Governmental Consolidation

Governmental consolidation is built on an intriguing premise: What if one government could do the work of two or more, and do it well? Taxpayers would save money and, quite possibly, receive better services. As Kansas City spreads well beyond its original boundaries in Jackson, Platte, and Clay counties, is our city next in line for a try at consolidation? Maybe not, owing to our special geographic challenges, but perhaps some of the best of what consolidated government has to offer could be implemented here.

Consolidation of city and county governments is a somewhat rare event. The idea is floated in dozens of communities every year but actually takes place very seldom. It's a fact that most politicians are not in favor of job or power sharing (or elimination). Therefore, government consolidation is most often pushed by grassroots community leadership--people most apt to recognize a drop in the quality or quantity of municipal services, an economic decline in the urban core or dramatic shifts in the population base. When these changes materialize, the way things were done in the past may no longer make sense.

One of the first consolidations took place between New Orleans and Orleans Parish in 1805. They were following the trend of large cities in the 19th century consolidating governments and services as their population centers expanded. A more recent example occurred in 1970, when Indianapolis merged with surrounding Marion County to form a consolidated government structure called Unigov. This particular consolidation was a legislative event rather than a referendum, but the end result has been hailed as a smart move that saves the taxpayers money while providing a superior level of public services. In our own area, Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas officially merged in 1997. Called a model of reform, even with a few rough patches since the Unified Board of Commissioners took office, the consolidated structure has streamlined government in ways that make sense.

On the Missouri side of the border, geography as much as ideology would make consolidation much more complex. The Kansas City, Missouri population has spread way beyond its original boundaries and a reference today to "Kansas City" usually denotes the entire metropolitan area, including among others, areas in Clay and Platte Counties, much of Jackson County, and the Kansas suburbs. As noted above, consolidation most often happens between one city and one county. A merger between a city that exists in several counties with any one of those counties is probably not doable.

If we cannot consolidate our governments, why not consolidate and streamline services? Economics 101 says that dup-lication of functions and services in inherently inefficient. For example, why should each small or mid-sized community pay to staff and support its own tax assessment and collection, trash pick-up, and street repairs? Cooperative intergovernmental agreements could save all taxpayers significant money while seeing that the absolute most qualified people do the work.

The concept of a bi-state project has been well-received in the past. When Kansas City's Union Station was in need of a major overhaul, a special sales tax was approved by the people of multiple governmental units. We should build on that spirit of cooperation.

Voters have evidenced cooperation in levying an additional tax on themselves. So, supplied with the right information on fiscal savings and operational efficiencies, it would seem that they could also approve a measure that would reduce taxes or at least improve the services people receive for their taxes.

Intergovernmental contracts could be entered into that would benefit all, and these types of agreements can cross rivers and state lines. In these days of dwindling revenues and fear of new taxes, elimination of redundant functions should at least be studied.

Herb Kohn is principle with Bryan Cave. He may be reached at 816.374.3200 or by email at hmkohn@bryancave.com