EDITORIAL: Consolidation legislation is a first step

Reduction in governments could be the answer

   Perhaps, this year’s special session of the state Legislature may bear fruit after all.
   The Joint Committee on Government Consolidation and Shared Services is considering a package of bills that could reduce the number of municipal governments in the state, while empowering counties to take on some administrative functions (tax collection and assessment, for instance), allowing all towns to save money.
   The most significant of the bills would create a municipal consolidation panel that could lead to a reduction in the number of local and school governments in the state.
   The legislation, which has been floating around Trenton for several years, would empower a nine-member panel to look at each of the state’s 566 municipalities, determine where duplications exist and whether merging towns could lead to more efficient or cheaper local government.
   The commission would be required to issue a report within two years listing proposed mergers and offering a specific rationale for its recommendations. The commission would be required to look at geographic and economic issues, including shared borders, streamlining of services and costs and potential tax savings.
   The plan would then go to the governor and state Legislature, which would have the final say.
   The legislation is destined to meet opposition from municipal and school officials, most of who will be out to defend their turf. And it could meet resistance in some communities — especially those like neighboring Monroe that might be expected to absorb smaller towns like Jamesburg — because its local voters would not have a direct say in the decision.
   These are legitimate concerns but, given local voters’ track record on consolidation, we believe a different tack is necessary.
   Under current state law, voters in affected municipalities have final say over municipal mergers. Voters in Monroe and Jamesburg, for instance, would separately have to endorse a merger before it could go forward.
   That, unfortunately, has been a rare occurrence, leaving the state with layer upon layer of local governments (there are more than 1,400 bodies that raise taxes at the local and county level in the state). This proliferation of local governments is both inefficient and expensive — and it is, at least partially, responsible for the skyrocketing property taxes New Jersey residents have been complaining about for years.
   The proposed legislation offers a potential way around this parochialism. Local officials and taxpayers would have the opportunity to shape the panel’s report — by testifying at hearings, for instance — but would not have a veto.
   The legislation is not a panacea. There are other culprits contributing to the high cost of government in the state — public employee pension abuses and the sheer number of school districts, for instance — and there is a need to change the way we raise money to fund services.
   It is a good start, however. At the very least, it should go a long way to focusing the debate.