Sustainable Pittsburgh

Policy Recommendations for Transition Teams

April, 2000

 

Intergovernmental Cooperation

Challenge

Any discussion of local governmental cooperation in Allegheny County must start with the question of why cooperation is desirable. The usual response deals with the inefficiencies created by the large number of local governments (130), school districts (43) and several hundred municipal and redevelopment authorities in the County. This large number of local governmental units results in extra financial cost to taxpayers because of duplicative administration and operational costs in small geographic areas, as well as the loss of scale economies due to small service units. The large number of units, each with the ability to determine land-use independent of others, also results in sprawl and environmental degradation. There is also difficulty in reaching and implementing a decision affecting multiple jurisdictions due to separate and independent decision making.


National Case Studies

Intergovernmental efforts around the nation provide excellent models for local change. Below are three often sited success stories:

Portland, Oregon – The Metropolitan Service District (METRO) covering the three county Portland region is governed by 7 elected councilors and an elected executive. It is responsible for managing the regional urban growth boundary, regional highway and transit planning, solid waste, regional parks and natural areas, the Oregon Zoo, convention center, the stadium and the performing arts center.

Twin Cities – The Minneapolis-St. Paul twin cities Metropolitan Council covers seven counties and is governed by a 17 member appointed council. Its functions include operating the bus system, wastewater management, housing and redevelopment programs, parks and trails planning, long range comprehensive planning including detailed plans for aviation, transportation, parks and open space, water quality and water management.

Indianapolis – Indianapolis is a leading example of governmental consolidation. Unigov includes the City and surrounding county. Police and fire services remain with the individual local governments and a few municipalities chose not to be consolidated. For the vast majority of people and land, however, Unigov provides planning, redevelopment, public works and parks and recreation services.

 

Much has been written about each of these efforts, but they have been infrequently replicated. Each effort took several years and a massive amount of persistence and energy to accomplish. A common motivating factor in each initiative was the commitment to view the region as one community instead of viewing the world from behind the walls of hundreds of fiefdoms, characteristic of Allegheny County. Another difficulty in replicating these accomplishments is the idiosyncratic nature of radical governmental change that requires a unique coming together of the right motivating events and leadership at one point in time.

It is also interesting to note that each of these regions is recognized as an economic success story. The ability to focus public economic investments on the engines of growth rather than spreading them about thinly may leverage greater payoffs in jobs and economic growth than is the current case here.

 

Regional Efforts

In the Pittsburgh region there are two fairly large scale examples of intergovernmental cooperation; ALCOSAN and County Health Department. The success of each of these operations can be attributed to the need to respond competently to increasingly stringent health regulations and complex technical requirements.

More recent attempts by the City of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County realized some success in snow removal and purchasing but also a number of failures including a print shop, a combined 911 center and a joint information technology department.

There have also been a number of recent, smaller scale examples of local efforts around areas such as: public safety, public works, planning and land use controls, development, joint purchasing and public health. Below is a more detailed look at three successful initiatives:

The Crafton-Roslyn Farms-Thornburg joint planning commission began in response to the requirement of Pennsylvania law that all municipalities must provide for all land uses. Roslyn Farms and Thornburg have small land areas and, therefore, found this requirement a hardship. Thus, in 1981-82 the three municipalities started a joint program that permits land uses to be accommodated anywhere within the total area. Under this joint effort the zoning text and map are common for the total area while applications for development are administered by the affected municipality, approved by the joint commission as necessary and then by the affected municipality’s governing body. This case illustrates the ability of the state to provide the incentive for intergovernmental action although, here, in a backhanded way. However, it could also be done in a positive way if the state so chose.

The Pine-Marshall-Bradford Woods joint police force began in 1969 through the realization by these communities that, as they grew, a common approach would be more cost-effective. This has proven to be case. Marshall reports that police costs are 21% of its general fund budget while the municipal average is 25% or greater. Qualitative evaluation, based on satisfaction voiced by citizens and elected officials, is also positive. This case illustrates that it is possible among municipalities of socio-economic-racial homogeneity to come together for a cost-effective municipal service. Interestingly, no other municipality in this area has petitioned to join nor has the existing jointure sought other members. One observer noted that in good financial times there is little incentive to embark on radical changes. Thus, the more generally applicable lesson is that citizens are willing to tolerate additional costs for the sake of better access to and accountability by local government.

At the other extreme, a third case illustrates that hard times do lead to intergovernmental cooperation. The municipalities of Braddock, East Pittsburgh, Rankin (all Act 47 communities) and neighboring Chalfont have turned over their public works responsibilities (and personnel) to the Turtle Creek Valley COG. Along with substantial support by the state, this common effort is providing service while at the same time upgrading employee capabilities.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

The above case studies as well as many other programs have demonstrated that intergovernmental cooperation is possible, efficient and effective throughout the county and nation. Without diminishing the effort required to create and maintain these programs, they are minor in comparison to the benefits and outcomes.

Until the state legislature acts to require municipal or municipal-county mergers or rational service districts, the municipalities cannot be required to cooperate. Therefore, the challenge is for Allegheny County to construct an aggressive program that addresses the incentives and disincentives for intergovernmental cooperation. This program should include:

An educational component that quantifies and publicizes the financial benefits of cooperation.

An educational component that deals with the concerns that cooperation will mean loss of access to government, governmental accountability and responsiveness as well as the fear that a municipality’s socioeconomic/racial homogeneity will be threatened.

Incentives to encourage elected officials to seek opportunities for cooperation. For example, the state could pay for part of all of duplicate salaries until voluntary separation by the incumbent after which time the staffing would be rationalized.

Assistance to those municipalities who are ready to develop intergovernmental cooperative efforts. Enable them to contract with the County or other unit, for service. Caution must be exercised here to ensure that full costs are paid.