Tag Archives: consolidation

Cooperation, Consolidation, Bigfoot, Roswell and other Famous Myths

Posted on by

If I can figure out how to license the phrase cooperation and consolidation, I could retire tomorrow.  As I travel around the state and country working on local government issues, I find that it may be the most overused, and in my view, over heralded phrase in local government. My concern isn’t that I hear it so much, but rather that there is a belief that this will solve the ills created by of a decade of declining revenues and a couple generations worth of underfunded legacy costs.  I think we are more likely to see Sasquatch flying a space ship than we are to solve a broken financial model with consolidation.

Contrary to popular belief, local governments are for the most part well run and operate fairly lean.  Are their advantages to be gained by cooperating with your neighbors or consolidating services?  Probably.  Economies of scale generally will yield efficiencies that can lower the cost of service delivery, but to what end?  If our starting point is two communities that do not provide services to the level we all expect, isn’t it like combining two cars in need of repair and declaring victory because it drives?  Is this our vision for the future?

I don’t believe that the greatest challenge is being more efficient nor is the greatest benefit in combining departments or merging services.  The single biggest financial burden that our core communities are struggling with are legacy costs. Pending legislation in Michigan will help communities to draw a line in the sand and many already have, but they have no ability change the cost structure for those who have vested benefits or have left service.  More needs to be done.  In many established communities, the ratio of retirees to active employees is more than 2 to 1 with far more being spent on healthcare for retirees than is spent on active employees.  The hurdles both on both the human and political level to address this are substantial, but without real change it is not inconceivable that the only services a community might offer will be to hold elections, collect taxes, and pay and insure retirees.

It’s simply unsustainable.

 

Is it as simple as cutting costs?

Posted on by

So much is being made about the need for government to be more efficient. Consolidation and collaboration are the buzz words of the day, and are presented as the cure all for the financial challenges that all local governments are facing. So is it really that simple? Is it true that all we need to do is cut costs to some hypothetical number we can afford?

It occurs to me that the simplest challenge that locals face is matching costs to revenues. It’s something anyone with simple math skills can do. What I am bringing in must exceed or equal what goes out, simple stuff. Why then do so many locals have financial issues? The answer lies in the paradoxical nature of local government services. Every time you cut services you reduce the earning capacity of the city.

So why would service cuts diminish a cities earning capacity? While it is easy to understand that police cost money, in fact a lot of money. It’s harder to understand how cutting costs, a.k.a. services, reduce a cities ability to raise revenue. Think about it like this: what is the cities equivalent of a manufacturing company’s factory? Or to say it another way, how does a city generate revenue? It’s the properties located in that city, and taxes assessed against the “value” associated with those properties. So a simple query: would you pay more for a house in a community with “more” services or “less” services? Great parks or no parks? Good roads or poor roads? Adequate public safety or minimal public safety? I think the answers to all these questions are obvious. Better services equate to better property values, and increased revenue to provide critical services.

Turn around companies make a very handsome living by helping companies be more efficient, and shed themselves of losing components of their business. I am quite certain that as part of that quest for efficiency they would not eliminate the fundamental earning capacity of the company. If the books were balanced by eliminating the manufacturing capacity of the company, then there is no company. The same holds true for cities. Any effort to restructure and reduce costs must preserve the earning capacity of the city. In other words, if our cost cutting only approach leaves a place where people don’t want to live, then we have failed. Herein lays the challenge before us. Increase efficiencies to be sure, but retain the character and fiber of our communities. If not, we have only exacerbated the very problem we set out to solve.