1. Special Districts in the Northeast United States: Do They Enhance or Hinder Local Government Service Delivery? Gina Scutelnicu, Assistant Professor Pace University

2. 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

3. Characteristics: Narrow specialization Administrative and financial independence Geographic flexibility Low political visibility Status of SD Dependent vs. independent https://www.census.gov//govs/go/sd.html “The Shadow Governments”

4. Theoretical and Empirical Evidence Specialized 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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 entities  Annexation/incorporation issues

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. Future Research Assess Accountability to Performance Assess multi-purpose districts nationally: Efficiency; Responsiveness; Accountability and Equity