Where are the cost savings in city–county consolidation?

ABSTRACT

Although proposals for city–county consolidation are often justified on the basis of reducing government expenditures or improving efficiency, few studies find that expenditures are actually reduced after consolidation. This study examines long‐term spending trends in four consolidated city–county jurisdictions for periods of eight to ten years pre‐ and post‐consolidation. Although the results of the four cases are mixed, we find that in some cases there are cost savings associated with cit5y–county consolidation, more frequently in specific functional categories than in overall spending. We also find that it is necessary to examine spending patterns over several years after consolidation. In some cases, short‐term savings dissipate over time. In other cases, initially modest savings grow over time due to a reduction in spending growth.

Notes

1. Durning (1995) notes that much of the consolidation (and fragmentation) research to that time focused on large metro areas (population of 250,000 or more) and is inconclusive with respect to smaller metro and nonmetro consolidations, which constitute the bulk of consolidations.

2. Miami–Dade County area‐wide government (Metro) is actually a two‐tiered system of government where some services such as police and zoning are provided at the city level and other services are provided countywide (Gustley, 1977, p. 350).

3. The Canadian consolidations explored in the literature were city–city consolidations. However, the findings that personnel costs increased after consolidation in most cases indicated that this result occurred with various types of local government consolidations.

4. Data are available from the authors upon request.

5. In the case of Haines, Alaska, education expenditures are included in the financial reports but we exclude those expenditures from this analysis because they are not included in the Augusta–Richmond, Louisville–Jefferson, or Kansas City–Wyandotte CAFRs.

6. We allocated the nondepartmental expenditures across the other categories in proportion to operating expenditures.

7. The categories listed for each jurisdiction are the categories used in the first CAFR issued by each consolidated government. Some category names changed over time.

8. Selden and Campbell (2000) provide a detailed accounting of transition costs in the case of the Athens–Clarke County consolidation that illustrates the type of expenditures that may be required in transition.

9. State and Local Government Finance Data Query System (http://slfdqs.taxpolicycenter.org). The Urban Institute–Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. Data from U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Charles D. Taylor

Charles D. Taylor is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Ball State University where he teaches courses in public management and public policy and conducts research and community outreach on behalf of the Bowen Center for Public Affairs. His research focuses on public policy issues in state and local government and has been published in the American Review of Public Administration, Economic Development Quarterly, and State and Local Government Review. Prior to joining Ball State, he coauthored numerous studies of local government finance for the Strom Thurmond Institute of Government and Public Affairs at Clemson University.

Dagney Faulk

Dagney Faulk is Director of Research at the Center for Business and Economic Research (CBER) at Ball State University. Her research focuses on regional economic issues and state and local tax policy and has been published in Public Finance Review, The National Tax Journal, Review of Regional Studies, State and Local Government Review, and State Tax Notes. She has worked on numerous Indiana‐focused policy studies, including analysis of fixed‐route bus transit, the regional distribution of state government taxes and expenditures, senior migration, and local government reform. She is coauthor (with Michael Hicks) of the book Local Government Consolidation in the United States (2011).

Pamela Schaal

Pamela M. Schaal is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Ball State University where she teaches courses in urban politics, public policy, legislation, and interest groups. Her research interests involve local government consolidation (amalgamation), fiscal federalism, and the conditions for effective policy deliberation within U.S. governmental institutions. Before academia, she spent several years in Washington, D.C. working for various think tanks, contractors, and Capitol Hill offices.