\ er and resolved After data entrv,
questionnaires \\ere filed in numerical order by bar
code for reference during data cleaning and edit
check procedures
Data
Individual response frequencies and cross-tabula-
tions between responses on questionnaires were
compiled to guide the process of cleaning the prima-
ry data file Any coded responses that were out of
specified ranges were investigated and resolved
The logical relationships between items were exam-
ined after out-of- range questions had been resolved
Anv inconsistencies were m\ estigated bv careful
e\ aluation of mdi\ idual questionnaires Corrections
were made on a case-bv-case basis Inconsistencies
H
-------
Table 20.
Population
Size Class
<2,500
2,500 - 9,999
10,000 to 50,000
All <50,000
Analysis Class and Sample Size
Type of Gov ernment
County
9
43
113
165
Municipality Tow nship
974 861
307 224
166 77
1,447 1,162
Total
n/a
n/a
n/a
2,774
were resolved by reference to other responses follow-
ing pre-established conventions When that was not
sufficient, the respondents were called and asked to
clarify their responses
4 Final Data Weighting
The primary data file was completed with the
addition of a final weighting factor for each record to
enable estimation of results at the population level
from the sample data The weight calculated for
each respondent gov ernment reflects the likelihood
of sampling each government and reduces bias by
compensating for different patterns of non-response
(See Kish, 1965, for an explanation of sample
weights) The final weight, W, associated with each
record was calculated according to
W = Wl * fl * f2
where
Wl = the inverse of the probability of selecting the
government (its base weight or original
weight due to the surv ev sample design),
fl = non-response factor calculated by stratum
and type of government, which adjusts for
differences in the response rate of the catego-
ry of the respondent gov ernment, and
f2 = post-stratification factor calculated by stra-
tum and tvpe of government, which adjusts
for deviations in the respondent government
category from known stratum sizes
The final weights for each record were used to
adjust the influence of each record in statistical cal-
culations of the survey results
I Analysis of Survey Results
1 Selection of Analysis Suhclaws
A pjehmmary analysis of survey results indicated
a varying pattern of differences and similarities in
responses to questions by go\ ernment type and size
stratum To portrav this variability and to respond
to the greatest number of reader information needs
concerning regulations, results of the survey were
compiled for the total sample, by type of gov ern-
ment, and w ithin type of gov ernment by size class
The classes selected and their sample sizes are
shown in Table 20
The size class, <2,500, was selected to provide informa-
tion supporting the Small Town Environmental Program
Other size classes were selected to delineate characteristics
of gov ernmaits serving populations greater and lesser
than 10,000 For the analysis of counties, the two smallest
size classes were combined due to their small sample sizes
Maps showing the locations of the survev popu-
lation by types and size of gov ernment are present-
ed in Figures 8-14 Although these maps show only
the contiguous 48 states, the survey results refer to
small gov ernments of the entire United States
Townships, A form of government which does not
occur in all states, cluster in the northeast and north
central parts of the country Municipalities exist
across the U S, although those with populations less
than 2,500 are densest in the central states A real
extents of counties are greatest in the west, while
counties with populations less than 10,000 appear
mostlv in the plain states
-------
2 Standard Errors of Analysis Results
Tables 21-24 report standard errors of results per-
centages for each analysis subclass, adjusted by the
Design Effect Factor Estimates for each subclass and
the entire sample are reported for percentage results
ranging from 5 to 99% in steps of 5% These tables
provide a good approximation of the reliability of the
survey results presented in Section 1 of this report
and are displayed graphically in Figures 2-5 in
Section 1
3 Additional Compilation* of Survey
The final \\eights appended to each record of the
primary data file allow for the preparation of subse-
quent tabulations reflecting any of the variables
included in the survey, without any further adjust-
ments to the weights For example, these weights
permit population estimates to be made from the
sun ev sample grouped into size classes or go\ ern-
ment type categories other than those contained in
the tables presented in this report Similarly, popula-
tion estimates of any v anable of interest may be tab-
ulated directlv, or cross-tabulated against other \ an-
ables, including gov ernment size measures
4 Combining Survey Data with Other Databtw,
The information contained in the primary data file
can be matched with other data files containing
information on the governments comprising the sur-
\ cy frame For example, the 1992 U S Census of
Governments and the 1990 U S Census of
Population and Housing was used to create an
enhanced database Such a database might be used
to design additional surveys or provide accessory
data for inclusion in an analysis of the data from this
survey This matching capability is afforded bv the
U S Bureau of the Census individual government
identification number contained on each record of
the primary data file
J References
Dillman, Don A 1978 Mail and Telephone
Survey^ (New York John Wiley & Sons, Inc)
Kish, Leslie 1965 Survey Sampling (New York John
WiJev & Sons, Inc )
US Bureau of the Census 1992 Cow, of
Goicrnmtnt* Adcin^ Fill
TABLE 21. Standard Errors for Counties by TABLE 22. Standard Errors for Municipalities
Subclass and Percentage Findings by Subclass and Percentage Finding
Percentage
Finding
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
99
0-9,999
138
302
416
495
554
600
635
661
679
689
693
689
679
661
635
600
554
495
416
302
138
10,000-
50,000
094
204
282
335
376
407
431
448
460
468
470
468
460
448
431
407
376
335
282
204
094
Total
077
169
234
278
311
337
356
371
381
387
389
387
381
371
356
337
311
278
234
169
077
Percentage
Finding
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
99
0-2,499
032
070
096
1 14
128
138
146
152
156
159
160
159
156
152
146
1 38
1 28
1 14
096
070
032
2,500-
9,999
057
124
171
203
228
247
261
272
279
283
285
283
279
272
261
247
228
203
171
124
057
10,000-
50,000
077
169
233
277
310
336
355
370
380
386
388
386
380
370
355
336
310
277
233
169
077
Total
026
057
079
094
05
13
20
25
28
30
31
130
128
125
120
113
105
094
078
057
026
-------
: TABLE 23. Standard Errors for Townships by TABLE 24. Standard Errors for Overall Sample by
Subclass and Percentage Findings Subclass and Percentage Findings
Percentage
finding
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
99
0-2 499
034
074
102
121
136
147
156
162
166
169
170
169
166
162
156
147
136
121
102
074
034
2,500-
9,999
067
145
201
238
267
289
306
318
327
332
334
332
327
318
306
289
267
238
201
145
067
10,000-
50,000
1 13
248
342
407
456
493
522
543
558
567
570
567
558
543
522
493
456
407
342
248
1 13
Total
029
064
088
104
1 17
127
134
139
143
145
1 46
145
143
139
134
127
1 17
104
088
064
029
Per( entage
Finding
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
99
Overall
Sample
019
041
057
068
076
082
087
091
093
094
095
094
093
091
087
082
076
068
057
041
019
FIGURE 8. Counties in U.S. by Population Size
LEGEND
1 - 9,999
10,000-49999
SO 000 +
-------
FIGURE 9. Municipalities in U.S. with Populations less than 2,500
jfc1* I *'**<*v~ '•
FIGURE 10. Municipalities in U.S. with Populations from 2,500 to 9,999
, i-'i'
i *
*
-t *
-S
1.
:*:.
-------
FIGURE 11. Municipalities
with Populations from 10,000 to
"4.
l '
. . • •> »• **... -*
• •' *
12. Townships in U.S. with Populations less than 2,500
-------
FIGURE 13. Townships in U.S. with Populations from 2,5(H) to l),l)99
\ r
—i
r
FIGURE 14. Townships in U.S. with Populations from 10,000 to 50,000
-------
-------
APPENDIX
-------
-------
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SURVEY OF SMALL MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS
INFORMATION SOURCES
Please provide the following contact information
Your name
Title
Address (if different from label)
Telephone number
_ Fax number ( _ )
Do you or your staff have access to a personal computer for local government business7
Circle one number
Yes
No
Is a modem also available7 (Circle one rumber) \ Yes 2 No
What organizations or people provide your municipality with
(A) information about the existence and terms of new or changed environmental regulations and
(B) technical guidance on how to implement environmental regulations'
Circle one number for each information source in Column A and in Column B
T
COLUMN A
Provides information
on existence and terms
of regulations?
COLUMN B
Provides
implementation
guidance?
INFORMATION SOURCE
State Department of Natural Resources or slate EPA
Other state government departments or state
extension services
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Other federal agencies or extension services
County government
Associations
Contracted engineering services
Citizen volunteers
Electronic bulletin boards
Telephone hotlines
Technical publications
Radio or television
Local newspapers
Federal Register
Any other (Specify} _
YES NO
YES NO
For Toll Free Survey Help Line Call 1-800-37M464
-------
FACILITIES AND ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Are any ol the following facilities or operations
(A) owned or operated (in whole or part) by your municipality or
(B) located within your municipal boundaries'7
Circle one number for each facility/operation in Column A and in Column 3
FACILITY'OPERATION
Airport
Drinking water treatment system
Wastewater treatment plant
Combined sewer overflow system
Storm water management system
Electric utility (coal powered)
Electric utility (petroleum powered)
Electric utility (natural gas powered)
Electric utility (nuclear powered)
Steam generating unit (other than electric utility boiler)
Sewage sludge combustor
Incinerator handling industrial or comme cial waste
Incinerator handling medical waste
Incinerator handling municipal waste
Other incinerators capable of handling over 5 tons per day
Chemical manufacturing plant
Chemical storage site
Pesticide storage site
Petroleum refinery
Primary metals manufacturer
Pulp or paper mill
Asphalt plant
Lead smelting plant
Stationary gas turbine
Vehicle emissions testing facility
Gravel pits
Asbestos disposal
Hazardous waste treatment storage or disposal facility
Landfill
Aboveground petroleum storage tank
Underground petroleum storage tank
T
OLUMN A
i it owned
r operated
by your
inicipality9
ES NO '
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 ?
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 i
1 2
1 ?
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
l 2
1 ?
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
T
COLUMN B
Is it located
within your
municipal
boundaries'7
' YES NO
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 Z
1 2
1 ^
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
t 2
1 2
1 2
-------
Does your municipality manage regulate or promote any of the following programs'
Circle one number for each program
V
PROGRAM VES N0
Aquifer (i e underground water) protection program 1 2
Recharge area protection program 1 2
Wellhead protection program 1 2
Watershed protection program 1 2
Drainage/flood control program (e g levees) 1 2
Erosion control or soil conservation program 1 2
Industrial development program 1 2
DRINKING WATER
Who provides drinking water in your municipality9
Circle one number for each type of provider
T
TYPE OF PROVIDER YES NO
Your municipal government 1 2
State county or other local governments 1 2
Local independent authority (a separate organization operating public
facilities from within your municipality for one or more municipalities) 1 2
Regional authority (an organization with a charter or policy dictating how
commingled funds of Is members are used to provide services for
more than one municipality) 1 2
Community association. 1 2
Private firms 1 2
Households (from their own wells) 1 2
Any other' (Specify) 1 2
Does your municipality provide drinking water outside its municipal boundaries9
Circle one number
T
1 Yes
2 No
' IF YOUR MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT PROVIDE DRINKING WA TER GO TO QUESTION 10
Since January 1 1989 has your municipality upgraded its drinking water system (e g
purchased new or improved equipment constructed new pipelines or facilities or improved
the existing ones)7 Include work in progress or planned to begin in 1994
drcSa one number
1 Yes
2 No —> I Go to Question 10
For Toll Free Survey Help Line Call 1 800-379-8464
-------
Why was the system upgraded9
Circle ana number lor each ot the reasons below
T
REASON FOR UPGRADE YES MO
To increase its capacity 1 2
To meet revised or additional slate or federal
drinking water requirements 1 2
To respond to local hearth concerns 1 2
To replace a distribution or treatment system that
reached trie end of its useful life 1 2
Any other' (Specify reason) _ 1 2
WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
10 Who provides wastewater treatment in your municipality''
Circle one number for each type of provider
V
TYPE OF PROVIDER YES NO
Your municipal government 1 2
State county or other local governments 1 2
Local independent authority (for definition see Question 6) 1 2
Regional authority (for definition see Question 6) 1 2
Community associations 1 2
Private firms 1 2
Households (from their own septic systems) 1 2
Any other' (Specify) . 1 2
IF YOUH MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT PROVIDE WASTEWATER TREATMENT IN YOUR \
MUNICIPALITY GO TO QUESTION 14
11 How does your municipality handle sewage sludge'
Circle one number tor each handling method
V
HANDLING METHOD YES No
Incinerates it 1 2
Applies it to the land (i e land spreading) 1 2
Disposes it in the land (e g lagoon landfill monofill, pit) 1 2
Dries it and palletizes it 1 2
Transfers it to a distributor or marketer 1 2
Transfers it to a facility not owned by your municipality 1 2
Any other'? {Specify) 1 2
-------
12
Since January 1 1989 has your municipality upgraded its wastewater system (e g
purchased new or improved equipment constructed new pipelines or facilities or improved
existing ones)9 Include work in progress or planned to begin in 1994
Circle one number
V
1
Yes
No —> Go to Question 14
13
Why was the system upgraded7
Circle one number lor each of tha reasons below
REASON FOR UPGRADE
To increase its capacity
To meet revised or additional state or federal
wastewater requirements
To respond to local health concerns
To replace a distribution or treatment system that
reached the end of its useful life
Any other reason' (Specify}
T
YES NO
1
LANDFILLS
14
15
Since January 1 1989 has your municipality closed any landfills' [Do not include dumps (i e
unpermitted land disposal sites) or transfer stations ]
Circle one number
1 Yes
2 No
Does your municipality own or operate (in whole or part) any active landfills7
[Do not include dumps (i e unpermitted land disposal sites) or transfer stations 1
Circle one number
V
1
Yes
No —» Go to Question 22 .
16
How many9
V
ACTIVE LANDFILLS
For Toll Free Survey Help Line Call 1-800-379-8464
-------
17 How does your municipality raise lunds for the operation and maintenance of its landfills)9
Circle one number tor each fund raising method
T
FUND-RAISING METHOD YES No
Refuse collection lees [e g flat rate pay per bag or container) 1 2
Taxes 1 2
Special assessments 1 2
Tipping fees 1 2
Unspecified general revenues 1 2
Any other? (Specify) _ _ 12
18 Since January 1 1989 has your municipality upgraded its landfills (e g purchased new or
improved equipment constructed new facilities or improved existing ones)9 Include work in
progress or planned to begin in 1994
Circle one number
T
1 Yes
No —> Go to Question 20
19 Why were your landfills upgraded'
Circle one number for each of the reasons below
T
REASON FOR UPGRADE YES No
To increase their capacity 1 2
To meet revised or additional state or federal waste disposal
requirements (liner monitoring concerns) 1 2
To respond to local health concerns 1 2
Any other reason7 (Specify] 1 2
20 Does your municipality own or operate (in whole or in part) any hazardous waste landfills9 (If
you dont have hazardous waste landfills or you are not familiar with the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) definition of hazardous waste circle 2 and qo to Question 22 ]
Circle oie number
1 Yes
2 No —> I Go to Question 22
21 How many?
HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILLS
-------
22
Does your municipality pay post-closure costs for any inactive landfills9 (Include landfills for
which you share responsibility )
Circle one number
1 Yes
2 No —^ Go to Question 24
23 How many''
INACTIVE LANDFILLS
RECYCLING AND HOUSEHOLD WASTE DISPOSAL
24
Please describe the recycling programs for any of the following household waste materials
within your municipal boundaries
Circle all numbers that apply for each material
MATERIAL RECYCLED
Aluminum cans
Other metal cans
Glass
Newspaper
Other paper
Plastic
Used oil
Yard waste
Batteries
Any other7 (Specify)
Not aware
of any such
recycling
program
within the
municipal
boundaries
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Municipal
government
manages or
finances the
recycling
program
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Municipal
government is
a participant
in a recycling
program
managed by
someone else
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Recycling
program
exists in the
municipality
without municipal
government
participation
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
25
Please describe the waste disposal program for hazardous household waste (e g paint cans
pesticide containers) within your municipal boundaries
Circle one number for each program below
PROGRAM
Not aware of any such program within the municipal boundaries
Municipal government manages or finances the program
Municipal government is a participant in such a program
managed by someone else
The program exists in the municipally without municipal
government participation
T
YES NO
For Toll Free Survey Help Line Call 1 800-3794464
-------
26 Who lakes refuse recyclables and yard waste from households in youi municipality to the
disposal or recycling sites'?
Circle all numbers that apply for each type of waste
WASTE TAKEN TO DISPOSAL SITE BY
TYPE OF WASTE
Rpfuse (non recyclables)
Recyclables (excluding
yard wasted
Yard waste
Another
local
Individual Your govern
residents municipality ment
1
Local
County mde-
govern- pendent Regional Private
ment authority authority firm(s)
27 Are refuse or recyclables from households in your municipality delivered to any of the following
receiving facilities and if so who owns or shares ownership of them"?
RECEIVING FACILITY
Landfill
Waste to energy incinerator
Other incinerator or municipal
waste cornbustor
Recycling center/materials
recovery facility (MRF)
(paper cans bottles or
other mixed recyclables)
Transfer station
Composting facility
Any other facility7 (Specify)
Is refuse
delivered
there?
Circle one
number for
each facility
YES NO
1 2
1 2
Your
munic
pahty
1
1
If YES who owns the receiving facility?
Circle all numbers that apply for each facility
Another Local
local County inde-
govern govern- pendent Regional Private
ment ment authority authority hrm(s)
23456
2345 6
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION
I Definition Pollution prevention includes any practice that reduces or eliminates the creation of
pollutants
28 Please describe each of the following pollution prevention programs or activities within your
municipal boundaries
Circle all numbers ffiaf apply for each pragram/acfmry
PROGRAM/ACTIVITY
Energy conservation
Hazardous waste source
reduction or recycling.
Non hazardous industrial waste
source reduction or recycling
Municipal waste source reduction
or recycling
Toxic chemicals (including
household toxics) use reduction
Wastewater pretreatment
Water conservation or r© use
Any other' (Specify)
Not aware
of such
program'
activity
within the
municipal
boundaries
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Municipal
government
manages or
finances the
program
activity
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Municipal
government is
a participant
in a program/
activity
managed by
someone else
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Program
activity
exists In the
municipality
without municipal
government
participation
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
For Toll Free Survey Help Line Call 1-WO-37M464
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
29 Does your municipality own (in whole or in part) any underground storage tanks9 Consider both
tanks in use and not in use
C/rds one number
1 Yes
2 No —> G° '° Question 34
30 How many of your municipality s underground storage tanks are currently in use and how many
are not In use?
(Provide your best esttrrate if the exact answer is not readily available I
IN NOT
USE IN USE
NUMBER OF UNDERGROUND TANKS
31 Do any of these underground storage tanks contain any ot the following substances whether or
not the tanks are currently in use7
Circle one number (or each substance
T
SUBSTANCE YES NO
Gasoline 1 2
Heating oil used on premises 1 2
Other fuel or petroleum products 1 2
Other chemicals 1 2
Anything else? (Specify) . . . 1 2
32 Since January 1 1989 has your municipality replaced or upgraded Is underground storage
tanks (e g purchased new or improved equipment constructed new tanks or improved
existing ones)? Include work in progress or planned to begin in 1994
Circle one number
V
1 Yes
No —>
Go to Question 34
33 Why were the underground tanks upgraded'
Circle one number for each of the reasons below
T
REASON FOR UPGRADE YES NO
To increase storage capacity 1 2
To meet revised or additional state or federal underground storage tank
requirements (replacement monitoring concerns) 1 2
To respond to local health concerns 1 2
The existing tanks reached the end of their useful We 1 2
Any other reason' (Specify) ___^__ 1 2
10
-------
ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKS
34 Does your municipality own (in whole or part) any aboveground storage tanks? Consider both
tanks in use and not in use
Circle one njmber
T
1 Yes
—^ ] Go to Question 39
35 How many of your municipality s aboveground storage tanks are currently in use and how many
are not in use7 (Provide your best estimate if the exact answer is not readily available )
T T
IN NOT
USE IN USE
NUMBER OF ABOVEGROUND TANKS
36 Do any of these aboveground storage tanks contain any of the following substances whether or
not the tanks are currently in use'
Ctrcte one number for each substance
T
SUBSTANCE ¥ES N0
Gasoline 1 2
Heating oil used on premises 1 2
Other fuel or petroleum products 1 2
Other chemicals 1 2
Any other' (Specify) 1 2
37 Since January 1 1989 has your municipality replaced or upgraded any of its aboveground
storage tanks (e g purchased new or improved equipment constructed new tanks or improved
existing ones)' Include work in progress or planned to begin in 1994
Circle one number
T
1 Yes
No
Go to Question 39
38 Why were the aboveground tanks upgraded'7
Circle one number for each o! the reasons below —
REASON FOR UPGRADE YES No
To increase storage capacity 1 2
To meel revised or additional state or federal aboveground
storage tank requirements {replacement monitoring concerns) 1 2
To respond to local health concerns 1 2
The existing tanks reached the end of their useful life 1 2
Any other reason' (Specify) . 1 2
11 For Toll Free Survey Help Line Call 1 -600-379-8464
-------
COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
Federal Community Right-to Know regulations require that Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs)
and Hazardous Materials Inventory Forms (MIFs) be maintained where hazardous materials are
used or stored
39
40
Who maintains the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) in your municipality'
Circle one number lor each racordkeeping organization
T
Maintains
MSDSs
RECOROKEEPING ORGANIZATION
Fire department
Code Enforcement/Safely Officer
I ocal emergency response committee
Slate emergency resoonse committee
Any other maintaining MSDSs7 (Speedy)
DONT
YES NO KNOW
Who maintains the Hazardous Material Inventory Forms (MIFsi in your municipality7
Circle one number for each recordkeeping organization
Maintains
MIFs
RECOROKEEPING ORGANIZATION
Fire department
Code Enforcement/Safety Officer
Local emergency response committee
State emergency response committee
Any other maintaining MIFs' (Specify)
DON'T
YES NO KNOW
12
-------
LAND USE PLANNING
41 Does your municipality have a land use plan (e g master plan comprehensive plan
conservation plan )'
Circle one number
1 Yes
2 No
42 What is your best estimate of how the land in your municipality is currently used and how rt will
be used in the year 2000'
Estimate to the nearest whole percent for each category
T T
Current Land use
LAND USE CATEGORY land use in year 2000
Commercial .% %
Heavy industrial % %
Light industrial % %
Residential
Rural/Agricultural
Parks and recreational land
Other (Specify) _.
Other (Specify)
TOTAL 100% 100%
13 For Toll Free Survey Help Line, Call 1 -800-37&4464
-------
FUNDING SOURCES AND USES
43 Since January 1 1989 what sources of capital and operating funds were used by your
municipality and what were these funds used for''
SOURCE OF FUNDS
Bank loans
Community fundraising
General obligation bonds
(exclude refunding)
Revenue bonds (exclude
refunding)
Rural Development
Administration loans
or grants
EPA loans or grants
Other federal loans or grants
State loans or grants
Work or materials offered or
donated by local citizens
organizations or businesses
Taxes
Impact fees
User fees
Permit fees
Other special assessments
Other sources of funds used for
environmental purposes
(Specify)
(Specify)
Has it been
used since
1/1/89'
Circle one
number tor
each source
YES
1
1
1
1
NO
2
2
2
2
If YES what were the funds used for?
Circle all number
Storm
watsr
manage
ment
1
1
1
1
Waste-
waler
treatment
2
2
2
2
Drinking
water
supply and
treatment
3
3
3
3
that apply for each source
Solid
waste
handling
and
disposal
4
4
4
4
Under-
ground
storage
tanks
5
5
5
5
Above.
ground
storage
tanks
6
6
6
6
Other
activ-
ities
7
7
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1 2
1 2
2 1 2
p
2
2
1 2
2
1 2
14
-------
44 Does your municipality budget funds for any of the following operations or programs''
Circle one number for each use of funds
V
Funds
budgeted''
OPERATION OR PROGRAM YES NO
Public elementary schools 1 2
Public secondary schools 1 2
Private elementary schools 1 2
Private secondary schools 1 2
Daycare or preschool facilities 1 2
Hospitals (including all mpatient care providers e g mental institutions) 1 2
Colleges or universities 1 2
Outpatient medical or mental health facilities or clinics 1 2
Nursing homes 1 2
Senior citizen centers 1 2
Other social service programs 1 2
Fire department 1 2
Police force 1 2
Jails or prisons 1 2
Military installations 1 2
Lioraries 1 2
Mamstreet/downtown redevelopment programs 1 2
Museums 1 2
Parks playing fields or golf courses 1 2
Ports or marinas 1 2
Recreational beaches shorelines or water areas 1 2
Other recreational facilities (e g stadiums arenas swimming pools) 1 2
Streets or highway maintenance 1 2
15 For Toll Free Survey Help Line Call 1 800-379-8464
-------
Is there anything else you'd like to tell EPA7
(We would be very interested to learn lor example about spec/fie situations where environmental regulations and
dean up activities have posit'vely or negatively affected people businesses and institutions in your area)
If you need additional space please attach additional sheets and check this box G
Thank you for taking the time and effort to provide this valuable information Your
assistance is greatly appreciated To reserve a copy of the survey report, please
check this box G
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS/
FURTHER ASSISTANCE
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS/
ASSISTANCE
The efforts of a wide number of people at various
levels of government and other organizations went
into the de\ elopment, administration, and analysis of
the 1994 Sun ev of Small Local Governments
Special recognition should be given to the mem-
bers of the Sur\ ej Design Committee for their em i-
ronmental expertise and experience with community
officials on em ironmental protection matters, and to
the Office of Regional Operations and State/Local
Relations staff for their administrative and technical
i support A special thank you to Susan Brunenmeister
Rothschild for planning and administering the sur-
vey, and drafting the results of the 1994 EPA Sun e\
of Small Local Go\ ernments Credit also goes to
Westat for anah tical sen ices, to Stretton Associates,
Inc for editing, and to JC Creatu e Services, Inc for
layout and design of this report
EPA appreciates the time and effort gi\ en bv all
participants m the survey EPA would also like to
thank staff in numerous associations, state agencies,
and local governments who participated in the
review of the survey instruments, procedures, and
draft report
Further Assistance
The Office of Regional Operations and
State/Local Relations transferred the Small
Community Information and Data Program (SCIDP)
to the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation's
Regulatory Management Div ision in September
1997
To obtain data files from the 1994 EPA Survey of
Small Governments, a copy of comments submitted
b\ small go\ ernments, or additional copies of this
report, please contact
Paul Lapsley, Director
Regulatory Management Division
Office of Policy, Planning and E\ aluation
202-260-5480
-------
-------
-------
------- |