Merger may not be the answer in cutting local government costs

[retired711]

Thought this would interest those on this board who enjoy discussing the towns in the states. I hope the nj.com cite doesn't offend you, but the only other long story -- in the Inquirer -- seems impossible to find.

This post was edited on 11/18 1:24 PM by camdenlawprof

This post was edited on 11/19 12:08 PM by camdenlawprof

Rutgers study of town mergers

 

[Upstream]

Re: Merger may not be the answering in cutting local government costs

Interesting study. The authors suggest that NJ really doesn't have too many towns (nor too many government units) when looked at from a per capita basis.

Here is the study report:

http://blousteinlocal.rutgers.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/blousteinlocal-sizestudy.pdf

 

[TonyLieske]

Re: Merger may not be the answering in cutting local government costs


Interesting report.

I will say I live in one of those really tiny towns that probably shouldn't be on its own...but I like it. Even though I pay through the nose in property taxes. My brother lives in a much larger town (something like 30 times as many people) and he owns a house that is ~60% larger than mine and ~40% more expensive than mine but pays about 25% less in property taxes.

What I like about my town is that the cops on patrol probably drive through the entire town a dozen times a day, I can walk to the town park, the town library, the town post office, the town municipal building (where I vote with no lines), etc....

I could theoretically live in the town center of the city where my brother lives, but that is not a nice area. In that city, the center city portion is mostly high crime/high poverty and the surrounding suburbs are where the more well-to-do people live. My town is so small that every road is a mix of small houses and large houses so there is no area that is particularly bad or particularly great.
This post was edited on 11/18 2:30 PM by TonyLieske

 

[NotInRHouse]

Re: Merger may not be the answering in cutting local government costs

The problem is the assumption that the filled roles by the town employees are necessary.

The other problem is that those positions cannot be "eliminated" because of the unions.

For example, if Dunellen were to be merged into Piscataway, the taxpayers initially would still have to pay to get those people new positions in the new towns because it would illegal to fire the existing employees.

But going forward Piscataway could hire fewer people. It wouldn't need two city halls. It wouldn't need as many police officers, because Dunellen is basically a giant speed trap. It wouldn't need two city councils, mayors, school boards, etc...and no more pensions and benefits for those positions either.

The problem with consolidation- and this is a rare point where Sweeney was right about something- is that it has to be forced and threatened because consolidation will derail a gravy train.

Punching out all the "donut" towns in NJ would be a great starting point. Little square mile bergs with few people but huge police departments and budgets. It's a self fulfilling prophecy that jobs are "needed" because it rests on the presumption that a square mile needs so many cops and bureaucrats that it doesn't.

We also need agency consolidation. Jersey City is closing its parking authority, because our new mayor is interested in lowering taxes, not paying his buddies. How many other cities in NJ have their own parking authority- and one, maybe (Newark) has more people.

Then you have agencies like the Port Authority that has services that can be locally accomplished or accomplished by other state agencies. Why can't the PATH be run by NJT or MTA?

Imagine a system where you abolished all the township lines for, say, towns under 50k. All towns under 50k people in each county use a shared police force, shared courts, shared bureaucrats. Keep the school districts to limit the political agita. You're not going to save to start, but when the Middlesex County police have to stay in New Brunswick, or Perth Amboy, or you have to drive an extra two miles to get your building permit, the world won't end.

I would also erase all borders in Hudson County and switch to a NYC borough type government and even consider putting the PATH under its control.

 

[TonyLieske]

Re: Merger may not be the answering in cutting local government costs

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
The problem is the assumption that the filled roles by the town employees are necessary.

The other problem is that those positions cannot be "eliminated" because of the unions.

For example, if Dunellen were to be merged into Piscataway, the taxpayers initially would still have to pay to get those people new positions in the new towns because it would illegal to fire the existing employees.

But going forward Piscataway could hire fewer people. It wouldn't need two city halls. It wouldn't need as many police officers, because Dunellen is basically a giant speed trap. It wouldn't need two city councils, mayors, school boards, etc...and no more pensions and benefits for those positions either.

The problem with consolidation- and this is a rare point where Sweeney was right about something- is that it has to be forced and threatened because consolidation will derail a gravy train.

Punching out all the "donut" towns in NJ would be a great starting point. Little square mile bergs with few people but huge police departments and budgets. It's a self fulfilling prophecy that jobs are "needed" because it rests on the presumption that a square mile needs so many cops and bureaucrats that it doesn't.

We also need agency consolidation. Jersey City is closing its parking authority, because our new mayor is interested in lowering taxes, not paying his buddies. How many other cities in NJ have their own parking authority- and one, maybe (Newark) has more people.

Then you have agencies like the Port Authority that has services that can be locally accomplished or accomplished by other state agencies. Why can't the PATH be run by NJT or MTA?

Imagine a system where you abolished all the township lines for, say, towns under 50k. All towns under 50k people in each county use a shared police force, shared courts, shared bureaucrats. Keep the school districts to limit the political agita. You're not going to save to start, but when the Middlesex County police have to stay in New Brunswick, or Perth Amboy, or you have to drive an extra two miles to get your building permit, the world won't end.

I would also erase all borders in Hudson County and switch to a NYC borough type government and even consider putting the PATH under its control.

But why do you care so much?

If the people in my town voted to merge with one of the large towns adjacent to it (there are three) I would understand. But for whatever reason (I posted mine above) people in this town are OK with having higher property taxes and self management. Our town is way too small to create a noticeable impact on the cost/revenue balance of the larger town, so its not like people in those towns are going to save money.

 

[e5fdny]

Re: Merger may not be the answering in cutting local government costs

Originally posted by TonyLieske:

Interesting report.

I will say I live in one of those really tiny towns that probably shouldn't be on its own...but I like it. Even though I pay through the nose in property taxes. My brother lives in a much larger town (something like 30 times as many people) and he owns a house that is ~60% larger than mine and ~40% more expensive than mine but pays about 25% less in property taxes.

What I like about my town is that the cops on patrol probably drive through the entire town a dozen times a day, I can walk to the town park, the town library, the town post office, the town municipal building (where I vote with no lines), etc....

I could theoretically live in the town center of the city where my brother lives, but that is not a nice area. In that city, the center city portion is mostly high crime/high poverty and the surrounding suburbs are where the more well-to-do people live. My town is so small that every road is a mix of small houses and large houses so there is no area that is particularly bad or particularly great.

Me too.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Re: Merger may not be the answering in cutting local government costs

I care because me and the rest of NJ are on the hook to fund the pensions and aid that goes to these towns.

Little towns in NJ have big police forces and a bureaucracy, yet, RU gets defunded. These people will get six figure payouts upon retirement, but the RAC is crumbling, many RU buildings needs upgrades, and a new law school in New Brunswick could produce needed state employees like legal services attorneys and judges- we have shortages of both.

We have crumbling infrastructure on many roads. The HBLR is to be expanded, the ARC tunnel was cancelled, and our bridges are not getting younger. Every time a pension or benefit is paid on one of these unneeded positions, that's essentially taking from the next generation of these kinds of improvements.

The little towns are everyone's problem.

Not to mention places like Helmetta- being sued for retaliation because this little berg fired cops who ratted them out for a speed trap that only took down out of towners on the mayor's orders. You're fooling yourself if you think that's the exception.

 

[retired711]

Re: Merger may not be the answering in cutting local government costs

Why do you think that a law school in New Brunswick would produce more legal services lawyers than Newark and Camden already do? And how many legal services attorneys do you think a law school can produce? You're stretching here.

 

[derleider]

Re: Merger may not be the answering in cutting local government costs

NIRH - the issue is - the evidence shows you arent correct, once you get past the small resort communities and the sub-100 population townships, the cost per person is basically the same across the state - from huge places like Newark on down.

Sharing of services elinates alot of what you are saying. When services arent shared they tend to conform to the needs of the community. I mean its not like Dunellen wouldnt need cops.

Newark has about 45 cops per 10,000 people. Even if we say - well Dunellen is alot safer than Newark, so we only need half the cops - that still about 15 cops in Dunellen

And looky here

http://www.city-data.com/city/Dunellen-New-Jersey.html - 16 full time cops in Dunellen.

Also - I would expect that the salaries are also scaled. So the Mayor of Newark makes alot more than the Mayor of Dunellen (which might actually be a volunteer role).

I suspect the reason Sweeney wants consolidation is that its easier to control a handful of townships. They also control bigger more lucrative contracts.

 

[TonyLieske]

Re: Merger may not be the answering in cutting local government costs

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
I care because me and the rest of NJ are on the hook to fund the pensions and aid that goes to these towns.

Little towns in NJ have big police forces and a bureaucracy, yet, RU gets defunded. These people will get six figure payouts upon retirement, but the RAC is crumbling, many RU buildings needs upgrades, and a new law school in New Brunswick could produce needed state employees like legal services attorneys and judges- we have shortages of both.

We have crumbling infrastructure on many roads. The HBLR is to be expanded, the ARC tunnel was cancelled, and our bridges are not getting younger. Every time a pension or benefit is paid on one of these unneeded positions, that's essentially taking from the next generation of these kinds of improvements.

The little towns are everyone's problem.

Not to mention places like Helmetta- being sued for retaliation because this little berg fired cops who ratted them out for a speed trap that only took down out of towners on the mayor's orders. You're fooling yourself if you think that's the exception.

I dunno, sounds like you are thinking of other towns, not mine.

1. Regarding police, I guess that depends on your notion of "big." If by "big" you mean 3 officiers (1 of which is part time) I guess we do have a "big" police force.

2. Considering our town's total annual budget is only ~1.5 million (which in 2013 included a ~100k surplus) I doubt anyone is getting 6 figures for current pay, much less retirement pay. I would need you to show some proff of that (or at least show me where I can find such information, because it surely isn't in our town budget). Our TOTAL annual expense (in 2013) for Administrative, Financtial, and Executive Expenses was $77,500. Total wages for ALL MUNICIPAL FUNCTIONS was 487,000. Regarding retirement, our town contributes to the state pension plan for police, so of course our policemen get a state pension. But the point is you aren't paying for it. Our town funds our portion of the pension. Our town contributed 136,000 to the state pension system in 2013.

3. Roads should be funded through gas taxes. The truth is that NJ woefully underfunds its roads with gas taxes (compared to most states). Its nice that we get to pay less than average for gas at the pump, but the downside is that roads end up getting paid for via income taxes. I don't see how that is impacted by there being small towns or not.

And FWIW, the only state aid we get (for 2013) is 14k for "property tax relief" which I assume is just a per capita formula (again, note that our town actually had a surplus of +100k in 2013, not to mentioned a surplus of +132k in 2012) and 115k for "Energy Receipts Tax" which, from what I understand, is also just formulaic. A quick check shows that the larger town my brother lives in is getting more money, per capita, than our small town from this state funding (they are getting 5.1 million, about $84/ resident, while our town is getting less than $75/resident). So again...not sure how forcing our small town to become part of their big town would reduce state funding to municipalities.

 

[TonyLieske]

Re: Merger may not be the answering in cutting local government costs

Originally posted by derleider:

I suspect the reason Sweeney wants consolidation is that its easier to control a handful of townships. They also control bigger more lucrative contracts.

You are probably right. Our town has no full time staff outside the police force (fire dept is volunteer, municipal is a handful of part timers). We have our own self funding water department (which is small), and we do most of our towns maintenance ourself. And because the place is so small, any "untoward" spending would be EXTREMELY noticeable right away. No chance for him to get his cronies fat contracts in a small town that is pinching pennies.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Re: Merger may not be the answering in cutting local government costs

Originally posted by derleider:
NIRH - the issue is - the evidence shows you arent correct, once you get past the small resort communities and the sub-100 population townships, the cost per person is basically the same across the state - from huge places like Newark on down.

Sharing of services elinates alot of what you are saying. When services arent shared they tend to conform to the needs of the community. I mean its not like Dunellen wouldnt need cops.

Newark has about 45 cops per 10,000 people. Even if we say - well Dunellen is alot safer than Newark, so we only need half the cops - that still about 15 cops in Dunellen

And looky here

http://www.city-data.com/city/Dunellen-New-Jersey.html - 16 full time cops in Dunellen.

Also - I would expect that the salaries are also scaled. So the Mayor of Newark makes alot more than the Mayor of Dunellen (which might actually be a volunteer role).

I suspect the reason Sweeney wants consolidation is that its easier to control a handful of townships. They also control bigger more lucrative contracts.

Shared services is essentially the consolidation of the same things, except (you'd imagine) the actual mayor/councils. So if the towns want to keep that, OK. If it makes people feel better.

But at the same time towns are resisting shared services too.

And when you look at the size of Dunellen it probably does not need 16 cops. Most of that could be handled by Piscataway.

The townships also should be under tighter control- they are not spending responsibly. We know about Sweeney, but there's probably a good 400 of 565 municipalties where little Sweeneys of both parties are thieving from the public.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Re: Merger may not be the answering in cutting local government costs

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
Why do you think that a law school in New Brunswick would produce more legal services lawyers than Newark and Camden already do? And how many legal services attorneys do you think a law school can produce? You're stretching here.

I'm just talking generally. There's a billion things to better use that money on, where all NJ citizens could derive benefit, then for jobs that shouldn't exist.

 

[NotInRHouse]

Re: Merger may not be the answering in cutting local government costs

NJ doesn't need to increase taxes. It just has to spend responsibly. Not sharing services when you have a two bit town is irresponsible. Paying public employees who are not doing their job, or who are harassing the public, is not responsible.

24M for the governor to not be elected the same day as Booker, or for no show positions at the Port Authority. Irresponsible.

The crazy sick day payouts for public employees...the Keansburg superintendent was going to get over 600k a few years ago...not responsible.

The problem is that both parties are so inextricably tied to these employees, corruption, and no-showism, that all they do is blame scapegoats, as anyone associated with RU has seen.

Imagining a situation where public positions are eliminated in a higher number will save the state millions upon millions especially when you consider the benefits. Millions that should go to higher education and infrastructure.

Off topic, but the state could also legalize marijuana and prostitution in AC and eliminate much of these problems as well.

 

[TonyLieske]

Re: Merger may not be the answering in cutting local government costs

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:

Shared services is essentially the consolidation of the same things, except (you'd imagine) the actual mayor/councils. So if the towns want to keep that, OK. If it makes people feel better.

But at the same time towns are resisting shared services too.

And when you look at the size of Dunellen it probably does not need 16 cops. Most of that could be handled by Piscataway.

The townships also should be under tighter control- they are not spending responsibly. We know about Sweeney, but there's probably a good 400 of 565 municipalties where little Sweeneys of both parties are thieving from the public.

You make a lot of faulty assumptions.

Shared services are not always cheaper. I will use my own experience here: When the company I work for was split off from a much larger parent we had to take on a lot of administrative tasks (Accounts Payable, Accounts Receivable, Payroll, Legal, etc...) ourselves. Based on the common notion that aggregating these tasks to a shared service it should have been more expensive for us to do it ourselves, but it turned out it was A LOT cheaper for us to do these things ourselves. Because local management was now directly responsible for the costs they were simply more efficiently managed.

But of course there are some things a really small town cannot do itself. Because of our size we cannot finance public schools in our town (though there are two private schools here). The town makes a deal with the adjacent larger cities to contribute a specified amount of money to allow our kids to go to their schools. A few years ago the town actually changed school districts because a different town offered a better deal.

I also question your notion that smaller township are spending less responsibly. The reality is a really small town will tend to be MORE responsible in their spending because everything is way more transparent. When the chief of police, the mayor, and the city counsel members all live down the street from you it is a lot easier to get to know them and for them to know the people in their town. It also probably helps that these political positions are not well-paid positions. Unlike in bigger cities, these are positions that people take on, part time, in addition to having a real job. There isn't much opportunity or motive for irresponsible spending.

 

[TonyLieske]

Re: Merger may not be the answering in cutting local government costs

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
NJ doesn't need to increase taxes. It just has to spend responsibly. Not sharing services when you have a two bit town is irresponsible. Paying public employees who are not doing their job, or who are harassing the public, is not responsible.

24M for the governor to not be elected the same day as Booker, or for no show positions at the Port Authority. Irresponsible.

The crazy sick day payouts for public employees...the Keansburg superintendent was going to get over 600k a few years ago...not responsible.

The problem is that both parties are so inextricably tied to these employees, corruption, and no-showism, that all they do is blame scapegoats, as anyone associated with RU has seen.

Imagining a situation where public positions are eliminated in a higher number will save the state millions upon millions especially when you consider the benefits. Millions that should go to higher education and infrastructure.

Off topic, but the state could also legalize marijuana and prostitution in AC and eliminate much of these problems as well.

Those are not small town problems. IN fact those things can only exist because of larger cities where that kind of thing can happen without someone being directly held responsible.

I think you may just be struggling with the notion that it is actually possible to have less centralized bureaucracy AND less expense. A lot of times in a small office (municipal or in business) you will find people that are do a lot of different things, instead of having a different employee (and backup!) for every different task. When you are small it isn't really possible to "hide" behind other people when something goes wrong, so it happens less often.

 

[derleider]

Re: Merger may not be the answering in cutting local government costs

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:

Originally posted by derleider:
NIRH - the issue is - the evidence shows you arent correct, once you get past the small resort communities and the sub-100 population townships, the cost per person is basically the same across the state - from huge places like Newark on down.

Sharing of services elinates alot of what you are saying. When services arent shared they tend to conform to the needs of the community. I mean its not like Dunellen wouldnt need cops.

Newark has about 45 cops per 10,000 people. Even if we say - well Dunellen is alot safer than Newark, so we only need half the cops - that still about 15 cops in Dunellen

And looky here

http://www.city-data.com/city/Dunellen-New-Jersey.html - 16 full time cops in Dunellen.

Also - I would expect that the salaries are also scaled. So the Mayor of Newark makes alot more than the Mayor of Dunellen (which might actually be a volunteer role).

I suspect the reason Sweeney wants consolidation is that its easier to control a handful of townships. They also control bigger more lucrative contracts.

Shared services is essentially the consolidation of the same things, except (you'd imagine) the actual mayor/councils. So if the towns want to keep that, OK. If it makes people feel better.

But at the same time towns are resisting shared services too.

And when you look at the size of Dunellen it probably does not need 16 cops. Most of that could be handled by Piscataway.

The townships also should be under tighter control- they are not spending responsibly. We know about Sweeney, but there's probably a good 400 of 565 municipalties where little Sweeneys of both parties are thieving from the public.

Sure - and then Piscataway would need to hire 16 new cops. Thats the point - Dunellen doesnt have an absurd number of cops - if has lower than the state average for its population.

You act like if only NJ had powerful county level government, their wouldn't be crooks. Crooks are running the show at every level. Yes - there are lots of little Sweeneys. And if there werent townships there would just be a few big Sweeneys. Sweeneys none-the-less.

NJ is expensive because it can be - because its attractive enough that the state can squeeze people for alot of money without them leaving. Like any business would in fact.

 

[retired711]

Re: Merger may not be the answering in cutting local government costs

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
Why do you think that a law school in New Brunswick would produce more legal services lawyers than Newark and Camden already do? And how many legal services attorneys do you think a law school can produce? You're stretching here.

I'm just talking generally. There's a billion things to better use that money on, where all NJ citizens could derive benefit, then for jobs that shouldn't exist.

The statement was specific, not general. Please refrain from giving examples that are wrong.

 

[retired711]

Re: Merger may not be the answering in cutting local government costs

Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:

Originally posted by derleider:
NIRH - the issue is - the evidence shows you arent correct, once you get past the small resort communities and the sub-100 population townships, the cost per person is basically the same across the state - from huge places like Newark on down.

Sharing of services elinates alot of what you are saying. When services arent shared they tend to conform to the needs of the community. I mean its not like Dunellen wouldnt need cops.

Newark has about 45 cops per 10,000 people. Even if we say - well Dunellen is alot safer than Newark, so we only need half the cops - that still about 15 cops in Dunellen

And looky here

http://www.city-data.com/city/Dunellen-New-Jersey.html - 16 full time cops in Dunellen.

Also - I would expect that the salaries are also scaled. So the Mayor of Newark makes alot more than the Mayor of Dunellen (which might actually be a volunteer role).

I suspect the reason Sweeney wants consolidation is that its easier to control a handful of townships. They also control bigger more lucrative contracts.

Shared services is essentially the consolidation of the same things, except (you'd imagine) the actual mayor/councils. So if the towns want to keep that, OK. If it makes people feel better.

But at the same time towns are resisting shared services too.

And when you look at the size of Dunellen it probably does not need 16 cops. Most of that could be handled by Piscataway.

The townships also should be under tighter control- they are not spending responsibly. We know about Sweeney, but there's probably a good 400 of 565 municipalties where little Sweeneys of both parties are thieving from the public.

Sure - and then Piscataway would need to hire 16 new cops. Thats the point - Dunellen doesnt have an absurd number of cops - if has lower than the state average for its population.

You act like if only NJ had powerful county level government, their wouldn't be crooks. Crooks are running the show at every level. Yes - there are lots of little Sweeneys. And if there werent townships there would just be a few big Sweeneys. Sweeneys none-the-less.

NJ is expensive because it can be - because its attractive enough that the state can squeeze people for alot of money without them leaving. Like any business would in fact.

It's interesting that Derleider doesn't like powerful county level governments because he lives in Maryland, and my recollection of Maryland is that just about everything was done on a county level. Still, I think he and Tony have the better of the argument; NIRH is fighting the study, which shows that there would not be cost savings in most instances.

 

[derleider]

Re: Merger may not be the answering in cutting local government costs

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:

Originally posted by derleider:
NIRH - the issue is - the evidence shows you arent correct, once you get past the small resort communities and the sub-100 population townships, the cost per person is basically the same across the state - from huge places like Newark on down.

Sharing of services elinates alot of what you are saying. When services arent shared they tend to conform to the needs of the community. I mean its not like Dunellen wouldnt need cops.

Newark has about 45 cops per 10,000 people. Even if we say - well Dunellen is alot safer than Newark, so we only need half the cops - that still about 15 cops in Dunellen

And looky here

http://www.city-data.com/city/Dunellen-New-Jersey.html - 16 full time cops in Dunellen.

Also - I would expect that the salaries are also scaled. So the Mayor of Newark makes alot more than the Mayor of Dunellen (which might actually be a volunteer role).

I suspect the reason Sweeney wants consolidation is that its easier to control a handful of townships. They also control bigger more lucrative contracts.

Shared services is essentially the consolidation of the same things, except (you'd imagine) the actual mayor/councils. So if the towns want to keep that, OK. If it makes people feel better.

But at the same time towns are resisting shared services too.

And when you look at the size of Dunellen it probably does not need 16 cops. Most of that could be handled by Piscataway.

The townships also should be under tighter control- they are not spending responsibly. We know about Sweeney, but there's probably a good 400 of 565 municipalties where little Sweeneys of both parties are thieving from the public.

Sure - and then Piscataway would need to hire 16 new cops. Thats the point - Dunellen doesnt have an absurd number of cops - if has lower than the state average for its population.

You act like if only NJ had powerful county level government, their wouldn't be crooks. Crooks are running the show at every level. Yes - there are lots of little Sweeneys. And if there werent townships there would just be a few big Sweeneys. Sweeneys none-the-less.

NJ is expensive because it can be - because its attractive enough that the state can squeeze people for alot of money without them leaving. Like any business would in fact.

It's interesting that Derleider doesn't like powerful county level governments because he lives in Maryland, and my recollection of Maryland is that just about everything was done on a county level. Still, I think he and Tony have the better of the argument; NIRH is fighting the study, which shows that there would not be cost savings in most instances.

I dont think it matters much. In reality these things work out anyway - like I said - services are being consolidated, even if taxing authority and governance arent.

The things that really matter for broader rule like transit are already managed at a larger level anyway in NJ, in the same way that they are managed at the county and state level in MD.

As I said above corruption is kind of a cultural thing. If the place is corrupt then in a way small districts can limit the power of the government to distribute fun

Even something like exclusionary living (i.e. rich people living near other rich people to exclude poor people), which seems to be the main reason for alot of the continuation of the township system occurs even with counties - as long as you have firmly established dividing lines between schools, people with money will find a way to be near each other creating good school districts. The only way to avoid it would be to have a lottery that basically didnt factor in geography at all (at which point people with money would send their kids to private schools.)

 

[Upstream]

Re: Merger may not be the answering in cutting local government costs

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:


And when you look at the size of Dunellen it probably does not need 16 cops. Most of that could be handled by Piscataway.

Piscataway has 103 police officers (2.04 per thousand people), not counting the Rutgers police force.

If you add the population of Dunellen to Piscataway, you would need 118 police officers at a ratio of 2.04 per thousand people. The combined size of the Dunellen and Piscataway police forces is 119. So theoretically you could save 1 police officer by combining the police forces.

But, about 3500 people counted in the Piscataway population live on Rutgers' campus, and are presumably served by the Rutgers Police Dept. If you take those people out of the equation, Piscataway has 2.19 police officers per K. And Piscataway and Dunellen combined would need 119 police officers, which is exactly the size of the two police forces combined.

 

[Upstream]

Re: Merger may not be the answering in cutting local government costs

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:

Please refrain from giving examples that are wrong.

He can't help himself.

 

[NotInRHouse]

The school districts aren't the problem. Most people pay more taxes happily to live in a place with better schools- even if they don't have kids, it helps their property values.

The problem is everything else. There are too many police officers and bureaucrats in these small towns, and many of them are there because they are connected. They are not fulfilling needed roles.

The police numbers are misleading. We have too many police pretty much everywhere besides Newark, Camden and the usual suspects where there are too few.

In turn, the cops in Newark and Camden are paid less, while cops in little suburban towns are often making six figures. A consolidated system flips that. You make the same whether you work in Cherry Hill or Camden. Instead of concentrating on low level crimes in the suburbs, more focus can be turned to violent ones in the cities.

You guys and the study are making the faulty assumption that consolidated or shared or what have you, that the same number of people will have to be employed. That is just not true on a going forward basis. A place like Dunellen doesn't need 16 cops- it could still be policed by Piscataway and see no change in crime. Look at a map- it will tell you all you need to know about that. Or if these towns with minimal people had to use bureaucrats a mile away for permitting or whatever.

There is also a difference between corporate and municipal staffing. Municipalities provide basic services. They don't need to be luxurious. And, if you don't like your corporate service provider, you can switch (except maybe cable and a few other examples). And, aside from the schools, citizens aren't seeing the luxuries. I drive over the same potholes in rich and poor towns everyday and have since last winter. New Brunswick is feuding with RU over patrol while crime increases.

A county system resting on the presumption that we need less employees would save money in the long run.

It also would disable the opportunities for corruption. Few counties in NJ are solid red or blue. Machines would have limited domination. There would also be less positions to overpay or staff with the under qualified. Municipal properties could be sold off.

It's interesting to me that people support the system- I think many people including myself know many public employees. But in terms of functioning government, I always saw more of it living in NY, and only recently saw it starting in Jersey City once the mayor came on promising to shrink the city government.

 

[TonyLieske]

FWIW, I had almost the same opinion as NIRH up until I moved to a tiny little town a couple years ago. Then I started to understand why towns like this exist...its just so much nicer living in a town with ~1500 people versus a town with ~15,000 people or ~60,000 people.

Taxes here are noticeably higher. I just think the impact to people outside our town is negligible, if there is any at all (I really don't think there is any impact).

Plus its nice have a cop for every ~500 people instead of every ~2000 people.

 

[e5fdny]

Originally posted by TonyLieske:

FWIW, I had almost the same opinion as NIRH up until I moved to a tiny little town a couple years ago. Then I started to understand why towns like this exist...its just so much nicer living in a town with ~1500 people versus a town with ~15,000 people or ~60,000 people.

Taxes here are noticeably higher. I just think the impact to people outside our town is negligible, if there is any at all (I really don't think there is any impact).

Plus its nice have a cop for every ~500 people instead of every ~2000 people.

I like that part too and also the job the DPW guys do for me as well. I doubt we will ever outsource garbage like some town do.

The one thing I DO NOT like is the way JCPL works compared to way ConEd did when I lived over the bridge in the City.

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
The school districts aren't the problem. Most people pay more taxes happily to live in a place with better schools- even if they don't have kids, it helps their property values.

The problem is everything else. There are too many police officers and bureaucrats in these small towns, and many of them are there because they are connected. They are not fulfilling needed roles.

The police numbers are misleading. We have too many police pretty much everywhere besides Newark, Camden and the usual suspects where there are too few.

In turn, the cops in Newark and Camden are paid less, while cops in little suburban towns are often making six figures. A consolidated system flips that. You make the same whether you work in Cherry Hill or Camden. Instead of concentrating on low level crimes in the suburbs, more focus can be turned to violent ones in the cities.

You guys and the study are making the faulty assumption that consolidated or shared or what have you, that the same number of people will have to be employed. That is just not true on a going forward basis. A place like Dunellen doesn't need 16 cops- it could still be policed by Piscataway and see no change in crime. Look at a map- it will tell you all you need to know about that. Or if these towns with minimal people had to use bureaucrats a mile away for permitting or whatever.

There is also a difference between corporate and municipal staffing. Municipalities provide basic services. They don't need to be luxurious. And, if you don't like your corporate service provider, you can switch (except maybe cable and a few other examples). And, aside from the schools, citizens aren't seeing the luxuries. I drive over the same potholes in rich and poor towns everyday and have since last winter. New Brunswick is feuding with RU over patrol while crime increases.

A county system resting on the presumption that we need less employees would save money in the long run.

It also would disable the opportunities for corruption. Few counties in NJ are solid red or blue. Machines would have limited domination. There would also be less positions to overpay or staff with the under qualified. Municipal properties could be sold off.

It's interesting to me that people support the system- I think many people including myself know many public employees. But in terms of functioning government, I always saw more of it living in NY, and only recently saw it starting in Jersey City once the mayor came on promising to shrink the city government.

1. I am not at all sure that what you say about Camden cops is true. Those police are paid by the county, not by the City of Camden.

2. The study does not make the assumption you claim. Instead, the study looks at how much is spent per capita in small towns as opposed to larger ones. Once you take out the shore towns (which have specially high expenditures), then there is no difference. That indicates that you are wrong: that there is no advantage to consolidation as a way of cutting spending.)

3. I'm trying to think of examples of counties that are not solid red or blue. Middlesex might be an example, but I can't think of any others.

 

[NotInRHouse]

The city of Camden is actually served now by the Camden County police...but that's not what it sounds like, because it just serves Camden the city. It doesn't serve the other towns. But they did that because Camden the city couldn't afford its cops.

Again all of this is resting on the presumption that it's "efficient" to have the current number of employees in the given places that are there. I don't think that has been determined one way or the other, because we have very limited examples of this actually happening- and then you need to look at what happened down the line when the retirees were not replaced. Princeton borough and township merged within the past year or two after the towns voted for it. In my opinion the whole thing should be based on the presumption that the current system is out of control. The state isn't fulfilling its pension obligations and we have among the highest property taxes in the country. Yes we have some of the best schools- but I pay a lot more in property taxes on a condo in a former Abbott district than I would in most places in America. You can barely go a week without some municipal employee doing something they really shouldn't. Legal liability for hiring the wrong people, making bad (and biased) zoning decisions, and injuries from crumbling infrastructure raises insurance premiums and raises taxes. It's broken. The whole system is wrong and the home rule system perpetuates it.

It might be nice to have police know you- but it's not nice if you're driving through a place like Helmetta, which is being sued by a former cop who was fired after publicizing the fact that it's basically a giant speed trap. It's yet another "cost" of doing business in NJ that can be eliminated completely.

Re: red/blue counties, not to derail the thread but other than Hudson (blue) and Ocean, Sussex, and Warren (red) there isn't a strong partisan bent to county control- there's generally a mix at most levels. This is an issue where both major parties have been extremely guilty.

If you take away the home rule layer you cut all that at the pass. The same person who hires for Asbury Park hires for Upper Freehold, puts out bids for contracts, etc...keep the school districts separate and give people the choice there. But the rest should basically uniform rendering of services.

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
The city of Camden is actually served now by the Camden County police...but that's not what it sounds like, because it just serves Camden the city. It doesn't serve the other towns. But they did that because Camden the city couldn't afford its cops.

(Of course that's why they did it. But the point is that Camden's depressed state is not holding down their salaries. So it's incorrect to say that cops in Camden are getting paid less.)

(I'd answer the rest, but it's late.)

 

[derleider]

NIRH - you keep saying this crap but its not reality.

Baltimore County, where I live, has 2.41 cops per 1000 people. MORE than Dunellen or Pway.

Your points is just a fantasy point - in fantasy land where people are trying to cut staff, they would cut staff. Well duh.

But thats not the assumption in the actual world. The assumption is that having a police presence in line with the state average (below actually) is - well - average.

Sure - Dunellen might see now change in crime- but then again - Pway might - since its cops would be spread thinner than before.

People are always talking about shirking government. Then those same people complain when the line at the DMV is too long, or they don't know their local cop because his beat is too large.

Also - a place doesnt have to be solid red or blue to have machine domination - it just has to be solid enough that the dominant party controls the government most of the time. Look at NJ - its purple enough that it elects Republican governors - and what happens - those governors are just as corrupt.

 

[NotInRHouse]

I am not one of those people. I don't know what the issue is in Maryland, but in NJ it is absolutely my experience that we have a problem with public employees- they are often overpaid, incompetent, corrupt, and far too often all three.

I actually was recently at the DMV to renew my license and found it pretty painless. And the line wasn't long. I really don't care to know any municipal employees personally- I actually corresponded by email with Mayor Fulop about a local concern and received a response. My parents live in a moderately sized township, and my mom was in a years long letter writing campaign to get a groove in the street that was puddling with water filled in.

Christie is still a machine product and was tied in with Norcross going back to his refusal to prosecute him. That's why I like Fulop- he toppled the Hudson County Democratic regime was probably as entrenched as the South Jersey one. And, he has shrunk the city government.

The whole thing is a vicious circle; taxes, fees, fines, to keep paying increasing salaries and pensions. No one ever thought to say, hey, maybe we should not have as many salaries and pensions- instead let's just increase taxes, fines, and fees. At least not in NJ. Consolidation is one way of many to do that without breaking the law or changing it because it provides cover not to rehire.

And by the way, I'm very liberal and not a "drown it in the bathtub" Norquist follower. But on the local level here in NJ we overfund the unnecessary while higher education and infrastructure rot on the vine.

 

[e5fdny]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
I am not one of those people. I don't know what the issue is in Maryland, but in NJ it is absolutely my experience that we have a problem with public employees- they are often overpaid, incompetent, corrupt, and far too often all three.

I actually was recently at the DMV to renew my license and found it pretty painless. And the line wasn't long. I really don't care to know any municipal employees personally- I actually corresponded by email with Mayor Fulop about a local concern and received a response. My parents live in a moderately sized township, and my mom was in a years long letter writing campaign to get a groove in the street that was puddling with water filled in.

Christie is still a machine product and was tied in with Norcross going back to his refusal to prosecute him. That's why I like Fulop- he toppled the Hudson County Democratic regime was probably as entrenched as the South Jersey one. And, he has shrunk the city government.

The whole thing is a vicious circle; taxes, fees, fines, to keep paying increasing salaries and pensions. No one ever thought to say, hey, maybe we should not have as many salaries and pensions- instead let's just increase taxes, fines, and fees. At least not in NJ. Consolidation is one way of many to do that without breaking the law or changing it because it provides cover not to rehire.

And by the way, I'm very liberal and not a "drown it in the bathtub" Norquist follower. But on the local level here in NJ we overfund the unnecessary while higher education and infrastructure rot on the vine.

"And if elected..." LOL

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
I am not one of those people. I don't know what the issue is in Maryland, but in NJ it is absolutely my experience that we have a problem with public employees- they are often overpaid, incompetent, corrupt, and far too often all three.

I actually was recently at the DMV to renew my license and found it pretty painless. And the line wasn't long. I really don't care to know any municipal employees personally- I actually corresponded by email with Mayor Fulop about a local concern and received a response. My parents live in a moderately sized township, and my mom was in a years long letter writing campaign to get a groove in the street that was puddling with water filled in.

Christie is still a machine product and was tied in with Norcross going back to his refusal to prosecute him. That's why I like Fulop- he toppled the Hudson County Democratic regime was probably as entrenched as the South Jersey one. And, he has shrunk the city government.

The whole thing is a vicious circle; taxes, fees, fines, to keep paying increasing salaries and pensions. No one ever thought to say, hey, maybe we should not have as many salaries and pensions- instead let's just increase taxes, fines, and fees. At least not in NJ. Consolidation is one way of many to do that without breaking the law or changing it because it provides cover not to rehire.

And by the way, I'm very liberal and not a "drown it in the bathtub" Norquist follower. But on the local level here in NJ we overfund the unnecessary while higher education and infrastructure rot on the vine.

People though to say it. Then they realized - you arent moving away either way.

Consolidation would provide a temporary respite at best. The crooks who run the show aren't moving to Florida. In reality, the more ruthless and efficient among them would have more power in a consolidated system in the long run.

 

[NotInRHouse]

The moving away thing is overblown. I was in Alabama (to use a state that follows a right wing economic course) and while their taxes are lower, they have a very high sales tax. That's the new rightie thing- it's basically a regressive tax.

Look at Kansas. They just slashed everything and they now have no money. Pennsylvania and Florida, where "overtaxed" New Jerseyans flee to, have lagging economies, lower wages, and much worse schools. Playing with Zillow in Austin I found property taxes basically in line with Jersey City for a condo.

It's about being wise. The people who retire go to Florida- and then they just don't get replaced. People who think they can have it easy being a suburban cop in a two bit down have to find a private sector job. Should be interesting finding one that pays six figures in sick days upon retirement!

This thread I think is demonstrating there is a lack of nuance. Democrats just assume you are cutting things that shouldn't be cut; Republicans just want to cut everything. In reality some technocrat should just be slicing municipal boundaries.

 

[retired711]

My impression is that those who fear flight out of the state are not worried about the middle class. Rather they are worried about the very rich -- who, despite the lack of a "millionaire's tax" -- pay the bulk of state income taxes here in New Jersey. Those people can move, and they're not moving to Alabama or Kansas, but rather to New York, Pennsylvania (there is a N.Y.C. suburban boom in northeast Pennsylvania) or Connecticut. I suspect that the fear of flight is exaggerated, even for the very rich.

NIRH, you are substituting oratory for data. (So do many of my students, so you're hardly alone.) The report says that the per capita cost of providing services is no greater in small places than in large ones. This suggests that consolidation will not in fact reduce costs -- that there are not economies of scale. And if consolidation doesn't reduce per capita costs, is there much point to it? Is there any real evidence that there is less corruption in large units than small ones, and by enough to justify the loss of individual preferences? Certainly there does not seem to be enough corruption to result in differential per capita costs -- that's what the study tells us.

 

[PurpleR]

Governors for years have been espousing share services, not to say in some case they may not save a couple bucks but I have always felt that is it just a case of redirecting the publics eyes from the real problem- how revenues in the State of New Jersey are raised to pay for local schools and municipal and county services. The over reliance on property taxes has a tendency to hurt the middle class and the seniors trying to hang onto their houses once thier earning years are over. But the real misdirection is that by having towns consolidate large services like police and public works is going to be a game changer, quite simply its not. Take a look at your tax bill, my guess 60% going to your school district , county and fire districts or other special districts will make up about 22% and you local purpose tax ( basic services - police, public works, trash, street lighting etc) will make up 18% of the billl, these are rough estimates. Now lets say your property tax bill is $10,000, that means $1,800 is going to pay for those municipal services. Now lets take the biggest cost for all municipal budgets - Police- probably takes up about 25% of the $1,800 tax bill or $450. Now lets consolidate with our friends in Town B and save 10% a year (that would be a big savings from what I have seen) So you have just saved $45. So your property tax problems are all resolved. The savings all often temporary, and not significant in the overall scheme of things. I think most people expect more.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by PurpleR:
Governors for years have been espousing share services, not to say in some case they may not save a couple bucks but I have always felt that is it just a case of redirecting the publics eyes from the real problem- how revenues in the State of New Jersey are raised to pay for local schools and municipal and county services. The over reliance on property taxes has a tendency to hurt the middle class and the seniors trying to hang onto their houses once thier earning years are over. But the real misdirection is that by having towns consolidate large services like police and public works is going to be a game changer, quite simply its not. Take a look at your tax bill, my guess 60% going to your school district , county and fire districts or other special districts will make up about 22% and you local purpose tax ( basic services - police, public works, trash, street lighting etc) will make up 18% of the billl, these are rough estimates. Now lets say your property tax bill is $10,000, that means $1,800 is going to pay for those municipal services. Now lets take the biggest cost for all municipal budgets - Police- probably takes up about 25% of the $1,800 tax bill or $450. Now lets consolidate with our friends in Town B and save 10% a year (that would be a big savings from what I have seen) So you have just saved $45. So your property tax problems are all resolved. The savings all often temporary, and not significant in the overall scheme of things. I think most people expect more.

NIRH - your problem is actually with the way public employees are compensated. Cutting services is not the way to change that. Changing the way public employees are compensated is.

Purple R is right - in my county it looks like roughly 50% of the operating revenue comes from property taxes and county income tax, 40% from the state, and 10% from the feds and other sources. Looking at Montclair (just a random town I picked) basically 99% of the the revenue comes from local taxes (which presumably are mostly if not entirely property taxes).

 

[MoobyCow]

Here's the thing with NJ taxes. We pay about 2.5% more per dollar on income than the average state or

$6,675 per capita vs income per capita $54,442

We paid $9,902 per capita in Fed tax and got back $6,040 (0.61/$)

If we just got fed money back at the rate of the 5th lowest state (Ill .75/$) we'd have about an avg state tax bill (assuming a 1/1 offset of Fed vs State spending)

State Tax burden link
Fed Tax Burden

This post was edited on 11/21 2:05 PM by MoobyCow

 

[NotInRHouse]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
My impression is that those who fear flight out of the state are not worried about the middle class. Rather they are worried about the very rich -- who, despite the lack of a "millionaire's tax" -- pay the bulk of state income taxes here in New Jersey. Those people can move, and they're not moving to Alabama or Kansas, but rather to New York, Pennsylvania (there is a N.Y.C. suburban boom in northeast Pennsylvania) or Connecticut. I suspect that the fear of flight is exaggerated, even for the very rich.

NIRH, you are substituting oratory for data. (So do many of my students, so you're hardly alone.) The report says that the per capita cost of providing services is no greater in small places than in large ones. This suggests that consolidation will not in fact reduce costs -- that there are not economies of scale. And if consolidation doesn't reduce per capita costs, is there much point to it? Is there any real evidence that there is less corruption in large units than small ones, and by enough to justify the loss of individual preferences? Certainly there does not seem to be enough corruption to result in differential per capita costs -- that's what the study tells us.

But that comes back to what services are we providing. The costs are the same because small and large towns are engaging in the typical NJ municipal behavior (which is overpayment and overhiring).

In terms of corruption, my guess is there has not been a study on that, and we probably don't know the half (or 90%) of it. But my submission is this. If there is a small town like Dunellen or Englishtown where the speed limit is 25 or 30 in pretty much the entire town and crime is close to null, is it not corruption that police services are not shared with the much larger towns? Englishtown is for example surrounded entirely by Manalapan. You do have cases like Helmetta that I mentioned before, which is basically, upon its own admission, a speed trap meant to generate revenue, and they are being sued for discrimination as well.

The other thing is that NJ doesn't really punish repeat offenders. What happens when employees blow the whistle is that the insurance carrier will often just pay the settlement and then the taxpayers are on the hook for the increased premium. This also happens in case of general liability, for example, police physically assaulting multiple RU students in a span of two weeks.

Here's another thing. At the NJ meeting of the League of Municipalities with the State Senate they berated the senators for not allowing them to tax people more. Atlantic City wanted to charge more taxes, and even Sweeney told them you have to be kidding and live within your means. At what point is that corruption or not?

If I were in charge, I'd do this:

- Abolish home rule completely for any town with less than 50,000 people. Aside from school districts, counties now have full authority over former municipal services for those towns if they refuse to consolidate with neighbors. Hudson County would be consolidated into a NYC-style borough.

- Develop a "three strikes" rule for towns that get sued. An independent fact finder will be retained every time there is a lawsuit. Regardless of whether the case is settled, if the town or county has engaged in any kind of gross malfeasance 3 times as determined by the fact finder, a three year salary and pension freeze is imposed.

- Cap all payouts for sick and vacation days at $100,000. If engaged in malfeasance as per the fact finder, any and all amounts are forfeited. Cap all public salaries at $200,000 plus inflation. Cap all public salaries for those without a BA/BS at $75,000 plus inflation.

- Anyone accused of speeding or motor vehicles violation gets the right to trial by jury.

- Charging for beach entry is banned.

- Red light and speed cameras are banned.

- Legalize and tax marijuana.

- Legalize and tax prostitution in Atlantic City.

- Pass an amendment to the State Constitution banning decreasing funding of higher education.

- Aggressively fund overdue infrastructure, expand the HBLR to Bergen County, build a New Brunswick light rail, and lobby Congress to abolish the Port Authority.

Not that it would happen just my $.02 that would redirect spending to where it belongs.

 

[derleider]

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
My impression is that those who fear flight out of the state are not worried about the middle class. Rather they are worried about the very rich -- who, despite the lack of a "millionaire's tax" -- pay the bulk of state income taxes here in New Jersey. Those people can move, and they're not moving to Alabama or Kansas, but rather to New York, Pennsylvania (there is a N.Y.C. suburban boom in northeast Pennsylvania) or Connecticut. I suspect that the fear of flight is exaggerated, even for the very rich.

NIRH, you are substituting oratory for data. (So do many of my students, so you're hardly alone.) The report says that the per capita cost of providing services is no greater in small places than in large ones. This suggests that consolidation will not in fact reduce costs -- that there are not economies of scale. And if consolidation doesn't reduce per capita costs, is there much point to it? Is there any real evidence that there is less corruption in large units than small ones, and by enough to justify the loss of individual preferences? Certainly there does not seem to be enough corruption to result in differential per capita costs -- that's what the study tells us.

But that comes back to what services are we providing. The costs are the same because small and large towns are engaging in the typical NJ municipal behavior (which is overpayment and overhiring).

In terms of corruption, my guess is there has not been a study on that, and we probably don't know the half (or 90%) of it. But my submission is this. If there is a small town like Dunellen or Englishtown where the speed limit is 25 or 30 in pretty much the entire town and crime is close to null, is it not corruption that police services are not shared with the much larger towns? Englishtown is for example surrounded entirely by Manalapan. You do have cases like Helmetta that I mentioned before, which is basically, upon its own admission, a speed trap meant to generate revenue, and they are being sued for discrimination as well.

The other thing is that NJ doesn't really punish repeat offenders. What happens when employees blow the whistle is that the insurance carrier will often just pay the settlement and then the taxpayers are on the hook for the increased premium. This also happens in case of general liability, for example, police physically assaulting multiple RU students in a span of two weeks.

Here's another thing. At the NJ meeting of the League of Municipalities with the State Senate they berated the senators for not allowing them to tax people more. Atlantic City wanted to charge more taxes, and even Sweeney told them you have to be kidding and live within your means. At what point is that corruption or not?

If I were in charge, I'd do this:

- Abolish home rule completely for any town with less than 50,000 people. Aside from school districts, counties now have full authority over former municipal services for those towns if they refuse to consolidate with neighbors. Hudson County would be consolidated into a NYC-style borough.

- Develop a "three strikes" rule for towns that get sued. An independent fact finder will be retained every time there is a lawsuit. Regardless of whether the case is settled, if the town or county has engaged in any kind of gross malfeasance 3 times as determined by the fact finder, a three year salary and pension freeze is imposed.

- Cap all payouts for sick and vacation days at $100,000. If engaged in malfeasance as per the fact finder, any and all amounts are forfeited. Cap all public salaries at $200,000 plus inflation. Cap all public salaries for those without a BA/BS at $75,000 plus inflation.

- Anyone accused of speeding or motor vehicles violation gets the right to trial by jury.

- Charging for beach entry is banned.

- Red light and speed cameras are banned.

- Legalize and tax marijuana.

- Legalize and tax prostitution in Atlantic City.

- Pass an amendment to the State Constitution banning decreasing funding of higher education.

- Aggressively fund overdue infrastructure, expand the HBLR to Bergen County, build a New Brunswick light rail, and lobby Congress to abolish the Port Authority.

Not that it would happen just my $.02 that would redirect spending to where it belongs.

What does any of that have to do with the size of townships?

You really hate cops don't you, in a privileged bro kind of way, of course.

 

[retired711]

So now you're saying that both large and small towns are overhiring and overpaying. I do not understand how consolidation or county rule would possibly solve that problem.