1,214 special districts all efficiency v. local control

By ED McMANUS

ONE THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED AND FOURTEEN.

That is how many units of local government exist in the six-county Chicago metropolitan area. It is, by far, the largest number in any metropolitan area in the nation. It is three times more than in the New York City area and four times more than Los Angeles.

That figure of 1,214 includes 261 separate cities and villages. What that means in many cases is that two or more municipalities exist side by side, divided only by a street, with each maintaining its own little police department, fire department, village hall and so forth. Some people think some consolidation would make sense.

That 1,214 also includes 113 townships. There is a wide body of opinion that township governments are unnecessary, but efforts to do away with them have failed both in the legislature and in local referenda. Third, that 1,214 includes 315 school districts and 519 special districts of other types. While it is not unusual nationwide for communities to set up separate districts to operate schools, the proliferation of special districts is something for which the Chicago area and Illinois are noted.

Some of the districts the Metropolitan Sanitary District, for instance all are regional. Others are purely local with communities containing a village, a park district, and a library district, all with virtually the same boundaries. Many of these districts were created because the 1870 Illinois Constitution prohibited villages from incurring a debt equal to more than 5 percent of the assessed valuation of their property. Setting up a special district with the power to issue bonds for its special purpose was a way of getting around that limitation. And although the 1970 Constitution does not contain such a limitation, the districts remain. Their existence results in duplicative bureaucracies somewhat like those found in side-by-side municipalities.

In these days of rising consciousness about rising property taxes, people have become aware that their tax money is supporting, in many cases, a dozen separate governments. (My own tax bill, for example, lists levies for the county, the township, the village, and nine special districts including park, library, secondary school, elementary school, forest preserve, tuberculosis sanitarium, hospital, sanitary and mosquito abatement.)

State Rep. Woods Bowman, an independent Democrat from Chicago, believes reducing the number of districts would go a long way toward reducing taxes, but he is realistic about the prospects for change. "Politically, it will be difficult," he said, "because we're not just talking about money we're talking about power." Power is also a stumbling block toward consolidation of municipalities. The most vigorous opponents of consolidation are the public officials and for obvious reasons. If two villages merge, one of the two mayors loses his job.

One place where municipal consolidation has been discussed frequently is the Round Lake area in Lake County. The area has four villages Round Lake, Round Lake Beach, Round Lake Park and Round Lake Heights with a total population of only 19,000. Periodically, some residents have tried to hold a referendum to consolidate, but the proposal never hasgenerated enough interest to get on the ballot. Matthew L. Rockwell, executive director of the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, points out that such duplication of municipal services results not only in higher taxes but also in serious wastes of energy. But he has given up trying to promote mergers. "Merger has become such an inflammatory word that it turns people off before they get a chance to start talking," he said. "It's better to talk about a consolidation of services."

As small steps toward that consolidation, quite a few Chicago suburbs have entered into agreements with one another for the sharing of services. Many, for example, have entered joint purchasing programs to take advantage of the discounts available when buying larger quantities of supplies and equipment.

While some special districts are operated by appointed not elective boards, which prevents citizens from having a direct voice in them, there is one big plus in the proliferation of elected local governments. That is the fact that citizens are likely to have more control. Metropolitan governments look attractive from a cost-effectiveness point of view, but there are a lot of people who value being able to walk over to their village hall or attend a council meeting to register a complaint. "People don't want to give up that local control," says Louis Masotti, director of the Center for Urban Affairs at Northwestern University. "And you'll find that even in places where metropolitan government has been relatively successful, it doesn't include three elements of government education, security and zoning," says Masotti. "I don't really care who picks up my garbage, but I sure care who teaches my kids, and who protects me the police and who decides zoning matters what can be done to the property next door to me."

Masotti does not see proliferation of local governments as a problem. "If you and I sat down together to establish a brand new metropolitan area, I'm sure we'd do it differently than it now exists; but it's relatively simple-minded to think in terms of reducing the number of local governments. You have to ask 'What do we give up in the process?'"

April 1979/Illinois Issues/35