Learning to share | Lewiston and Auburn ponder merging city services to save money. But is regionalization more trouble than it's worth?

Maine has not seen a hyphenated name change since 1921 when Dover-Foxcroft became the state's first example of a progressive municipal marriage. But now Lewiston and Auburn, although still a long ways off from officially adopting the little hyphen with big implications, are inching closer to following Dover-Foxcroft's lead.

Recently, the two cities have been methodically evaluating ways to join forces. They're analyzing budgets from duplicate city departments and debunking fears that consolidation could diminish state and federal funding. Economist Charles Lawton has just wrapped up a $4,000 study for Lewiston and Auburn on the fiscal consequences of merging. Lawton's study shows that if the two cities ˆ— with a combined population of about 59,000 people ˆ— came together, they would not lose any financial support from state government. In fact, they would come out about $200,000 ahead.

Lawton's study, funded by the Citizens Commission on Lewiston-Auburn Cooperation, a 10-member council appointed by the cities' mayors and councilors in 2006, is part of an increasingly determined effort in Lewiston and Auburn to link up. (In fact, the Maine Development Foundation, the Lewiston-Auburn Economic Growth Council and other groups on Nov. 7, as this issue of Mainebiz went to press, hosted a conference in Lewiston on forming regional and municipal partnerships.)

The primary reason for a municipal partnership is, of course, money. When the small towns of Dover and Foxcroft, which face each other over the Piscataquis River, decided to join, they did so with the pragmatic intention to stop paying for two post offices, two town offices and two of everything else. Today, there are many policy makers, economic analysts and taxpayers who would like to see more Dover-Foxcrofts, saying Maine still looks like an antiquated product of the colonial era, pockmarked by numerous local governments with ungainly budgets.

Proponents of a union between Lewiston and Auburn say it could push down taxpayer costs and increase efficiencies, an ever more critical need these days due to our aging population. "In the long run, [more municipal consolidation] has to happen because we can't continue to be supporting the tax base, the expenses these multiple units of government demand," says Lawton, a senior economist at Planning Decisions Inc., a consulting firm based in South Portland.

Although Lewiston and Auburn have over the years collaborated on projects like joint purchasing agreements, they have never actually melded city departments. And at the moment, merging city departments is the primary interest over forming one hyphenated city, Stephen Eldridge says. Under the direction of Eldridge, who was hired by Lewiston and Auburn officials as joint services coordinator last March, the cities are examining everything from financial outcomes to possible union renegotiations if this were to occur.
But not everyone is convinced that combining services will bring beneficial results. Some municipal managers in Lewiston and Auburn say their departments are already efficient and streamlined organizations, and if police, fire, public works and other city departments were to combine, there is little that would be extraneous.

"I think the term 'consolidation' leads people to believe there is redundancy, but that's not necessarily true," Lewiston Fire Chief Paul Leclair says. "The workload for the chief would double. The larger the organization grows, the greater the administration demands would grow."

Bridging the gap
Lewiston and Auburn, separated by the Androscoggin River, in recent years have made efforts to combine city services. When brothers Norman and Lionel Guay became mayors of Auburn and Lewiston in 2002 and 2003, respectively, both devoted time during their inaugural addresses to discuss ways the two cities could save money by mixing services.
In 2006, after receiving a $152,916 grant from the Maine State Planning Office, the two cities hired Eldridge to oversee the initial phases of consolidation. Gov. John Baldacci has been adamant that his administration's legacy will include consolidation among schools and local and state governments to reduce taxes. So far, the two-year-old fund has allocated $1.5 million to towns around Maine to implement small-scale regionalization initiatives. Lewiston and Auburn have received $297,916 since 2005, more than any other community in Maine. (For more on what towns have done with these funds, see "Under the microscope," page 28.)

"[Lewiston and Auburn] are sort of on the cutting edge when you're looking at merging services," says Jody Harris, director of program services at the Maine State Planning Office. "They're looking at it comprehensively. Other communities say, 'Let's just look at the police department,' whereas Lewiston-Auburn is looking at the whole spectrum of services."

Since beginning his job eight months ago, Eldridge has scheduled regular meetings with heads of municipal departments from both cities, asking them to become familiar with the work of their counterpart to uncover redundancies. Six departments will submit hypothetical models to city managers by Nov. 14 describing what one police department, one fire department, one code enforcement office, and so on, would look like. After incorporating the managers' recommendations, the Citizens Commission will draw up a final draft to present to the two city councils, which could vote to implement any changes as early as December, Eldridge explains. (For more details on this, see "Two cities, one community," page 29.)

But initial savings might be scanty, making consolidation a tough sell. "The inability to see immediate savings can stymie a project," says Laurie Lachance, president and CEO of the Maine Development Foundation. "When you're elected for a one-year term and you can't see [a merger] happening in your period, then why put your neck on the line for someone else's credit?"

What's more, joining services would cause some costs to actually balloon. For instance, if Auburn's police personnel became Lewiston-Auburn's police personnel, their salaries would likely rise to match the salaries of Lewiston's force, whose pay scale is five to seven percent higher. The same is true for other departments, from fire to public works.
"Whether or not there is an overall advantage to combining the departments, I would be a little less optimistic," says Bob Belz, director of Auburn's public works department. "We have different pay structures. Auburn generally does not pay as well so it might be costly for Auburn to participate."

Belz voices other reservations about combining the two public works departments, which employ a total of 117 people, such as losing what he calls a healthy competition. "I know that our operators, when they head out, they want our roads to look better than Lewiston," he says. "And if you talk to Lewiston employees, they're pretty sure their roads look better than ours. That benefits the public and the cost of doing business. The quicker they're out, the less costs we incur."

On the other side of the river, Lewiston Public Works Director Paul Boudreau sees positive possibilities in a merger with Auburn's department. For example, he says that Lewiston's gravel pit is at the far end of the city, and Auburn's is at the other end; if the two cities joined, they could service areas closer to whatever gravel pit is nearby. He also said he's going to propose jointly buying a $200,000 street-painting machine, saving both cities from having to contract out this service. And he has found seven high-end positions between both communities that could be cut.

Eldridge says the greatest savings will come from trimming management across all departments. The total salaries of the heads of police, fire, public works, finance, code enforcement and planning, and information technology comes to about $1.3 million a year. Trimming back half of that budget would be significant, Eldridge says. Add in the deputy directors, and the cities would save roughly $436,000 more, he says. And one city manager, rather than two, saves between $80,000 and $100,000 a year.

Phasing out
If jobs were to go, Eldridge says they would disappear through a process of attrition. And Maine is now poised to whittle down state and local government by letting people retire and not refilling their seats, according to Lachance.

"If you look at the people in the government sector, a huge portion are older. They're nearing retirement, so this is the perfect time to do [consolidation through attrition] in a thoughtful and well-planned manner," Lachance says. "When it becomes painful is when you do it in a fast manner."

Yet, the prospect of losing jobs has a few on edge, no matter how gently it's phrased.
Leclair, Lewiston's fire chief, admits that he has thought about giving up his job, and he wouldn't like it ˆ— although he gamely adds that he's willing to do what's in the best interest of the community.

"Am I looking forward to working for someone else who would be the chief?" he asks, answering his own question with a laugh. "For 27 years I've worked in Lewiston to become a chief. It's not anything any department head would look forward to. On a personal level, I like things the way they are. But as a public service responsibility it is up to us to always explore other possibilities."

Meanwhile, Lewiston Deputy Police Chief Michael Bussiere says he's concerned that, as Lewiston and Auburn move toward consolidation, the cities could lose staff. "The worst thing we can do is start scaring employees," he says. "Clearly we want to send the message that's not the case. However, when people start hearing about combining assets ˆ…we certainly don't want to lose valuable people because they are concerned that might occur."

"The devil is always in the details," Bussiere says, adding, "[Merging] is not an easy process and it won't be done without shedding some blood, sweat and tears."
Lachance says some areas, though, might be more easily joined than others. "There are certain services that are not as closely aligned with community identity," she says, pointing to areas like the neutral area of stormwater management. "Nobody has their name on that." Joint purchasing and joint assessing, too, tend not to inspire much passion. But police, fire and other services that have strong community connections ˆ— and often strong family traditions ˆ— tend to be trickier to change.

And beyond the question of messing with community identities, consolidating pensions, union pay scales, benefit packages and senior positions is an uphill battle, Lachance adds.

Charles Lawton points out that the state often can be the best catalyst for coaxing reluctant partnerships. "If the state passes a law and says you have to consolidate, that gets things moving," he says. "If you don't do that, people don't have much motivation to change."

But Lachance says if communities are encouraged to stay within their comfort level, partnerships are more easily achieved. And the bottom-up approach that Lewiston-Auburn has followed harbors potential for a workable union.

"I think if you use an incentive-based system allowing people to choose their partners and where they best can work together, that leads to greater relationships," she says. "Once that trust has been built, and they see it can work, then it can evolve up to the more difficult services to tackle."