|
Speak Out
How can consolidation help local governments in Pennsylvania?
Have you ever stopped to think about how the place where you live has changed over time? Your neighborhood in the city might have once been a town of its own, or your town in the suburbs might have once been divided into several villages or townships.
Consider Philadelphia: if you lived in the northeast part of that city 160 years ago, your house wouldn’t have been in the city limits. It wasn’t until 1854 that the city of Philadelphia - at the time, a much smaller municipality compared to what it is today - passed the Consolidation Act of 1854, and made all the surrounding boroughs, districts and townships in the county part of one big city. The legislation was aimed at maximizing public services, like the police force, across the region.
By bringing together areas with many small governments under one central administration, consolidation allows for the sharing of resources to lower costs and perform essential functions more efficiently. While large scale consolidation like 19th century Philadelphia is rare today, it still occurs. In fact, it is a measure that some local leaders are considering to save money in these strapped economic times.
One region considering this is western Pennsylvania, where a discussion has been underway for just over a year on consolidation of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County.
When Allegheny County Chief Executive Don Onorato was sworn into office in January 2008, he said that consolidation was essential to the Pittsburgh region to survive economically. “Anywhere I can find a way to eliminate duplicated government to provide the services better at a lower cost, we’re going to do it,” he told the crowd at his inauguration ceremony.
Since then, two plans have emerged. One involves consolidating the city government and the county government, leaving the suburban governments intact. The alternative plan would merge Allegheny County’s 130 municipalities into 43 municipalities based on school district boundaries. Proponents say it will save the governments money and attract business to the area by creating a more attractive, streamlined vision for the region. Opponents worry about losing the personal attention of their service departments, such as the local police. They are also concerned about passing Pittsburgh’s financial debts onto taxpayers who don’t live in the city.
The process will likely be a long one since a consolidation must be approved by voters in a referendum - this is when citizens, during primary or general elections, are posed with a question on some public issue on which they must vote “yes” or “no.” However, these ballot referenda must be approved by the state legislature.
Proposals in Pittsburgh
“We know businesses will invest in places with streamlined governments, and we know that they'll invest elsewhere if you don't have that,” said Shawn Bannon, spokesman for the Allegheny Conference on Community Development, in a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review interview. His point was echoed by Morgan O’Brien of the Allegheny Conference on Community Development in a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette interview: “Having one voice, one vision of our region is compelling to most business people.”
So in addition to saving taxpayers money on redundant services, Onorato hopes that by consolidating government, it would attract business investment to the area, making Allegheny County and Pittsburgh thriving regions.
His first plan would establish a county mayor, an elected official who wouldrun both Allegheny County and the City of Pittsburgh. The other 129 municipalities in the county would remain independent, while the 55 square miles that currently make up the city of Pittsburgh would be labeled an “urban services district” that would receive special services from the county and levy taxes on its residents.
Onorato's plan would then consolidate public services, a process that has already begun. Yarone Zober, Chief of Staff for Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, pointed out in a Tribune-Review interview that some small consolidations - such as -the creation of a central 911 emergency center and the elimination of some elected offices have already occurred. Onorato said the measures have saved about $4 million in its first Zober estimates that merging the city and county financial management systems - the people who work on budget oversight and tax collection - would save hundreds of thousands of dollars on salaries.
However, when opposition to this plan emerged due to concerns about passing debt onto other taxpayers, Onorato suggested an alternative plan. Rather than merge the city with the county, there should be mergers of smaller towns across the county along school district lines. He pointed to Woodland Hills School District, which serves 12 towns; those 12 towns could be combined into one, spreading revenues and services in those areas more efficiently, he suggested.
“There’s no reason [this doesn’t happen] overnight,” Onorato said in a Tribune-Review interview. “[Neighboring small towns] already share the No. 1 municipal service, which is their school district.
“These municipalities are out of money,” he continued. “They can't just keep going to the taxpayers for more money to keep these little fiefdoms up.”
Concerns from local residents
Opposition quickly emerged to both of these plans, enough that a consolidation referendum will likely not be on the ballot in the 2009 election. Even so, the discussion has continued in force.
Carmen Robinson, a candidate for Pittsburgh mayor, told the Post-Gazette that consolidation of the city and county would end city sovereignty by eliminating city government and dilute minority representation by combining the electorate of the city, which has a higher minority population, with that of the rest of the county, which has a smaller minority population. Robinsons also contends that consolidation would actually raise the cost of government - the opposite of what it hopes to achieve.
A bigger concern for towns that would be annexed is the city’s current $725 million debt; in a Tribune-Review interview, State Sen. John Pippy asked “How would a consolidation occur without forcing all these taxpayers in the county to pick up all that debt?” Sen. Jane Orie challenged the constitutionality of the merger if the city and county did not also share their debts.
Onorato’s other plan also met resistance from municipalities who are reluctant to give up the personal attention of local police and emergency services, which residents can call and oftentimes get a more immediate response than residents of larger cities.
“That's one of the most important services they could provide to their citizens,” said John Mackey, chief of the Bethel Park police department, in a Post-Gazette interview. “I think it would take a pretty significant set of circumstances to make a municipality want to [merge with a larger city].”
What do you think?
How can consolidation help municipalities in Pennsylvania? Should outlying towns merge along school district lines to save on redundant services? Can shared and consolidated governments help regions grow and become more efficient, or does it unfairly pass on tax burdens and dilute resources of smaller municipalities? Would your perspective change if you lived elsewhere? Join the discussion!
|
Join the Discussion
|