City–County Consolidation: Promises Made, Promises Kept?

10 Improving the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Service Delivery in Local Government: The Case of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas

245 ! 10 " Improving the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Service Delivery in Local Government The Case of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas Improving the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Service Delivery in Local Government Suzanne M. Leland and Curtis Wood Map 10 Locations of Shawnee County and Wyandotte County, Kansas Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 246 Improving the Efficiency and Effectiveness ofServiceDeliveryin Local Government City–county consolidation is frequently discussed as a solution to the economic problems that plague American cities and counties. According to a Wall Street Journal article, with reductions in federal and state grants and rising health care and pension costs, more cities are considering mergers in order to slash expenses and attract revenue-generating economic development (Maher 2005). Cities that are facing financial problems are interested in consolidation as a way to stem population loss and as a solution to budgetary woes and economic frailty. Cities that are not facing such troubles are still angling toward the idea of consolidation to avoid a similar fate (Leland and Thurmaier 2006). Other growing cities—such as Athens, Georgia, and Jacksonville—have used consolidation to streamline government and improve land development and tax planning (Maher 2005). In this chapter, we are interested in the case of a city and county that faced severe economic decline, Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas (map 10). In the face of declining population and businesses, large losses in revenue, skyrocketing taxes, and little hope for economic improvement, voters approved consolidation in April 1997. Introduction The situation in Wyandotte County/Kansas City, is intriguing because city–county consolidation is such a rare event. It is an extreme local government reform. Despite a renewed interest in consolidation across the nation to solve the aforementioned problems plaguing local governments, the vast majority of modern consolidation efforts have failed (about 80 percent since 1970). It seems while many reformers urge city–county consolidation, the American people continually reject their advice (Leland and Thurmaier 2006). The history of proposals for metrowide governance in general has been one of universal rejection (Glendening and Atkins 1980). Many efforts are doomed before they even make the referendum ballot. Since 1970, at least 110 local government consolidation attempts have reached the referendum stage; however, only 21 of these attempts passed. Another 19 city– county consolidations occurred before 1970. Although the idea of reforming two local governments via a merger interests many citizens and politicians, the majority of these efforts fail, either during the process of drafting a charter or once they reach the ballot (Leland and Thurmaier 2006). Currently, there are no systematic studies that empirically demonstrate that city–county consolidation cuts costs and leads to improved service delivery. This leaves many local government leaders to wonder if this innovation is right for them, and if it is, how they can convince voters to support consolidation when these arguments do not resonate with the average voter considering a local government merger. This chapter directly addresses this gap in the literature by studying two Kansas cases that are demographically and economically similar—one that has consolidated, and the other in which the city and county remain separate. Using a quasi-experimental Introduction 247 design, we compare demographic, fiscal, and economic data from the consolidated Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas, government to the fragmented jurisdictions of the City of Topeka and Shawnee County, Kansas, seven years before and seven years after the 1997 consolidation, to determine whether the promises made to voters about consolidation have been fulfilled and whether the consolidation has resulted in increased efficiency (economy). The extant evidence is mixed as to whether fragmented or consolidated government leads to more technical efficiency. The issue is highly controversial and normative, making it difficult to sort out the true effects of each alternative. Consolidation entrepreneurs argue that a consolidated government will bring about technical efficiency by ridding governments of the duplication, patronage, and corruption that contribute to more expensive service delivery and limited transparency (Feiock and Carr 1999). Stephens and Wikstrom (2000) contend that citizens are generally better off when city–county consolidations are established because they result in more regional economic development, service efficiencies and cost savings, modernization, more uniform and better-quality services, and more orderly regional development and growth. Fisher (1996) contends that economies of scale are more possible when capital-intensive operations are centralized and consolidated. Proponents of consolidation have also adopted the perspective that by improving efficiency...