Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know that this topic has been discussed on here in the past, but I'm curious as to how posters would go about consolidation in order to potentially lower taxes. Would you consolidate school districts to a certain level? Would you consolidate the whole county into one entity? Would you consolidate things at lower levels like villages into towns(or dissolve villages)? Are there other methods that you would use? I'm just curious as to how people would approach this topic.
There must be a thousand ways to save money. Sometimes it seems like the government is in the business of shredding our money. But I would like a metro government (in Rochester, anyway) because maybe then we would get a vision of who we want to be as a region and rally around the cause. A growing economy also has more money to pay our taxes with too.
While consolidation looks good, it does have drawbacks.
When companies plan a consolidation, they tout all the cost savings that will be achieved. I read an article not that long ago showing how 90% of the time, there is no cost savings. Sometimes costs even increase.
Government is not known for being efficient. I can't see how consolidation would go any better than corporations.
There was another thread on here recently (in the LI section) where consolidation of school districts was discussed. Several posters there pointed out the possibility for little to no savings on consolidation. I tend to agree with that opinion. You still have the same number of students, teachers and buildings. Only a small percentage of the cost is even open for savings.
Aside from these points, there are other considerations.
Local government does have its advantages. The more consolidated things are, the further removed it is from the people. You mention dissolving villages... I am sure this would offer some savings. However, you need to ask why villages were created and why people still choose to live there. I suspect this is because the residents perceive they are getting their monies worth. Villages control certain aspects of life for their village. People in a village are much more likely to have a level of control.
As things get bigger, people lose that control. There is a common perception that NYC "runs" the state. Because of the concentration of population (and money) NYC has tremendous control in Albany. I won't get into the politics of it, but it does leave many residents outside the city limits feeling disenfranchised.
The same concept can be seen at many levels. If there were no villages, the county would be making decisions for everyone in the county. Roosevelt and Old Brookville have different needs that both communities may feel are better addressed locally. You can apply that same logic to abolishing counties in favor of a single state government... and even to taking control from the states in favor of a larger federal government.
In most cases, the same services will need to be performed for the same number of people. Most real savings could be achieved without consolidation by simply reducing waste and any existing duplication of services (neither of which the politician will allow to happen).
Let's say you took, for example, a town with its own police force. That's likely to be a big expense. You still need to have police, so the option would be to use the County Police. You don't eliminate the cost, only potentially reduce it. Now you go to the residents and tell them they no longer have their own police, but will still have county police coverage. All for a savings of a few percent on one line item of their tax bill. I just don't think that will fly (at least not in the town I have lived in with its own police).
In the end, I don't think consolidation would produce any substantial savings for the taxpayer. The cost, however, would be loss of control.
While consolidation looks good, it does have drawbacks.
When companies plan a consolidation, they tout all the cost savings that will be achieved. I read an article not that long ago showing how 90% of the time, there is no cost savings. Sometimes costs even increase.
Government is not known for being efficient. I can't see how consolidation would go any better than corporations.
There was another thread on here recently (in the LI section) where consolidation of school districts was discussed. Several posters there pointed out the possibility for little to no savings on consolidation. I tend to agree with that opinion. You still have the same number of students, teachers and buildings. Only a small percentage of the cost is even open for savings.
Aside from these points, there are other considerations.
Local government does have its advantages. The more consolidated things are, the further removed it is from the people. You mention dissolving villages... I am sure this would offer some savings. However, you need to ask why villages were created and why people still choose to live there. I suspect this is because the residents perceive they are getting their monies worth. Villages control certain aspects of life for their village. People in a village are much more likely to have a level of control.
As things get bigger, people lose that control. There is a common perception that NYC "runs" the state. Because of the concentration of population (and money) NYC has tremendous control in Albany. I won't get into the politics of it, but it does leave many residents outside the city limits feeling disenfranchised.
The same concept can be seen at many levels. If there were no villages, the county would be making decisions for everyone in the county. Roosevelt and Old Brookville have different needs that both communities may feel are better addressed locally. You can apply that same logic to abolishing counties in favor of a single state government... and even to taking control from the states in favor of a larger federal government.
In most cases, the same services will need to be performed for the same number of people. Most real savings could be achieved without consolidation by simply reducing waste and any existing duplication of services (neither of which the politician will allow to happen).
Let's say you took, for example, a town with its own police force. That's likely to be a big expense. You still need to have police, so the option would be to use the County Police. You don't eliminate the cost, only potentially reduce it. Now you go to the residents and tell them they no longer have their own police, but will still have county police coverage. All for a savings of a few percent on one line item of their tax bill. I just don't think that will fly (at least not in the town I have lived in with its own police).
In the end, I don't think consolidation would produce any substantial savings for the taxpayer. The cost, however, would be loss of control.
On the other hand, what about the thought that the state doesn't need as many school districts that it has and in turn, would reduce the number of highly paid, high level administrators? I mention schools due to the school tax making up the largest portion of property taxes. So, could it be a matter of too many governmental entities, including some that overlap each other?
On the other hand, what about the thought that the state doesn't need as many school districts that it has and in turn, would reduce the number of highly paid, high level administrators? I mention schools due to the school tax making up the largest portion of property taxes. So, could it be a matter of too many governmental entities, including some that overlap each other?
Thanks of the article link. Glad to know my concept is shared by others. All of the points in that article apply equally to school district mergers.
My perspective on school districts is based on Long Island. I can't speak for the rest of the state.
Yes, I agree there are too many school districts. At the same time, I would not be a proponent of changing that through consolidation.
In the other thread I mentioned, many pointed out the "administrative" cost you mention. While there may be some merit to that line of thinking, I believe it is highly overrated.
The bigger costs is teachers, due to the sheer number of them. That would not change. Further, in a consolidation, it is more likely that the lower paid districts would see a salary increase to match the lower paid districts. This would create an overall increase in costs.
For administrators, I don't see a big savings. Let's say you have five districts each with 10,000 students and a superintendent making $250k/year. You merge these five districts to one district with 50,000 studentsHighly likely that four superintendent jobs are eliminated. More likely, they become four deputy-superintendents.
With a larger district and workload, the new superintendent gets a bump to maybe $400k/year. Each of the deputies end up with $175k/year. (I realize I am pulling numbers out of thin air.) The end result is a savings of $150k - 12% of administration costs, which only make up a small percentage of the total budget.
Again, these numbers are just some hypothetical example. The point is that the savings are not as big as everyone would like to believe... and those are "potential" savings at best.
Another side is the loss of control. The larger the district, the less local control people have.
On Long Island, there is a much bigger problem. So much on LI is tied to school districts. People don't buy homes based on the "town" they buy based on the school district. Property values have a direct link.
School taxes on LI are obscene. However, people willingly purchase homes in areas with even higher taxes (and higher home prices) just to be in what they consider a more desirable school district.We all complain about the system, but the fact is that all of us in the "better" (perceived or real) districts are happy with the current system. We must be because we willingly pay for it.
IMO, consolidation of districts on Long Island (can't speak for elsewhere) would be a disaster. The housing market would be turned on its ear. People in "better" areas would see a decrease in value, while seeing no tax relief. The initial cost of such a dramatic change would be huge, and those already paying higher taxes would be footing the entire bill. Long term the cost savings would be negligible, if there was one at all.
In the end, quality of education would not increase in the poor performing areas, while quality would decrease in the better performing areas.
The "master" school board would have much more power and become a bigger political entity. This means more money and more politics with less attention paid to the kids by local parent with a vested interest in the community. It would be too big to work efficiently and fairly
Local politicians would be fighting over who got the big district-wide contract and lining their pockets with payoffs while making sure their friends got elected to the school board.
While I may take heat for this... I can just see the school board member from the "poor" community complaining that the school in the "rich" community can "afford to pay for that on their own" while making sure more dollars get funneled to his/her area. To be fair, those in the "rich" area will make similar plays against the "poor" areas. Everyone loves to play the class warfare game, and our politicians provide all the fuel for it.
On a more positive note, there are ways to cut costs. There is considerable waste in the system. This, and elimination of any duplication of services would provide a savings. Salaries and benefits across the board should be looked at. Performance goals are needed so the dead wood can be eliminated - at least get some value for what we pay.
^ Again, great points......I also wonder if it is a matter of how consolidation occurs. For instance, could the possibility of keeping the current "districts" in place, but with possible zones and with "Open Enrollment" similar to what occurs in MN and WI. In those states, the money follows the student and the student can attend any school in those states as long as space is available and they find their way to that school. Perhaps this could be done on a county level versus a state level.
Also, could the school board formed from county legislator districts or the current districts, with representation possibly based upon "district" population or other means, up to a point?
I do think that the aspect of representation can not be underestimated, especially in the case of underrepresented groups. So, that is something to consider.
Consolidating school districts would be the worst mistake this state could possibly make. Schools are the most important thing a community has, and local control is of premier importance.
Consolidating school districts would be the worst mistake this state could possibly make. Schools are the most important thing a community has, and local control is of premier importance.
What would be a better alternative in regards to lowering taxes?
^ Again, great points......I also wonder if it is a matter of how consolidation occurs. For instance, could the possibility of keeping the current "districts" in place, but with possible zones and with "Open Enrollment" similar to what occurs in MN and WI. In those states, the money follows the student and the student can attend any school in those states as long as space is available and they find their way to that school. Perhaps this could be done on a county level versus a state level.
Interesting concept. I like the "money follows the student" concept. Not sure how it is implemented in other places, but I can see problems on the face of it.
1. There would be a long line of people trying to get into the good schools. The inevitably leads to unfair situations. Who gets priority? The locals (rich privilege)? People who "know" someone?
2. I like the "they find their way" part. Bussing across counties would likely increase cost and hassle. However, doesn't this put the lower income folks at a disadvantage? They can get into the "good" school, but have no way to get there. Either way, should be subject our kids to a several hour commute because we think the 1st grade class in Muttontown is better? I live on the edge of my district and always regretted my kids having a 40 minute bus ride to high school.
3. If the current district system is left in place, the money cannot follow the student. Someone paying 1/2 the school taxes I do should not be entitled to the benefits and programs I am getting for my tax dollar. If they were paying what I pay, it would be a different story.
Quote:
Also, could the school board formed from county legislator districts or the current districts, with representation possibly based upon "district" population or other means, up to a point?
That's one way to do it. There is still going to be an inherent unfairness in the system. Too many different areas with different needs. One school may have a problem of not enough spaces for seniors to park their cars while another school may have a need for metal detectors and security guards to keep violent crime rates down in the lunchroom. I don't think it is a much an issue of balancing the representation as it is the disparity of needs as the "district" grow larger. Right now, most districts have some level of homogeny.
No matter how you slice it, you end up with all the east egg people telling the west egg people what is best (or vis a versa).
I'm wide open for a better system. I'm just not a fan of bigger government (and the public school system is government). Smaller is always more manageable and accountable.
What would be a better alternative in regards to lowering taxes?
Gradually switching new Public Employees from a pensions system to a 401k system (403B) like everyone else is doing in the private world. However, the 403B can have a generous match. I think public employees can still have good benefits and good pay but the pension system is too expensive.
The problem with traditional pensions is that people are living longer and longer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All of the points in that article apply equally to school district mergers.
