Readers: Clusters of Cities Need to Lead Effort to Consolidate
Readers last week indicated how consolidation of St. Louis County’s 91 municipalities should happen:
- Clusters of cities need to lead the effort. 74 [44.85%]
- County leaders need to lead the effort 48 [29.09%]
- The state needs to force consolidation 32 [19.39%]
- Other answer… 6 [3.64%]
- We don’t, 91 municipalities in St. Louis County is fine 4 [2.42%]
- Unsure/no opinion 1 [0.61%]
The top vote getter is the one that will never result in any meaningful consolidation – leaving it up to cities. Â I personally think the state needs to step in to make this happen.
- not going to happen. these clusters formed to separate themselves for a reason
- Reduce it to what number? Or how many can be disolved?
- Cities need to join together for better fiscal responsibility
- Enforce a minimum population requirement on municipalities.
- Why? Who cares?
- Voters in the munis should decide
Voters? Again, that is the same as saying nothing should change.
The list above will not change substantially unless the county and/or state takes action. Â A first step though, is for some to unincorporate. Saint George is the only one considering such action. Actually just dissolving each of the 91 would be the simplest.
– Steve Patterson
Agree. Let the county dissolve them all, state involment isn’t necessary.
Agree. Let the county dissolve them all, state involment isn’t necessary.
St. Louis County doesn’t have the legal authority to dissolve municipalities.
The county doesn’t have that power.
How have other states done it? In Kentucky, the legislature needed to pass enabling legislation/change some laws to make it possible, but it took strong local leadership for it to happen in Louisville. I assume the same thing happened in both Indiana (Indianapolis) and Oklahoma (Oklahoma City).
Have to agree with Steve that just disolving many of the smaller ones would be the simplest, especially since the county seems to have a pretty positive track record in south county.
In theory, the state legislature could change the ground rules for what it takes to stay incorporated, but why would they? They wouldn’t benefit from the increased efficiency, and many have held office at the local level before serving at the state level.
Unfortunately, logic rarely outweighs emotion on this issue. The only way significant change will happen is when there is some major financial reason to do so. Heck, we can’t even do something as simple as consolidating where and how we pay personal property taxes and license fees for motor vehicles (like most states already do)!
Have to agree with, the first and foremost what needs to happen and one with the least political hurdles at the moment is to get the smaller county munis to either dissolve or be annexed. This gets rid of a lot of the “I need or the constituents want a local voice” perception vs the reality of local political fiefdoms that do little for quality government services and professional ability demanded of health and safety officials.
The question is what is the incentive? money as you state JZ71. The end game might the county stating that it would not provide any services to any communities under a certain population threshhold, say 500. Then the number increases to 1000 in two years. I Don’t know the legallity, but it would probably bring attention to the mass of voters who simply don’t care or don’t vote on off year elections.
I still don’t think it should be about merging at the end of the day as it political becomes a long drawn out process with very little likelyhood of happening or chance of succeeding in the short term. But completely dumbfounded on why their is essentially a need for what amounts to two seperate county functions. Consolidation of county funcions is a win win for the tax base, getting all the major parks (already halfway there with the zoo-museum district) under the county or seperate tax entitiy is a win win. Getting the major arterial roads under the county and a bigger population count in competing for future fed/grant dollars is a win win situation and finally, a single economic development along with the existing Metro structure and a possibility of two more tax credit programs – Areotropolis and Data center bills would be a big step going forward. I think the business community understands it, local institutions – such as Wash U, etc. are starting to grasp it, and Slay or Dooley are talking about it as elections are over and business leaders are telling them what they want next.
St. Louis County doesn’t have the legal authority to dissolve municipalities.
The county doesn’t have that power.
How have other states done it? In Kentucky, the legislature needed to pass enabling legislation/change some laws to make it possible, but it took strong local leadership for it to happen in Louisville. I assume the same thing happened in both Indiana (Indianapolis) and Oklahoma (Oklahoma City).
Have to agree with Steve that just disolving many of the smaller ones would be the simplest, especially since the county seems to have a pretty positive track record in south county.
In theory, the state legislature could change the ground rules for what it takes to stay incorporated, but why would they? They wouldn’t benefit from the increased efficiency, and many have held office at the local level before serving at the state level.
Unfortunately, logic rarely outweighs emotion on this issue. The only way significant change will happen is when there is some major financial reason to do so. Heck, we can’t even do something as simple as consolidating where and how we pay personal property taxes and license fees for motor vehicles (like most states already do)!
What were the election results for St. George? Did the write-in candidate win? I hope they unincorporate themselves.
What were the election results for St. George? Did the write-in candidate win? I hope they unincorporate themselves.
One example from Florida, where fire departments are sharing / not replicating services: http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/local/flagler/2011/04/13/fire-departments-sharing-resources-in-flagler.html The various entities remain in place, but are working smarter.
In some services, like building inspetion, St. Louis County is already playing a large and growing role. Many small cities want a say in what gets built (planning & zoning), but don’t want the responsibility for how it’s built (building inspection), so they’re transferring that part to the county. The same is happening, to a lesser degee, with police departments.
The bigger problem I see in the county is that besides the many small cities, there are also many separate districts – school, fire, transportation development – that have different boundaries and different governing bodies, many times flying below most voters’ radar. In the city, there’s no question about who does what and who’s responsible. I do know that when Louisville and Jefferson County merged in Kentucky, the two major sticking points were merging the city and county police departments, as well as the city and county schools – I’d expect the same here.
One example from Florida, where fire departments are sharing / not replicating services: http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/local/flagler/2011/04/13/fire-departments-sharing-resources-in-flagler.html The various entities remain in place, but are working smarter.
In some services, like building inspetion, St. Louis County is already playing a large and growing role. Many small cities want a say in what gets built (planning & zoning), but don’t want the responsibility for how it’s built (building inspection), so they’re transferring that part to the county. The same is happening, to a lesser degee, with police departments.
The bigger problem I see in the county is that besides the many small cities, there are also many separate districts – school, fire, transportation development – that have different boundaries and different governing bodies, many times flying below most voters’ radar. In the city, there’s no question about who does what and who’s responsible. I do know that when Louisville and Jefferson County merged in Kentucky, the two major sticking points were merging the city and county police departments, as well as the city and county schools – I’d expect the same here.
The Missouri Constitution – Article VI, Section 30 (a & b), provides that a Board of Freeholders is appointed by the City of the St. Louis and St. Louis County and they can devise a plan for the citizens of both the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County to vote on any plan that changes the make up St. Louis County including the addition of St. Louis City. In the 1980, I went to quite of few of these Board of Freeholder meetings concerning the dissolving of 54 county municipalities. Wayne Millsap was the chairman if I recall correctly. The city and the county each appoint 9 members and the governor appoints the chair of the 19 member board. There has to be a plan brought forward and voted on within one year after the board is appointed. It has happened at least three times and two were voted down and the 80s plan was overturned in court before it could be voted on.
The Missouri Constitution – Article VI, Section 30 (a & b), provides that a Board of Freeholders is appointed by the City of the St. Louis and St. Louis County and they can devise a plan for the citizens of both the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County to vote on any plan that changes the make up St. Louis County including the addition of St. Louis City. In the 1980, I went to quite of few of these Board of Freeholder meetings concerning the dissolving of 54 county municipalities. Wayne Millsap was the chairman if I recall correctly. The city and the county each appoint 9 members and the governor appoints the chair of the 19 member board. There has to be a plan brought forward and voted on within one year after the board is appointed. It has happened at least three times and two were voted down and the 80s plan was overturned in court before it could be voted on.
Have to agree with, the first and foremost what needs to happen and one with the least political hurdles at the moment is to get the smaller county munis to either dissolve or be annexed. This gets rid of a lot of the “I need or the constituents want a local voice” perception vs the reality of local political fiefdoms that do little for quality government services and professional ability demanded of health and safety officials.
The question is what is the incentive? money as you state JZ71. The end game might the county stating that it would not provide any services to any communities under a certain population threshhold, say 500. Then the number increases to 1000 in two years. I Don’t know the legallity, but it would probably bring attention to the mass of voters who simply don’t care or don’t vote on off year elections.
I still don’t think it should be about merging at the end of the day as it political becomes a long drawn out process with very little likelyhood of happening or chance of succeeding in the short term. But completely dumbfounded on why their is essentially a need for what amounts to two seperate county functions. Consolidation of county funcions is a win win for the tax base, getting all the major parks (already halfway there with the zoo-museum district) under the county or seperate tax entitiy is a win win. Getting the major arterial roads under the county and a bigger population count in competing for future fed/grant dollars is a win win situation and finally, a single economic development along with the existing Metro structure and a possibility of two more tax credit programs – Areotropolis and Data center bills would be a big step going forward. I think the business community understands it, local institutions – such as Wash U, etc. are starting to grasp it, and Slay or Dooley are talking about it as elections are over and business leaders are telling them what they want next.