Gina Rheault [email protected] Feb 1 - 2006 Taming Monster Powerpoints.
Special Districts in the Northeast United States: Do They Enhance or Hinder Local Government Service...
-
Upload
jack-scott -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Special Districts in the Northeast United States: Do They Enhance or Hinder Local Government Service...
Special Districts in the Northeast United States: Do They Enhance or Hinder Local Government Service Delivery?
Gina Scutelnicu, Assistant ProfessorPace University
Special Districts
•Independent, special-purpose units of local government
•Professionalize public services management
•Single vs. multiple functions - 90%/10%
•Enjoy limited general and special powers
•Do not have planning and zoning powers
•Characteristics:•Narrow specialization•Administrative and financial independence•Geographic flexibility•Low political visibility•Status of SDDependent vs. independent
https://www.census.gov//govs/go/sd.html
“The Shadow Governments”
Theoretical and Empirical EvidenceSpecialized vs. General-Purpose Governance
•Metropolitan reform theory vs. public choice theory.
•Consolidation vs. Fragmentation
•Do not differentiate special districts
• Specialized governance less efficient than general-purpose governance (Berry, 2009; Foster, 1997; Mullin, 2009;)
• Economies of scale vs. economies of scope (Hooghe & Marks, 2003)
• Responsiveness, accountability and equity not rigorously investigated
• Efficiency operationalization variation
Contribution:•How does service delivery occur
at the local level?•Develop a typology of SD based
on state level data•Assesses SD performance by
function
Study Objectives
•Develop a typology of multi-purpose special districts based on state data (NE states)
•Special districts classification varies (Eger III, 2006; Foster, 1997; Porter et al., 1992)
•Consistent classification across state boundaries:
Activity
Creation method & oversight
Status
Structure
Multi-Purpose Special Districts
•Focus on economic & community development I. Economic development (BIDs) - 9 states • Manage and fund street improvements; parking; sanitation; security; landscaping; marketing & special events etc.
II. Community development (CDDs) - two states (PA & NY)
“Growth pays for itself” Manage and fund new infrastructure improvements & maintenance; public utilities; recreation facilities and transportation-related services
Multi-Purpose Special Districts Cont’d
• SD centralized agency (NJ, NY & PA)
• Reporting information about SD finances - a formality
• Districts services are intended to supplement GP government services
• BIDs focus on commercial/industrial only
• CDDs focus on residential, commercial & mixed use
Districts Creation and Oversight
Creation process:
Petition method: petition of property/business owners public hearing ordinance or resolution of municipality
Referendum method
Public hearing method Duration:
BIDs are time-limited or revised at certain intervals by municipalities
CDDs as perpetual entitiesAnnexation/incorporation issues
Managerial & FinancialAutonomy Cont’d
Dependent:
Appointed board of supervisors
Generate own revenues with approval of GP govts.; municipalities issue bonds
Under close supervision of municipalities
Limits are placed on taxes/assessments
Managerial & FinancialAutonomy
Independent:
Elected board of supervisors (all CDDs)
Generate own revenues - assessments, taxes, issue bonds
Once established, no clear oversight
Lack of coordination and cooperation between the general and the special-purpose governments
File reports and budgets for information only
Conclusion
• Multi-purpose districts suitable for economic & community development functions
• Great variety - “hidden side of government”
• Few states keep track of their SD & require reporting enforcement
• Varying managerial & financial autonomy