County Standards

Maine’s state population is equal to a single large city – it is slightly larger than San Diego and Phoenix, a bit behind Philadelphia. It is less diverse than many large cities, lacking, for instance, the huge income disparities that separate people within these metropolitan areas. Despite its city-sized population, it provides all the services of much larger states through its three fully functioning levels of government. When trying to save money, as legislators will be doing next month, their understandable inclination is to try to reduce one level of government, if not simply eliminate it, and let the next level up take over.

County government, the middle child of bureaucracy, is a common target because its role is least clear and its admirers least numerous. A bill by freshman Rep. Barbara Merrill of Appleton proposes cutting the number of counties in half, to eight, an idea that has arisen previously but has never gone beyond the study stage and is not to be confused with a proposal during the last session to double the number of counties to reflect the service areas of the state.

Rep. Merrill would have the counties parallel the state’s eight prosecutorial districts, created in the 1970s; she would cut the counties’ ability to levy revenue from municipal property tax and instead use revenue from the real-estate transfer tax. That wouldn’t be enough to fund counties, so she would increase the real-estate transfer tax on the sale of property valued over $250,000. She would appeal to cities by allowing municipalities to decide whether to use and fund sheriff services.

It is an ambitious plan, probably beyond the scope of a single legislative session and certainly would draw opponents. However, it raises good and needed questions about county government: What functions does Maine need it to perform, who should pay for it and how should it be paid for?

Longtime Penobscot County Commissioner Peter Baldacci counters that rather than spending years arguing over where to draw new county boundaries, the Legislature would do better to urge county officials to cooperate and share services. He argues that different counties have different goals: Piscataquis County officials, for instance, are helping small towns there with economic development. At least as important, proximity matters – the primary function of county government is the court; keeping judicial services relatively nearby is important to those who need them.

The interest of the taxpaying public is neither bigger counties nor avoiding arguments over county boundaries. It is merely in receiving desired services in an efficient and effective way. If the Legislature wanted to be helpful, it would establish, with the Merrill bill as a guide, what level of services were required from county government and how much, per county resident, it should cost to deliver those services – a single measure statewide. How the counties met such a budget would be up to their officials and the residents of that county. Some might be able to cooperate their way under this restraint; some might have to merge governments.

Merger and cooperative services aren’t done for their own sake but to save money. County officials, if pressed, may have even better ways to reduce costs while still delivering services. A performance standard would give county officials maximum flexibility to use means that work best for them while reassuring taxpayers that their money is being well spent. Some county costs are beyond the control of commissioners – how many people are jailed and for what length of sentence, for example – but lawmakers ought to be able to account for these costs in forming a standard.

If, as seems likely, the Legislature is going to impose spending caps on all three levels of government, it should also pass measures that guide these governments toward more efficient service. Counties are the easiest places to begin.