HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-19 RM Consolidation Study27.2.1
Preliminary Report from Phase I of the Feasibility Study of City-County
Consolidation and Functional Mergers for the City of Wilmington and
New Hanover County, North Carolina
June 15,2001
~_. .
Principal Investigator:
Dr. Suzanne M. Leland
3455 Treesmill Drive
Manhattan, KS 66503
(785)341-0415
Project Consultant:
Gary Johnson
Assistant Professor
University of North Carolina-Charlotte
Project Consultant:
Dr. Kurt Thurmaier
Professor
University of Kansas
Project Intern:
Curtis Wood
Doctoral Student
University of Kansas
..
FORW ARD
In the fall of 2000, I received a small research grant from Kansas State University to
study failed consolidation attempts in North Carolina for a part of a larger research agenda on
city-county consolidation across the United States~· At the same time, my colleague Gary
Johnson received a similar grant to study consolidation cases in North Carolina from the
University of North Carolina-Charlotte to 100k at functional and structural consolidation attempts
in North Carolina. It was through these research projects that we became acquainted with City
Manager Mary Gornto and County Manager Allen O'Neal and the WilmingtonJNew Hanover
Case. In April of 200 1, the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County requested that
myself, Professor Gary Johnson, and Professor Kurt Thurmaier of the University of Kansas
conduct a study to look at the feasibility and desirability of three options to pursue for the future
of the city and county. The three options include: merging of the city and county into one
unified government, functionally merging specific shared areas of service delivery, and no
change.
This report is a summary of the information obtained in Phase I combined with our
previous research on the New Hanover/Wilmington case. In the first phase of this study, we
reviewed city"'county consolidation across the US and looked mOre carefully at the consolidation
attempts that have occurred in Wilmington. We then compare the WilmingtonIN ew Hanover
case to two other active areas of consolidation in. the state: Charlotte-Mecklenberg and
Durham/Durham County.
In Phase II of this study (June IS-July 15,2001) we will continue.ouranalysis by
examining the opportunities and challenges the three options pose to the following core areas of
city/county government:
III· Representation of the citizens
· Service Delivery (Economies of scale, duplication)
· Public Personnel
· Budget and Finance
· Economic Development/Community Growth
Finally, in Phase III, after reviewing preliminary reports of each of the five core areas of
local government listed above, the research team will meet July 19-22 to formulate
recommendations. A final report will be presented to the City of Wilmington and New Hanover
County the third week in August.
~
The research team would like to thank the Master's of Public Administration students at
. .
University of North Carolina-Charlotte for their help in previous interviews with officials
involved in consolidation attempts in North Carolina utilized in the information gathering phase
of this report, especially Andrea Mosher. We would also like to extend our gratitude for the
cooperation ofthe city and county employees and elected officials for their on-going assistance
with this project.
We are pleased to present this preliminary report and outline to the City of Wilmington
.. and New Hanover County . We hope that this report provides information that will be useful and
helpful in understanding the direction of this study, as well as serve as the foundation for further
deliberations of structural and functional mergers in the future.
Dr. Suzanne M. Leland
Principal Investigator
June 15,2001
: TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction.......................................................................... ...1
II. . Why Consolidation of Çity and C~)Unty Structures or Functions?..........5
. J .~_,' f
III. Academic Literature and Perspectives on Consolidation......................6
IV. Cases of Consolidation in North Carolina.........................................9
A. CharlottelMecklenberg County............................................. ...14
B. Durham/Durham County..................................................... ...22
C. Wilmington/New Hanover County...... ................................. ......33
Bibliography
Appendix 1: Feasibility Study Outline
Introduction: City-County Consolidation and Functional Mergers
City-County consolidation is a structural approach involving reorganization of two
separate governments into one unified government. City-county consolidation is relatively rare,
yet frequently discussed by local governments that desire more accountable, equitable, efficient
and effective service delivery. City-county consolidation is so unusual that only about 15% of
referenda pass (Stephens andvVikstrom, 2000; Johnson and Leland 2000). The first city-county
consolidation in the United States occurred in New Orleans in 1 ~05, when the city of New
Orleans and Orleans Parish, Louisiana merged. Since then over one hundred consolidation
attempts have reached the referendum stage or have been debated by state legislatures. Despite
all this activity, only thirty-three city-county consolidations have been successfully implemented·
in the U,S. (See Table 1). Even if there is popular interest in city-county consolidation by
citizens, the political barriers to city-county consolidation are often insurmountable. In fact,
some researchers believe city-county consolidation in general is politically infeasible· (Ross and
Levine 1996; Stephens and Wikstom 2000) andthereforé a relatively rare occurrence (Atkins
and Glendening 1977). Our analysis of consolidation attempts since 1970s reveals that many
cities attempt consolidation several times. (See Table 2).
In North Carolina there is a great deal of city-county consolidation activity even though
there has yet to be a successful passage. It appears to be a reform idea that refuses to die, yet
fails to gain enough political support to be successful. In virtually every election over the last 10
years Charlòtte and Mecklenburg County in North Carolina have had the question of city-county
".
2
~
consolidation on the ballot., In Wilmington, NC and Hanover .County consolidation has been
attempted four times, with referenda held in 1927, 1973, 1987, and 1995.
Functional consolidation, defined as departmental mergers between city and county
offices, has had more success in the U.S and North Carolinå than city-county consolidation. This
is primarily because combining a city and county department often does not face the same
politicalbarriei-s' as total city-county consolidati~n. Fimètional consolidations are less
comprehensive and are a more incremental reform than city-county consolidation. This makes
them more politically feasibfe and therefore a more common form of consolidation found across
local governm'entsîn the U.S. Functiorial consolidation usually does not require a vote of the
people in the affected area or legislative 'approvaL Such ~ergers involve agreements between
local governments to consolidate one or more functions of government while participating
entities retain their own identity. Function'al consolidation ranges from minimum informal
cooperation between the cityand county, to fully'incor¡)orated cOlmties (Duvall, 1989).
On the less extreme and Ínore common end of the spectrum, functional consolidation
exists informally without enabling 'legislation. For example, functional consolidation existed
between the city of Kansas City, Kansas and Wyandotte County law enforcement units by
default. Under court order, the city was forced to close their jails. They thèn bëgan,contracting
with the county on a per inmate. Overtime, this became very costly and the county eventually
agreed to an inter local agreement, that provided for the housing ofthè city's inmates in
exchange 'for road patrol service.
While the political barrÚ::rs are few and change is'less extreme in the case of functional
mergers'between cities and counties, iÚs importantthat officials considering functiOnal
consolidation consider the following issues:
3
, .1) The proximity of the areas involved.
2) The social distance of the communities.
3) The political influence of the officials within the jurisdictions.
4) The current structure of governments.
Table 1: Cases of City-County Consolidation Referendum since 1970.
City County State Year % of City County State Year %of
Vote Vote
Charlottesville Albennarle VA 1970 ' 28,1 Monistowl1 Hamb]en TN ]978 30,7
Chattanooga Hamilton TN 1970 48,0 Okeechobee Okeechobee FL 1979 32,2
Columbus Muscogee GA 1970 80,7 Clarksville Montgomery TN 1981 16.3
Pensacola Escambia FL 1970 24,6 Kingsport Sullivan TN 198] 11.5
Tampa Hillsborough FL 1970 41.9 Houma TelTebonne LA 1981 53,8
Augusta Richmond GA 1971 41.5 Asheville Buncombe NC 1982 37,7
Bristol WashìngtO!1 VA 1971 17,5 Athens Clarke GA 1982 50,2'
Charlotte Mecklenberg NC 1971 30,5 Louisville Jefferson KY 1982 49,6
Memphis Shelby TN 1971 47,6 Louisville Jefferson KY 1983 48,}
Sitka Greater Sitka AK 1971 77.2 Missoula Missoula MT 1983 24.9
Borough
Talahassce Leon FL 1971 46,9 Chattanooga Hamilton TN 1984 34,0
Athens Clarke GA 1972 48.3 Staunton Augusta VA 1984 59.4'
Lexington Fayette KY 1972 69.4 Tifìon Tift GA 1984 34,8
Macon Bibh GA 1972 39,6 Vol usia Area Halifax FL 1985 44,8
Fort Pierce St. Lucie FL 1972 ' 36,6 Lakeland Lanier GA 1986 34,5
Snffolk Nanesmond VA 1972 75,7 Brunswick Glynn GA 1987 51.6'
Tampa Hillsborough FL 1972 42,2 Jackson Madison TN 1987 49.4
A1bequerque Bemailillo NM 1973 44,1 Wilmington New Hanover NC 1987 40,7
Columbus Richland SC 1973 45,9 Augusta Richmond GA 1988 56,8'
Savannah Chatham GA 1973 58.3 Georgetown Scott KY 1988 41.7
Tallahassee Leon FL 1973 46,2 Kingspol1 Sullivan TN 1988 31.6
Wilmington New Hanover NC ]973 25,6 Conyers Rockdale GA 1989 57.4'
Augusta Richmond GA 1974 51.5* Frankfort Franklin KY 1989 35,7
Charleston Charleston SC 1974 40.4 Okeechobee Okeechobee FL 1989 20,6
Durham Durham NC 1974 32,1 Athens Clarke GA 1990 59,2
Evansville Vaderburgh IN 1974 26.1 Bowling Green Wan'en KY 1990 23,8
POl11and Muultnomah OR 1974 27.5 Gainesville Alachua FL 1990 33.5
Sacremento Sacremento CA 1974 24,9 Owensboro Daviss KY 1990 28.4
Anchorage ef al Greater AK 1975 62,0 Roanoke Roanoke VA 1990 45,1
Anchorage
Ashlaud & Boyd KY 1975 ]6,7 Sacremento Sacremento CA 1990 43,7
Catlettsburg
Gainesville Alachua FL 1975 25,2 Griffin Spalding GA 1991 31.2
Missoula Missonla MT 1975 46,0 Ashland & Boyd KY 1992 33,9
Catlettsburg
Salt Lake Salt Lake UT 1975 39,0 Lafayette Lafayette LA 1992 60,0
Anaconda Deer Lodge MT 1976 56,0 Des Moines Polk IA 1994 34.5
Augusta Richmond GA 1976 45,5 Douglasville Douglas GA 1994 25,4
Butte Silver Bow MT 1976 62.0 Metter Candler GA 1994 30,1
Gainesville A]achua FL 1976 32.2 Augusta Richmond GA 1995 66,7
Macon Bibb GA 1976 32.2 Spokane Spokane WA 1995 41.3
Moab Grand UT 1976 21.0 Wilmington New Hanover NC 1995 41.7
Tallahassee Leon FL 1976 45 Knoxville Knox TN 1996 45,8
.Kansas City , Wyandotte KS 1997 60,0
Louisville Jefferson KY 2000 54.0
NOTE: The asterik C*) represents those percentages of the tàvorable vote which exceeded the "50% + I" rule yet did not meet certain statutory
requirements in these given states, counties, and/or citiès,
, '
-. -,
Table 2: Multiple Attempts at Consolidation Since 1970
City County State Year of %of Passed
Attempt Vote
Chattanooga Hamilton TN 1970 48.0 No'
1984 34.0 No
Tampa Hillsborough FL 1970 41.9 No
1972 42.2 No
Augusta Richmond GA 1971 41.5 No
1974 51.5 No
1976 45.5 No
1988 56.8 No
1995 66'.7 Yes
Tallahassee' . Leon FL 1971 ' 46.9 No
1973 46.2 No,
1976 45.0 No
Macon Bibb GA 1972 39.6 No
32.2 No
Wilmington New Hanover NC 1973 25.6 No
1987 40.7 No
1995 41.7 No
Sacramento Sacramento CA 1974 24.9 No
1990 43.7 No
Ashland& Boyd KY 1975 16.7 No
Cattlesburg 1992 33.9 No
Gainsville Alachua FL 1975 2S.2 No
1976 32.2 No
1990 33.5 No
Missoula Missoula MT 1975 46.0 No
1983 24,9 No
Okeechobee I Okeechobee FL 1979 32.2 No
,1989 20.6 No
King sp ort Sullivan TN 1981 11.5 No
1988 31.6 No
Louisville Jefferson KY 1982 49.6 No
1983 ' 48.1 No
Athens Clarke GA 1972 48.3 No
1982 50.2 No
1990 59.2 No
4
5
Why Consolidation of City and County Structures or Functions?
Local government proponents of both structural and functional consolidation often argue
for mergers because they believe that two local governments and/or departments can live more'
efficiently, effectively, equitably and responsively by combining part or all of their services. If
only we could consolidate the fragmented local government landscape, reformers argue, waste
and duplication between the two governments could be eliminated, taxes could be lowered, and
the city could be "saved" from urban blight. In recent years, cities and counties have pushed the
issue of consolidation more frequently as a way of answering the growing problems of loca,l
government such as revenue loss in terms of intergovernmental transfers and increased service
demands. The consolidation issue also relates to the role cities and counties play in providing
services. Counties, as administrative arms of the state, must provide services within state
limitations on the amount and source of revenue. Therefore, with restrictions on funds, counties
and cities alike, often view consolidation as an appropriate measure to meeting increasing citizen
expectations as well as regional planning needs. Some form of consolidation may be the answer
to enabling local governments to fulfill their obligations.
Another which increases the interest in consolidation is the proliferation of city
incorporations. City incorporations have been on the rise across the U.S. because of conflicts
between unicorporated areas and counties over the organization of government service delivery,
the limited sòurces of local revenue, the lack of regional planning efforts, and land-use control
problems. Unfortunately as more cities incorporate, cOlmties cannot meet the service needs with
the declining revenue base. Counties must then look for alternatives in providing services for
lower cost. As the number of incorporations in a county increases, systems of service delivery
6
'become more fragmented which may ignore area-wide issues. Cities take over plarming and
zoning powers from the county while city land use problems can complicate regional problems.
Academic Literature and Perspectives on Consolidation
The topic of consolidation has also caught the attention of several academics. They are
also fascinated by the topic and the endurance of the debate among local governments over the
last forty years. This is evidenced by two journals in the field recently devoting their entire issues
to the topic of city-county consolidation and metropolitan cooperation of local governn1ents.1
In one of the most popular books advocating total city-county consolidati0I!, Cities
Without Suburbs by David Rusk, argues that one of the greatest barrier!) to consolidation is state
law. Since municipalities are creatures of the state, state ultimately have the power to shape local
government. Rusk argues that it is state law that is strangling local governments and acting as an
insurmountable barrier to consolidation. This may be true in terms ,of the number of referenda;
however, this does little to explain. the situation in Southern states such as North Carolina. North
Carolina has very liberal annexation laws and legally allows city-county consolidation. Yet,
despite numerous attempts by several local governments, there has never been a successful
referendum. Even though state enabling legislati<¡)n ~xists in North Carolina, consolidation
"
remains politically infeasible. This suggests that the 'barriers to consolidation exist with equal if
not greater force at the local level. The following report takes a closer look successful passages
of city-county consolidation, functional alternativ.es and then will profile, the failed consolidation
refèrenda in three North Carolina areas where consolidation has persisted on the agenda for at
least forty years.
7
'When reviewing the literature on city-county consolidation, we found that several trends
have appeared in both successful and unsuccessful attempts. Marando (1974) shows that
consolidation efforts have been more likely to pass in medium-sized Southern metro areas.
Having relatively few competing units of government and a one-party system-which used to be
the case in most Southern communities-also makes consolidation more feasible. Conversely,
large disparities in income between city and county residents tend to decrease consolidations'
popularity, as clusters of' wealthy residents will be hesitant to merge with poor residents
(Marando, 1979). Empirical evidence has also shown that political leaders' support is not an
important factor iÙ. getting consolidation passed and that the uncovering of govermnent
corruption is not a crucial element in determining the outcome (Krefetz and Sharaf, 1977).
Furthermore, Marando and Whitley (1972) show that the chances of consolidation decrease as
the presence of special districts Increases, probably due to citizen satisfaction with their services.
In addition to these previous findings, researchers have developed a model that many
successful consolidation attempts follow. Feiock and Johnson (1992) examined Rosenbaum and
Kammerer's theory on the stages that are present in a successfui consolidation attempt.
Aècording to this theory, successful consolidation attempts evolve over three stages: the crisis
climate, power, deflation, and the accelerator event. The first crisis climate involves three
phases: a) environmental changing events (changes in demographics, services, resources, etc.)
that give the local government new problems to address b) citizens demands for a government
, response and c) an ineffective or inappropriate government response. In the second stage, power
deflation, the community loses confidence in the government. They become dissatisfied with the
government and, more importantly, they gain the perception that severe structural problems in
I Both Public Administration Quarterly and State and Local Government Review published symposium devoted to
8
the gDvernment· exist. ' Civic elites and the media often expose government str~ctural
inadequacies and promote consolidation as a means of reform. Finally the third stage is the
Accelerator Event. In this stage, there is simply an occurrence-such as a scandal, an emergency
that highlights the governments' shortcomings, criticism of the government from respected
outside sources, or the demise of a respectecl community leader-that creates a sense of urgency
, ,.
in the community. It essentially is the event that acts as a ~atalyst for change.
Utilizing Rosenbaum and Krammer's theory, Feiock and Johnson (1992) examined the
consolidation attempts in nine counties. They concluded that, in each metro . area, the model
predicted the success of the consolidation effort. Metropolitan areas missing one of the phases
'.
were indeed unsuccessful in their attempts, while the other five cases that went through each
phase were successful.
Under both types. of consolidation,. it ,is very difficult to isolate the impact of these
mergers. Ideally, one should monitor both the old and new gov~rnments' performance under
identical circumstances but r,esearchers have found this is task daunting and virtually impossible.
Instead, most researchers consider cases on an ~ndividual basis and compare the performance of
pre-merger vs. post-merger in each city involved in the merger. If this is done for the five-ten
tear period immediately before and after cónsolidation, then government performance
... f . .
differences can be traceable if factors otµer than the reorganization are minimal or easily
separated.
'. j
the topic in the last year. '
9
'City-County Consolidation Efforts in North Carolina
Consolidation efforts in North Carolina date back to the early 1900's. The topic has been a
popular one of local politicians and community reformers. Often consolidation attempts fail to
complete the policy process as an agenda item and the topic is not brought before the voters.
Three particular North Carolina jurisdictions are Charlotte/Mecklenburg County,
Durham/Durham County and WilmingtonJNew Hanover County. Wilmington/New Hanover
County has been the most active in both consolidation discussions and attempts, followed by
both Charlotte/Mecklenburg and Durham/Durham County. (See Tables 3,4,5).
Table 3: North Carolina Consolidation Referenda
. City
Charlotte
Durham
County
Mecklenburg
Durham
Year(s) Attempted Percentage of the vote
1971 30.5
1961 No
1974 32.1
1927 21
1973 25.6
1987 40.7
1995 41.7
Wilmington
New Hanover
Table 4
10
Population for Mecklenburg, Durham, and New Hanover Counties and Largest Incorporated
Areas in Those Counties 1990, 2000, am? 2010 CounJy P~ojection
Population Rank
2000 1990
Geographic Area
Population
2000
8,049,313
North Carolina
County
I
6
9
I Mecklenburg
6 Durham
11 New Hanover
695,454
223,314
160,307
Incorporated
Place
I
4
9
Charlotte city
5 Durham city
9 Wilmington city
540,828
187,035
75,838
(1) Represents zero or rounds to 0,0,
]990 (I)
6,628,637
511,433
\81,835
120,284
395,934
136,611
55,530
Population Change,
1990 to 2000
Number
1,420,676
184,021
41,479
40,023
144,894
50,424
20,308
Percent
2\.4 ,
Projected
Growth
2010
12.2
36,0
22,8
33.3
19,8
11.5
] 7,7
36,6
36,9
36.6
(1) 1990 census counts are as published in 1990 census reports and thus do not include any changes published subsequently due to boundary
changes or to the Count Questiol1 Resolution program.
Note: Data not adjusted based on the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation, For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error,
nonsampling error, and detinition, Source: U ,S, Census Burearu, Census 2000 Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Summary File, Table PL I, and
1990 census,
.!"
11
Table 5
Population by Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin, for Mecklenburg, Durham and New Hanover
Counties and Incorporated Cities of Charlotte) Durham and Wilmington: 2000.
Race
One Race
Americ Native
an Hawaii
Indian an and Hispanic
Popu- Black or and Other Some Two or or Latino
lation Total African Alaska Pacific Other More (of any
Rank Geographic Population Total White American Native Asian Island Race Races race)
Area
North 8,049,313 7,946,053 5,804,656 1,737,545 99,551 113,689 3,983 186,629 103,260 378,963
Carolina
County
1 lVleck1enburg I 695,454 684,709 I 445,250 193,838 2,439 21,889 339 20,954 10,745 44,871
6 Durham 223,314 219,300 I 1]3,698 88,109 660 7)50 79 9,404 4,014 ] 7,039
9 New Hanover I 160,307 158,623 128,098 27,203 627 1,333 96 1,266 1,684 3,276
Incorporated Place
Charlotte city
Durham city
Wilmington
, city
(-) Represents zero
Source: V,S, Census Bureau, Census 2000 Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Summary File, Table PL 1,
Note: Data not adjusted based on the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation, For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error,
11 0 n s am p I i 11 g wo r, an cI detì n i ti 0 11 s, see l!..t~~!!fu~.Lj!15k!:c.ce I1s.u,'icgg v /1!Q!.1~~£!~Ld_0li}!1.(!tS'¿~Qlill!~llll,
I
4
9
540,828
187,035
75,838
531,831
183,399
74,978
315,061
85, ]26
53,516
176,964
81,937
19,579
1,863
575
266
18,418
6,815
682
283
71
67
19,242
8,875
868
8,997
3,636
860
39,800
16,012
1,991
12
,
The Consôìidated City County Act òf 1973 sets the guidelines by which cities and counties'
may consolidate their governments. By definition, a consolidated city-county is "where the
largest municipality in the county has been abolished and its powers, duties, rights, privileges,
and immunities consolidated with those 'of the county" (160B-2). Thus, the consolidated
government has the powers and functions of both a city and county government.
,
The Act calls for the establishment of Urban Service Districts - including the total area ofthe
former city limits. In addition, service districts may be expanded to include areas outside of the
former city limits. These Urban Service.Districts are named in order to "finance, provide or
maintain for the districts services, facilities and functions in addition to or a greater extent then
those financed, provided or maintained for the entire city-county" (160B-3). In order to expand
the service district to areas outside the former city's limits, the areamust meet certain
specifications such as population density and area coincident with the existing boundary 'of the
district. In addition the governing body must make a plan as tò how services will be provided in
the service district. The Act authorizes for the consolidated government to levy taxes on the
urban service districts in addition to those that are levied throughout the rest of the county.
The Act also sets guidelines for the allocation of revenues and assumption of obligations
and debt. There must be referendum approval of certain debt assumption in order for
consolidation to take place. Should this referendum pass, consolidation may take place. The
date of consolidation shall be the later of the following dates:
1. 60 days after the notice of enactment of the consolidation by the General Assembly
2. 60 days after the result ofthe referendum
13
3. date of consolidation set by the general assembly
In order for the referendum to pass, it must be approved by a majority of those voting
for the consolidation proposal. In addition, consolidation may not take place without the
approval of the General Assembly. Following the approval of the General Assembly, the local
newspaper should announce the consolidation. Barring a challenge within the first 30 days,
consolidation may take place.
North Carolina annexation law is among one of the most liberal in the country, spurring
many North Carolina cities in the 20th century to aggressively practice-annexation, in particular
Wilmington. North Carolina General Statute 160A Article 4A gives permission and outlines the
rules under which cities may expand corporate limits. The article is divided into three parts:
annexation by petition, annexation by cities with less than 5,000 people and annexation by cities
with a population of 5,000 or more. Part three, dealing will cities with more than S,OOO, applies
to the cities of Wilmington, Durham and Charlotte.
The law provides specific requirements for the annexed area.2 The area must be adjacent or
contiguous to the municipality's boundaries, one eighth of the aggregate boundaries of the area
must coincide with the municipal boundary and no annexed area is allowed to be a part of
another incorporated area. The law provides stipulations on the population density of the area to
be annexed as well.
2 Prior to annexation, l60A-47 requires that annexing municipalities plan for the extension of city services and
prepare a report outlining how they plan to expand the services. Specifically the law calls for cities to provide the
same police and fire protection, solid waste collection street maintenance and water and sewer services to the
annexed areas. In addition, the city must determine the impact of the new annexed population on the fire service
and the city's finances.
14
'The CharlottelMecklenburg County Case
The City of Charlotte, named after the wife of King George .the Third, was first settled in
1750 and became incorporated in, 1768. When gold was discovered in Charlotte in 1789
, ,
thousands flocked ¡to the area in search of fortune prompting a population boom. The City of
Charlotte soon became a textile iI\dustry and r~ilways increased. the young city' ~ population.
Growth of the financial sector, including attracting such institutions as the Bank of America and
First Union, has more recently made Charlotte one oftlW largest banking hubs in the country.
Charlotte is the, southern seat of Mecklenburg çounty and with a la~d mass of oyer 450
square kilometers compl.'ises over 80 percent of the co.un~y. , Charlotte has the highest population
density ·in Mecklenburg county with a population of more than a half million. (Encarta, 1997-
2000). Charlotte:s neighboring cities - Concord, Kannapolis,Momoe, Huntersville, ~ineville
and Matthews - are also experiencing rapid grovvth. Annexation, which yyas widespread
throughout the 1990' s, is one reason that Charlotte and surrounding communities have grown. It
is expected that future annexations by these towns and cities will soon encompass all of
Mecklenburg County.
The City of Charlotte has a Council-Man.ager form of government. The City Council is
comprised of eleven Council member~, with ..s~ve~., Council seats chosen through district
elections and four chosen at-large. Charlotte's Mayor is elected by city residents and serves on
I
the City Council. Council members and the Mayor serve for two-year terms. The Mayor is
primarily a figurehead who presides at special ceremonies and events with Charlotte's day-to-
day operations being the responsibility of the City Manager who is appointed by, and serves at
the pleasure of, the City Council.
15
The Mayor and Council's responsibilities include suçh things as districting, annexation,
zoning, and the incorporation of city and private industry contracts. The Council's fiduciary
responsibilities include adoption of the city's annual budget and setting tax rates. As one of the
few cities that boast an AAA Bond rating, the City of Charlotte is recognized as a financially
sound city.
The Board of Mecklenburg County Commissioners is composed of nine members and
elections are held during even-numbered years. Six County Commissioners are chosen by
district elections and three are selected by a countywide vote. This district system mirrors the
one used by the City of Charlotte and was adopted in 1986. The Board of County
Commissioners pass the county's annual budget and determine the county's tax rates. County
Commissioners are responsible for assuring the delivery of "soft" services such as healthcare,
education, welfare, mental health and the envirOllli1ent (http://www.co.mecklenburg.nc.us).
Consolidation is not a new concept for the City of Charlotte or Mecklenburg County.
The first attempt at consolidation occurred in 1927 when legislation was enacted to enable a
referendum' for consolidation of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. However, due to the
emergin,g world crisis and war, the referendum was never introduced for a vote. The issue,
though not dormant, was not seriously considered again until 1968 when the Charlotte Chamber
of Commerce called openly for Charlotte-Mecklenburg consolidation (Mead, 1997). Legislation
to create.a joint commission passed and was formed to study the benefits of consolidation. The
commission directed the Institute of Government to conduct feasibility studies for consolidating
the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County and in a period of two years, approximately
seventy-five such studies were conducted (Greer, March 5, 2001). 'Supporters of this
consolidation attemp~ placed a heavy emphasis' on lowered governmental costs, improved
16
, administration and· increased efficiency (Me~d, 1994):, According to Joseph Greer, Jr., Vice-
Chairman' of the joint commission, a 1971 referendum for consolidati<{n was defeated by
citizens, despite political and media support (Greer, March 5, 200p.
Opposition to what was termed "radical change" to the structure of government - most
notably the selection of twelve of the eighteen council members through district elections - was
a chief objection in 1971 (Mead, 1997). Interestingly, this resistance was fueled by integration
of Mecklenburg County schools "That opposition [to Mecklenburg County ?chool integration]
had its belly full of political change and so ,there was oppositions just to the notion of change"
(Mead, February 27, 2001). Although this particular issue of representation would be nullified
with the adoption of district and at-large elections by both th~ City Council and County
Commission, issues of. representation would continue to il1)pede Charlotte-Mecklenburg
consolidation attempts (Mead, 1997).
Citizens, notably the African-American community, also feared that a consolidated
govèrnment would decrease their political power. It is also interesting to note thàt others
opposed consolidation out. .of the. fear that redistricting would lead to. over-~epresentation of
minorities in the democratically controlled legislative body. Although consolidation has been
.
formally addressed three times since 1971, it has not been placed on the. agenda since it was
defeated.
The next time Charlotte-Mecklenburg c~nsolidation was seriously debated was in 1983
when Mayor Harvey Gantt made it k110\Vn that he wpuld support consideration of consolidation
if it were introduced. In 1984, a joint city/county committee was appointed to look at the
willingness of, party members to consolidate the two forms of government. This committee
focused on the political will for consolidation and did not look at consolidation from a technical
17
perspective or examine the governmental restruCturing that would need:to occur if consolidation
were approved (Mead, 1994). The 1984 joint committee found that there was little political
support for consolidation and therefore did not recommend a commission charter.
In late 1989 the City Council and Board of Commissioners established two committees to
address Charlotte-Mecklenburg consolidation. One committèe was formed to address functional
consolidation of both city and county law enforcement and the' Parks and Recreation
departments. The second committee was formed to evaluate the feasibility and interest of
political consolidation of the City Council and County Commission. Functional consolidation
was successfully undertaken; the parks and recreation departments were consolidated
immediately and although consolidation of the police departments was initially blocked it, too,
became functionally consolidated in 1993.
City-county consolidation would prove to be a much harder venture. In 1990, the City
Council voted 10-1 against consolidation of the city and cOlmty governments, citing lack of
community support as the primary deterrent. Other roadblocks to consolidation included equity
in public services, Charlotte's financial prosperity "if it's not broken, don't fix it," and
opposition of minority and environmental groups.
During this time, however, the region was joining a national trend calling for reform and
emphasizing government accountability (NatioÚal Performance Review). This reform movement
may be one reason that a gradual shift in the reasons for Charlotte-Mecklenburg consolidation
began to take place in the early 1990s. PÚblic administration arguments of efficiency and
effectiveness began to give way to political science arguments of accountability and regional
leadership (Mead, February 27, 2001). This shift can be seen in a series of editorials published
by The Charlotte Observer supporting local government accountability that once again brought
18
the<ideaofeityand county consolidation back ~o the table for discussion: The media de-
emphasized previously cited benefits of consolida~~on (such as streamlinyd public administration
that was central to the 1971 referendum) instead calling for unitìedleadership and vision (Mead,
1994). According to County Commission Chairman Parks Helms "Richard (Vinroot} and I Both
saw the evolving nature of this community ",:nd the importance of developing a policymaking
body that could. govern a changing, growing - what we qll~ a new south city - region, and the
fact that it was the center of a r~gion made it extremely important that we be able to see things
not just from a city perspective or from a county perspective bu~ from a region perspective"
, (Helms, March 7,2001).
With strong support,byCoun~y Commissioners and Mayor Vinroot, a charter commission
was appointed to focus solely on choosing a proposal that identified specific recommendations
for a referendum on, consolidation and. intentionally did not measure the desirability of
cò:hsolidation. Women and m,inority groups raised concerns early on about the charter
commission's makeup since twenty-two of the original twenty-five members were white men
(Mead, 1997). The County Board of Commissioners voted to request from the North Carolina
General assembly permission to hold a referendum; however, in 1996 the Charlotte City Council
blocked consolidation being placed on the agenda primarily over the issue of representation. The
stumbling block was the proposal to limit the representation on the metro-government to eight
districts and five at large members, effectively reducing political representation by seven seats.
According to Parks Helms, "I, think the g;reatest deterrent [to Charlotte-Mecklenburg
consolidation] has been the reluctance of individual council members or commissioners to run
the risk of creating a governing þody with districts that might eliminate their seat on the council
or on the board" (Helms, March 7, 2001). Minority groups were among the most vocal
20
, Issues
Respondents identified the following issues in the consolidation effort:
G Regional plarming: Many felt that regional plarming could not be effectively handled by two
governing bodies with separate agendas and budgets. 'A consolidated governn1ent, it was
thought, could more effectively deal with the state and federal government. For example, "
Parks Helms declared, "we are a regional center. We are what Parks Helms calls a city-state,
and it is a city-state that is floundering in terms of making city-state policy decisions."
e Previously consolidated services: Many services had already been consolidated and some
thought that it only made sense to go ahead and consolidate the leadership.
" Structure of governing body: City councilmen and county commissioners were reluctant to
setup a governing body with new districts that eliminate their seat.
e Cost Savings: Although initially it was not the focus of consolidation, a group of four
republicans became involved with the matter and began making plans for serious cuts - of up
to $4 million per year. Some administrative staff were expected to be removed and some
resources, such as computers, were to be shared.
G Representation: Small town residents and minorities both felt that a centralized, consolidated
government would not be responsive to their needs. However, some black representatives
felt that, if the districts were structured right, blacks would still have a reasonable chance of
being elected and their power would be more far-reaching.
· Big government: There was a fear expressed that consolidation would result in "bigger
government," possibly because a consolidated government would be able to accomplish more
than a fragmented one.
21
II Pay scales: Related departments with the city and county had different pay scales and,
consequently, the pay scale to bê adopted for these positions was an issue.
Barriers
Thosé involved with Charlotte's consolidation ,process thought,that the following factors served
" ,
as barriers to consolidation:
II Lack of a Crisis
. Few Duplicated Services
It Potential loss of jobs for elected representatives
The quality of government was perceived at the time to be satisfactory and consequently,
. ,
many questioned why it' should be tampered with. There was no sense of a need for change
among the citizens to pressure: elected representatives into further considering this issue. Also,
, ,
as previously mentioned, Charlotte and Mecklenburg had already consolidated many of their
services. Therefore, it was more difficult to project cost sav~ngs for thep~þlic.
As discussed above; a main issue in this case wa~ how consolidation wquld affect elected
.r," 1"....
.>.. '. .
representatives' chances for re-election. Their tll1willingness to tamper with the systém that
, ,
allowed them· to be elected in the first place was thought by many to be the primary barrier to
consolidation. This factor, in addition to the lack of political pressure fr0l!l the, p~blic, prevented
them from taking this issue toa,public referendum.
22
Process Improvements
Among the suggestions for ways to improve consolidation's chances for passage were better
public relations, recruiting proponents with political clout, and waiting for' an issue to emerge
that is serious enough to spark interest in consolidation. In this last attempt, the st~ff was told to
remain impartial. Consequently, there was no one to create enthusiasm for the process in the
face of the usual opposition. Selecting a chairman for the consolidation study with enough
political clout to influence representatives was also viewed as an important step in getting
consolidation implemented, or to at least get it to a public referendum. Finally, the participants
have also realized that a sense of urgency probably needs to exist in Charlotte before citizen
support for consolidation can be captured to a large degree.
The Durham/Durham County Case
The City of Durham began as ,a railroad station and settlement named in honor of Dr.
Bartlett Durham who donated the land on which the railroad station was located. In 1881,
Durham officials sought to become an autonomous political subdivision and to separate from
Orange County. While the official birth date is April 26, 18S3, the town was not officially
incorporated until April 10, 1869. Durham soon became known for its tobacco manufacturing
industry and received worldwide attention after the Civil War. As a result Durham grew and
prospered tremendously. Today, Durham is known as the "City of Medicine" because of a
number of pharmaceutical research centers and it's five major hospitals (www.durham-
nc.com/history). The Research Triangle Park was also carved from Durham land as a special
Durham County tax district and is encompassed on three sides by the City of Durham with a.
Î'"'
~.)
small portion now spilling into Wake County. The Research Park houses world-renowned
companies including, IBM, Glaxo/Smith/Kline, and Cisco Systems.
Durham is the fifth largest city in North Carolirià, and as the only city in Durham County
it serves as county seat (http://www.co.durham.nc.us/durcolhistory). The City encompasses over
95 square miles of land and has a population of over l'77,0002 (DMG Maximus, 2000). The City
, ' .
is rapidly approaching the CoÜnty in population. In 1990, 75 percent of the County's population
was within the City limits. Today over 80 percent of the county's population lies within the City.,
In the past ten years, the City's rate of growth was higher thanthat"ofthe Courity's.due primarily
to the City's annexation of territory in the outlying areas of the County. If the City's annexation.
"
of unincorporated County land continues at its current pace, and consumes the Urban Growth
Area (UGA), the City could some day account for up to 95 percent of the Comity's population
(DMG Maximus, 2000).
The City of Durham employs the council-manager form of government. The City
Council is comprised of thirteen members, including twelve council members and the Mayor.
All council members are electéd 'at-large on a non-partisan basis, but six members must be
residents of districts (i.e., residency districts). The'·Mayor serves a two-year term, but other
council members serve staggered four-year terms (Institute of.Government, 2001).
The County of Durham was formed on APril 17, 1881 from portions ofland transferred
into the county from Wake and Orange counties. It was named for the city of Durham. It is in '
the central section of the State and bounded by Wake, Orange, Chatham, Person, and Granville
counties. Durham CoÚnty encompasses 299 square miles and had an estimated population of
204,097 in 1999 (US Census Bureau, 1999). In addition to the City, of Durham, approximately 75
percent of the prestigious Research Triangle Park (RTP) is located within Durham County.
24
The çountyemploys' the Commission-Manager forI? of government. However, since
many County employees report to· independently-elected officials (e.g., the Sheriff) or quasi-state
commissions (e.g., Social Services), the County Manager has less direct control over employees
than does the City Manager. The County Board of Commissioners comprises five members who
serve two-year terms. Other independently elected officials include the Sheriff, Register of
Deeds and Clerk of Courts. These three officials serve four-year terms. All county officials are
elected at-large on a partisan basis (DMGMaximus, 2000).
The City and County offer a broad range of services. In most cases, there is little overlap
in their delivery of services. The County's primary emphasis is on health and human services.
The County also provides law enforcement, correctional and civil process services. The City's
primary focus is on public safety, but offers other services such as, community development,
parks, recreation, road maintenance, water and sewer treatment, solid waste management, utility
and public transit services (Thompson & Powell, Febmary 26, 2001; DMG Maximµs, 2000).
Many functions are already consolidated or operating under unified management 111
Durham. Some of which include: planning, inspections, tax collections, animal control,
emergency management and certain public safety communications. As the City's borders (and
population) approach the County's borders citizens may find it increasingly difficult to
distinguish between the two entities. Perhaps, the real public policy issue pertaining to merger in
Durham is not "if the City and County will merge, but rather when will the two governing bodies
merge" (Margotta, March 5, 2001).
In 1961 and 1974 charter commissions were developed to explore city-county merger
plans. City-County consolidation was also attempted in 1994; the City and County established a
citizen's task force to recommend a new governmental stmcture for a merged government. hi
y
-)
February 1999, the governing bodies of Durham County and the City ;of Durham established a
process for reviewing the possibility of consolidation with the City. and County governments.
They created a Joint City Council/County Commissioners Merger Steering Committee to oversee
this process and report back to the governing bodies on the advisability of consolidation. The,
Merger Steering Committee consisted' of members of the City Council and County Commission,
The committee began its work in March 1999, its charge was to identify the merger issues to be
analyzed and resolved, determine resource requirements, establish a project budget and procure
the services of external advisors as required; develop a communications strategy, including
public hearings; obtaining public input and keeping citizens informed; and establish citizen task
forces to review merger issues arid assess the, feasibility o,r advisability of city-county
consolidation for Durham (DMG Maximus, 2000). The last local government consolidation
attempt was in 2000;" where the elected officials of the City and County took a different ?iPproach
to the, merger issue: Instead of focusing primarily on the structure, of the proposed govermµent,
City and County leaders decided to review the advisability and feasibility of merger as well.
Consolidation attempts were sold to the public on the platform of efficiency and cost
savings despite no empiIÌcal evidence 'supporting this claim. Durhap1 discovered that most
mergers have minimizedlay-offs and held C~lIfent employees han?1~~ss ~s to pay, benefits and
rights. Staff reductions (if any) are made via attritiçm or early retirernentplans. Per~aps the
"
most costly transition issue encountered by Durham would have been compensatiQn equity
(DMG Maximus, 2000). For consolidation to survive politically, the new government would
have had to equalize pay and benefits. Through equity studies, the task forcedisyovered
significant compensation differences,' Many merged governments find it necessary to increase,
26
the pay or benefits_of some employees to equalize employees with those at a higher level (DMG
Maximus, 2000).
Currently, the issue of government consolidation has been tabled in the purham
community. The Durham Task Force concluded that merging, while offering several benefits,
would require careful plmming and substantial effort for future consolidated functions to run
smoothly. Plamling issues to address include Public Administrators and politicians enhancing
overall public trust and confidence in local government, and reducing duplication of services and
overlapping positions over time (approximately 140 positions perform the same work for the two
entities). "Durham is one the last democracies in the nation, everyone has a voice and that's what
makes merger difficult" (Thompson, February 27,2001).
Merger has been "perceived as being racially motivated and a shift in power" (Blyth,
March, 8 2001). The Task Force noted that in order for merger to be successful, local
government would have to make a concelied effOli to clarify the administration and
accountability of merged activities and promote the cross-fertilization of best practices and
innovative ideas. Local government should also seek to streamline the m~nagement of public
facilities, coordinate security services and outsourcing, reduce leased building space needs and
reduce facility costs. The government needs to also offer an opportunity to adopt uniform equal
opportunity guidelines, increase diversity training and community involvement, and improve
racial relations (DMG Maximus, 2000).
The task force identified several issues that could hinder the ultimate success of the
proposed merger. Some of those issues are included the fact that City and County employees
may have different "property rights" as to employment, essentially the city being an "at will"
employer versus the county utilizing the civil service mechanism. This dynamic is further
27
complicated because many County employees are governed by State personnel rules. Employee
anxieties about job changes, compensation or benefit reductions, or demotions could undermine
morale and the merger transition (DMG Maximus, 2000).
To ensure that these issues are effectively managed, the task force .made several
recommendations, including several in regards to employe~s. The task force recommended staff
reduction through natural attrition. The local government should hold employees harmless as to
pay and benefits initially, but adopt an "equal pay for equal work" strategy and "points-~ased"
pay and class· system to determine future, compensation ,and benefit ,levels .(DMG Ma~imus,
2000). It also recommended :that the government entities keep employ~es well.inforrped on the
reasons for merger and actively engage them in designing the new, organization and its new
personnel policies, including periodic employee opinion surveys conducted to assess staff morale
and sentiments towards the merger.
The Durham communitysupported'merger for a variety ofreasons. The most compelling
arguments advanced by merger proponents inCluded neutralization of municipal annexation
threats and improved local control over grÇJwth managjement and other community "destiny"
Issues. Proponents of the City/ County merger maintained that a consolidated government would,
improve the delivery of services, by expanding some services from ur?an to rural areas (e.g.,
sewer treatment), adopting uniform' codes and service standards (e.g., building inspections) or
providing "one-stop shopping" for services. Merger proponents argued that consolidation ,would
enhance the public image of government and improve the efficiency of government by reducing
administrative costs and eliminating the duplication of services (e.g." a single property tax bill).
Arguably, the effective (if not actual) consolidation of Durham's city, and county
governments is well underway. Several events and factors appear to be drawing the two entities
28
illore closely. together. The County has only one incorporat~d municipality (unlike many other
urban counties that contain multiple cities) and is unlikely to have a new city formed within its
boundaries. The City and County already share a common name and identity, as well as
common interests in economic development opportunities. The state's liberal annexation laws
also make it relatively easy for the City to annex developing areas in the unincorporated portions
of the County. If effective consolidation is inevitable, perhaps the more interesting question is
whether it should occur in an ad hoc fashion, without a vote, or in a planned, deliberative
manner, based on a consensus of the community. "That's another way to go, one by one merge
all your functions and before you know it, you almost have a merged governmenf'(Titus, March
6, 2001) "Merger however, can not happen until the committee elects people who are credible by
all diverse groups who are ethical and not serving the public interests" (Pamela Blyth Interview;
2001).
The major stakeholders in Durham's consolidation attempt were elected officials, taxpayers,
the sheriff, rural landowners, the Democratic Party, and minority groups; including the
Committee on the Affairs of Black People and the Friends of Durham. Neither the city nor the
county served as driving forces for this issue. It was mainly pushed by politically active citizen
groups and then later by consultants.
Issues
The main issues faced by the city and county of Durham during their consolidation attempt were:
· Loss of political power: Certain minority groups feared that a larger government might
not be representative of their needs.
· Financial Impacts: County residents feared an increase in taxes.
29
'. Loss' of Jobs: Some staff members. were naturally concerned about the possibility of
losing their job.
· Differences in policies/values: Certain departments, such as the planning departments,
håd different policies and these differences would have to be somehow amended if
consolidation were to occur.
· Leadership: How many people would serve on the governing body, how they -would be
elected (district or at-large), and whether the elections would be held on president or non-
president years were all considered big issues that could impact certain groups' chances
for election.
o Extension of city services: County residents were 'worried about the fiscal and service
delivery impacts of the expansion of city services into' their area, which the Charter
Commission recommended.
. Motivation:· There was no strong motivation or cnSlS gomg on during the last
consolidation attempt.
o 'Council gave themselves a pay increase and council size was reduced from 13 down to
seven.
I
I'
Barriers
Respondents identified the following barriers that were faced when trying to get consolidation
passed:
. An overly ambitious Charter Commission
. Lack of controversy
30
· Little service duplication
· Time restraints
· Lack of trust
· An uncooperative staff
· A wide array of influential groups
· Recommended a form of government that is illegal
Initially, the study committees recommended a fairly modest merger plan where, as Ellen
Rec1d10w described it, "the urban services district would basically be consistent with the city
lines and then you would have a general services district incorporating the whole county." As
previoÙsly mentioned the Charter commission deviated from this plan by e'xpanding many city
services, such as transportation and road construction, to county areas. This move was illegal
and a new statute would have to be amended for it to pàss. This shortcoming of the plan - that it
could not be legally passed - complicated the process of getting voter support because citizens
did not know if the plan they were voting on could pass.
At the time, citizens were content ,\vith both city and county serVIces and there was no
driving force for consolidation. The previous two years had seen tax reductions. Similarly, there
was little duplication of effort between county and city services, making it difficult to achieve
cost savings. Both of these factors made it difficult to convince voters that a merger should be
, pursue~ in the first place, especially since there was very little time to educate the public about
consolidation. David Poweli stated, "When David [Thompson] arrived, morale went up, they
31
", were achieving a Jot of what they set out to do. When the question of consolidation arose, they
said 'why should we?'"
The distribution of power and influence is strongly diluted in Durham. Consequently, any
consolidation plan must address everyone's needs in order to have a strong chance of being
passed. As David Powell stated, Durham is "one of the last democracies in the nation -
everyone has a voice - and that makes merger difficult. Fearing for their jobs, staff members
also served as roadblocks to consolidation. Ellen Reckhow noted, "I don't feel like we had full
staff support .even in terms of analysis because the staff just tolerated this process, their hearts
wasn't in it for sure."
'. .
Process Improvements
Respondent?, mentioned several ways ,that consolidation's chances for passage could be
improved. A smaller charter commission, for example, may have prevented some of the
problems that arose. Due to its size (ther~ were about 130 members), the charter commission
was broken up into subcommittees and, as Reckhow mentioned, "when they brought their
recommendations to the full' committee, there seemed to be a te~dency to go with what the
subcommittee was saying because people,didn't want to op...~n up Pandora's Box."
In terrn,s of ways, to increase vote~ acceptance, some suggestions were to ensure that the
assumptions .in the cost-b.enefIt an~lysis ¡:natched the actual plan and to allow more time to
educate the public about consolidation's impacts. The discrepancies between the cost-benefit
analyses apparently, caused some confusion when citizens and journalists inquired about the
fiscal impacts of consolidation.
32
This consolidation àttempt also showed those involved that it is important to have either the
city or county manager get behind the issue. Neither the county nor city manager felt strongly
about consolidation and did not champion its cause. Similarly, as another respondent argued, it
is also important to have a goal to strive toward at the beginning of th~ process. Not having this
goal, according to Reckhow, diminished their ability to deal with problems when they arose.
This goal, she felt, would need to be set in accordance with whatever issue were considered
crucial at the time so that people would get behind it.
~
""
:u
The History of City-County Consolidation Attempts and Structural Mergers .in
Wilmington/ New Hanover County
The City of Wilmington is the county seat of New Hanover County andj~. also its largest
municipality. The city Was founded in 1733, and originally called.New Carth~ge or New
Liverpool and then Newton or New Town (www.co.new-hanover.nc.us). Wilmington is ,named
after British official Spencer Compton, Earl of Wilmington, .who was the benefactÇJr and patron
ofNOlih Carolina's Royal Governor Gabriel Johnson (Enca~a) Johnson had moved the colonial
capital from Brunswick Town to New Town before he renaming it Wilmington
(www.ci.wilmington.nc.us). Wilmington was chartered in 1739 and was incorporated as a city in
1866. Today, Wilmington covers 50.3 square miles, nearly 26% of New Hanover County. It is
the ninth most populated city in the State of North Carolina. Approximately 92,100 residents
live within Wilmington's City Limits, roughly 60% of New Hanover County's population
('v'¡ÿ',¡w .ci. wilmington.nc. us).
Wilmington has a Council-Manager form of government. Elected officials are chosen on
a non-partisan basis. City Council members serve tour-year terms and electìons are staggered
every two years. There are six council members. The board votes for a m~yor pro-tem from
among its members. The mayor is elected to serve for a two-year term. The City Clerk, tax
collector, City Attorney, Chief of Police and Chief of Fire are all appointed by the Council. The
city employs a manager who is responsible for the administrative functions of the city. The City
Manger is responsible for seeing that the policies and regulations set forth by the council is
followed through as well as advising the council on city business.
New Hanover County was established in 1729 from what was Craven County, "one of
the three original counties in North Carolina." The county is the second smallest in the state
34
covenng 185 square miles. N~w Hanover County has four incorporated areas: Wrightsville,
Carolina and'Kure Beaches and the City of Wilmington. The county is the easternmost point of
Interstate 40, which runs across the United States and has a western point of Barstow, California.
According to the Office of State Planning, the county had an estimated 148,722 residents
in 1999, a 23.6% increase in population since 1990. It is estimated that the county will house
179,810 residents by the year 2010. According to 1999 estimates, New Hanover County is 80%
white and 20% black. The Per Capita income of the county is $28,492.
New Hanover County uses the Commission-Manager form of government. The Board of
County Commissioners is composed of five members who are elected in countywide partisan
elections. The members serve staggered four-year terms. The board elects a chairman and vice-
chairman from its members. The Board has a variety of responsibilities to the citizens of the
county. They assess the needs of the County and establish programs and services that meet those
needs, establish the property tax rate, appoint the members of certain commissions within the
County and they have the authority to call for referendums. The Board members appoint the
County Attorney and Clerk to the Board. Other elected officials include the Sheriff and the
Register of Deeds.
A professional èounty manager serves as the Chief Executive Officer. The County
Manager is appointed by and held accountable to the Board of Commissioners. The manager
makes recommendations on what actions should be taken by the board, assists in the annual
budget process and is responsible for ensuring that the policies set by the Board are carried out.
There are approximately 30 departments and 1,350 employees that serve New Hanover County
( www.new-hanover.nc.us ).
'1~
.))
Discussions concerning consolidation between, the two entities have occurred due to the
fact that those who are also residents of the City of ,Wilmington dominate the population of New
'-
Hanover County. Respondents ,believed that the City and County have a great deal of
duplication in the services they provided. City-county consolidatiqn is seen as one way to
streamline services and to provide the most effective, efficient, and equal services to all residents
in the county. Although the consolidation of New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington
was first an issue in the 1920s, it has become a mu¡:;h more, prominent role in local politics ,in the
last three decades. Voters rejected consolidatiqn plans in 1927,1973, 1987, and 1995. The City
and County are again in the process of studying consolidation.
City-county consolidation has been attempted more in Wilmington and New Hanover
County than in any other city and county in the state. The difficulty in ~aining public support
for these attempts at consolidation has been due to the fact tha~ many citizens are pleased with
how their government runs. Often issues such as consolidation arise because citizens feel that
there isa need for ,change in the way that tþe government performs its duties. To have a change
in general you need to have a cause or topic that people will rally arOlll1d and support.
Wilmington is not and was not in a state of decay or corruption.
. '. The City of Wilmington has taken a very active role in annexing the unincorpora~ed areas.
close to its borders. The City of Wilmington. adopted a mas,ter annexation plan in 1980
(www.ci.wilmington.nc.u~). The plan was carried out through the annexation of unincorporated
areas in 1985 and 1986. In addition, a second pla1,1 in 1995 called for a three-phase plan that
enabled the city to annex a 27 squ¡ue mile area with a1;>out 27,000 residents
( www.ci.wiltnington.nc.us ).
36
-
The annexation that the City of Wilmington has played a major role in the talks
concerning consòlidaÚon. Annexed residents and those who were soon to be armexed, along
with city residents, supported the consolidation effort in 1995, however overall county residents
did not support the referendum (Wilmington Star, December 31, 1997).
Citizens and city officials alike are often very concerned with whether or not
consolidation will save money for the area. In fact, this issue is one of the major barriers in the
debate. Some believe that in order for city-county consolidation to be approved, voters need
proof of improved service or cost savings. However, often there is no way to predict that
substantial cost savings will be achieved by consolidation because much of it depends on the
consolidation plan, how it is implemented, and other variables unrelated to consolidation. In the
past this has led the voters in New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington skeptical of
consolidation.
The area of provision of services is where major change would have to occur to achieve
some sort of cost savings. The 1995 Consolidation Charter called for a General Service District
that would have included services for the entire County, an Urban Service District that wOuld
have expanded city services to all formerly unincorporated areas in the county, and an Urban
Fire District that would have included the area with in the former city limits as they would
receive the same fire protection as they had in the past (199S Consolidation Charter). The areas
of the county that had been unincorporated would see an increase in the services that they were
provided with under the new government.
The question of "Who will govern?" has plaÿed an important role in consolidation
discussions. When moving from two independent governing bodies to one, there is the question
of what the new governing body will look like how representative it will be of the diverse
37
'economic and racial makeup of cqunty residents. Officials must decide if the new board will be
made up of at large or district seats, whether the elections will be partisan o~ non-partisan, and
the number of members the l1ew board,. and whether t,hey will be, elected at -large, ,by, district or ",
some combination. The 1995 Consolidation Plan called for a qOŒ1cil Mana.ger form of
government. The Mayor and six council members would have been elected for four-year terms
, ,"
, .
in non-partisan elections (1995 Consolidation Plan).
The role of another elected official, the sheriff, has also spurred much debate. In fact the
question of whether the future head of law enforcement has been a major stumbling block the
, ,
consolidation attempts of 1987 and 1995 (Wilmington Star, April 21, 1999). The sheriff is an
elected official while the chief of police is an ,appointed positiçm. Wilmington is ~own for
having a highly professional and successftll police force. , City officials want to make sure that
the new governing board has the right to appoint the head of the police so that they may continue
a high level of professionalis,m, within the, department. ,A sheriff in North Caro,lina is not
required to hav~ formal education or other qualifications; they merely need to be elected. In
1995, the Consolidation Charter called for the current Sheriff to be the .head of the newly
, ,
consolidated law enforcement agency, with the stipulation that the position would be an
. 7 ...
appointed one in the future (1995. Corisolidati0l1 Charter).
The issue of staffing, and the roles of ci~y an~county employees have also proven
controversial. , There ¡ire 1,356 employees of New Hanover County and 927 employees of the
. . j;, .,'
City of Wilmington. Each of them has a stake in consolidation. Employees in departments that
'. .",
, .'
only ,the.. city or county have are less likely to lose their jQbs should consolidation occur.
. . .' , . '
However, ih duplicated departme~ts? there is a high probability that some will lose their jobs as
the departments are merged, and one ta~és the lead. In 1995, an Administration/Personnel,
38
Committee was established to look into the impact on city and county employees should the two
entities merge. The committee was established to examine the overall organizational structure,
provide organizational chart of the Consolidated Government, review pay and classification
structure and· compare the benefits and personnel transition (Administration and Personnel
Committee, 1995).
Sentiment has also played a role in the failure of consolidation within New Hanover
County. Allen O'Neal, New Hanover County Manager, said that one barrier to consolidation is
the "threat of losing the City". Many residents feel an affiliation for the city and would not want
to see it disappear. Should tþe two entities merge, the City of Wilmington as it is would not
exist. According to state law, the city would be dissolved. As mentioned earlier, the City of
Wilmington was chartered in 1739. It has a unique and highly flavored history.
In the end, for consolidation to be successful, voters have to accept it. Officials in New
Hanover County and the City of Wilmington realize that it is critical for the citizens to be
educated on the issue. They need to be informed on the affect of consolidation on the services
that they will receive and the taxes , that they will be responsible for paying in the future.
Wilmington and New Hanover's last consoli,dation attempt was advocated most strongly by
New Hanover County. New Hanover felt that consolidation would Clarify government
responsibilities for citizens and simplifies the government process itself. On the other hand, the
city of Wilmington had several reservations regarding this issue. The stakeholders identified in
this consolidation attempt included the usual groups, - elected officials, city and county
employees in departments where services were duplicated, and minorities. New Hanover's
sheriff, who wanted to be the Chief Executive Officer following consolidation, was a specific
39
, stakeholder that city and county, officials mentioned, as were law enforcement departments and
volunteer fire departments.
Issues
Respondents identified the following issues:
.. Sheriffs status: Policymakers had to choose whether to have an elected sheriff or an
appointed police chid to serve under the ne'vv merged government. The sheriff at that
time was popular and protective of his role.
(I Direct Implications for Representatives: The number of people who would serve on
governing bodies had tó be determined.
"'..
.. Consolidation's Tax Effects: The exact effect on tax rates was unknown, but a few of the
intèrviewees mentioned that cost savings were not expected. However, some
consolidation proponents hired a public relations group that marketed tax savings to the
public.
o Differences 'in Financial Status: City offiCials believed that consolidation would hurt the
city financially because the county's financial standing wa's not as strong. For instance,
one official claimed that merging utilities would harm the city because Wilmington's
enterprise system is self-supporting while New Hanover's is not. Plus, New Hanover
was about to build an expensive jail.
. Differences in Specialization: While there may be some duplication in a few areas of '
. servIce proví~ion, cities and counties are' also involved in providing several different
functions and services. Each has developed expertise in specific areas that the other. may
not share.
40
. Matching costs with benefits: If communities in urban and suburban areas had different
service standards, then citizens' costs would have to be consistent with the level of
benefits they receive.
Barriers
The major barriers to consolidation's implementation that interviewees identified were:
o V oter concerns
. Time restraints
.' Lack of a crisis
. City Pride
· The possibility of annexation
Voter approval is necessary to get consolidation passed. Voters in general expressed
concerns about consolidation's impact on their service levels and tax rates. V oters in beach
communities were also concerned that a larger government would not be responsive to their
needs. Unfortunately, as the respondents pointed out, no one could give them specific answers to
these issues because there was a small amount of time available to construct a' plan for
41
consolidation. Wilmington had already started the annexation process and New Hanover hurried
, , '
to present a plan for consolidation to the voters.
In accordance with the Rosenbaum-Kammerer theory on stages of successful consolidation
attempts, gaining voter approval was also perceived as being more difficult because there was no
crisis to create a demand for change among the citizenry. Wilmington was financially stable at
the time and was not in a state of decay or conuption like Jacksonville/Duval County or Kansas
City, Kansas/Wyandotte County cases. Further complicating matters was the identification
many residents felt toward the city of Wilmington. According to state law, the city would be
dissolved following consolidation. Steps needed to be taken to assure that city residents would
still be represented as a group under the new unified government. This was not likely
considering the plan called for a reduction of elected officials and at-large elections.
Process Improvements
To get past these barriers and issues if future consolidation attempts (if there are any), one
idea was to better examine the city and county structures and determine specific ways in which
reorganization could be accomplished. Providing the public with better education regarding the
potential impact consolidation would bring was another frequently suggestion by city and cmmty
officials alike. This process would include a better utilization of communication tools such as
nevyspapers, newsletters, cable television, brochures, and public forums.
Analysis
Common issues in the North Carolina city-county consolidation cases include government
stru~ture, service levels, politics, representation of minority interests, and law enforcement. In
42
each of the three cases, a variety of variables forced city-county consolidation onto the local
public policy agenda. Efficiency and effectiveness of government operations was cited by four of
the six Charlotte interviewees. City/county leadership and conflicting issues between the two
sides were also mentioned for reasons to consolidate. Durham/Durham County issues varied
more than Charlotte/Mecklenburg and WilmingtonJNew Hanover. Political action committees,
controversial citý council decisions, chamber of commerce, city/county leadership, reduction in
city council size, city pay increases, and concerns of efficiency and effectiveness were variables
forcing consolidation to the table in the Durham/Durham County case. In WilmingtonJNew
Hanover, annexation, was the overwhelming variable constituting city county consolidation
discussions. Sales tax revenue, county leadership, department consolidation and political control
were also cited.
Relatively few city county-consolidation attempts have been successful throughout the
United States (only 33), North Carolina being no exception. This study found that a variety of
barriers inhibit the three cases from successful city county consolidation 'efforts. In
Charlotte/Mecklenburg political turf, small town affects, minority representation, vote of the
citizemy, lack of a crisis and lack of public awareness were mentioned as barriers. In the
Durham/Durham County case, again, lack of a crisis, was cited as a barrier, as weÏ1 as lack of
trust in local government, illegal charter, limited time to present a well-developed plan, and
democracy. Again, lack of à. crisis, limited time to present a wen-developed plan, public
awareness and city/county control issues were cited as barriers in the WilmingtonlNew Hanover
case. Additional barriers important to note include fear of a tax increase, little cost savings,
annexation not taken seriously by the public, unanswered questions, and no independent
feasibility study.
43
Stakeholders
Previous research has reyeaJed which groups tend to support or oppose consolidation efforts.
, ,
Naturally, an understanding of these trends can help policymakers assess consolidation's
potential popularity in their region and it can ~nhance their ability to anticipate where objections
are likely to emerge ,and plan for them accordingly. Proponents of consolidation traditionally
include civic groups, business interests, journalists, and professors. Common opponents to
consolidation efforts inc1ud~ suburban and rural residents, minority groups, government
administrators, ,and elected officials.
Charlotte/Mecklenburg, Durham/Durham and WilmingtonJNew Hanover research supports
" '
the literature with the exception of professors and suburban residents. Stakeholders cited in the
Charlotte/Mecklenburg County case include the African American/minority communities, the
business community, citizens, pro-growth interests, small towns, newspapers and elected
'.
officials. Durham/Durham County interviewees cited citizens, political action committees (4),
elected officials, county residents, city/county employees, and the sheriff. The school board and
pro-growth intere.sts were each mentioned once. Citizens, elected officials, city/county
employees and law enforcement/sheriff were listed as stàkeholders in the WilmingtonJNew
Hanover case. City/county departments, beach communities, Cape Fear Tomorrow
, ' ,
(environmental interest group), and private industry (Coming, Inc.) were also mentioned.
Current Status
City coun,ty consolidation, whether on the public agenda or being discussed in private
political circles, is a current topic in each of the three North Carolina cases. WilmingtonJNew
44
Hanover ismostaçtively pursuing the topic evidenced by the commissioning of this feasibility
study. Charlotte/Mecklenburg and Durham/Durham are not as actively pursuing city county
consolidation at this point in time. In Charlotte/Mecklenburg county leaders are champions of the
consolidation effort, specifically County Councilman, Parks Helms. Durham/Durham is the least
active in terms of city county consolidation discussions, but as our interviews indicated, it could
possibly be up for discus~ion once again in the' next three to five years.
45
Bibliography
Administration and Personnel Committee Report. (1995). New Hanover-City of Wilmington'
Consolidation Charter Committee Report.
Benton; J'. E. and D. Gamble. (1982).,.Çity/County Consolidation and Economies of Scale: Evidence from
A Time-Series Analysis in Jacksonv¡'¡le, Florida. Social Science QÙarterly Volume & Page
number missing
Blomquist, W. and R. B. Parks. (1995). Fiscal, Service, and Political Impacts ofIndianapolis-Marion
County's Unigov. Publius'25 (4): 37-54.
Boyne, G. A. (1992). Local Government Structure and Performance: Lessons from America? Public
Administration, 70, 333-357.
Bunch, B. S. and R. p, Strauss. (1992). Municipal Consolidation: An analysis of the Financial Benefits
for Fiscally Distressed Small Municipalities. Urban Affairs Quarterly 27 (4): 615-629.
Carr, J., and R. Feiock. (1999). Metropolitan Government and Economic Development. Urban Affairs
Review 34 (3): 476-88.
Cherrie, V. (1999). "In Close Vote, City Council Agrees to Consolidation Study." Wilmington
Morning Star. IA.
Christenson, 1. A. and C. E. Sachs. (1980). The Impact of Government Size and Number of
Administrative Units on the Quality of Public Services. Administrative Science Quarterly 25
(1): 89-100.
City of Charlotte. [Online], Available: http://www.ci.cbarlotte.11c.us/cicouncil/DUTIES2HTM.
City of Wilmington Website. [Online]. Available: www.ci.wi.!.Q1i11gton.nc.us. 2001 March 10.
Dilorenzo, T. (1983). Economic Competition and Political Competition: An Empirical Note. Public
Choice, 40, 203-209.
Durham City-County Consolidation Volume 11- Supplemental Reports (1999). Durham,-North Carolina.
Durham City-County Consolidation Citizens Task Force Meeting Minutes, Volume III (1999).
Durham North Carolina.
DMG-Maximus. January, (2000). "Durham City-County Consolidation Citizen Task Force Review Final
Report." North Brook, Illinois.
DMG Maximus. January (2000). "Durham City-County Consolidation Feasibility Analysis
Report. " North Brook, Illinois.
Durham NC-History at a Glance. [Online]. Available: http://www.durham-nc.com/history.html [2001
March 27].
46
Durning, D.(i995).The Effects of City-County Government Consolidation: The Perspectives of Unified
Government Employees in Athens-Clarke County, Georgia. PÙblic Administration Quarterly, Fall,
272- 98.
Duvall, Julianne. (i 989). Issue Brief: City-County Consolidation: An Answer to Local Government
Efficiency? A Report prepared for the National League of Cities. Washington, D.C.
Encarta Encyclopedia [online]. Available: http://encarta.l1lsn.com [200 I March 27]
Feiock, R. c., and 1. B. Carr. (i 997). A Reassessment of City-County consolidation: Econ9mic
Development Impacts. State and Local Government Review 29 (3): 166-71.
-----. (2000). Private Incentives and Academic Entrepreneurs: The Promotion of City/County
Consolidation. Public Administration Quarterly 24 (2).
Foster, K. A. and A. C. Nelson. (i 999). Metropolitan Governance Structure and Income Growth. Journal
of Urban Affairs 21 (3): 309-324.
Gustely, R. D. 1977, The Allocational and Distributiona] Impacts of Governmental Consolidation: The
Dade County Experience. Urban Affairs Quarterly 12 (3): 349-364.
Frederickson, H. George and Gary A. Johnson. 2001. "The Adapted American
City: A Study In Institutional Dynamics," Urban Affairs Review, July 2001.
Helms, Parks. (March 7,2001) Personal interview.
Henderson, T. A. and Rosenbaum, W. A. 1973. Exploring the Attitude of Community Influentials Toward
Government Consolidation: A Reappraisal of Four Hypothesis. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 22,
251-275.
History of Durham County. [Online]. Available: http://www.co.durham.nc/us/durco/history [2001,
March 26].
Hutcheson, J. D. and J. E. Prather. 1979. Economy of Scale of Bureaucratic Entropy? Implications for
Metropolitan Governmental Reorganization. Urban Affairs Quarterly 15 (2): 164-182.
, Institute of Government. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. County and City Data
Books.[Online ]. Available: http://ncinfo.iog.unc.edu/library/guide/local.htmI.[200 1, March 2].
Johnson, L.. S., and R. C.Feiock. 1999. Revolutionary Change in Local Governance: Revisiting the
Rosenbaum and Kamerer Theory of Successful City-County Consolidation. Journal of Political
Science (Fall). 27:21-25.
Krefetz,S. P., and A. B. Sharaf. 1977. City-County Merger Attempts: The Role of Political Factors.
National Civic Review, April, 175-79, 180-81.
Lyons, W., and D. Lowery. 1989. Governmental Fragmentation Versus Consolidation: Five Public
Choice Myths about How t.o Create Informed, Involved and Happy Citizens. Public
Administration Review 49 (November/December): 533-43.
47
Lyons, W., and 1. M. Scheb II. 1998. Saying "No" One More Time: The Rejection of Consolidated "
Government in Knox County, Tennessee. State and Local Government Review 30 (2): 92-105,
Marando, V. L.1974. The Politics of Metropolitan Reform. Administration & Society 6 (2): 229-62.
-----. 1979. City-County Consolidation: Reform,:Regionalism, Referenda and Requiem. Western Political
Quarterly 32 (December): 409-21.
Marando, V. L., and C. R. Whitley. 1972. City-County Consolidation: An Overview of Voter Response,
Urban Affairs Quarterly 8 (December): 181-203.
. ,
McAndrews, J. and R. Voith (1993). Can Regionalization of Local Public Services Increase a Region's
Wealth? Journal of Regional Science 33 (3): 279-301.
Mead, T.D. (1994).The Daily Newspaper as Political Agenda Setter: The Charlotte Observer and
Metropolitan Reform. State and Local Government Review; 26 (1), 27-37. ,
-----. (1997). Governing Charlotte-Mecklenburg. State and local Government Review, 32
(3) 192-197.
---no (1997, April). Who Killed Cock Robin? The Failure of Metropolitan Reform.in
Charlotte-Mecklenburg. Paper presented at the Urban Affairs Association, Toronto.
n_n. (February 27, 2001) Personal interview.
Mecklenburg County. (2001, February 20) [Online]. Available:
http:/Vvww.co.mecklinburg.nc.us/comanager!county.htm
Messinger, B. R. (1989), Local Government Restructuring: A Test of the Rosenbaum-Kammerer Theory.
Ph.D. diss., University of Pittsburgh. ~
Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia, (2000).
New Hanover County Website. [Online]. Available: www.co.new-hanover.nc.us. 2001 March
10.
New Hanover County-City of Wilmington Consolidation Charter Committee Report. (1995). '
Oakerson, R. J., and R. B. Parks. (1988). Citizen voice and public entrepreneurship: The Organizational
Dynamic of a Complex Metropolitan County. Publius 18:91-112.
Office of State Planning Website. [Online]. Available: www.ospl.state.nc.us. 2001 March 6.
O'Neal, Allen. County Manager's Transmittal ~~tter. New Hanover County Annual Budget 2000-2001.
-----. (1989). Local government constitutions: A different view of metropolitan governance. American
Review of Public Administration 19:279-94.' ' ,
48
Parka, R. B., ând R. J. Oakerson. (1989). Metropolitan organization and governance: A local public
economy approach. Urban Affairs Quarterly 25 (1): 18-29. .
Pòst, S. S., and R. M. Stein (2000). State economies, metropolitan governance, and urban-suburban
economic development. Urban Affairs Review 36 (1): 46-60.
Region Briefs. Wilmington Morning Star. 2B.
Rosenbaum, W. A., and G. M. Kammerer. (1974). Against long odds: The theory and practice of
successful governmental consolidation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rusk, D. (1993). Cities without suburbs. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
Schneider, M. (1986). Fragmentation and the growth of local government. Public Choice, 48, 255-263.
49
APPENDIX 1
, .+ t· . (' ,
Feasibility Study of Consolidation and Functional Mergers for the' City of Wilmington and
New Hanover County, North Carolina '
Preliminary Outline May 24,2001
I: Foreword
II: Executive Summary
III: Table of Contents
, "
IV: List of Tables
.1;'
Part I: History of Governmental City-County Consolidation and Functional Mergers
A. City-County Consolidation and Functional Mergers across the United States
B. City-County Consolidation and Functional Mergers in North Carolina
C. History of Cooperation and Consolidation Attempts in WilmingtonlNew Hanover
County
(Results of Phase 1: Information Gathering, Gary Johnson/Suzanne Leland, May 15th -June 15th,
Presentation June 19' 4:30pm)
Part II: Analysis of Opportunities and Challenges of the three options: (Governmental
consolidation, Functional mergers, No change) for the five core areas of city and county
governments in the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County
A. Representation Analysis (Suzanne Leland)
1. Types of elections (PartisanJNon-Partisan)
2. Boundaries/Selection (Districts/At-Large)
3. Number and type of elected officials
4. Selection and succession for elected officials
5. Citizen boards and commissions
6. Impact on the minority community.
B. Service Delivery Analysis (Curtis Wood)
1. Identification of areas of parallel services and or functions and possible
economies of scale that may achieve cost savings
2. Identification of start-up costs/long-term cost savings involved in changing
the current service delivery program '
C. Public Personnel Analysis (Gary Johnson, Andrea Mosher)
1. Identification of differences in city/county Employee Benefits (Holidays,
Annual Leave, Sick Leave, Medical Insurance, Pensions for Retirement,
Salaries)
50
2. ,Identification of Potential Additional Costs of governmental consolidation or
'functional mergers
3. Identification of Long-term savings potentially resulting from governmental
consolidation or functional mergers
D. Budget and Finance Analysis (Kurt Thurmaier)
1. Comparison and financial analysis of both the city and county budgets
2. Identification of parallel services, cost savings and tax equity.
E. Community and Economic Growth Analysis (Curtis Wood)
1. Assessment of annexation policies and growth trends for the region that would
be affected by both governmental consolidation, functional mergers or no change
in the current government structure or functions.
Part III: Conclusions and Recommendations
(Results of the meeting of the entire research team: July i5-August 15, Phase IlL Presentation
TBA)
Bibliography
Glossary
Appendices