National League of Cities

A Report from
NLC’s
CityFutures Program

Guide to Successful
Local Government
Collaboration
in America’s Regions

Co-sponsored by the
Alliance for Regional Stewardship
 ABOUT THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES AND THE CITYFUTURES PROGRAM

The National League of Cities (NLC) is the nation’s oldest and largest
organization devoted to strengthening and promoting cities as centers of
opportunity, leadership, and governance. NLC is a resource and advocate for
more than 1,600 member cities and the 49 state municipal leagues, representing
more than 218 million Americans.

This document is a product of NLC’s CityFutures Program. The CityFutures

Program engages city officials in analysis, outreach, and impact on the trends
and changes affecting America’s cities now and in the future. The program
seeks to connect public and policy discussions to the reality of what is
happening in America’s cities. It was undertaken with the belief that significant
economic, demographic, and other changes are transforming the contexts in
which city governments function. In essence, the program seeks to strengthen
government by providing new perspectives on public issues and by challenging
current assumptions. www.nlc.org

ABOUT THE ALLIANCE FOR REGIONAL STEWARDSHIP

The Alliance for Regional Stewardship (ARS) is a national, peer-to-peer

network of regional leaders working across boundaries to solve tough
community problems. These regional leaders come from the business,
government, education, and civic sectors, and they share a common
commitment to collaborative action and achieving results. ARS has embraced
the challenge of the late John W. Gardner: “No more regionalism for its own
sake. We now need pragmatic regionalism with a purpose.”

As a national nonprofit organization, ARS serves these regional leaders and

regional initiatives in three ways: 1) by administering the ARS Learning
Network and convening regular National Forums, developing civic leaders as
practical boundary crossers who can work across sectors to drive significant
change efforts in their regions; 2) by serving as strategic advisors to regional
civic initiatives and campaigns – working with individual regions and
communities to organize and carry out significant civic campaigns or change
efforts; and 3) by carrying out action research that tracks regional trends and
builds and communicates insights into the nature of effective regional
collaboration and initiative. www.regionalstewardship.org
 Guide to Successful
Local Government
Collaboration
in America’s Regions

October 2006
John Parr, Joan Riehm, and Christiana McFarland
 Copyright © 2006
National League of Cities
Washington, D.C. 20004

i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

T
he National League of Cities and the Alliance for Regional Stewardship are
pleased to present the Guide to Successful Local Government Collaboration in America’s
Regions. The goal of this guide is to help local elected officials better understand
new opportunities for improving service delivery and quality of life in their communities
through local government cooperation across city, county, and state lines.

This guide offers a range of collaboration options from communities across the country,
plus lessons learned from those who are using these options today to improve services,
lower costs, and improve their economic competitiveness. The guide also provides a
step-by-step approach to help local elected officials and regional partners meet current
and future challenges and ensure that the public is engaged in the process.

We thank John Parr, Senior Counsel, ARS, and Principal, Civic Results; Joan Riehm,
Deputy Mayor, Louisville Metro Government and Board Chair, ARS; and Christiana
McFarland, Senior Research Associate, NLC, who developed this report. We also thank
all of those whose contributions, comments, and suggestions led to the successful
development of this guide, including: Jane Hansberry, Amy Carrier, Shawn Johnson,
Christopher Hoene, William Barnes, William Woodwell and Gideon Berger. And we
thank the members of NLC’s 2006 CityFutures Panel on Community and Regional
Development and other city officials for their valuable insights.

Additional thanks go to our sponsors. This project was funded in large part by the Public
Financial Management Group, with added support from Motorola Government and
Enterprises Mobility Solutions, Real Estate Advocacy Group for States, Louisville-
Jefferson County Metro Government, and Management Partners, Inc.

This document is a work in progress. Just as challenges to local governments are always
changing, so too are the solutions to deal with those challenges. ARS and NLC welcome
your feedback about this guide, and we ask you to help us make it better with your ideas
and suggestions. To share your comments, please email John Parr ([email protected]) or
Christiana McFarland ([email protected]).

This guide is not a scholarly or definitive review of all cooperation and collaboration
options or even the best examples of each type that we have identified. It is intended to
offer insights to community leaders and other practitioners dedicated to improving the
governance of our nation’s cities, towns, and regions. We appreciate your interest in this
important topic, and we wish you the best as you work to enhance local government
cooperation in your region.

Donald J. Borut David B. Thornburgh

Executive Director President and CEO
National League of Cities Alliance for Regional Stewardship

i
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments .................................................................................i

Executive Summary ..............................................................................1

Introduction..........................................................................................5

Regional Cooperation Options for Local Governments.......................8

Easier Options
1. Informal Cooperation
2. Interlocal Service Contracts
3. Joint Powers Agreements
4. Extraterritorial Powers
5. Councils of Governments
6. Federally Encouraged Single-Purpose Regional Bodies
7. State Planning and Development Districts
8. Contracting
9. Regional Purchasing Agreements

Harder Options
10. Local Special Districts
11. Transfer of Functions
12. Annexation
13. Special Districts and Authorities
14. Metro Multipurpose Districts
15. Reformed Urban County
16. Regional Asset Districts
17. Merger/Consolidation

iii
A Step-by-Step Approach to Stakeholder Engagement....................... 41

Step 1 — Beginning the Discussion: Stakeholder Groups

Step 2 — Defining the Problem/Identifying Assets
Step 3 — Continuing the Discussion: Surveying the Public
Step 4 — Finding the Right Solution
Step 5 — Winning the Campaign
Step 6 — Implementation

Lessons Learned ................................................................................. 47

Final Thoughts ................................................................................... 53

iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Many public and private sector leaders would like to explore the pros and cons of
various ways to govern and deliver services through intergovernmental or regional
arrangements, but they do not have an easy guide to the options, or examples of
communities that have tried them. To remedy this situation, the Alliance for
Regional Stewardship and the National League of Cities developed this Guide to
Successful Local Government Collaboration in America’s Regions.

This guide takes a closer look at the continuum of models for intergovernmental
cooperation. A wide range of collaborative approaches has proven successful — from
the informal Metro Mayors Caucuses in Denver, Chicago, and Atlanta; to contracts
between Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, NC, to share specific government
services; to the recent full merger of city and county governments in Louisville-
Jefferson County, KY.

Regional approaches may not always be the best solution, but the approaches
described here offer an array of benefits, starting with cost savings and new
efficiencies. These regional approaches also present opportunities for improving
service delivery, achieving social equity, empowering disaffected groups, and
addressing regional-scale problems more successfully.

Each option comes with clear advantages and challenges, which are outlined in the
guide. The options include:

Easier Options

1. Informal Cooperation — This approach typically involves two local —

usually neighboring — government jurisdictions that offer reciprocal actions
to each other. An example is the Denver Metro Mayors Caucus, founded in
1993 as a cooperative alliance of the mayors of 31 cities and towns in the
Denver metropolitan region.

2. Interlocal Service Contracts — These are widely used to handle servicing

responsibilities, particularly between and among metropolitan communities.
An example is the Tri-County Fire Working Group in Montana, formed in
1984 to educate the public about wildfire prevention and to train emergency
response personnel in wildfire mitigation.

3. Joint Powers Agreements — These agreements between two or more local

governments provide shared planning, financing, and service delivery to
residents of all involved jurisdictions, with all jurisdictions receiving the same
services from the same provider. An example is the Central Arkansas Transit
Authority, a public corporation created in 1986 to serve Little Rock, North
Little Rock, and other area towns.

1
 4. Extraterritorial Powers — This approach allows cities to exercise their
regulatory authority in surrounding unincorporated areas. As an example, a
recent survey of 315 municipalities in North Carolina indicated that 62
percent use extraterritorial powers for regulating land development, including
zoning, signage, watershed protection, and historic districts.

5. Councils of Governments — These organizations are formed by counties

and cities to serve local governments and residents in a region through
government cooperation. They usually are voluntary and involve no transfer
of authority. An example is the Mid-America Regional Council, which serves
as the association of city and county governments and the metropolitan
planning organization for the bi-state Kansas City region.

6. Federally Encouraged Single-Purpose Regional Bodies — These originally

were created in the mid-1980s to administer some federal-aid programs
around poverty, aging, health systems planning, and criminal justice
planning. Today, single-purpose regional bodies are primarily formed for
transportation planning and funding. An example is the Delaware Valley
Regional Planning Commission, which serves as the metropolitan planning
organization for the Philadelphia metropolitan region.

7. State Planning and Development Districts — These were established by

states during the late 1960s and 1970s to bring order to the numerous federal
regional programs affecting local communities. Most state planning and
development districts are similar to councils of governments. An example is
the North Delta Planning and Development District, which serves several
counties in Northwest Mississippi.

8. Contracting — Local governments struggling to provide services with less

revenue increasingly are turning to contracting with other governments,
and/or with the private and nonprofit sectors. Camarillo, CA, for example,
has become known as “Contract City” because the city purchases major
public services through contracts with Ventura County and others.

9. Regional Purchasing Agreements — These agreements help local

governments achieve cost savings while fostering more cross-jurisdiction
collaboration. The purpose can be straightforward, such as bulk purchasing;
or more complex, such as coordinating bidding and contracting for members.
An example is the Strategic Alliance for Volume Expenditures, formed by 22
local jurisdictions in the Mesa, AZ, area to coordinate their purchasing and
contracting.

2
Harder Options

10. Local Special Districts — This approach is a popular option for providing
single services or multiple related services to a number of jurisdictions. Special
districts often remove from local government the policy control, technical
specialization, and fiscal responsibility for providing services. For example,
the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago was formed
in 1889 to keep sewage from polluting Lake Michigan and the Chicago, Des
Plaines, Calumet, and Illinois rivers.

11. Transfer of Functions — This method is used to permanently change who

provides specific services, with local governments releasing authority to other
jurisdictions. Transfers typically are enabled by state statutes and created
through intergovernmental negotiation. For example, Erie County, NY, over
the last 70 years has transferred a variety of services from municipal to county
government, including social welfare, centralized police functions, cultural
facilities funding, parks, and libraries in an ongoing process of
regionalization.

12. Annexation — Annexation has long been used to expand jurisdictions and
service boundaries in the United States. For example, Sugar Land, TX, has
grown rapidly through a series of annexations over the last 15 years,
increasing its population by more than 150 percent.

13. Special Districts and Authorities — These are designed to address single
issues such as mass transit, pollution control, hospitals, airports, or water
supply on an area-wide basis, typically with a major urban area involved.
They are the most popular form of regional government in metropolitan
areas. An example is the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, which
built most of New York City’s modern infrastructure, including numerous
bridges and tunnels connecting Manhattan to the city’s outer boroughs.

14. Metro Multipurpose Districts — These districts establish a regional authority

to perform many diverse functions, not just one set of related services as in
earlier examples. For example, the Portland, OR, Metropolitan Service
District was formed by the state legislature in 1979 and covers three counties,
24 municipalities, and several special-purpose agencies. Its portfolio includes
operation of the regional zoo and convention center, open space and parks,
economic development, solid waste, housing, transportation, recycling, and
other environmental services.

15. Reformed Urban County — Counties seeking stronger executive leadership

and broader representation in their legislative bodies have sometimes opted
for this approach, which restructures county government with an executive

3
 and legislative branch, but leaves municipalities and other local governments
within the county unchanged. Allegheny County, PA, for example, developed
its urban county home rule charter through special state legislation in 1997.

16. Regional Asset Districts — These are special tax districts used to fund
regional resources, such as arts and cultural institutions, entertainment venues
like sports stadiums, and even parks and libraries. For example, Denver
voters in 1988 created the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District, covering
seven counties in the metropolitan area, to provide a consistent source of
unrestricted funding to scientific and cultural organizations.

17. Merger/Consolidation — This option involves a variety of approaches that

result in the creation of a new region-wide government, reallocation of
government powers and functions, and changes in the political and
institutional status quo. Options range from incremental approaches to city-
county mergers to consolidations involving multiple counties. An example is
the 2000 merger of Louisville and Jefferson County, KY, the first large
metropolitan consolidation in three decades.

To help make regional collaborations more successful and sustainable, local elected
officials and community leaders must involve all stakeholders, from citizens to
business partners to religious leaders. This guide outlines key steps for engaging
stakeholders, along with lessons learned from communities that have attempted
various forms of local government collaboration.

4
INTRODUCTION
At a recent conference of local elected officials, a special session was held on regional
cooperation. As the audience settled in, the speaker asked: “How many of you ran
for office as a regionalist?” There were only a couple of nods from the 30 or so
present.1

“Okay,” the speaker said. “Think of the three biggest challenges facing your
community. Can any of them be solved by only your local government, without
working with neighboring jurisdictions?” The answer, local officials admitted, was
that it was difficult to think of a single important issue they could solve all by
themselves.

This is the great dilemma of regional approaches to governing. They are almost
universally considered the best hope of solving many problems facing communities.
But they are the least likely to be embraced.

Government collaboration is not a foreign concept in

most communities. There are special districts for “This is the great dilemma
transportation or water and sewer services, public of regional approaches to
governing. They are
authorities that run airports and industrial parks, joint almost universally
purchasing agreements among multiple governments. considered the best hope
However, increasing numbers of elected officials and of solving many problems
others are sensing a need for other forms of facing communities. But
collaboration. From townships to counties, local they are the least likely to
governments are expressing a new willingness to be embraced.”
explore a range of regional cooperation options that
start with informal working dialogues and go all the way to formal structure change.
Interest in this topic also is increasing at the state level. Legislation seeking to
encourage and facilitate intergovernmental collaboration has been considered and/or
adopted over the last several years in a number of states, including West Virginia,
Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Nebraska, Kansas, and Iowa.

This guide offers descriptions and case studies of 17 approaches to intergovernmental

cooperation, ranging from solutions that tend to be more politically feasible and less
controversial to those that are more structural and difficult to implement. The goal of
the guide is to help local elected officials explore their options as they consider the
possibility of working with other governments in their regions to deliver services
more efficiently and achieve other benefits.

In many instances, intergovernmental collaboration allows localities to achieve better

results than they could by working alone. A 1994 study of more than 50 instances of
community collaboration found that successful collaborations have four major
outcomes: they achieve tangible results, generate new processes that lead to solutions

5
where traditional approaches have failed, empower residents and groups, and
fundamentally change the way communities deal with complex issues.2

If regional collaboration has proven to be an effective strategy, why have more

communities not embraced regional governance? Kathryn Foster, Director of the
Institute for Local Governance and Regional Growth at the State University of New
York at Buffalo, notes five political challenges of regional action that are important
for local officials to consider.3 These include:

1. The Challenge of Regional Identity. Regional identity is highly important

for regional success. Researcher Anthony Downs has observed (1994) that
meaningful regional reforms are impossible without “effective metropolitan
area solidarity.”4 However, regional identity is notoriously weak because
allegiance tends to be “closer to home” in localities or neighborhoods.

2. The Challenge of Political Strategy. There is no consensus on the best

political strategy for seeking regional change. Some favor incremental,
consensus-based steps over the long term, while others favor aggressive
timetables, mandates, and bold proposals.

3. The Challenge of a Big Tent. Regional efforts generally are more successful
and stable when they mobilize a broad base of support across multiple interest
groups. However, identifying an issue and reconciling competing goals across
these groups can be politically difficult.

4. The Challenge of Consensus. Similarly, coalitions tend to sustain themselves

by favoring issues of consensus over conflict. For example, regional efforts
focused on economic development tend be less contentious and more widely
supported than regionalism based on issues of equity and growth
management.

5. The Challenge of State and Federal Policy. Inconsistent federal and state
policies, often resulting from changing administrations and responsiveness to
multiple constituencies, may simultaneously promote regions while
undermining them. For example, in the greater Louisville region covering
north central Kentucky and southern Indiana, regional air pollution issues are
handled in Indiana by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
office in Chicago, and in Kentucky by the EPA office in Atlanta — adding
more layers to consensus decision-making on regional action. Moreover, laws
in many states discourage local government collaboration — especially
involving structural change — by erecting statutory hurdles. These include:
requirements for prior state permission before localities can begin formally
discussing major change; new legislation to authorize the intended change;
and large voting majorities in multiple districts to enact the change.

6
 Regional action is difficult; it requires participating governments to confront and
overcome all of these challenges. But those who have embraced regionalism in some
form feel it is well worth the effort. The key consideration: whether a regional
approach is the best solution to the challenge at hand. In the area of service delivery,
for example, Foster notes that regional action is appropriate in a number of specific
circumstances — for example, when a public service can capture economies of scale;
when it requires ample cross-border coordination; and when it warrants a
standardized level of service. Service areas that are ripe for regional governmental
solutions, she says, typically include: sewer and water service, utilities, airports,
highways, harbors and ports, garbage disposal, transit, environmental planning and
management, tourism and marketing, criminal investigation, public health, and
public assistance.5

Locally provided services, on the other hand, tend to be those that cannot achieve
the same economies of scale, that require relatively little cross-border coordination,
and that do not have to be standardized. Examples include: police patrol, fire,
community development, local planning and zoning, schools, parks, recreation,
garbage collection, youth programs, senior services, and libraries.6

So the question remains: Can any of the biggest challenges facing your community be
solved only by your local government, without working with neighboring
jurisdictions? We suspect the answer is no. And, in the following pages, we offer
regional governance options with examples, as well as a step-by-step approach to
help local officials lead regional change with stakeholder involvement.

Service Delivery — Rules of Thumb for Regionalism and Localism

Regionalism makes sense when a service: Localism makes sense when a service:
- Can achieve economies of scale -Can achieve few economies of scale or
- Has big “spillovers,” that is, affects areas outside the service territory might experience regional diseconomies
- Requires cross-border coordination -Has small “spillovers,” that is, affects areas
- Has a narrow range of preferences, that is, consumer desires vary little within the service territory only
- Warrants a standardized level on equity grounds -Requires little cross-border coordination
-Has a wide range of preferences, that is,
consumer desires vary widely
Source: Foster, Kathryn. 2001. Regionalism on Purpose. Cambridge, MA: -Does not warrant a standardized level on
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, p. 20. equity grounds

7
REGIONAL COLLABORATION OPTIONS FOR
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
This section presents 17 regional collaboration options for local governments, based
on the work of University of Connecticut Professor David Walker and the Alliance
for Regional Stewardship. Each option includes a description, examples of localities
that have implemented the option, and advantages and challenges associated with
each approach.7 The options are organized along a continuum, ranging from those
that require the least structural change (likely the most feasible and least
controversial) to those that require more structural change and may be more difficult
to implement. Case studies were drawn from research files, interviews with
practitioners, and the National League of Cities’ City Practices collection.8

8
Easier Options
The first nine options on the continuum of local government cooperation offer
opportunities for initiating collaborations and learning to work together in ways that
should be feasible for participating governments and should cause a minimum of
controversy. The main drawback of many of these approaches is that they often are
limited in focus; as a result, localities may want to consider other options that can
achieve more enduring and more substantive collaboration.

1. Informal Cooperation
This approach typically involves two local — usually neighboring — government
jurisdictions that offer reciprocal actions to each other. Adding private or nonprofit
partners to the mix can increase the acceptance and impact of informal cooperation
within a region. Further, there is good reason to believe, as author William Dodge
does, that cooperation on intercommunity problem-solving can lead to
intercommunity governance.9

Examples
The Denver Metro Mayors Caucus was founded in 1993 as a cooperative alliance of
the mayors of 31 cities and towns in the Denver metropolitan region. Its purpose:
serving as a voice for collective action on issues that affect the entire region but
cannot be addressed effectively by any one jurisdiction acting alone. The caucus is
unique among regional organizations because of its commitment to decision-making
by consensus, exploring all options, and searching for solutions that reflect the needs
and values of each member. This approach has enabled the caucus to develop
positions and implement initiatives on growth management, multi-modal
transportation, affordable housing, regional response to emergencies, and
intergovernmental cooperation. The success of the Metro Mayors Caucus in Denver
has led to its duplication in Oklahoma City, Chicago, Albuquerque, and Boston.

Contact Information
Catherine Marinelli
Program and Policy Director
Metro Mayors Caucus
899 Logan Street, Suite 311
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: (303) 477-8065
Web: www.metromayors.org

The Regional Jobs Initiative was started in 2003 by the towns of Fresno and Clovis,
CA, and now includes hundreds of private and civic organizations. All are dedicated

9
to the ultimate objective of generating long-term, sustainable economic development
in the Fresno Region by diversifying the industrial and economic base to combat
chronic, double-digit unemployment.

The Jobs Initiative is based on the idea that regional economies are composed of
related industries, or clusters, that benefit one another. Task forces identify existing
and emerging industry clusters where the region has a competitive advantage, and
then devise strategies that improve the region’s climate in each cluster for innovation,
business creation, expansion, and retention. A five-year strategic plan is guided by 10
community values known as the Guiding Principles of the Fresno Region, developed
collaboratively by business, education, civic, and grassroots leaders. The Regional
Jobs Initiative’s goal is to create 25,000 to 30,000 net new jobs by 2008, at an average
salary of $29,500.

Contact Information
Regional Jobs Initiative
Ashley Swearengin, Chief Operations Officer
c/o Office of Community and Economic Development
California State University, Fresno
5010 N. Woodrow Ave., M/S WC 142
Fresno, CA 93740
Phone: 559-294-6027
Web: www.fresnorji.org

Advantages and Challenges — Informal Cooperation

Advantages
• Pragmatic solution to specific needs; often accomplishes a local jurisdiction’s
goals without complex fiscal and jurisdictional components.
• The most widely practiced approach to collaborative public service delivery,
according to anecdotal evidence.
Challenges
• Hard to sustain over time, given the lack of formal structures.
• Very susceptible to shifts and changes in politics, personnel, and resources.

2. Interlocal Service Contracts

Interlocal service contracts are another voluntary collaboration option. In contrast to
informal approaches, they involve a more formal agreement between two or more
local jurisdictions. Interlocal service contracts are widely used to handle servicing
responsibilities, particularly between and among metropolitan communities, and
they often can include nonprofit and civic organizations. The agreements may take a
variety of forms:
(1) A contract for services between two jurisdictions under which one
jurisdiction agrees to provide a service to another for an agreed price. This is
the most common form of interlocal service contract and can cover such

10
 services as law enforcement, fire protection, corrections, courts, emergency
dispatch, building inspections, and code enforcement.
(2) Joint service agreements where two or more local jurisdictions join forces to
plan, finance, and deliver a service within the boundaries of all participating
jurisdictions.10
(3) Mutual aid agreements for emergency service, which detail how local
jurisdictions will provide services across jurisdictional boundaries in the
event of an emergency, often without payment.

Examples
The Tri-County Fire Working Group in Montana was formed in 1984 to educate
the public about wildfire prevention and to train emergency response personnel in
wildfire mitigation. The group includes representatives from: disaster and emergency
services for Broadwater, Lewis and Clark, and Jefferson Counties; Helena City Fire
Department; Lewis and Clark County Rural Fire Council; Lewis and Clark County
Sheriff’s Department; Montana Department of Natural Resources; Helena National
Forest; Butte Field Office of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management; and private
residents and contractors.

One of the organizers, Sonny Stiger of Wolf Creek, MT, said that before the working
group was formed, “a lot of folks were working hard to improve the public’s
understanding of problems created by the build-up of forest fuels, but weren’t making
much progress. By working together, we were able to speak with one voice and
people started to listen.”11

The working group has brought a number of benefits to the tri-county area,
exceeding its initial goals. For example, the group has helped develop interagency
fire protection plans and provided support for acquiring state and federal grants that
help private landowners reduce fuels on their properties. Participants say the close
working relationships that have developed among working group members are an
important outcome in and of themselves, contributing to better wildfire prevention
and mitigation throughout the area.

Contact Information
Pat McKelvey, Manager
Lewis and Clark County Prevention and Mitigation
221 Breckenridge, Law Enforcement Center
Helena, MT 59601
Phone: 406-447-8225
Web: www.fs.fed.us/r1/nfp/MT_Helena_Tri_County_2003.pdf

The Triangle Region Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program was

created in 1995 to coordinate and improve regional and local approaches to the
disposal of household hazardous wastes in the Triangle Region of North Carolina.
The coalition sets goals and priorities and oversees program activities. It includes:
Chatham, Durham, Orange and Wake Counties; the City of Durham; and the

11
Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Operations management comes from the
Triangle J Council of Governments.

A major objective is to reduce household hazardous wastes in the region’s landfills

and the environment. Initiatives include:
• A comprehensive education program to inform the public about reducing,
reusing, recycling, and properly disposing of wastes.
• Outreach programs, public service announcements, media displays, and
promotional materials as education vehicles.
• Collection points throughout the region that can be used by residents of any
jurisdiction.
• A public information campaign with a 24-hour information line.
• A joint contract with a waste disposal company that provides a 10-percent
discount to the coalition.

Among the major benefits for local governments participating in the program are
cost savings and greater efficiency — for example, through cooperative purchasing of
equipment and joint development of specifications for collection facilities.

Contact Information
John Hodges-Coppel, Regional Planning Director
Triangle J Council of Governments
P.O. Box 12276
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Phone: (919) 558-9320
Web: www.trianglehhw.org

Advantages and Challenges — Interlocal Service Contracts

Advantages
• Provides a formal agreement between and among local governments to
cooperatively carry out public functions within existing government
structures.
• Can provide cost-effective solutions to shared problems.
Challenges
• Distributing costs and services equitably among participating agencies can be
a challenge.
• Agreements that lack specificity regarding expected services and
responsibilities can cause friction.
• Each party to the contract must perceive a benefit from the agreement for the
negotiation to be successful; it cannot be assumed that a jurisdiction will enter
into a contract solely for the good of the region as a whole. For example, the
Triangle Region program didn’t choose to promote one regional waste disposal
facility, but opted instead to coordinate multiple waste collection sites.
• Sunset provisions often used in interlocal service contracts tend to make them
issue-oriented rather than comprehensive. In other words, they disappear
when the issue or problem goes away.

12
3. Joint Powers Agreements
Joint powers agreements between two or more local governments provide shared
planning, financing, and service delivery to residents of all involved jurisdictions,
with all jurisdictions in the agreement receiving the same services from the same
provider. Other civic and private organizations also may join. Joint powers
agreements are used for a wide variety of services, including fire protection, job
training and placement, and flood control.

Examples
The Central Arkansas Transit Authority was created as a public corporation in
1986. The authority is governed by a 13-member board appointed by local elected
officials. It serves the jurisdictions of Little Rock, North Little Rock, Cammack
Village, Maumelle, Sherwood, and portions of Pulaski County.

In 1995, voters approved a tax to build an 18,000-seat arena in North Little Rock and
to double the size of the convention center in Little Rock — but with only 300 new
parking spaces. The transit authority led the way in creating a downtown streetcar
line linking the sites and supporting a revival of the neighboring cities’ downtown
areas. Since its opening in 2004, the River Rail streetcar line has met its ridership
goals and generated new residential and commercial development, along with the
renovation of existing buildings.12

Contact Information
Keith Jones, Executive Director
Central Arkansas Transit Authority
901 Maple Street
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Phone: (501) 375-6717
Web: www.cat.org

A welfare-to-work agreement in 1997 between the City of Minneapolis and

Hennepin County, MN, established the Minneapolis Employment and Training
Program. The program enables the city and county to cooperatively develop and
implement employment and training services under welfare reform. The city and
county pooled their resources and empowered a five-member City-County
Partnership Committee to make all funding recommendations.

The committee includes staff from both the city and the county. County members are
the Assistant County Administrator for Community Services, the Director of
Economic Assistance, and the Director of Training and Employment Assistance.
City members are the Director of Neighborhood Services and the Director of the
Employment and Training Program.

The committee administers a total of $23 million from multiple local, state, and
federal funding sources. Without the program, the funds would have been

13
administered by the city and county using separate processes and with little or no
consultation.13

Contact Information
Deb Bahr-Helgen, Supervisor
Minneapolis Employment and Training Program
Community Planning and Economic Development Department
Room 600, Crown Roller Mill
105 5th Avenue
South Minneapolis, MN 55401-2534
Phone: (612) 673-6226
Web: www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/metp

Advantages and Challenges — Joint Powers Agreements

Advantages
• Can provide cost-effective solutions to shared problems through a formal
agreement among local governments to cooperatively carry out public
functions.
• Can provide greater regional synergies with greater than anticipated returns
on investment.
Challenges
• As with interlocal service contracts, each party must perceive a benefit from
the agreement for the negotiation to be successful. It cannot be assumed that a
jurisdiction will enter into a joint powers agreement solely for the good of the
region as a whole.

4. Extraterritorial Powers
This approach allows cities to exercise their regulatory authority in surrounding
unincorporated areas. Originally used for public health and safety purposes, it is now
used primarily for planning and zoning. The implementation of extraterritorial
powers requires state authorization, which 35 states currently provide.

Example
Extraterritorial planning jurisdiction is exercised by a majority of municipalities in
North Carolina, according to a 2006 study by the University of North Carolina. Of
315 municipalities responding, 62 percent use extraterritorial powers for land
development regulations, including: zoning, signage, location of adult entertainment
and telecommunication towers, watershed protection, sediment and erosion control,
and historic districts. The study’s author, David W. Owens of the School of
Government at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, concluded that
urban growth pressures mean the key question surrounding extraterritorial
unincorporated land is not whether it will be regulated, but by which jurisdictions.14

14
Advantages and Challenges — Extraterritorial Powers
Advantages
• Allows municipalities to deal with issues that affect them but are located
beyond their borders without formally annexing the adjacent areas.
• Gives cities added flexibility to influence land-use decisions that affect them.
Challenges
• The exercise of extraterritorial powers can harm the interests of individual
residents in adjacent unincorporated land. Although property owners have
constitutional protection against taking without compensation, many voice
concerns about having the use of their property overseen by a city where they
don’t reside.

5. Councils of Governments

Councils of governments (COGs) are organizations formed by counties and cities to

serve local governments and residents in a region through government cooperation.
COGs provide coordination of service delivery, planning, advocacy, technical
assistance, and project development. They usually are voluntary and involve no
transfer of authority.

COGs became popular in the late 1960s and 1970s due to requirements for federal
aid. In the 1980s, COGs adapted to the Reagan Administration’s new federalism by
becoming regional service agencies for local constituent members. They provide
clearinghouse functions and assume some specialized regional planning roles as well.
A few also act as metropolitan planning organizations — mandated regional
agencies that disburse federal funding for transportation projects. Rural COGs often
play a more direct service provision role, while urban COGs often develop and
propel regional dialogues and initiatives.

Most COGs belong to the National Association of Regional Councils, a national

advocacy and support organization governed by policy and elected officials
representing 15 regions covering all 50 states. The association is a good source for
material on the role that COGs are playing in promoting and implementing regional
cooperation. www.narc.org.

Examples
The Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) serves as the association of city and
county governments and the metropolitan planning organization for the bi-state
Kansas City region. MARC is governed by a board of directors of 30 elected officials
representing the eight counties and 116 cities in the Kansas City region. MARC’s
goal is to promote better understanding and cooperation on issues that extend
beyond the jurisdiction of a single city, county, or state.

The MARC portfolio of issues includes transportation, child care, aging services,
emergency services, environmental issues, and many others. The council also

15
responds to specialized regional needs. For example, a MARC committee oversees
efforts to address terrorist threats to the Kansas City metropolitan area. The
committee brings local, state, and federal partners together to assess needs, develop
regional action plans and protocols, and determine the best use of federal funds.

Contact Information
David Warm, Executive Director
Mid-America Regional Council
600 Broadway, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64105-1659
Phone: (816) 474-4240
Web: www.marc.org

The San Diego Association of Governments serves as the forum for regional
decision-making for 19 city and county governments in the San Diego region of
California. The association deals with issues such as growth management, habitat
conservation planning, traffic management, and criminal justice research. It provides
regional planning leadership in the areas of transportation, housing, open space,
recycling, and hazardous waste management; and it distributes information on a
broad range of topics pertinent to the region’s quality of life.

The association’s board of directors includes mayors, council members, and a county
supervisor from each of the region's local governments. In addition to these voting
members, there are advisory representatives from Imperial County, the U.S.
Department of Defense, Caltrans, the San Diego Unified Port District, the
Metropolitan Transit System, the North County Transit District, the San Diego
County Water Authority, and the country of Mexico. The board is assisted by a
professional staff of planners, engineers, and research specialists. Given the wide
range of cross-jurisdictional issues facing the region, the association permits a more
streamlined, comprehensive, and coordinated approach to planning without the need
to create costly new government entities.

Contact Information
Gary Gallegos, Executive Director
San Diego Association of Governments
401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 699-1900
Web: www.sandag.org

Advantages and Challenges — Councils of Governments

Advantages
• Provides a valuable forum for local governments within a region to work
through conflicts and reach consensus on broad issues that affect them, such
as transportation and environmental quality.

16
 • Can respond to new and emerging regional issues, as in the case of the anti-
terrorism planning committee in the Kansas City region.
• Can be the first step toward encouraging regional cooperation in a
metropolitan area.
Challenges
• COGs have little implementation authority — what gets done is solely
dependent on the goodwill and cooperation of each member municipality. As
a result, it is very difficult to effect change on issues involving serious
disagreement.
• Even for issues where there is consensus, there are no guarantees that every
member municipality will effectively implement an agreed-on policy.
• As a rule, COGs tend to focus on local governments as their constituents,
rather than the residents of the region. This can discourage resident
participation.

6. Federally Encouraged Single-Purpose Regional Bodies

Single-purpose regional bodies originally were created to administer some federal-aid
programs around poverty, aging, health systems planning, and criminal justice
planning. Their numbers dropped in the mid-1980s due to budget and program cuts
and other factors (including the incorporation of services into councils of
governments). New single-purpose regional bodies are primarily formed for
transportation planning and funding. In these instances, the body will serve as the
federally designated metropolitan planning organization that prioritizes projects and
disburses funding within a region. Single-purpose regional bodies also can be vehicles
for job training and economic development programs.

Examples
The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission is the metropolitan planning
organization for the Philadelphia metropolitan region. City, county, and state
representatives work together to foster regional cooperation in a nine-county, two-
state area around key issues including transportation, land use, environmental
protection, and economic development. The commission provides a range of services
to member governments and others, including planning, analysis, data collection,
and mapping. Aerial photographs, maps, and a variety of publications are available
from the commission for use by the public and private sectors.

Contact Information
Barry Seymour, Executive Director
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
The ACP Building
190 N. Independence Mall West, 8th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19106-1520
Phone: (215) 592-1800
Web: www.dvrpc.org

17
The California Air Resources Board is part of the California Environmental
Protection Agency, an organization reporting directly to the Governor’s office. The
board’s mission is to reduce air pollution while considering the effects on the state’s
economy. Thirty-six regional air pollution control districts throughout California
work with the board and local metropolitan planning organizations to enforce
regional and state clean air regulations. The board, for example, has proposed a
significant increase in the use of alternative fuels for automobiles in California by
2010.15

Contact Information
California Air Resources Board
Headquarters Building
1001 "I" Street
P.O. Box 2815
Sacramento, CA 95812
Phone: (916) 322-2990 or (800) 242-4450
Web: www.arb.ca.gov

Advantages and Challenges — Single-Purpose Regional Bodies

Advantages
• They are relatively easy to establish.
• They can play a helpful and non-threatening planning role for the region.
• They are supported by federal funding, which provides a carrot for
participation.
Challenges
• They usually are organized around a single issue, so they may lack a
comprehensive approach to thinking about regional concerns. They also may
be structured in ways that exclude parts of a region.
• While single-purpose regional bodies offer the carrot of federal funding as an
incentive to participate, they lack a stick for enforcing their vision (other than
withholding funds).

7. State Planning and Development Districts

State planning and development districts were established during the late 1960s and
1970s as a way to bring order to the numerous federal regional programs. Initially
seen as a mechanism to corral the burgeoning number of single-purpose regional
bodies, most state planning and development districts are similar to councils of
governments; in fact, many COGs that operate within a single state have become
state-designated districts. State planning and development districts can offer an array
of technical assistance and management services related to community and economic
development, solid waste management, census information and population data, 911
mapping and addressing, geographic information systems, workforce development,
and transportation planning.

18
Examples
North Delta Planning and Development District serves Coahoma, DeSoto, Panola,
Quitman, Tallahatchie, Tate, and Tunica Counties in Northwest Mississippi. The
district provides a variety of services, including regional planning, local technical
assistance and coordination, and review of applications for federally sponsored
programs for the region. The primary purpose of the district is to promote overall
economic and community development, and foster responsible community planning.

The district serves as the area’s agency on aging and as lead agency for the federally
designated Enterprise Community, which includes portions of three counties. The
Enterprise Community designation will bring an investment of almost $3 million in
federal funds and local match funds for economic development and social services in
the area over 10 years. The district also administers Medicaid waiver and long-term
care alternatives, community development block grants, geographic information
systems, and a revolving loan fund program that covers federal and state business-
related funding aid.

Contact Information
North Delta Planning and Development District
Glenn Brown, Executive Director
P.O. Box 1488
Batesville, MS 38606
Phone : (662) 561-4100
Web: www.ndpdd.com

The Coordinating and Development Corporation serves portions of Louisiana,

Texas, and Arkansas. Originally chartered in 1954, the corporation is a private,
nonprofit, membership-supported organization. It serves the economic, community,
and business development needs of 10 parishes in northwest Louisiana, eight
counties in northeast Texas, and four counties in southwest Arkansas. In addition,
the State of Louisiana recognizes the corporation as one of the state’s eight regional
planning and development districts. In this capacity, the corporation works with
government agencies, businesses, civic groups, and residents to develop programs
and services for economic and community development in Northwest Louisiana.

Services of the corporation’s 10 divisions and seven affiliates span economic

development, culture, recreation and tourism, natural resources, workforce
development, international trade, and transportation. Clients include
parishes/counties, municipalities, industrial/economic development groups,
businesses and industries, special-purpose governmental bodies, port authorities, and
the region's higher education institutions.

19
Contact Information
M.D. LaComte, President and CEO
Coordinating and Development Corporation
5210 Hollywood Avenue
P.O. Box 37005
Shreveport, LA 71133-7005
Phone: (318) 632-2022
Web: www.cdconline.org

Advantages and Challenges — State Planning and Development Districts

Advantages
• They provide a regional basis for planning and programming activities of state
government.
• They also can encourage regional coordination of planning and programming
undertaken by local governments.
Challenges
• They can be difficult to implement because special authorizing legislation is
required at the state level, and the process of creating a system of statewide
districts can appear threatening to local governments.

8. Contracting

Local governments struggling to provide services with less revenue increasingly are
turning to contracting with other governments and/or with the private and nonprofit
sectors. Suburban governments may contract with larger municipalities in their
regions for supplemental services in expense-heavy areas such as police and fire —
providing a level of coverage beyond that of a county government. Local
governments also have a long history of contracting for water, electricity, gas, and
sewer services with both publicly and privately owned entities.

Examples
“Contract City” is an apt description of Camarillo, CA, because the city purchases
major public services through contracts with other agencies and private companies.
Camarillo contracts with the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department to provide its 46-
member police force. Camarillo’s police station houses an additional 22 sheriff’s
personnel who serve other parts of the county. Building and safety services are
provided by a private contractor, whose five employees work at Camarillo City Hall
handling inspection services for the city and checking building plans.

Other regularly contracted services in Camarillo include refuse collection and

recycling, street sweeping, landscaping, and transportation-related services such as
public transit, traffic signal maintenance, assistance with asphalt paving, and
installation of handicap ramps. All contracted services are reviewed annually and
renewed on a performance/cost basis.

20
Other services in Camarillo are provided by special districts funded through tax
assessments on property owners tailored to the services received. Fire protection, for
example, comes from the Ventura County Fire Protection District; community parks
are managed by the Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District; and library
services are provided by the Ventura County Library District.

Contact Information
City of Camarillo
Jerry Bankston, City Manager
601 Carmen Drive
P.O. Box 248
Camarillo, CA 93011-0248
Phone: (805) 388-5307
Web: www.ci.camarillo.ca.us

Advantages and Challenges — Contracting

Advantages
• Contracting can provide efficiencies by enlisting professional specialists to
perform services rather than government employees.
Challenges
• Contracting for certain public services can raise issues concerning the
confidentiality of information, as well as government’s obligation to serve its
residents.
• Contracting without a transparent bidding process and strong conflict-of-
interest rules can lead to favoritism.
• For these reasons, joint powers agreements and interlocal service contracts are
good alternatives to private contracting.

9. Regional Purchasing Agreements

Regional purchasing agreements are an approach that helps local governments

achieve cost savings while fostering more cross-jurisdiction collaboration. These
agreements can be straightforward bulk purchasing groups, or they can take on more
complex challenges such as coordinating bidding and contracting for their members.

Examples
The Strategic Alliance for Volume Expenditures (SAVE) was formed by 22 local
jurisdictions in the Mesa, AZ, area — including cities and school districts — to
coordinate their purchasing and contracting. Based on a state cooperative purchasing
program, SAVE coordinates bidding and contracting for commonly used items such
as water treatment chemicals, recycling containers, buses, bus shelters, and traffic
signal equipment.

One SAVE member agency serves as the lead to develop specifications, solicit bids,
and evaluate potential vendors. Then, other members help select the vendor, and the

21
lead agency awards the contract through its governmental approval process. Any
SAVE member can purchase from the chosen vendor, according to the SAVE bylaws
and intergovernmental agreement. The group has a Web site to identify contracts
and facilitate the process.

Contact Information
Strategic Alliance for Volume Expenditures (SAVE)
Sharon Brause, Membership Chairman
City of Chandler
P.O. Box 4008
Chandler, AZ 85244-4008
Phone: (480) 782-2401
Web: www.maricopa.gov/materials/SAVE/member_info.asp

The Miami Valley Fire/EMS Alliance is a cooperative of 26 fire and EMS agencies
in the Dayton, OH, region formed in 1991. The agencies are a diverse group of full-
paid, part-time, and all-volunteer departments serving 800,000 residents. Each
member has annual dues of $0.24 per resident served. The Alliance helps its
members enhance their public safety services by promoting best practices in resource
use, operating efficiencies, information-sharing, and regional cooperation. It has a
wide-ranging joint purchasing program that has included fire trucks, ambulances,
cardiovascular monitors, ladder testing, and EMS supplies. In 2004, the State of
Ohio created a bid process that has decreased the number of items the Alliance
handles; however, the cooperative continues to find goods and services that can
reduce members’ costs. Alliance programs help local communities prepare for
emergencies. The cooperative also provides advice on homeland security issues and
long-range planning.

Contact Information
Charles Wiltrout, Executive Director
Miami Valley Fire/EMS Alliance
444 West Third Street
Dayton, OH 45402-1460
Phone: (937) 512-5103 or (937) 512-5108
Web: www.mvfea.com

Northeast Ohio Sourcing Office (NEOSO) is a new cooperative purchasing and

services program started with grants from several foundations in Northeast Ohio and
targeted at helping 21 municipalities. It now is open to any unit of local government,
including municipalities, counties, special districts, school systems, and publicly
funded higher education institutions. The area served encompasses Cuyahoga,
Ashtabula, Columbiana, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Mahoning, Medina, Portage, Stark,
Summit, Trumbull, and Wayne counties.

Launched in October 2005, NEOSO offers pooled purchasing and shared back-office
services to government members seeking to save taxpayer dollars and generate

22
operating efficiencies. NEOSO’s most popular offering to date is auto parts and
services, with members saving an average of 20 percent on discounted parts.
Participants in the auto parts program also receive individual and group rebates as
spending crosses certain thresholds. They also have access to inventory optimization,
daily delivery, unused inventory buyback, and warranty and return services.

Other NEOSO offerings include: computer maintenance, contract administration,

information technology training, network expense management, and shared chief
information officers. Services under development include pooled purchasing and
services covering tires, vehicle maintenance, and fuel for vehicles.

Contact Information
David Akers
NEOSO
5422 East 96th Street, Suite 150
Cleveland, Ohio 44125
Phone: 216-581-6200 (ext. 101)
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.neoso.org

Advantages and Challenges — Regional Purchasing Agreements

Advantages
• Collaborative buying groups can achieve volume discounts with their
collective buying power, and can realize savings from shared consulting or
outsourcing services.
• This kind of cooperation avoids the need to draw new boundaries.
• Success at regional purchasing can lead to collaboration on more challenging
governance issues.
Challenges
• There are many regional purchasing programs in operation around the
country. However, many pick off a few “low-hanging fruits” by focusing only
on cost savings at the local level. They can miss the opportunity of bringing
leaders together to address regional issues in a more comprehensive and
cooperative way.

23
HARDER OPTIONS
The next eight options on the continuum of local government cooperation are more
difficult to implement than the first nine. However, they can provide more enduring
systems for facilitating collaboration among governments on important regional
issues.

10. Local Special Districts

Local special districts are a popular option for providing single services or multiple
related services to a number of jurisdictions. Special districts often remove from
local government the policy control, technical specialization, and fiscal
responsibility for providing services. These powers are vested instead in a board
(either elected or appointed) of representatives from the member governments.
Enabling legislation is needed at the state level to create a local special district,
which can be funded through special assessments of property owners. Most states
require that a majority or greater of those affected have to vote in favor of creating a
special district before it is enacted.

Examples
The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago was formed in
1889 to keep sewage from polluting Lake Michigan and the Chicago,
Des Plaines, Calumet, and Illinois rivers. The district exercises no direct control over
wastewater collection and transmission facilities maintained by cities, towns, and
villages in the region. Instead, it provides the main sewer lines for collection of
wastewater from local sewer systems, and treats and disposes of the sewage. The
district owns and operates seven water reclamation plants (one being the largest in
the world) and 23 pumping stations. It is governed by a nine-member Board of
Commissioners that is directly elected. The district’s taxing authority overlaps that of
numerous general-purpose governments, school districts, and other governmental
entities.

Contact Information
Richard Layon, General Superintendent
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
100 E. Erie Street
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: 312-751-5600
Web: www.mwrdgc.dst.il.us

The South Suburban Parks and Recreation is a quasi-municipal corporation and a

political subdivision of the State of Colorado, formed in 1959 pursuant to state law,
for the purpose of providing recreational facilities and services for residents of the
southern suburbs of metropolitan Denver. In 1959, approximately 45,000 people
lived in the district served by the agency; in 2005, the population totaled nearly
140,000 residents. The 57-square-mile district includes six municipalities, and parts

24
of three counties. The district’s facilities range from BMX tracks and child care to
golf courses, recreation centers, swimming pools, and restaurants. District residents
elect a five-member policy-making Board to at-large positions for four-year terms, on
a non-partisan basis. In 1979 a foundation was created to support the district and
further the quality of life of the region.

Contact Information
David A. Lorenz, Executive Director
South Suburban Parks and Recreation
6631 South University Boulevard,
Littleton, CO 80121
Phone: 303-798-5131
Website: www.ssprd.org

The North Coast County Water District was created in 1944 when residents of
Pacifica, CA, wanted to supplement their water sources. The district operates as an
agency of the state, formed to provide local service in accordance with the California
State Water Code. It is responsible directly to customers of the district and is not an
arm of local, state, or federal government. Over the years, voters in Pacifica have
rejected a suggestion by their mayor to merge the water district with the city, which
shares the same boundaries and service population.

Contact Information
North Coast County Water District
2400 Francisco Boulevard
PO Box 1039
Pacifica, CA 94044-6039
Phone: (650) 355-3462
Web: www.nccwd.com

Advantages and Challenges — Local Special Districts

Advantages
• Local special districts offer a very effective solution when unique services are
needed in certain parts of a region. For example, downtown leaders in both
large and small cities have embraced business improvement districts to help
them compete against the centrally managed environments of suburban
shopping centers.
• Local special districts generally serve to complement, rather than replace,
local government services. Their boundaries usually can be drawn to
encompass an area where a different level of service is needed or desired.
Challenges
• Although local special districts can provide local governments with a way out
of providing services that they historically would have provided, the price can
be a sacrifice of some of the accountability that comes with services provided
by local governments.

25
 • Local special districts may provide services to residents of multiple
jurisdictions, but their governance structures generally do not promote
regional collaboration.

11. Transfer of Functions

Transfer of functions is a method used to permanently change who provides specific
services, with local governments releasing authority to other jurisdictions. For
example, cities may shift services first to counties, then to a council of governments,
and then to special districts. Transferring government functions in this way increased
in popularity in the 1970s and 1980s.

Transfers typically are enabled by state statutes and created through

intergovernmental negotiation. For instance, New York state law permits transfers
only between governments that are independently empowered to provide the
function, a provision that thwarts transfer of certain redevelopment functions
because counties lack such authority. The impetus for transfers is typically fiscal,
although federal or state mandates, changes in settlement patterns, or political
expediency also may be motivating factors.

Example
Erie County, NY, has increased its service provision through transfer of functions
since the 1930s. In an ongoing process of regionalization, services transferred from
municipal to county governments have included social welfare, centralized police
functions, cultural facilities funding, parks, the Buffalo airport, and libraries. The
motivations for the transfers have included fiscal stress, the need to provide higher-
quality services, and a desire for more regional cooperation.

Contact Information
Joel A. Giambra, County Executive
Erie County
95 Franklin Street
Buffalo, NY 14202
Phone: (814) 858-8500
Web: www.erie.gov

Advantages and Challenges — Transfer of Functions

Advantage
• Transferring functions allows local governments to shift services that they
cannot provide efficiently or well.
Challenge
• Politically, transfer of functions can be a difficult approach to implement
because not many states authorize such shifts, and in many cases voter
approval is required.

26
12. Annexation
Annexation has long been used to expand jurisdictions and service boundaries in the
United States. In the nineteenth century, large-scale annexations were common in
the large industrial cities of the Northeast and Midwest. In recent years, large-scale
annexations have mostly taken place in the West and Southwest, primarily because
of the large amounts of unincorporated land on the periphery of cities in those
regions. The incorporation of suburban municipalities in the East has made
annexation virtually irrelevant there today.

In writing about annexation, David Rusk, a former mayor of Albuquerque, coined a

theory of “elastic cities” to refer to cities that keep expanding their boundaries via
annexation to encompass virtually the entire built environment within their
metropolitan regions. Rusk says annexation can enable the central city to prevent the
loss of tax base that has occurred with middle-class flight from older central cities,
especially in the Northeast. As those residents fled to the suburbs, central cities were
left with more low-income residents needing more services even as they had less
capacity to provide them.16

Examples
The Berryville Area Plan is the result of a cooperative effort between the Town of
Berryville and surrounding Clarke County in Virginia. To ensure sound land use
planning beyond the town’s corporate limits and reduce the amount of sprawl, the
Berryville Area Plan Committee was formed in 1987, with representatives from the
town and the county. The committee started with consensus-building to decide on
the zoning of county land abutting the town. Committee members researched and
analyzed the area’s physical, demographic, and historic qualities, then examined
these characteristics in light of the community’s values. The committee projected
future service and infrastructure needs, and finally recommended land use and
zoning designations that enabled Berryville to gradually annex county land parcels.
The Berryville Area Development Authority, another regional body, administers the
plan and reviews all land development requests for areas under the plan.

Contact Information
Christy Dunkle, Assistant Town Manager/Planner
Town of Berryville
15 East Main Street
Berryville, VA 22611
Phone: (540) 955-4081
Web: www.berryvilleva.gov

Sugar Land, TX, has grown rapidly through a series of annexations over the last 15
years, increasing its population by more than 150 percent. As part of an area labeled
the fastest-growing city in Texas (the Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown metropolitan
area), Sugar Land has added a number of master-planned communities to its

27
boundaries and has plans for more annexations. It is the largest city in Ft. Bend
County, with a 2005 population of almost 79,000. Sugar Land officials credit their
expansion successes to an extensive process of community input, good planning, and
the immediate provision of full city services into annexed areas.

Contact Information
Allen Bogard, City Manager
City of Sugar Land
P.O. Box 110
Sugar Land, TX 77487-0110
Phone: (281) 275-2700
Web: www.sugarlandtx.gov

Advantages and Challenges — Annexation

Advantages
• When annexation allows a central city to have authority over most of its
geographic area, the city can act as a regional governance institution with the
benefits that centralized administration and planning provide.
• Annexation allows for the orderly growth and development of formerly
unincorporated areas.

Challenges
• The nature of each state’s authorizing laws limits the use of annexation, and
there also is a reluctance to use the process as a long-range solution rather
than an incremental one.
• In addition, many municipalities will choose to annex selectively, resulting in
the “hole in the doughnut” problem of poorer communities becoming isolated
due to annexation around them.

13. Special Districts and Authorities

Special districts and authorities are designed to address single issues such as mass
transit, pollution control, hospitals, airports, or water supply on an area-wide basis,
typically with a major urban area involved. They are the most popular form of
regional government in metropolitan areas.

Districts’ service areas can range from a single city block to vast areas that cross city
and county lines. For example, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California serves 17 million people in a six-county area of 5,200 square miles, while
County Service Area #2 in Los Angeles County serves only 25 acres.

Special districts enjoy many of the same governing powers as cities and counties.
They can enter into contracts, employ workers, and acquire real property through
purchase or eminent domain. They also can issue debt, impose taxes, levy

28
assessments, and charge fees for their services. Special districts, like other
governments, can sue and be sued.

Example
The Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority in New York City is one of the first
and most famous public authorities ever created. The brainchild of Robert Moses,
Triborough built most of New York City’s modern infrastructure, including
numerous bridges and tunnels connecting Manhattan to the city’s outer boroughs. Its
revenue stream of toll collections allowed Triborough to plan more and more
ambitious projects, even as the city and state faced budget shortfalls that precluded
government funding.

But the Triborough example also offers a cautionary tale about what happens when
regional authorities are allowed to exercise their power unchecked, and become
more accountable to bondholders than residents. Public opinion became irrelevant in
Triborough’s plans, which ultimately led to Moses’ political downfall and the
reforming of the authority by the State of New York. In 1968, the Triborough Bridge
and Tunnel Authority was made part of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority
of New York City.

Contact Information
MTA Bridges and Tunnels
Susan Kupferman, President
Randalls Island
New York, NY 10035-0035
Web: www.mta.nyc.ny.us/bandt/html/triboro.htm

Advantages and Challenges — Special Districts and Authorities

Advantages
• When they have the standing to issue bonds, special districts and authorities
can become very powerful and effective regional institutions because they can
raise capital to finance projects and improvements.
• They also can generate their own revenue streams by fees for services they
provide.
Challenges
• Because of the political challenges of their creation, special districts usually
cover smaller areas rather than large sub-state regional areas.
• Special districts and authorities can face conflicts between their need to be
accountable to their bond purchasers as well as to the residents and local
governments they serve.

14. Metro Multipurpose Districts

These districts differ from regional special districts and authorities because they
involve establishing a regional authority to perform many diverse functions, as

29
opposed to one set of related ones. Under a multipurpose district, an elected (direct
or indirect) regional agency provides or coordinates regional service delivery, while
local governments and often metropolitan single-purpose districts continue to
perform their assigned functions.

“One attraction of the multipurpose district model,” says a 1996 study by the State
University of New York, “is that as residents become more comfortable with
regional governance, new functions can be added to the menu of district services. In
the meantime, local governments — including area-wide special districts — retain
their autonomy, which has political benefits at the time of formation of a
multipurpose district.”17

Examples
The Portland, OR, Metropolitan Service District (Metro) was formed by the state
legislature in 1979 and covers three counties, 24 municipalities, and several special-
purpose agencies. Portland’s Metro came together initially to provide regional
coordination of land-use planning. In the ensuing 25 years, its portfolio has
expanded to include operation of the regional zoo and convention center, open space
and parks, economic development, solid waste, housing, transportation, recycling,
and other environmental services. Metro has 1,900 employees and an annual budget
of more than $200 million, with governance by a president (elected region-wide) and
seven councilors (elected by district).

Before 1992, Metro’s structure and responsibilities were set by the Oregon
legislature. In 1992, the area electorate gave Metro a vote of confidence when it
approved a home rule charter for the district. The charter directs Metro to prepare a
50-year mission and vision plan for the region’s land use, transportation, natural
resources, and water management. Additionally, the charter recognizes that regional
government and regional issues will change and evolve over time. To this end, the
charter allows Metro to work with local jurisdictions as needed to develop solutions
to regional problems.

Contact Information
Michael Jordan, Chief Operating Officer
Metro
600 NE Grand Ave.
Portland, OR 97232-2736
Phone: (503) 797-1541
Web: www.metro-region.org

From 1958 until 1993, the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro) was an
example of a metro multipurpose district. Seattle’s Metro originally was created to
establish a regional water quality system. Voters broadened its mission to include a
regional bus system in 1972, which expanded Metro’s service area to include all of
King County.

30
However, a resident’s lawsuit led to a 1990 federal court ruling that Metro’s
governing council failed to meet the constitutional standard of “one person, one
vote.” (Under the agency's federated structure, some Metro Council members
effectively represented many more people than others.) This triggered a long and
fractious round of negotiations among Seattle, the suburbs, and county officials. In
1992, voters in Seattle and King County approved the county taking over the services
provided by Metro.

Contact Information
Mary Jean Ryan, Director
Office of Policy and Management
City of Seattle
600 Fourth Avenue, Floor 6
Seattle, WA 98124-4745
Phone: (206) 684-8069 
Web: www.seattle.gov

Advantages and Challenges — Metro Multipurpose Districts

Advantage
• Metro multipurpose districts can offer a level of service planning and
coordination not possible with single-purpose districts. For instance,
Portland’s Metropolitan Service District coordinates land-use planning and
transportation. Clearly, there are advantages to a coordinated regional
approach to these two functions.
Challenge
• Political and statutory challenges make this a very difficult form of regional
governance and service to implement.

15. Reformed Urban County

County governments have been changing over the last two decades, increasingly
providing more services and addressing “urban” issues as metropolitan areas have
expanded. Yet the governing structure in many counties dates back a century or
more to when a commission or committee form of administration was sufficient to
deal with sparsely populated rural areas. Counties seeking stronger executive
leadership and broader representation in their legislative bodies have sometimes
opted for the reformed urban county approach. Under this approach, the county
government is restructured with an executive and legislative branch, but
municipalities and other local governments within the county are not changed.

Examples
Summit County, OH, voters in 1979 adopted a new urban county charter, allowed
by the Ohio Revised Code. It replaced the county’s three-member commission,
which had executive and legislative functions, with an elected county executive and
an 11-member county council. More than 30 local governments within the county

31
were not affected. Summit County is the only one of 88 counties in Ohio that has
adopted this change. In 1991, county voters went further and agreed to eliminate the
office of elected County Recorder. Summit County’s current population is about
547,000 people, in a northeast Ohio area including Akron that covers 420 square
miles.

Contact information
James B. McCarthy, County Executive
Summit County Government
470 Grant St.
Akron, OH 44311
Phone: (303) 643-2500
Web: www.co.summit.oh.us

Allegheny County, PA, developed its urban county home rule charter through
special state legislation in 1997. The county sought and was granted a waiver to the
1972 home rule charter statute, to shorten the time-consuming process for
restructuring county government required by the law. Before the change, three
county commissioners in Allegheny County handled everything from elections and
prisons to airports and city planning, acting in both executive and legislative
capacities.

The new charter was approved by voters in 1998, providing for a Chief Executive
Officer, 15-member council, and appointed county manager. The new Allegheny
County officials were sworn into office in January 2000. They preside over a county
of 745 square miles, including the City of Pittsburgh and 129 other municipalities
with a total population of more than 1.2 million.

Contact Information
Dan Onorato, Chief Executive
Allegheny County Government
436 Grant St., Room 101
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 350-6500
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.county.allegheny.pa.us

Advantages and Challenges — Reformed Urban County

Advantage
• Many states have enacted permissive home rule statutes making it
theoretically possible to create new urban counties.
Challenge
• The reformed urban county approach can be difficult to implement because
elected officials often are reluctant to allow their positions to be abolished
through such changes. It also offers only a partial solution to many service
delivery issues that cross broader territory.

32
16. Regional Asset Districts

Regional asset districts are special tax districts used to fund regional resources, such
as arts and cultural institutions, entertainment venues like sports stadiums, and even
parks and libraries. Assets in a particular local jurisdiction often draw visitors from
across (and in many cases beyond) the region. These assets often serve economic
development goals while contributing to the region’s sense of identity.

Two primary factors have driven the development of existing regional asset districts:
(1) The desire to use a region rather than a single community as a more equitable basis for
imposing a culture tax. A driving force behind the creation of the Metropolitan
Zoological Park and Museum District in St. Louis, MO, was the realization
that many of the cultural institutions’ audiences and members lived in the
counties surrounding St. Louis, although the attractions themselves were
located in the city.
2) Drastic federal reductions in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts that
began in the mid-1990s and caused reductions in state funding for the arts. Regional
asset districts arose as an alternative funding mechanism, such as in Salt Lake
County, UT, where a coalition of state and regional arts and civic leaders
supported such a district.

Only a handful of regional asset districts have been created to date. They include:
Allegheny Regional Asset District, Allegheny County, PA; Scientific and Cultural
Facilities District, metropolitan Denver, CO; The Zoo, Arts and Park Program, Salt
Lake County, UT; Bi-State Cultural District, Kansas City, MO; and the
Metropolitan Zoological Park and Museum District, St. Louis, MO.

Examples
The Allegheny Regional Asset District in Pennsylvania distributes sales tax revenue
from Allegheny County (which includes Pittsburgh) to fund parks, libraries, sports
and civic venues, and cultural arts groups throughout the region. Created by the
Allegheny County Commissioners in 1994, under authorizing legislation passed by
the State of Pennsylvania the year before, the district is a special-purpose, area-wide
unit of local government. Unlike other local governments, the district has no taxing
powers. The county is authorized by state legislation to levy a 1-percent sales tax
identical to the state sales tax to fund the district’s activities.

Twenty-five per cent of the district tax goes directly to the county government and 25
percent goes to local governments based on a formula in the authorizing legislation.
These governments can use the funds for governmental purposes provided the
municipalities share 25 percent of any increase in revenue with area councils of
governments or other regional programs.

The other 50 percent of the tax goes to the district and is distributed to civic, cultural,
and recreational entities; libraries; parks; and sports facilities. The distribution is
made by a seven-member board of directors appointed by the County Chief

33
Executive, Mayor of Pittsburgh, and one person elected by the six appointees. The
board also appoints a 27-member advisory board to provide public input and
comment on policies and procedures.

In the last decade, Pittsburgh's regional attractions — from sports arenas to the all-
volunteer Edgewood Symphony Orchestra — have received $670 million in
operating and capital grants from the regional asset district.

Contact Information
David Donahoe, Executive Director
Allegheny Regional Asset District
One Smithfield Street, Suite 310
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 227-1900
Web: www.radworkshere.org

Denver’s Scientific and Cultural Facilities District, covering seven counties in the
metropolitan area, was created by voters in 1988 to provide a consistent source of
unrestricted funding to scientific and cultural organizations. The voters’ approval
ratified legislation passed by the Colorado State Legislature in 1987 that outlined
eligibility definitions and the district funding formula. Since then, the district has
provided more than $480 million to more than 300 organizations in the arts and
natural and cultural history via a 0.1-percent retail sales and use tax (one penny on
every $10). Distributions are made by a 10-member board appointed by city and
county elected officials and the Colorado Governor, following guidelines in the
authorizing legislation. Denver-area voters renewed approval of the district tax in
1994 and again in 2004.

Contact information
Mary Ellen Williams
District Administrator
Scientific and Cultural Facilities District
899 Logan Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303) 860-0588
Web: www.scfd.org

Advantages and Challenges — Regional Asset Districts

Advantages
• Regional asset districts help spread the costs beyond the municipality or
private entity operating a place-based asset that benefits the entire region.
• There is increasing research showing that regions that fund arts and culture
may have a competitive advantage in business attraction, retention, and
workforce education.

34
Challenge
• Regional asset districts can face opposition based on a number of factors,
including:
o The ingrained habit of “free-riding” as communities become
accustomed to using resources in one part of their region without
having to support them;
o The belief that funding culture is not a valid government function;
and
o Resistance to the use of a regressive tax such as a sales tax (a
frequent form of regional asset district taxation) to fund arts and
culture.

17. Merger/Consolidation
This option involves a variety of approaches that result in the creation of a new
region-wide government, reallocation of government powers and functions, and
changes in the political and institutional status quo. These approaches are variations
of the “structural regionalism” described by David Y. Miller in his 2002 book, “The
Regional Governing of Metropolitan America.”18 Miller, in addressing the
organization and governance of U.S. metropolitan areas, concludes that more
centralized government systems are better than decentralized ones in dealing with
regional governance issues such as fiscal disparities between communities, social
equity, and economic development.

Merger/consolidation can happen in a number of ways, as described below.

Incremental approach focused on service delivery

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC, experience has been described as “functional

consolidation” of city-county services, as contrasted with “political” consolidation.
In essence, for the past 60 years, increasing amounts of the major services of the city
and county have been provided across the county either by Charlotte or by
Mecklenburg County.

In an incremental process, Charlotte-Mecklenburg has instituted a set of interlocal

service agreements in service areas that span parks and recreation to public transit. In
all, more than 20 major public services have been consolidated.

This incremental process of service consolidation followed several failed attempts at

political consolidation, most notably in 1971, 1990, and 1995. According to an
article by Timothy Mead in State and Local Government Review, these “failures” may
have stemmed from the very success of the functional consolidation that had evolved
over time. “Charlotte was not in crisis, which would serve as a catalyst for
consolidation...Efficiency measures had been made possible by annexations and
functional consolidations.”19 Mead concludes, however, that as regional pressures

35
become more intense in relation to transportation, the environment, and population
growth, the need for more regional institutions of some sort will increase.

Contact Information
Patrick McCrory, Mayor
City of Charlotte
600 E. Fourth St.
Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone: (704) 336-2241
Web: www.charmek.org

Harry L. Jones, Sr., County Manager

County of Mecklenburg
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, NC 28202
Phone (704) 336-2472
Web: www.charmek.org

One-tier consolidation

This approach to merger/consolidation results in a single new government

responsible for all service delivery in the area. It has been used in the United States
since 1984, but is extremely rare. Of the 33 city-county government consolidations
recognized by the U.S. Census Bureau, most have been partial, leaving out small
suburban municipalities, school districts, and special districts.

Well-known consolidations in larger metropolitan areas occurred between 1960 and

1970 in Nashville-Davidson County, TN; Jacksonville-Duval County, FL; and
Indianapolis-Marion County, IN. There were two smaller city-county
consolidations in the 1990s in Athens-Clarke County, GA; and Kansas City-
Wyandotte County, KS.

• Voters in Athens and Clarke County approved a unified government in

1990 after three failed referenda. The new government provides services to
more than 100,000 people over 125 square miles, with a directly elected
mayor and 10 elected commissioners.
• The unified government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City covers an
area of 156 square miles with almost 160,000 people. It was created by
popular vote in 1997, consolidating Kansas City and the county, but
leaving some cities and towns as separate jurisdictions. The mayor/CEO
presides over and serves as a member of a 10-member elected commission.

36
 City-County Consolidations in U.S. History
Based on the classifications by the U.S. Census Bureau, there are 33 cities that also
The vote in 2000 for city- function as county governments, in three different forms:
county merger in Louisville-
Jefferson County, KY, is the Areas with governments legally designated as city-counties and
first larger metropolitan operating primarily as cities
consolidation in three decades, Alaska
and it has kindled a great deal City and Borough of Anchorage
City and Borough of Juneau
of interest in how local City and Borough of Sitka
government cooperation, City and Borough of Yakutat
including consolidation, can California
City and County of San Francisco
help communities with Colorado
challenges they face today. City and County of Broomfield
Louisville and Jefferson City and County of Denver
Hawaii
County went to voters four City and County of Honolulu
times over four decades trying Kansas
to get approval of a merger of Unified Government of Wyandotte County and City of Kansas City
Montana
city and county governments. Anaconda-Deer Lodge County
They finally succeeded in Butte-Silver Bow County
2000, and the new Louisville-
Jefferson County Metro Areas designated as metropolitan governments and operating
primarily as cities
Government was launched in
January 2003. Tennessee
Hartsville and Trousdale County
Lynchburg and Moore County
The merger brought together Nashville and Davidson County
the executive and legislative
branches of Jefferson County Areas having certain types of county offices, but as part of
and its largest city- Louisville, another government (city, township, special district, state)
covering a jurisdiction of 386 Florida
square miles. Incorporated County of Duval (City of Jacksonville)
Georgia
suburban cities in the county County of Clarke (City of Athens)
stayed intact with their pre- County of Muscogee (City of Columbus)
merger boundaries, services, County of Richmond (City of Augusta)
Hawaii
and elected officials. There County of Kalawao (State of Hawaii)
were 94 suburban cities at the Indiana
time of merger, home to one- County of Marion (City of Indianapolis)
Kentucky
third of the county population. Lexington-Fayette Urban County
Louisville-Jefferson County
All residents of the new Louisiana
Parish of East Baton Rouge (City of Baton Rouge)
Louisville Metro, almost Parish of Lafayette (City of Lafayette)
700,000, vote for a single Parish of Orleans (City of New Orleans)
mayor. A 26-member Metro Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government
Massachusetts
Council is elected by districts, County of Nantucket (Town of Nantucket)
which include residents of the County of Suffolk (City of Boston)
former City of Louisville (now New York
Counties of Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, and Richmond (part of City of NY)
an “urban services district”), Pennsylvania
the incorporated suburban County of Philadelphia (City of Philadelphia)
cities, and previously unincor-

37
porated areas of the county. The new Metro government is classified as a city and a
county under the unique state statute that was created for the new entity.

Left unchanged were a three-tier level of property taxes that varies according to the
level of services received in the urban services district, suburban cities, and
unincorporated areas.

Contact Information
Jerry Abramson, Mayor
Louisville Metro
527 W. Jefferson St.
Louisville, KY 40202
Phone: (502) 574-2003
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.louisvilleky.gov

Heidi Davidson, Mayor

301 College Ave., Suite 300
Athens-Clarke County, GA 30601
Phone: 706-613-3010
Email: [email protected]
Web:www.athensclarkecounty.com

Joe Reardon, Mayor

701 North 7th St.
Kansas City, KS 66101
Phone: 913-573-5010
Web: www.wycokck.org

Two-tier consolidation

This option results in regions with two levels of government, one to provide services
at the local level and another to address regional issues. Local governments retain
their autonomy and identity, and the regional tier provides regional functions.

Miami-Dade County was formed when Florida voters approved an amendment to

the state constitution in 1956, allowing for a home rule charter, and voters in Miami-
Dade County adopted a charter in 1957. Miami-Dade is comprised of a large
unincorporated area and 30 incorporated areas or municipalities. Each municipality
has its own government and provides such city-type services as police and zoning
protection. Miami-Dade County is governed by a mayor who is elected countywide
and a board of commissioners elected from 13 districts. The mayor appoints a county
manager, subject to approval of the commissioners. Additionally, there are mayors
elected individually in Miami and the other 34 municipalities.

38
Contact Information
Carlos Alvarez, Mayor
Miami-Dade County
111 N.W. 1st Street, 29th Floor
Miami, FL 33128
Phone: (305) 375-5071
Web: www.miamidade.gov

Three-tier consolidation

This approach has been used only twice in the United States, and includes multiple
counties. Its rarity is due in part to the fact that it is hard to enact, requiring state
legislation and often a constitutional amendment.

One region that has adopted a three-tier consolidation approach is Portland, OR,
with its Metropolitan Service District (Metro) system (see page 30). The other is the
Twin Cities area in Minnesota. The Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities was
established in 1967 by the state legislature. It is governed by a 17-member board of
metropolitan-area residents appointed by the governor, who also appoints the chair.
The Metropolitan Council has taxing and policy-making authority over certain area-
wide special districts and local planning processes.

The Metropolitan Council provides a wide range of services to the region, including:
• Operating the region’s largest bus system;
• Collecting and treating wastewater;
• Maintaining an urban service area to guide orderly regional growth;
• Providing affordable housing;
• Planning, acquiring, and funding a regional system of parks and trails; and
• Providing a framework for decision-making and provision of regional services,
including aviation, transportation, parks and open space, water quality, and
water management.

Contact Information
Peter Bell, Council Chair
The Metropolitan Council
390 N. Robert St.
St. Paul, MN 55101
Phone: (651) 602-1453
Web: www.metrocouncil.org

Advantages and Challenges — Merger/Consolidation

Advantages
• Clearly, there is potential for great efficiency and effectiveness in having
fewer governments (or just one) delivering and accountable for services.
Consolidated governments cite an array of benefits stemming from unified
leadership and a more focused community agenda. These benefits include

39
 improved success in economic development and increased collaboration
and partnerships throughout the region.
• Two-tier consolidation is attractive because it keeps some services
localized, as needed, and provides regional service delivery for services
that affect the entire region.
• It is difficult to calculate actual savings and improvements in services
under consolidations because there are so many variables. However,
independent analysis of both Louisville-Jefferson County, KY, and
Athens-Clarke County, GA, document savings and improvements. Both
communities have increased their credit ratings after consolidation.
Louisville decreased its government workforce by 10 percent overall, and
Athens saw its general government expenditures decline by 10 percent in
the five years after merger. Louisville also touts a savings in executive
branch salaries and from efficiencies such as consolidating banking
services, and has extended countywide several new services previously
offered only in the City of Louisville, without tax increases.

Challenges
• The challenges of merger/consolidation are primarily political. Getting
the necessary authorization from the state, overcoming resistance from
local elected officials and addressing concerns about equal representation
in the new government all can pose problems. In Indianapolis and
Louisville, for example, African-American leaders felt that merger would
dilute the political and economic interests of minority residents.
• As a result of these difficulties, many merger referenda have failed at the
polls — including in communities that eventually approved consolidation
— and many more initiatives have never even made it to the ballot.
• Some communities have concluded that the time and energy spent dealing
with the political challenges of merger/consolidation could better be used
implementing less intensive and more easily achievable forms of local
government cooperation and collaboration.

40
A STEP-BY-STEP APPROACH TO STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT
Before undertaking a regional collaboration approach, some local officials may ask
themselves, “How do I begin a dialogue about regional cooperation with my
neighboring jurisdictions, citizens, and others?” This is precisely the right question
because regional strategies require stakeholder engagement and support. This section
of the guide offers local elected leaders a brief, step-by-step approach showing how to
involve all stakeholders, from citizens to business partners to religious leaders, to
help make regional collaborations more successful and sustainable.
The National League of Cities’
Strengthening Democratic Local
Step 1 — Beginning the Discussion: Governance initiative seeks to
Stakeholder Groups facilitate leadership by local
elected officials on issues of
The basic premise behind public engagement and democratic governance and civic
collaboration is this: If you bring the appropriate engagement. For additional
people together in constructive ways with good information on how to mobilize
information, they will create authentic visions and citizens, overcome conflicts, and
solve critical public problems,
strategies for addressing the shared concerns of the look for the most recent report of
community. the initiative, Building
Democratic Governance: Tools
Increasingly, leaders from business, government, and Structures for Engaging
nonprofit organizations, and foundations are working Citizens, on NLC’s Web site at
collaboratively on challenges facing metropolitan and www.nlc.org.
rural regions across the nation. But this cannot just be
the work of community “elites.” Diverse stakeholders need to be involved at key
points in the process. In fact, many attempts at new approaches to service delivery
have failed largely because they did not include enough stakeholder involvement in
the process, particularly during early discussions.

Representatives of key stakeholder groups that can be consulted include:

• Business
• Government
• Nonprofit/civic groups
• Neighborhood leaders
• Educators
• Religious Leaders
• Media

One method to help determine what groups are stakeholders is to assess if a group
has any one of the following: legal standing, political clout, power to prevent
implementation, or moral claims.20 Sometimes, groups may not recognize that they

41
have a stake in the issues at hand. Others may need organizational support to ensure
that they can play an active part in the discussion.

Once identified, stakeholder groups should be represented in the discussion by

people of their own choosing, people whom they trust. Their task is to speak with
their constituents, not for them. Also, it is usually necessary to engage a neutral
facilitator to keep the process moving smoothly and to ensure that all participants are
playing a productive and valued role.

Step 2 — Defining the Problem/Identifying Assets

Consensus on how to deal with a problem is something that has to be built phase by
phase. If you can’t agree on the problem, you won’t agree on the solution.21 The
following questions are intended to help reach consensus on what problem(s) the
community is facing, whether there truly is a problem, and what assets in the
community can serve as the building blocks for future success.

1. What is the problem, really?

• Problems that have been identified by communities often include:
− Population growth/population shift/population decline
− Power/authority struggle (within local government)
− Taxes (typically taxes perceived as unfair among different
communities)
− Inefficient provision of services
− Fiscal inequities/fiscal inefficiency in local government
− Environmental issues
− Flight of tax base to suburban/exurban areas
− Racial tension/mistrust
− Corruption in local government
− Economic decline/need to stimulate job growth
• Who has identified it as a problem? Is the problem a perception of civic
leaders only, or is it pervasive throughout the community? (Often,
problems of this magnitude initially are recognized only by business or
civic leaders.)
• Is there consensus among stakeholders that this is a problem? Is there
consensus on the scope of the problem? Has it reached crisis level?
• What do the stakeholders believe are the existing roles/responsibilities of
local government and other community groups in addressing the problem?
• What actions to address the problem have already been tried? What were
the outcomes in the view of the stakeholders?
• How does the perceived problem relate to other issues in the region?

2. How does the problem affect the community’s or the region’s goals and
objectives?

42
 • Is there consensus among stakeholders about the region’s goals,
objectives, and vision? If not, developing a consensus set of goals and
objectives is a necessary step.
• Does the problem prohibit the community or region from realizing its
goals and objectives? How?
• Are current collaborative/cooperative agreements and regional
governance structures within the region unable to address this problem? If
not, why?

3. What are the assets and the successes that will help the community solve the
problem?
• What is going right in the community and/or region, and how can its
successes and assets become the basis for solutions?
• What qualities do the community and region have that make people
choose to stay there or move there from other places? What do people like
about living there?
• What companies have grown and thrived in the region? Why have they
succeeded?
• What institutions have contributed to the region’s quality of life and
character? How have they sustained success over time?
• What assets are endowed by the region’s natural environment? How has
the region sought to preserve these?
• What provides the region with a distinct sense of identity and place?
• How do visitors view the region? Are there attributes they like that the
region should do more to promote?

“Seek agreement on a problem that requires A note about language:

cooperative solutions, work up options that can Every community has
be talked about as win-win propositions, and then terms that are flashpoints
implement solutions using language that is as among key stakeholders in
neutral as possible.” any discussion of local
government change.
“Revenue-sharing,” for example, can be seen by suburban communities as a code for
raising their taxes to support the inner city. In Louisville, merger opponents in 1982
and 1983 successfully urged voters to “Vote No on Metro,” playing on people’s
concerns about metropolitan government. Ultimately, the winning merger campaign
was titled the “Unity” campaign, not the “Metro Government” campaign.

The point is, don’t lead with language and ideas that polarize people up front.
Instead, seek agreement on a problem that requires cooperative solutions, work up
options that can be talked about as win-win propositions, and then implement
solutions using language that is as neutral as possible. Many of the changes may
actually result in sharing revenue, or moving toward “metro” government, but the
real focus should be on identifying and agreeing on the big challenges facing the
community/region, and whether changes in the way local governments operate can
have a positive effect.

43
Step 3 — Continuing the Discussion: Surveying the Public

In addition to asking questions about the problems facing local communities and the
region, as well as the assets they bring to shaping solutions, it is important to survey
the public in order to gauge their reactions to various efforts to change local
government relationships. This means asking open-ended questions such as:
• Do residents think the community is a good place to live?
• What are their top concerns?
• How do residents rate various public services?
• How much do residents trust their local elected officials?

Town hall meetings, newspaper inserts, door-to-door surveys, and/or Web sites are
good ways to gather feedback from residents. These can also serve as an opportunity
to inform and educate residents about the problems identified by the groups listed in
Step 1.

The survey should be performed by or for stakeholder representatives and used to test
their assumptions about their constituencies’ points of view, as well as to gauge
differing opinions within the community.

Step 4 — Finding the Right Solution

Once a problem (or set of problems) is identified, the next step is to determine the
most appropriate solution. Answers to the following questions can provide a
framework for this analysis:
• What are the various options for addressing the problem?
• What are the costs and benefits of each option?
• Who will perceive they will “lose” if a particular option is implemented? How
can these concerns be addressed?
• What is the optimal solution for a particular situation?

If inefficient/ineffective public services are identified as a problem, it is important to

determine which specific services need improving. Different solutions may apply
depending on the service in question. Examples of public services that may need
improvement include:

• Streets and roads • Garbage collection/recycling

• Public safety and police • Building codes
• Parks and recreation • Property and building
• Fire protection assessments
• Emergency medical

The next task is exploring various service delivery options available to resolve the
problems/challenges. Use the options listed in this guide as a way to survey the
various approaches used by other communities.

44
Step 5 — Winning the “Campaign”

Efforts to make changes in service delivery systems or structural changes to

government need to be thought of as civic campaigns. It is easy to become focused
on the details of making the change and to forget to help the public understand the
importance of the proposed change to the long-term quality of life in the community
and the region. This is particularly true if a public vote is
“It is easy to
become focused
needed to authorize the changes. However, even if the vote is
on the details of just among local and/or state elected officials, it is critical to
making the have public support for the change.
change and to
forget to help the The history of community efforts to change service delivery
public understand and structure shows that success is more likely when the
the importance of proposed changes are related to improving economic
the proposed development and quality of life. Making efficiency or equity
change to the arguments on behalf of campaigns for change — especially
long-term quality structure change — is not necessarily a winning strategy,
of life in the
largely because it is difficult to “prove” that the changes will
community and
the region.” directly lead to cost savings, greater efficiency, or more
equity.

The first four steps described above set the stage for success. Residents must be
convinced:
• That there is a problem;
• That the proposed solution will address the problem; and
• That the solution will not cost more than the current state of affairs — or if
there is a cost, it will be offset by the improvements communities will see.

The “Unity” campaign launched by civic and government leaders in Louisville and
Jefferson County in 2000 to secure voter approval of city-county consolidation is a
model that has attracted interest from dozens of other communities considering
structural change. The campaign relied on these key elements for success:
• A simple, easily understood consolidation proposal;
• Focused research to identify likely supporters and opponents;
• Arguments for approving the change that resonated with voter concerns;
• Trusted spokespeople to deliver the campaign message; and
• Sophisticated techniques to communicate the message, including direct mail,
phone banks, and regular polling.

45
Step 6 — Implementation

Once the change has been successfully adopted, it is extremely important to pay
attention to the transition period, because going from the “old way” to the “new
way” often takes longer than expected and can be a very complicated process.

During the transition period, agreements must be in place with all of the
municipalities and local governments affected by the change. Communication with
the public during the transition is critical; local leaders need to provide regular
information about the changes that are occurring, the timeline, and how changes will
affect residents’ daily lives.

Once the change has been implemented, it’s important over the longer term to
thoroughly document and communicate the results, including cost savings, improved
services, and new opportunities, to demonstrate to the public the ongoing value of
the changes. This also helps set the stage for more far-reaching changes that may be
sought in the future.

46
LESSONS LEARNED
Several resources offer useful information about lessons learned from communities
that have attempted various forms of local government collaboration.

From “A Brief Primer on Regional Collaboration,” developed in 2005 by the

State of Michigan’s Centers for Regional Excellence. Findings are based on
the experience of local governments in the state.22
Build on existing relationships.
While there was often a crisis or incident of some sort that may have initiated the
conversations, many regional contacts became more formal after years of informal
discussions about regional issues and shared problems. Remember, you only need
two communities to get started. You can always build from there.

Start small.
After putting a number of potential collaborative projects on the table, narrow them
down to the most immediately achievable. It is wise to start with the idea of sharing
services rather than immediately with consolidation, and to start by sharing services
that will readily accomplish cost-saving benefits. Collaboration around
building/improving infrastructure is likely to show greater financial benefits in the
short term than cooperation in human services delivery, for example — though both
areas may need improvement. Most communities said it took them between nine
months and two years to form a collaborative group that productively addressed
regional issues.

Be as inclusive as possible.
Most Michigan communities that explored local government collaboration have used
a broad coalition, including but not limited to area chambers of commerce, large
employers, local media, nonprofits, the foundation community, public safety
representatives, the faith community, local schools and colleges, representatives of
ethnic groups, and community and constituency groups.

Coalition members can provide instant validation for your efforts. In many areas, the
business community has been the driving force. Businesses are regional no matter
where their physical location, so their interests are directly served by collaborative
efforts. In a number of areas, nonpolitical entities have taken the first step.

Leadership reflecting business, civic groups, and government is best. Work to keep
everything nonpartisan. If race is an issue in your area, confront it immediately and
head-on. If your initial organizing group is truly broad enough, your minority
communities will be represented.

47
Formalize relationships.
A legal entity may not be necessary for initial explorations, but almost all of the
Michigan communities formed some kind of inter-local contract. Formalizing
agreements can help provide validity. A legal entity or inter-local contract also has
the benefit of removing daily politics from the program, not threatening individual
turf, and preventing ad hoc collaboratives from forming. Remember that you have to
cede power to get power. Many local governments want to be assured at the very
beginning that annexation, dissolution, or any other kind of land or tax grab is off the
table. Having third-party facilitators might be very helpful, especially in the
beginning.

Keep reaching out to the public.

Hold special public meetings, invite people to attend visioning sessions, use
community email lists and newsletters, and design a good evaluation process to
gauge residents’ participation. Develop a good relationship with the media from the
start and enlist them as partners in the process.

Look for funding sources.

Foundation dollars may be available to help the effort get started. This is especially
true if you have generated your own start-up funds first. Create strong financial data
to indicate potential financial payoffs. Determine who or what the fiduciary agent is
for your collaborative.

From the “Intergovernmental Cooperation Handbook,” updated in early

2006 by the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic
Development. The book gives general insights as well as advice based on
Pennsylvania statutes.23
Start off on the Right Foot.

• Be inclusive. Invariably, these efforts start with a small group, but try to move
as quickly as possible to share the concept with others, not just the finished
plan.

• Involve elected officials. Many times the idea for an intergovernmental

cooperation initiative does not come from an elected official, but make sure
they are pulled in as early as possible to get their insights on both the benefits
and potential political challenges.

• Involve municipal staff. These efforts immediately can be perceived as

“getting rid of jobs.” Engaging municipal staff who may be affected early
gives them the opportunity to help shape the effort and reduces the chances of
false perceptions.

48
 • Start with an easy project. Don’t choose the project with the potential for the
greatest impact; look for the project that appears most doable. After achieving
success and building new working relationships, you can tackle the more far-
reaching issues.

• Communicate effectively. There are multiple audiences affected by

intergovernmental cooperation efforts: local elected officials, local gov-
ernment employees, residents, and business and civic leaders. Success will
depend on support from all of them. Communication with these groups must
move beyond memos and internal reports to personal contact, Web sites,
traditional media, speakers’ bureaus, and other more public formats.

Maintain a Cooperative Spirit.

• Be proactive. Cooperation doesn’t come to communities that do nothing.

When potential intergovernmental cooperation projects are identified,
aggressively pursue opportunities and work actively to develop a successful
effort.

• Be flexible. There are many different ways to organize intergovernmental

cooperation programs.

• Be patient. These programs will not have dramatic, immediate results.

Develop realistic expectations and ongoing ways to communicate them.

• Think regionally. When new or expanded services are needed, don’t

immediately look to staff changes or contracts with private-sector providers as
the solution. Think about how the challenge could be dealt with if you
worked with other jurisdictions that are likely facing the same issue.

• Brief newly elected officials. Political campaigns generally do not involve

issues of regional cooperation. Therefore, it is critical to help newly elected
officials understand why these approaches are being used. In particular, show
them how intergovernmental cooperation can help them achieve their goals.

Proceed With Care.

• Study options thoroughly. Intergovernmental approaches are complicated and

often require different types of analysis to properly evaluate the options.

• Select realistic programs. Do not rely on theoretical analysis. Run simulations

of how the proposed program would work, including variables and potential
pitfalls.

• Pay attention to the little things. Nowhere is the old adage that “the devil is in
the details” as true as in intergovernmental cooperation. Particularly when

49
 looking at pitfalls, determine where misunderstandings could occur and work
through them.

• Watch out for the “ease of informality.” If you have created a spirit of
cooperation, do not fall into the trap of moving forward without agreements
clearly written down and having the agreement of all parties.

Allocate Costs Fairly.

• Cooperation is free. Running programs is not. Focus on cost savings and

service improvements. Make sure the program is a win-win for all
participants. Some participants may achieve greater cost savings, others may
get better services. It is critical that all can point to the positives.

• Share total costs. Don’t fall into the trap of charging only marginal costs to
get a program started. Make sure from the beginning that all participants
understand and agree to cover the total costs of the initiative or program.

• Establish a positive cash flow. Make sure all partners know the total costs and
that there is a revenue stream to cover them. Most intergovernmental
programs are fragile at the beginning; having to borrow money to make them
work can destroy them.

• Avoid overdependence on grants. There is increasing interest in

intergovernmental cooperation and its perceived benefits by foundations, state
governments, and the federal government. Grants can provide useful seed
money. But don’t start a program just because you can get a grant, without
doing the analysis that shows the program can be self-sufficient.

Deal Directly with Problems.

• Learn from failures. Intergovernmental cooperation is not a guaranteed

success. If an attempt fails, avoid finger-pointing and instead thoroughly
analyze what didn’t work.

• Address turf issues. Intergovernmental cooperation by its very nature involves

people having to give up and/or share control and responsibility. Address
these issues up front and clearly so they do not undermine the program as it is
implemented.

• Recognize historical animosities. Neighboring jurisdictions invariably have

had disagreements over the years. Acknowledge these and see if there are
ways to resolve past problems. If not, focus on finding a way to work around
the problems rather than trying to avoid them.

50
From “When Efficiency Is Unbelievable: Normative Lessons from 30 Years of
City-County Consolidation,” published in 2005 by Suzanne Leland and Kurt
Thurmaier. This document, based on new research, gives very useful insights
into what arguments have proven successful for promoting intergovernmental
cooperation.24

Most communities will not decide to pursue a formal city-county consolidation

effort. But recent research looking at successful and unsuccessful efforts provides
useful insights for leaders interested in new forms of regional collaboration.
Professors Suzanne Leland and Kurt Thurmaier recently took a new look at city-
county consolidation efforts in 12 regions over the last three decades. They found
that:

• Regional economic development and community revitalization were the

strongest arguments in favor of these new approaches.

• Efficiency was not a very effective argument, principally because it is too

hard, if not impossible, to prove. It is also a challenge to make the case for
efficiency.

• A crisis was not that important for getting support.

• Redistributive or equity arguments are not effective by themselves, but

focusing on an improved regional economy and letting local governments
focus on their own redevelopment issues has proven effective.

• The civic elites are critical drivers and partners in creating support for new
approaches.

From the proceedings of the “Lessons from Louisville’s Merger” workshop,

sponsored in 2005 by the Alliance for Regional Stewardship and Louisville
Metro Government. The workshop focused on the many approaches to local
government cooperation that Louisville and Jefferson County implemented
before their merger, and lessons they learned.25

The effort to formally consolidate the City of Louisville and Jefferson County, KY,
took place after a ballot initiative was passed in 2000, with much of the
implementation occurring between the mayoral election of November 2002 and
January 2003. However, critical research was conducted after the successful
referendum that provided a framework for these changes.

51
At the “Lessons from Louisville’s Merger” workshop in 2005, a panel of people
involved in merger implementation offered these experiences from Louisville’s
exercise in “reinventing government.”

• The role of private philanthropies was critical in helping shape the new
merged government that began operation in 2003, after the successful vote for
city-county merger in 2000. A group of local foundations formed “The
Greater Louisville Project” and raised $1.3 million to pay for consultants to
the new government who analyzed existing operations of the former city and
county governments, and then recommended ‘best practice’ changes collected
from other local governments admired for their effectiveness.

• The merger created an opportunity to take a critical look at local government

and to make transformational changes in systems, structure, and operations.
In theory, this could have occurred without the merger, but there would have
been no impetus for change or for outside financing. Perhaps other
governments could make these kinds of changes without the merger as
context if they were sufficiently convinced of the need and the public benefits.

• All regions should focus on implementing “best practices” as their new

standard for government performance.

• It was critical to create a system for evaluating individual, department, and

agency performance. The merger again created the impetus to measure these.

• The merger also created an opportunity to improve relationships with labor

unions, banks, and debt-rating agencies. Meeting as a new government entity
with these labor unions resulted in more workable contracts with more
flexible work rules and more reasonable financial arrangements. Changes in
the way Louisville Metro handled its budgeting, finance, and investment
operations resulted in cost savings and higher ratings based on the new
practices being implemented.

• It takes time to deal with old union contracts that are still in force. In the
interim, you may be stuck dealing with the old provisions, but that will
change in the future.

• There is a critical need to retrain workers whose skill sets are no longer
relevant but can’t be laid off.

52
FINAL THOUGHTS
This guide has offered many examples of different approaches to intergovernmental
cooperation. Some have been around for a long time, such as joint powers
agreements and annexation; others are newer, including asset districts. Similarly,
some of these approaches will be new to your region and its communities, while
others (such as regional purchasing) may already be in use. We hope that the
information and examples in this guide will help you expand and strengthen current
efforts, while providing a platform for exploring new and different collaborative
options.

Our goal for this guide has been to demonstrate that local governments have an array
of options for encouraging greater cooperation and collaboration across their regions.
It is not an all-or-nothing venture; a community or region can start with small steps
and move on from there. Ultimately, it is about making cooperation a norm in your
community and region. Working together across jurisdictional lines becomes the
expected approach to dealing with complex issues,
not just a one-time event. And collaborations are “Success will depend on building
based on an understanding among leaders and innovative partnerships based on the
residents alike that the challenges facing understanding that the future
communities and regions today require a crossing prosperity of each of our communities
of political, geographic, economic, racial, and is inherently linked.”
ethnic boundaries.
-Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper,
2004 State of the City address
In the Denver, CO, region, widely recognized as a
model of regional collaboration, local elected
leaders have come together to improve infrastructure, accommodate growth, and
achieve other shared objectives. Leading the campaign for intergovernmental
cooperation in the region has been Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, whose
commitment to regional approaches can serve as a model for local elected leaders
everywhere.

In his 2004 State of the City address, Hickenlooper explained the benefits of local
government collaboration for all communities in the region. “Success,” he said, “will
depend on building innovative partnerships based on the understanding that the
future prosperity of each of our communities is inherently linked.”

Mayor Hickenlooper’s statement underscores a vitally important point: local

government collaboration cannot and should not be viewed as an end in itself.
Rather, it is a means to an end. In coming together to explore opportunities for
successful collaboration, local leaders should always have the larger goal in mind:
building healthy, vibrant communities in economically competitive regions. It is a
goal shared by all American communities — and all communities will be more
successful to the extent that they share in its achievement.

53
1
Meeting of NLC’s CityFutures Panel on Community and Regional Development in December 2005.
More information about the Community and Regional Development panel can be accessed on the
Internet at www.nlc.org.
2
Chrislip, David D. and Carl E. Larson. 1994. Collaborative Leadership: How Residents and Civic Leaders
Can Make a Difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
3
Foster, Kathryn. 2001. Regionalism on Purpose. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, pp.
24-25.
4
Downs, Anthony. 1994. New Vision for Metropolitan America. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings
Institution in Swanstrom (1996) “Ideas Matter: Reflection on the New Regionalism.” Cityscape: A
Journal of Policy Development and Research, Vol. 2, Issue 2.
5
Foster, Kathryn. 2001. Regionalism on Purpose. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, p.
20.
6
Ibid.
7
Seventeen of these options are identified by University of Connecticut Professor David Walker
(1987) in “Snow White and the 17 Dwarfs: From Metro Cooperation to Governance,” National Civic
Review, Vol. 76, Issue 1. The Alliance for Regional Stewardship has developed two additional options.
8
NLC’s City Practices collection can be accessed on the Internet at www.nlc.org.
9
Dodge, William R. 1996. Regional Excellence. Washington, D.C.: National League of Cities, pp. 105-
106.
10
1993. Municipal Cooperation Guide, What are Intergovernmental Agreements? MRSC Report No. 27,
Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington, accessed on the Internet at
www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Planning/intrgov.aspx.

11
Harp, Duane. 2003. “Tri-County Fire Working Group- Recognition of a Partnership.” In Helena
National Forest Update, p. 11.
12
2005. “For Little Rock, River Rail Streetcar System Is the 'Economic Engine That Could'.”
Passenger Transport, American Public Transportation Association.
13
This information is from the United States Conference of Mayors’ Best Practices Database and can
be accessed on the Internet at www.usmayors.org/USCM/best_practices/search.asp.
14
Owens, David. 2006. The North Carolina Experience with Municipal Extraterritorial Planning Jurisdiction.
Special Series No. 20. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Government. This
report can be accessed on the Internet at www.sog.unc.edu.
15
Additional, useful information from local air districts in California are provided on the ARS website
at www.regionalstewardship.org.
16
Rusk, David. 1995. Cities without Suburbs, 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center
Press.

54
17
1996.Governance in Erie County:A Foundation for Understanding and Action. State University of New
York at Buffalo, The Governance Project. This report can be accessed on the Internet at regional-
institute.buffalo.edu/default.html.
18
Miller, David. 2002. The Regional Governing of Metropolitan America. Boulder, CO: Westview Press,
pp. 99-124.
19
Mead, Timothy D. 2000. “Governing Charlotte-Mecklenburg.” State and Local Government Review,
Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 192-197
20
Susskind, Lawrence and Jeffrey Cruikshank. 1987. Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to
Resolving Public Disputes. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
21
Straus, David. 2002. How to Make Collaboration Work: Powerful Ways to Build Consensus, Solve Problems
and Make Decisions. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
22
2005. A Brief Primer on Regional Collaboration: Collaborating Communities are Competitive Communities.
State of Michigan Centers for Regional Excellence. This report can be accessed on the Internet at
www.michigan.gov/cre.
23
2002. Intergovernmental Cooperation Handbook, 5th ed. Governor’s Center for Local Government
Services, Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development, Harrisburg.
24
Leland, Suzanne and Kurt Thurmaier. 2005. “When Efficiency Is Unbelievable: Normative Lessons
from 30 Years of City — County Consolidations.” Public Administration Review, Volume 65, Number
4, pp. 475-489.
25
Major contributors to the workshop included: Carolyn Gatz, Director, Greater Louisville Project;
Larry Hayes, Deputy Mayor, Louisville Metro Government; Jerry Newfarmer, President,
Management Partners, Inc.; and Kevin Thompson, Senior Management Consultant, Public Financial
Management. For more notes from the “Lessons from Louisville’s Merger” Workshop, visit the ARS
website www.regionalstewardship.org, click on ‘Stewardship Forums’, and then on “Louisville.”

55
 MANY THANKS TO OUR SPONSORS

The PFM Group

The PFM Group comprises Public Financial Management, Inc., PFM Asset Management
LLC, and PFM Advisors. The PFM Group’s services include capital planning, revenue
forecasting and evaluation, resource allocation, debt management policy development,
investment advice and portfolio management, and investment consulting to not-for-profit
organizations, corporations, governments, pension funds, and endowments. www.pfm.com

Motorola Government & Enterprise Mobility Solutions

Motorola’s Government & Enterprise Mobility Solutions business – recipient of the 2002
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award – provides mission-critical and enterprise
communication solutions for work teams in market segments ranging from public safety and
government to transportation and commercial enterprises, as well as automotive electronic
solutions and technology. www.motorola.com

The Real Estate Advocacy Group for States

The Real Estate Advocacy Group for States is the central resource for state and local policy
makers about the real estate industry, providing education, information, and support on
legislative matters. Members of the REAGS coalition include: Building Owners and Managers
Association International, International Council of Shopping Centers, Mortgage Bankers
Association, National Apartment Association, National Association of Home Builders,
National Association of Industrial and Office Properties, National Association of Realtors,
and National Multi Housing Council. www.reags.com

Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government

Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government, led by Mayor Jerry E. Abramson and a
26-member Metro Council, comprises more than 6,000 employees in 40 departments and
agencies. The 2003 merger of Louisville and Jefferson County governments, approved by
voters in 2000, is the largest such consolidation in three decades in the United States.
www.louisvilleky.gov

Management Partners
Management Partners specializes in helping local government leaders make their governments
better. The firm’s public service professionals have the capacity to help policymakers and managers
improve all aspects of operations with “best practices” that work. www.managementpartners.com
 National League of Cities
Center for Research &
Municipal Programs
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
www.nlc.org