Reviewed 06-07
Pros and Cons of Forming Special Purpose Districts
Contents
- Overview
- Washington Legislative Studies
- Summary of Pros and Cons
- Areas of Required Cooperation
- Special Districts Information from Other States
Overview
The value of special districts as a separate governmental form has been debated in many states. Critics question whether there are too many districts and whether they are accountable. Advocates favor providing focused services that respond to special needs and give local control. Some states have created a uniform set of statutes to govern special districts and provide accountability.
Washington Legislative Studies
- Washington Legislative Budget Committee Review of Special Districts: A Report to the Washington State Legislature, August 5, 1988
The Legislative Budget Committee (now called the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee)
reviewed a sample of special purpose districts to determine whether special purpose districts were operating in accordance with legislative intent, whether they were needed to provide services, and whether they were functioning in an efficient manner. The Committee focused on a sample of special purpose districts in Thurston and Skagit counties and concluded that :
- Special districts appeared to operate within the intent of the authorizing legislation .
- Special districts appeared to fulfill a need by providing services to their citizens, and the services appeared to be effective.
- Some of the services could be provided by other governments, but the other governments were not interested in providing the services.
- While there appeared to be close informal coordination between county administrators and district personnel on matters of mutual interest, the absence of long-range planning for special district services.
- Few formal mechanisms were in place to promote coordination of services between like districts.
- There was no county-wide oversight mechanism for evaluating efficiency and effectiveness of special district operations.
- Washington State Local Governance Study Commission, Final Report of the Local Governance Study Commission (Olympia, Wash., 1988.) Volume I (
1.29 MB) Volume II ( 2.55 MB)
- Special districts have served an important purpose in the last 50 years.
- Lack of coordination between districts and general purpose governments has impeded growth planning.
- Some districts are too small.
- The goals of cost-effectiveness, coordination, and accountability should have precedence.
- In urban areas, city/special district contracts for service provision will be desirable in some cases.
- In others, cities should absorb special purpose districts.
- Smaller districts should be consolidated with other districts or absorbed by cities.
Summary of Pros and Cons
- Strong Points of Special Districts
- Special districts can tailor services to citizen demand and concentrate on efficiently providing limited services.
- Special districts can directly link costs to benefits.
- General purpose local governments such as cities and towns levy general taxes to pay for an array of public services.
- Taxpayers often do not perceive that the services they receive are directly related to the amount of taxes they pay.
- In a special district, generally only those who benefit from district services pay for them. There is a more direct correlation between funding and services received.
- Special districts can be very responsive to their constituents because most special districts are geographically smaller and have fewer residents than counties and cities.
- This advantage, however, can be lost as regions grow and governments become more complex.
- Criticism of Special Districts
- Too many governments:
- Local government would be more effective and efficient if there were fewer units of government.
- Lack of Voter Participation:
- Fewer voters participate in the election of special district officers, making the districts a less representative form of government.
- Lack of Visibility:
- Citizens have a hard time determining which government is responsible for providing certain services and who is in charge when separate special districts provide water, sewer, parks, library, and fire protection services to a community.
- Inefficiency:
- The 1988 Washington Local Governance Study Commission report noted that cities, counties and special districts were all providing services that result in duplication of cost and lack of coordination when two service providers were providing similar services close to each other.
- Lack of Regional Coordination.
- Coordination between special districts and general purpose governments is often lacking, especially with regard to regional planning.
- Too many governments:
Areas of Required Cooperation
- Solid Waste Management
- Solid Waste Collection Districts require approval of a coordinated, comprehensive solid waste management plan (RCW 36.58A.010). Solid Waste Disposal District disposal sites must be included within a comprehensive solid waste plan (RCW 36.58.040).
- Flood Control Management
- Comprehensive flood control management plans shall be developed by counties with the full participation of officials from the city, town, or a special district subject to chapter 85.38 RCW, including conservation districts and appropriate state and federal agencies (RCW 86.12.210).
- Sewer and Water Systems
- There are comprehensive plan requirements to coordinate provisions of county sewer or water general plans, any public utility district which operates and maintains a sewer or water system, any sewer, water, diking, or drainage district, any diking, drainage, and sewerage improvement district, and any irrigation district (RCW 36.94.040; RCW 57.16.010; and RCW 70.116.050).
- Public Transportation
- County public transportation authorities must adopt a public transportation plan (RCW 36.57.070; RCW 36.57A.030 and RCW 36.57.040). Counties with transportation authorities or transportation benefit areas must adopt and carry out a comprehensive transit plan (RCW 35.58.2794). Six-year transit plan must be consistent with GMA comprehensive plans (RCW 35.58.2795).