Discussions on the Pros and
Cons of Consolidation
Presented by Pat Hardy:
The University of Tennessee’s Municipal
Technical Advisory Service
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.
What we won’t talk about:
1.
Particulars related to the
process of consolidation.
2.
Opinions about
consolidation.
History and Background
of Consolidation
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…
The history of consolidation…
… the decrease has been largely confined
to a reduction in the number of school
districts.
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.
The history of consolidation
This means:
-Suburbanization of our nation
continues.
-The desire for local control of
this suburbanization continues.
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.
The scope of consolidation:
-
About 3,069 counties in the U.S.
-
38 of these are
“consolidated” – that’s 1%
- Really, only about 24 (3/4 of 1%)
-
Since 1976, only 13
consolidations.
The scope of consolidation:
-The first was New Orleans
/New Orleans Parish La. in
1805.
- The last was Macon/
Bibb County GA. in 2012.
3 Consolidations in Tennessee:
Nashville/Davidson
County - 1962
626,144
Lynchburg/Moore
County - 1988
6,195
Hartsville/Trousdale
County - 2001
7,822
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.
Consolidation efforts in Tennessee:
Year
City
County
% Support
1958
1959
1962
1962
1964
1970
1971
1978
1981
1982
1983
1987
1987
1988
1988
2003
2005
2008
2010
2012
Nashville
Knoxville
Memphis
Nashville
Chattanooga
Chattanooga
Memphis
Knoxville
Clarksville
Bristol
Knoxville
Jackson
Lynchburg
Sparta
Bristol
Hartsville
Fayetteville
Fayetteville
Memphis
Columbia
Davidson
Knox
Shelby
Davidson
Hamilton
Hamilton
Shelby
Knox
Montgomery
Sullivan
Knox
Madison
Moore
White
Sullivan
Trousdale
Lincoln
Lincoln
Shelby
Maury
47.3%
16.7%
36.8%
56.8%
19.2%
48%
47.6%
48%
16.3%
11%
47.6%
47.3%
93.1%
39.4%
31.2%
51.9%
21%
36.4%
23.1%
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.
Consolidation Research
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.
Here’s what the study found:
1. 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.
more findings from this study…
1.
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.
2.
When asked if they agreed with the statement, “A person can’t 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.
3.
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.
Other studies have shown the following:
1.
A Florida State study of Metro Jacksonville/Duvall County examined their 30year 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.”
2.
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.”
Studies related to costs/finances :
1.
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”).
2.
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.”
3.
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.”
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.
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 proconsolidation campaign.”
Some Commonly Cited Pros
and Cons of Consolidation
Consolidation “Pros” – real and perceived:
1.
Less duplication of service..
- Not as much duplication as commonly thought.
- The opportunity exists for jointly provided services.
2.
Improved coordination of services.
3.
Efficiency.
4.
Expanded services.
5.
Fewer officials.
6.
Reduced jurisdictional confusion.
7.
Economy of scale.
8.
Improved harmony.
9.
An economic development edge.
10. Equalization of services.
Consolidation “Cons” – real and perceived:
1.
Changes in structure.
2.
Distribution and control of resources.
3.
Level of service or reduction of services considerations.
4.
Compromised citizen satisfaction with some services.
5.
Some changes in citizen access and response from government.
6.
Decision-making difficulties.
7.
Policy vs. administration demarcation difficulties.
8.
Loss of some sense of community.
UT-MTAS Resources:
First go to:
Then click:
Then click:
Then click:
Then find:
mtas.tennessee.edu
“Find Useful Links”
“City Administration”
“Consolidation Information”
This PowerPoint
Consolidation Research
and History paper.
Consolidation Pros and
Cons paper.