|
If I had a dollar every time an elected official or a candidate pledged allegiance to the popular idea of consolidation, I would be able to fund a short vacation. There is a persistent assumption that consolidation is always better. It just is.
Consolidation has a few real-world places to judge whether it is a good idea. The Unified Government of Wyandotte County is the biggest and closest example. Compared to Sedgwick County, Wyandotte has one-third the population and is one-seventh the size geographically. Nevertheless, it has twice the number of county commissioners and a $400,000,000 budget. Wyandotte County is completely urbanized and has just three cities within it. In contrast, Sedgwick County is still mostly rural and has 20 cities, plus 27 active townships - each with taxing authority and elected officials.
Most municipalities have some debt which cannot be transferred to different electors. This alone is a legal barrier that stops most governmental consolidation in its tracks. The other major challenge in Kansas is that cities have sovereign powers, also known as Constitutional Home Rule. Unless a city wants to consolidate, they cannot be forced into consolidation.
Another great example of consolidated government is the Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County. This consolidated government has 35 commissioners and operates like a mini legislature. I could make a lot of comparisons, but suffice it to say, they are not a great example of more efficiency, better services or lower costs. I just see incredibly complex government.
When it comes to consolidation, many people think the grass is greener on the other side. I am not against consolidation where it makes sense, but it must be data-driven. If the consolidation reduces duplication of services, minimizes overhead costs, delivers better services and reduces taxpayer burden, then sign me up.
Rather than consolidate entire governments, it is easier to consolidate something smaller. For example, we have had several comprehensive studies on consolidating the Wichita Fire Department with Sedgwick County Fire. Wichita’s debt is an immediate barrier. Constitutionally, Sedgwick County would have to absorb Wichita’s fire department if these merged. Wichita’s elected leaders would have to give up their authority and trust the county to deliver fire protection services. The overall savings would be minimal, and Wichita residents might see an uptick in their taxes while county fire district residents might enjoy a slightly smaller tax burden. Given these hurdles, merging fire departments may sound great but is legally and politically unlikely. Besides, this bigger organization may not be less expensive or more efficient.
It’s obvious that significant governmental consolidation remains unlikely, given our demographics. Instead of big government consolidation, we should encourage city-county departmental collaboration to find efficiencies. One pretty good example is when the City of Wichita merged its building and construction department with Sedgwick County’s department. In some ways, this has turned out well, but there is still more work to do. It has not saved a lot of money, but the processes are more normalized, efficient, and streamlined. For functional and departmental consolidation, there are some obvious opportunities that make sense. We need to let the data drive the ideas forward, whenever or wherever more efficient and effective government can be developed.
| 
