City-County Consolidation in North Carolina

There are consolidated governments in Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Virginia, Florida – and in other regions of the country.  But there are none in North Carolina.  Why has it been so hard for consolidation to pass in this state?

It will help to begin with the arguments made in favor of consolidation by supporters of the idea.

First, to some political, community, and business leaders, consolidation appears to be a natural next step in the progression of local government.  There is a considerable amount of functional consolidation and cooperation between cities and counties in North Carolina, particularly in the larger communities.  All of the state’s larger cities have turned tax collection over to their county government.  There are consolidated utility systems in a number of counties, and that number seems to be growing.  Inspection and planning departments have been merged, as have purchasing operations and parks and recreation.  When there is a significant amount of functional consolidation, and it appears to be working well, it’s not surprising that leaders would ask, why not take the next step and consolidate governing boards and administrators?

Second, the business community has often been attracted to consolidation, believing that it offers opportunities for greater efficiency in local government.  Duplication of services or activities might be avoided; economies of scale might be realized.  In addition, the idea of having to deal with only one government rather than two has proved attractive to business organizations.

Third, many observers believe that the city and county are part of a single community, and they are particularly pained when there is conflict between the city government and county government.  Consolidation won’t eliminate the reasons – philosophical, economic, or otherwise – that lie behind such conflict, but it will internalize the conflict, and, with only a single governing board, permit reaching a decision on divisive issues.

Fourth, some believe that there are fiscal inequities in the current arrangements for local government and look to the structures of a consolidated government as a way to eliminate them.  City residents sometimes believe that their taxes are paying for county services provided only to residents of the unincorporated area, or that those same residents come into the city and use city services without paying for them.  Extraterritorial customers of a city utility might resent having to pay higher rates for the same service provided city residents, especially when their properties are closer to the water treatment or sewer treatment plant.  One of the fundamental principles of the service district concept that underlies consolidation in North Carolina is that citizens would pay for those services they receive and not pay for services they do not receive.

Fifth, some residents of the city fringe see consolidation as a way to avoid annexation by the city.  Although a consolidated government’s governing board might as easily expand the urban service district as a city might annex, the affected citizens at least can vote for the board making the decision.

For the most part these are “good government” reasons to support consolidation, and while they are attractive, they rarely cause citizens to become passionate supporters of consolidation proposals.  In the absence of widespread dissatisfaction with current arrangements, these sorts of reasons do not appear to strongly motivate citizens to vote for change, to vote, if you will, for an unknown.  In addition, there are a number of groups that are likely to oppose consolidation proposals as a general principle, and they may be more strongly motivated to vote than proponents.  Some of these groups include:

• Rural residents, who often view consolidation proposals as an indirect way for the city to annex them.
• Volunteer fire departments, who sometimes fear that a consolidated government will expand the reach of the city’s fire department at their expense.
• Employees of the county and city, who might be uneasy about the effect of consolidation on their jobs and careers.
• Current elected officials, who might not see a place for themselves in the new politics of a consolidated government.

In a sense, consolidation appears to have a better chance at success when it is a response to a serious problem with the current arrangements rather than a proposal that seeks to make a satisfactory arrangement better.

Recognizing these points, some of the consolidation efforts profiled on this website have sought to not only consolidate the county and city governments but also reform them in some fashion.  The hope is that the promise of reform will create new support for the basic proposal.  Thus, Charlotte-Mecklenburg I moved from the manager system in place in both the county and city to a version of a strong mayor plan; and Durham I included a set of anti-discrimination provisions, applicable to the private sector, that was at the cutting edge of its time.  In retrospect, it seems these efforts to add reform to consolidation rarely added new support for change but more likely alienated some voters who might otherwise have voted for consolidation.

A major problem for consolidation proponents in North Carolina is that it is very difficult to argue that merger of county and city will lead to any significant cost savings.  The fact is that counties and cities in this state largely do different things.  The bulk of a county’s budget pays for public education, social services, public health, and mental health, all functions generally not provided by cities.  Cities, by contrast, maintain streets, provide door-to-door garbage collection, and maintain professional fire departments – services that are either not provided by counties at all or that are provided at quite different service levels.  Even when a county and city provide the same service – for example, law enforcement or planning – they do it in different areas.  The principal duplication is in administrative departments – the manager and his or her staff, finance, human resources, and the like – and these are not major cost centers in local government.  When the group drafting a charter for Charlotte-Mecklenburg in 1995 asked city and county staff to estimate likely cost savings because of merger, the staff group came up with about $4 million – at a time when the combined budgets of the two governments was $1.4 billion.  The lack of significant cost savings isn’t likely to lead to opposition to consolidation, but it’s not likely to encourage support either.

Finally, many persons are attracted to consolidation as an abstract proposition, an idea that seems to make sense for local government.  But voters vote on a concrete proposal, and a number of elements in any specific proposal are likely to have been contested.  Making a choice on the structure of the governing board, on how law enforcement is to be organized, on how current employees will be treated, or on a number of other issues, will rarely cause people to become supporters of consolidation, but it is likely to cause others to become opponents.