A formal joining of a city (or cities) with a county (or counties) government is called a city-county consolidation. The resulting unified body assumes the responsibilities of the city and the county. The Bureau of Census identifies only 33 city-county consolidated governments out of a total of 3,069 county governments.  For a list, see Consolidated City County Governments.

While city-county consolidations are rare, there have been many state and local initiatives attempting consolidation. The rationale for consolidations is to address certain government challenges. Consolidations have the potential to do the following:

• Produce cost savings. In the short term, studies have shown that costs increase, but over the long-term, depending on the design of the government, there may be monetary savings;
• Increase efficiency. Government inefficiencies associated with duplicating city and county services are eliminated;
• Improve resource base. A consolidated government has better jurisdiction, legal powers, and tax sources;
• Enhance planning capacity. Under a comprehensive planning system, dealing with land development issues and controlling sprawl prevents fragmentation. The development approval process is streamlined and public/private cooperation is improved; and
• Improve accountability. As a consolidated entity, responsibility and blame cannot be disputed between the separate city and county governments.

In some places the benefits of city-county consolidation may not be as evident. When costs increase in the short-term, there is no guarantee that they will ebb away with time.

This is because local government services are labor intensive, and when the personnel systems of two governments merge, the combined costs of salaries and fringe benefits can overburden a new government. Also, consolidation may lead to cut-backs in the services offered and employees on staff.

The Structure
The government charter of a consolidated government defines its structure and is based on the local context. Here are a few examples of city-county consolidations:

• The Baton Rouge-East Baton Rouge Parish, LA, consolidated in 1949, has a mayor-council structure. The mayor is the chief executive officer, with the power of the veto and to appoint and remove department heads, as well as to prepare the annual budget. Twelve members are elected to the Metropolitan Council from single member districts.
• The consolidated government of Jacksonville-Duval County, FL, (1968) has structured their mayor-council form differently. The mayor has similar powers, but is subject to confirmation by the Council. As in the consolidated government of Baton Rouge, the mayor's veto may be overridden by a Council two-thirds majority. The council is composed of 14 electeds from member districts and five elected at large.
• The consolidation in Kansas City-Wyandotte County, KS in 1997, replaced their seven member city council and three member county commissioners board with an 11 member Board of Commissioners (eight elected by district and two elected countywide). The eleventh board member is the mayor, who is also elected countywide, has veto power and can vote to break a board tie. The mayor appoints the county administrator with the consent of the commission.

The most common form of consolidated government is a single chief executive and a multi-district council with a few at-large seats. The executive, or mayor, has veto power, while the council has both legislative and fiscal functions. Occasionally a city manager is appointed.

The Process

Almost every state has provisions in general law to change local government boundaries through municipal annexation or incorporation, and special district governments. Few states permit city-county consolidation in general law. In most places, a majority of citizens must pass a referendum or initiative on the issue before the state legislature can approve a special act. Once the issue gets on the local public agenda and petitions and studies have been done, a commission drafts a new charter. After the referendum, the proposed charter will be ratified or rejected.

Over the last 40 years, nearly 100 referenda and initiatives have proposed city-county consolidations, but voters have rejected three-fourths of them. Multiple attempts at consolidation are typically necessary. In Georgia, for instance, it took 20 years for two consolidations to take place. Voters repeatedly defeated measure after measure. Even in the 1990s, only six out of 20 attempts were successful.  Some consolidations fill a need for a basic service and occur where there are a small number of incorporated suburbs. Despite the constant interest in consolidations, there are far simpler and less controversial ways to achieve the objectives, such as annexations, special districts, or the formation of new municipal governments.

Sources:
Beardslee, Peggy. "Questions and Answers on Consolidation" July 1998.

Campbell, Richard W. and Sally Coleman Selden "Does City-County Consolidation Save Money?"  Policy Notes, vol. 1, no. 2, March 2000. Carl Vinson Institute of Government, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

Carr, Jered B. and Richard C. Feiock. "Who Becomes Involved in City-County Consolidations?  Findings from County Officials in 25 Communities"  State and Local Government Review. vol. 34, no. 2 (Spring 2002), pp 78-94.

Kenefake, Scott M. "City/County Consolidation: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?" Kansas Government Journal. August 2003.

Morris, Leo. "A House Divided -- A Four-Day Series on Consolidated Government", News-Sentinel (Fort Wayne, IN) 19-22 August 2003.