Discussions on the Pros and Cons of Consolidation

1
Discussions on the Pros and Cons of Consolidation
Presented by Pat Hardy The University of
Tennessees Municipal Technical Advisory Service
2
We will talk about
1. The history of consolidation in the
U.S. 2. Hard research related to consolidated
jurisdictions. 3. Some commonly cited pros and
cons of consolidation.
3
What we wont talk about
1. Particulars related to the process of
consolidation. 2. Opinions about consolidation.
4
History and Background of Consolidation
5
The history of consolidation

• In the past 40 years there has been a net
  decrease of 31,801 units of local government in
  the U.S.
• But

6
The history of consolidation

• the decrease has been largely confined to a
  reduction in the number of school districts.

7
The history of consolidation
In fact, an additional 2,472 general purpose
governments were created during the same period.
Most of these have been cities.
8
The history of consolidation

• This means
• Suburbanization of our nation continues.
• The desire for local control of this
  suburbanization continues.

9
The history of consolidation
It also means

• Consolidation of cities and counties has not been
  a significant trend affecting how our local
  governments operate.
• In fact the opposite has occurred there has
  been continued fragmentation of our local
  governments.

10
The scope of consolidation
- About 3,069 counties in the U.S. - 35 of these
are consolidated thats 1 - Really, only
about 24 (3/4 of 1) - Since 1976, only 10
consolidations.
11
The scope of consolidation

• The first was New Orleans /New Orleans Parish La.
  in 1805.
• - The last was Louisville/ Jefferson
  County Ky. in 2003.

12
3 Consolidations in Tennessee
7,822
626,144
6,195
13
Consolidation efforts

• Nationwide there have been 132 formal
  consolidation attempts between 1921 and 1996.
• 16 were successful.
• Of these attempts, 102 have been in Southeastern
  states.

14
Consolidation efforts in Tennessee

• Year City County Support
• 1958 Nashville Davidson 47.3
• 1959 Knoxville Knox 16.7
• 1962 Memphis Shelby 36.8
• 1962 Nashville Davidson 56.8
• 1964 Chattanooga Hamilton 19.2
• 1970 Chattanooga Hamilton 48
• 1971 Memphis Shelby 47.6
• 1978 Knoxville Knox 48
• 1981 Clarksville Montgomery 16.3
• 1982 Bristol Sullivan 11
• 1983 Knoxville Knox 47.6
• 1987 Jackson Madison 47.3
• 1987 Lynchburg Moore 93.1
• 1988 Sparta White 39.4
• 1988 Bristol Sullivan 31.2
• Hartsville Trousdale 51.9
• Fayetteville Lincoln

15
Consolidation efforts
There is a tendency to support the study of
consolidation, but not actual consolidation
73 support for study commissions 47 for
actual consolidation.
Thus, most voters who initially support a look
at consolidation do not later support
consolidation itself.
16
Consolidation Research
17
1974 Metro Nashville/Davidson County Study
Hypothesis Citizens served by metropolitan
government will be more satisfied with services
than citizens served by a smaller municipality.
This hypothesis was not supported by the data.
In fact, to a large extent the opposite was found.
18
Heres what the study found

• For police, street repair, and parks and
  recreation services, smaller city residents were
  more satisfied than metro residents.
• 2. For garbage collection services ratings were
  approximately equal.
• 3. For fire protection services metro residents
  were more satisfied than residents in the smaller
  jurisdictions.

19
more findings from this study

• When asked if their local government was
  concerned about their neighborhood 85 of
  smaller city residents agreed and only 55 of
  metro residents did likewise.
• When asked if they agreed with the statement, A
  person cant get any satisfaction out of talking
  to the public officials in my neighborhood, 78
  of small city residents disagreed with this
  statement while only 53 of metro residents
  disagreed.
• Other results showed that small city residents
  knew which official to complain to more often
  than metro residents. These same residents did
  complain more often when they wanted to and were
  satisfied with responses more than metro
  residents were.

20
Other studies have shown the following

• A Florida State study of Metro Jacksonville/Duvall
  County examined their 30-year track record and
  failed to find evidence of a link between
  consolidation and economic development. It
  concluded that consolidation has not enhanced
  the local economy.
• In contrast a study found that the Indianapolis
  consolidated government has enhanced the
  effectiveness of economic development strategy
  there has been substantial economic development
  in the downtown that would not have occurred
  without Uni-Gov.

21
Studies related to costs/finances

• A number of studies have shown that expenditures
  tend to rise under consolidated jurisdictions at
  rates higher than in decentralized jurisdictions.
  Some suggest this is because new or more services
  are usually added (one study noted that
  consolidated governments have expanded public
  services considerably).
• Purdue University research has shown that larger
  units of government are more expensive to operate
  than smaller units. They conclude, The bulk of
  evidence indicates that consolidation increases
  taxes and spending.
• A 2000 University of Georgia study concluded,
  Very few studies have examined the impact of
  city-county consolidation, and what little
  evidence does exist suggests that costs will
  actually increase in the short term.
• 4. A study by David Sjoquist found that in 48
  southern urban areas, central cities that compete
  with other local governments tend to spend less
  thus he concluded, the level of expenditures
  will fall as the number of jurisdictions
  increase.

22
Studies related to costs/finances continued

• 5. A number of other studies have examined the
  potential efficiency of consolidated
  jurisdictions. The results are mixed. Thus the
  efficiency of consolidated governments has not
  been verified empirically.
• 6. One study showed that certain functions such
  as finance can incur savings under consolidation.
  However, after examining other services it
  pointed out that there is no guarantee of
  savings.
• 7. Economies of scale in consolidated
  jurisdictions have not been demonstrated.

23
Studies related to passage have shown the
following

• The impetus behind most consolidation attempts is
  economic development. This focus is mostly
  pushed by civic elites such as elected
  officials, business leaders, Chambers of
  Commerce, etc.
• If voters perceive that minority representation
  will not be preserved, then substantial
  opposition will likely be generated against
  consolidation.
• Overwhelming support of elected officials is
  essential to any pro-consolidation campaign.

24
Some Commonly Cited Pros and Cons of Consolidation
25
Consolidation Pros real and perceived

• Less duplication of service..
• Not as much duplication as commonly thought.
• The opportunity exists for jointly provided
  services.
• Improved coordination of services.
• Efficiency.
• Expanded services.
• Fewer officials.
• Reduced jurisdictional confusion.
• Economy of scale.
• Improved harmony.
• An economic development edge.

26
Consolidation Cons real and perceived

• Changes in structure.
• Distribution and control of resources.
• Level of service or reduction of services
  considerations.
• Compromised citizen satisfaction with some
  services.
• Some changes in citizen access and response from
  government.
• Decision-making difficulties.
• Policy vs. administration demarcation
  difficulties.
• Loss of some sense of community.

27
UT-MTAS Resources

• First go to mtas.tennessee.edu
• Then click Find Useful Links
• Then click City Administration
• Then click Consolidation Information
• Then find - This PowerPoint
• - Consolidation Research and History
  paper.
• - Consolidation Pros and Cons paper.