Heath Consulting

Always on target

PO Box 20216

Albuquerque, NM 87154

 

Project Manager: Seth W. Heath

 

Due Date: November 26th, 2003

 

Project Title: Pros and Cons of Consolidation of City of Albuquerque and County of Bernalillo Governments

 

Project Goal: Analyze literature available on attempted and actual consolidation of governments from around the United States and determine the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Consolidation of the City of Albuquerque and the County of Bernalillo

 

The first attempt at unifying the governments of Albuquerque and Bernalillo County was tried in 1959 and was attempted again 1973. According to an Albuquerque Journal staff report, “In both cases, it failed because voters outside city limits turned it down” (Alb. Journal 2003). The most recent attempt took place during 2003 and another attempt will take place in 2004 (Asher 2003).

Conceptually the unification of two governments that provide services to the same citizenry reduces the cost and increases the efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of government in general (Sinkin 1997). Conflicts over consolidation result from the nature of unification and the change associated with it while other contentions are unique to the specific proposed charter and the different personalities involved (Heiman 2003; McKay). In the North Carolina Political Review Chris Rogers reports that “There have been over 100 attempts at consolidation in the nation and only 30 mergers have been and approved and completed; since 1980, only eight mergers were completed” (Rogers 2002), not very good odds for what seems like a common sense idea. In order to understand the dynamics at play in the unification debate we must first understand what the advantages and disadvantages of unification are.

Advantages of Consolidating Government

Governmental reform, increased efficiency, more accountability, higher levels of economic development and an overall better government constitute the major arguments supporters of consolidation utilize (Durning 2000; Rogers; Sinkin). 

With the creation of a new government comes a charter to guide it. Whenever a new city charter is created reform minded individuals will seek to guide the construction of it in an effort to eliminate problems they see in the existing government (Durning; Rogers). Traditionally reformists pushed for separating administration of services from politics via the elimination of political machines; professionalism of management by hiring a city manager; nonpartisan elections held separately from state and national elections; at large districts with a reduced number of elected officials and merit based hiring systems (Dye 2001; Pelissero 2003). While the reformist agenda was usually not the catalyst for consolidation, all of the charters I researched and read about contain at least some reform-based components. The most common reform found was the implementation of a city/county manager form of government and a reduction of the powers of the executive (Miami-Dade 2003; Athens-Clarke 2003; Feiock 2000; Sinkin; Durning; Heiman).

The elimination of duplicate services provided by governments with overlapping jurisdiction is the advantage most often cited by supporters of unification. Ken Zangara, a member of the Albuquerque-Bernalillo Charter Commission, was quoted in an Albuquerque Journal article saying, “We'll have a better form of government that will provide better service at a more efficient price.”(McKay) The general reasoning is that consolidating two governments will reduce the cost of government by eliminating duplication of services.

Another reason supporters use in favor of consolidation is the issue of accountability. With two governments providing the same services to the same population it creates the opportunity for one administration to blame poor service on the other (Sinkin). In Metropolitan Consolidation Success, Leland and Thurmaier state that the commission set up to examine unification of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas, determined “the city’s long-term fiscal stress could be addressed more effectively by a more accountable, unified government structure” (Leland 2000). Under the framework developed by Romzek and Dubnick and cited by Leland and Thurmaier there are two types of accountability that apply to consolidation, political and professional. They state that, “Political accountability emphasizes responsiveness to constituents…professional accountability emphasizes deference to expertise, especially management expertise; management expertise is expected to yield improved technical and administrative efficiencies in operations (Leland).” According to an analysis of the San Antonio-Bexar County consolidation “If there is one elected governing council, with full authority over the entire structure, citizens easily know who is responsible and can hold them accountable for their performance.”(Sinkin) In the county/city manager form the officials hire a professional to operate the administrative functions of the government. The manager then makes recommendations to the political body and is responsible to them for the operations of government. If there is only one government and constituents are not satisfied with its operations they can hold officials accountable at the polls.

            Another purpose of unification is to provide cities with the ability to increase their tax base by in effect annexing areas of the county containing higher income residences and businesses. (Leland; Durning; Rogers; Sinkin) Residents of the city often move to suburban areas in an effort to escape the crime, poverty, over population and poor education of urban areas. Those that are able to afford relocation are mostly middle and upper class Anglos. This migration from city to suburb causes an increase in the number poorer people in the central cities, which in turn means less tax revenue, and more costs for the city (Krebs, 2003). Consolidation is sometimes viewed as a solution to the problem of lost tax revenue. (Leland)

            Combine good government, reduced duplicate services, better constituent representation, more jobs and higher revenue and you get an overall better government and it can all be accomplished by consolidation, or so proponents would have us believe. The opponents have a whole different story to tell.

Disadvantages of consolidation

            As stated earlier unification only passes 30% of the time (Rogers). For every proposed consolidation a unique set of concerns arise from the community. Common arguments against unification include the potential options of “functional consolidation, aggressive annexation, the creation of special districts” (Feiock) in lieu of consolidation.

            Functional consolidation consists of combining services via contracts between governments. (Ammon 2003, Feiock) In Urban Politics, Ammon cites Oakerson and Parks as having found that, “fragmented local governments have used intergovernmental agreements to secure many of the benefits of a unified system, including economics of scale, without sacrificing the advantages of smallness (Ammons).” By participating in functional consolidation smaller governments are able to utilize the benefits of economics of scale while still maintaining the personal feeling of a small government.

            Some opponents of consolidation argue that cities should simply utilize sections of the county and not the entire area (Feiock; Sinkin). Cities might simply annex parts of the county with a high tax base and leave the county with the less profitable portions but some feel that this is preferable to the costly process of unification (Rogers; Feiock).

            While proponents claim that unification will eliminate the duplication of services little proof to support that claim exists. In fact, opponents argue, a consolidated government would actually cost more. Feiock states that research by Benton and Hawkins shows,

“Voters outside the central city often fear increased taxes associated with higher service levels in the city and the loss of “local” control over their governments. Likewise, voters within the central city may fear the increased taxes will be required to pay for infrastructural improvements outside the city and that political control will be lost due to the addition of “new” voters from the county.” (Feiock)

Albuquerque City Councillor Greg Payne reiterated that fear when in a recent interview with me he stated, “People want to know that the government they are getting is not just a bigger version of what they have now, an expensive and all too often inefficient bureaucracy” (Payne 2003).

            A solution to the consolidation problem might come in the form of special districts. These districts administer a particular function or service such as sewers, water or planning to those that want it. The individual receiving the service usually pays a fee or tax for usage or availability. The special district option leaves the overall government intact but consolidates functions that need integration (Dye).

Winners and Losers

            Who wins and loses varies widely depending on what provisions the charter contained and who you talk to. Traditionally county residents do not view consolidation as a good thing (Dye). They fear that the larger electorate of the city will mute their voice. Minorities may fair poorly if the at large system of representation is adopted while they would do better under a district system (Krebs; Pelissero; McKay) Employees of the separated governments do not tend to be pleased with the unified system (Durining). Establishing who will be the winners and losers depends greatly on the unique circumstances at play in a given community. If done correctly unification can provide far reaching benefits to the overall community. If performed incorrectly it can become very costly and increase people distrust of government.

Result of the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Unification Election

On November 4th, 2003 the residents of the Bernalillo County were asked whether or not the governments of the City of Albuquerque and the County of Bernalillo should consolidate into one metropolitan area government. The proposition failed by a vote of 38.5% (41,863) for and 61.5% (66,794) against (Herrera 20003). In a phone interview Bernalillo County Commissioner Michael Brasher outlined why the charter failed. Brasher said, “Several factors contributed to the failure of consolidation. First, rural residents were afraid that city residents would overrun their interests. Second, voters felt fatigued after having three elections in a little over a month and a controversial mail only ballot didn’t help. Third, no one could tell us if the thing would save money or not. Fourth, the elimination of the Sheriff and County Clerk really rubbed some voters wrong. All of these things and some smaller factors contributed to the demise of unification.” (Brasher 2003) Fortunately for some and unfortunately for others Bernalillo County and Albuquerque residents get to vote on unification in a year. A new commission is being created to draft a new charter for a new city, which voters will be asked to approve, or chances are not approve in 2004.

Seth Warren Heath

More to come!