In the Agora: City-County Consolidation

« Tom Wolfe on HST | Main | God in Europe »

February 22, 2005

City-County Consolidation

Groups in two Indiana cities, Evansville and Muncie, are urging consolidation with their county governments. Proponents of the move say that consolidation is a forward-looking move that will position cities for the future, and that the psychological lift that the increased populations of Greater Evansville or Greater Muncie would enjoy would give them bargaining power in marketing and economic growth.

The February 22 Wall Street Journal runs a Page A2 story on city-county consolidation efforts across the United States. Only about a fifth of the proposed mergers are ever accomplished, the Journal reports, and only 35 have ever taken place in the U.S. The first was New Orleans' in 1805; the most consequential was New York City's merger in 1897 (consummated in 1898) that created Greater New York from forty municipalities. Interestingly, New York City's consolidation, like that of Indianapolis seven decades later, took place without a popular referendum.

It is an open question whether these mergers are worth the effort. Local circumstances undoubtedly play a role in influencing outcomes: A dynamic region that is attracting new residents and businesses will experience consolidation differently from a municipal government that has to fight established interests. And some very successful cities thrive without having a consolidated government: London, for instance, is famously hard to define, much less to govern, but it's still one of the world's greatest cities.

Often, what lies behind efforts for consolidation is simple boosterism. The president of the Topeka, Kansas, chamber of commerce uses words almost identical to those used by Hoosier consolidation activists to describe the benefits of consolidation:

Merging with nearby Shawnee County would boost Topeka's population to 170,000 from 130,000, according to Doug Kinsinger, president of the Topeka Chamber of Commerce. "It gets us over that bump of 150,000," he says.

But why is getting over that bump so important? Are businesses really so dense that they can't be bothered to look at Census population figures for metropolitan areas, instead of the often-arbitrary boundaries of cities? Evansville, for instance, only has about 120,000 people, while Vanderburgh County adds another fifty thousand or so--but the Evansville-Henderson Metropolitan Area, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, has nearly 350,000. Looked at in context, therefore, consolidation between Evansville and Vanderburgh County hardly affects the incentives for economic development. Only a merger between Evansville and Vanderburgh, Warrick, Posey and Gibson Counties would make much sense from an economic development perspective.

Proponents of consolidation also point to the possible benefits in efficiency and cost-effectiveness from mergers. But, the Journal quotes a consolidation expert, there's never a guarantee that those benefits will be realized. That doubt is what led voters in Albuquerque, New Mexcio, and Des Moines, Iowa, to reject consolidation proposals last year. And Mayor Bart Peterson's proposals to further integrate Marion County government (which he claims will save tens of millions of dollars for the unified Indianapolis government) show more forcefully than any academic study that consolidation does not solve every problem.

More promising, the Journal says, are efforts to change the tax and regulatory schemes of the state government. These have far greater impacts on how businesses decide to locate their businesses (as, indeed, most theories of political economy predict). In Indiana's case, one step that consolidation activists could usefully focus on is fixing township government. More than a thousand townships exist in Indiana, and good-government types and experts in governance have urged them to be reformed or done away with since before the First World War. Indiana's townships are often hideously inefficient. As the Indiana Chamber of Commerce reported in a study last year, for every dollar in poor relief delivered to needy Hoosiers, township trustees need ninety cents in administrative overhead. Often that relief is begged for, as ex-Hoosier and journalist Nancy Nall notes:

There are 1,008 townships in Indiana, and if you talk to welfare professionals, you'll hear horror stories like you wouldn't believe, usually in rural areas -- trustees who refuse aid to women with blackened eyes trying to escape battering husbands, because "your husband can take care of you"; trustees who deal with troublesome transients by buying them a bus ticket to the nearest urban township, where the poor-relief offices are bigger and more anonymous; and so on.

There are many more inefficiencies in Indiana local government that could be fixed without consolidation. Often, it isn't just an issue of cost, but of democratic accountability. In Vanderburgh County, for instance, the two incorporated cities, eight townships, school corporation and county government require the services of 79 elected positions (not including judges). Even under the consolidation plans put forward in Evansville, that number would only fall to 72.

Nearly all of what advocates of consolidation want can be achieved without consolidation. At the most extreme, the city of Evansville, for instance, could simply be unincorporated and turned into a service district, thereby leaving Vanderburgh County's citizens with a unified government through a much easier legislative path. Less radically, the outdated township system of government could be eliminated or drastically rescaled. All of Vanderburgh County's poor relief could be run by one township, for instance, while the county assessor handled the entire property tax assessing process. Steps like these would deliver tangible benefits immediately to local citizens, not just promises of possible efficiencies and psychological lifts.

Posted by Paul Musgrave at February 22, 2005 08:27 AM

Comments

I think that you have failed to recognize one important motivation for those encouraging city/county consolidation in Muncie/Delaware. It is true, as you noted that they hope for greater efficiency and perhaps a more attractive business climate. Even more, I think, they yearn for an equitable allocation of the tax burden among the residents of the county.

Your January 17 article noted, somewhat mockingly, excitement about the possibility of merging city and county animal control. The real issue here is allocation of animal control costs. Currently, city residents pay the entire cost of animal control within city boundaries, while the cost outside city limits is covered by the general county tax. But roughly half of the general county tax is paid by city residents. So, city residents pay for all animal control costs with in city and half the costs outside the city. The hope of many is that this inequity would be eliminated in a joint venture. This same inequity is repeated many times over in city/county government relations. The costs of living outside the city are underwritten significantly by city residents

Posted by: Roger Nelson at February 22, 2005 10:43 AM | permalink

Ah. I did not intend to be somewhat mocking in treating the animal control costs. I intended to be forthright in my ridicule. When proposing such a major change in political institutions, advocates should be able to point to causes that will stir the emotions as well as the pocket-book. And such case-by-case inequities could be redressed easily by merging city and county departments where appropriate, as Vanderburgh County and Evansville have done.

Posted by: Paul at February 22, 2005 10:50 AM | permalink

I have lived in Muncie and Delaware County for nearly 30 years. Government, especially county government, has been a mess for most of that time. Thankfully, city government has improved a great deal in the last decade. Sadly, there is still much deserving of ridicule, including the recent animal control hullabaloo. The mayor and county commissioners should have been able to work out a joint plan. The obvious solution, as you pointed out, is a combined department funded through the general county tax. The only animals that can identify city limits are not the responsibility of this department.

I’m surprised that you imply that pocket-book issues will not stir the emotions. My experience is that they often stir the emotions, especially when issues of fairness are involved.

You are certainly correct that “case-by-case” inequities can often be redressed by merging city and county departments. But these cases are so plentiful and exist so broadly across the functions of government that solving them all in this manner would involve merging most departments. What is then the point of retain separate executive functions? I think that you have failed to recognize one important motivation for those encouraging city/county consolidation in Muncie/Delaware. It is true, as you noted that they hope for greater efficiency and perhaps a more attractive business climate. Even more, I think, they yearn for an equitable allocation of the tax burden among the residents of the county.

Posted by: Roger Nelson at February 22, 2005 12:57 PM | permalink

Muncie and Delaware County give lessons on corruption to the rest of Indiana. Animal control costs are almost the very least of their worries except that corruption had even invaded that function of their government. Their problems seem to be enroute to solution by voting out stupid people and replacing them with Republicans. The enlistment of the FBI to investigate what democrats would prefer to not be investigated might also decorate their jails with well known party officials. A television station in Indianapolis is running a series on corruption and you can bet good, solid money that Muncie folks will be on prominant display. Muncie had a consolidated govenment run out of their democrat HQ by firemen...those that are currently attempting to bankrupt both city and county.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 22, 2005 04:13 PM | permalink