Kansas Loses Private Sector Jobs As Government Grows

I NVESTIGATIVE R EPORT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 12, 2009

Contact: Paul Soutar (316) 634-0218

Kansas loses private sector jobs as government grows Kansas continues to lose jobs in the private sector as the number of government employees grows. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Kansas lost another 10,500 private sector jobs in April but added 800 state and local government jobs. Over the past 12 months Kansas added 2,300 local and 100 state government jobs; during the same period the state lost 26,500 private sector jobs. BLS includes public school administrators in local government totals. Teachers are included in private sector totals. Government jobs do put people to work but salaries, benefits and other costs of government employees comes from higher taxes assessed on individuals and businesses and add to the economic burden of all taxpayers. Local government inefficiency According to 2008 BLS statistics, Kansas ranks 28th in the U.S. for the number of state government employees per resident, with 204 employees for each 10,000 residents; the median for all states is 205.5. The bigger burden on Kansas taxpayers comes from the number of local government employees. Kansas had 674 local government employees per 10,000 residents, the third highest in the U.S. The median for all states is 493.5. Local government employment is also growing faster than at the state level . State employment increased 3.5 percent from 2003 to 2008, whereas Local government employment increased 6.9 percent. Kansas has 2,084 general purpose governments (county, municipal and township) according to the U.S Census Bureau. Many serve only a few hundred constituents or have layers of overlapping jurisdiction. With a population of 2.8 million residents, that is just 1,332 residents per general purpose government in Kansas. The national average is 7,725 residents per government; on that basis, Kansas has nearly six times the national average of general purpose governments. Only two states, North and South Dakota, are less efficient than Kansas.

Government efficiency may be a challenge for large, rural states, but not an insurmountable one. Idaho, with 82,747 square miles and only 1.5 million residents, has 6,145 residents per general-purpose government. Utah is very close to Kansas in terms of population and area with 2,645,330 residents and 82,144 square miles, but has 9,761 residents per general-purpose government. It’s not a geography or population issue, it’s the number of governments; Kansas has 2,084 compared to 244 in Idaho and 271 in Utah. Consolidation and shared services are options In 2006 Greeley County had 1,331 residents and 205 of them worked in government or government services. A 2007 vote approved consolidation of county and city of Tribune governments. Greeley County has the smallest population of any Kansas county and the second-lowest population density in the state. Wyandotte County, population 154,000, has the second highest population density in the state, and a consolidated city-county government with Kansas City, Kansas. New York State is in the process of implementing recommendations of a state-wide audit and evaluation of local government efficiency and competitiveness. The report recommends local governments: consolidate or share services including property assessment, tax collection, emergency dispatch, jails, courts; ease procedures for consolidation; reclassify some cities, towns and villages and reconsider powers for each class; offer efficiency grants based on performance. Pete Brungardt, state senator from Salina, isn’t surprised by the growing number of government jobs and says Kansas has too many overlapping jurisdictions. “What we have to do is allow people in local government some ability to make a more efficient plan.” In March Brungardt helped the senate pass a bill setting procedures for local government consolidation. Others are also interested in consolidation. State Senator Chris Steineger of Wyandotte County proposed legislation that would consolidate Kansas’ 105 counties into 13 regional governments.

Representatives of the League of Kansas Municipalities and the Kansas Association of Counties say their organizations have supported efforts to improve opportunities for government consolidation. Speaker of the Kansas House of Representatives Mike O’Neal is in favor of consolidating school district administrators and making it easier for units of local government to consolidate services. He anticipates significant savings, perhaps as much as $1 billion statewide, from effective consolidation and sharing of services by local governments. No legislation has been proposed or passed in the house favoring consolidation and Brungardt isn’t aware of any coordinated effort by both houses of the Kansas legislature to encourage streamlining local government. He noted in a recent interview that there’s been little support in the House for consolidation. “Everybody likes what effects them.” Kansas already has one of the highest tax burdens in the region and adding more government employees only makes it worse, especially when there are fewer working Kansans to pay the bill. #

#

#

Paul Soutar is an Investigative Reporter with the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy. A complete bio on Mr. Soutar can be found at http://www.flinthills.org/content/view/6/5/, and he can be reached at [email protected]. To learn more about the Flint Hills Center, please visit www.flinthills.org.

The Flint Hills Center for Public Policy is an independent Kansas-based think tank that provides research and initiates reform in education, fiscal policy and health care. We are dedicated to the constitutional principles of limited government, open markets, and personal responsibility, which we believe are essential for individual freedom and prosperity to flourish.

250 N. Water, Suite #216 Wichita, Kansas 67202-1215 (316) 634-0218 [email protected] www.flinthills.org

Kansas Employment Change Private sector Local government State government Federal government total government Non-farm employment

Period Ending April 30, 2009 1 Month 4 Months 12 Months (10,500) (29,400) (26,500) 600 200 (600) 200

600 (300) (200) 100

(10,300)

(29,300)

2,300 100 900 3,300 (23,200)

Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; seasonally adjusted Note: BLS includes teachers in private sector totals; education administrators are included in government totals.

Efficient states, more or less Only two states, North and South Dakota, have fewer residents per general purpose government (county, city and township) than Kansas. States with more residents per local government* States with fewer residents per local government

KANSAS

*Includes the District of Columbia, Alaska and Hawaii Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 data Flint Hills Center for Public Policy

Regional government efficiency Kansas ranks near the bottom of the barrel in local government efficiency, even when comparing other western states with wide-open spaces. General purpose governments (GPG) include city, county and township. Sq. Miles

GPGs

Population

Residents Per GPG

Rank

Colorado 103,714 Utah 82,144 Idaho 82,747 Oklahoma 68,667 Wyoming 97,100 Missouri 68,886 Nebraska 76,872 Kansas 81,815 South Dakota 75,885 North Dakota 68,976

332 271 244 671 122 1,378 1,077 2,084 1,291 1,730

4,861,515 2,645,330 1,499,402 3,617,316 522,830 5,878,415 1,774,571 2,775,997 796,214 639,715

14,643 9,761 6,145 5,391 4,285 4,266 1,648 1,332 617 370

16 25 30 33 39 40 48 49 50 51

State

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 data

Flint Hills Center for Public Policy

Local Governments by Type and State: 2007 General purpose Subcounty Geographic area

United States District of Columbia Hawaii Nevada California Arizona Florida Maryland Rhode Island Virginia Washington Connecticut Massachusetts Texas New Jersey New Mexico Colorado Delaware South Carolina Tennessee North Carolina Georgia Oregon New York Louisiana Utah Alabama Kentucky Mississippi West Virginia Idaho Michigan New Hampshire Oklahoma Montana Arkansas Ohio Pennsylvania Illinois Wyoming Missouri Alaska Indiana Wisconsin Iowa Maine Vermont Minnesota Nebraska Kansas South Dakota North Dakota - Represents zero. 1

Total 39,044

County1 3,033

Total 36,011

Municipal 19,492

Town or township 16,519

July 2007 Pop. Est. 301,621,157

Residents Per Entity 7,725

1 4 35 535 105 477 180 39 324 320 179 356 1,463 587 134 332 60 314 439 648 689 278 1,604 363 271 525 537 378 287 244 1,858 244 671 183 577 2,334 2,628 2,833 122 1,378 162 1,666 1,923 1,046 504 296 2,729 1,077 2,084 1,291 1,730

3 16 57 15 66 23 95 39 5 254 21 33 62 3 46 92 100 154 36 57 60 29 67 118 82 55 44 83 10 77 54 75 88 66 102 23 114 14 91 72 99 16 14 87 93 104 66 53

1 1 19 478 90 411 157 39 229 281 179 351 1,209 566 101 270 57 268 347 548 535 242 1,547 303 242 458 419 296 232 200 1,775 234 594 129 502 2,246 2,562 2,731 99 1,264 148 1,575 1,851 947 488 282 2,642 984 1,980 1,225 1,677

1 1 19 478 90 411 157 8 229 281 30 45 1,209 324 101 270 57 268 347 548 535 242 618 303 242 458 419 296 232 200 533 13 594 129 502 938 1,016 1,299 99 952 148 567 592 947 22 45 854 530 627 309 357

31 149 306 242 929 1,242 221 1,308 1,546 1,432 312 1,008 1,259 466 237 1,788 454 1,353 916 1,320

588,292 1,283,388 2,565,382 36,553,215 6,338,755 18,251,243 5,618,344 1,057,832 7,712,091 6,468,424 3,502,309 6,449,755 23,904,380 8,685,920 1,969,915 4,861,515 864,764 4,407,709 6,156,719 9,061,032 9,544,750 3,747,455 19,297,729 4,293,204 2,645,330 4,627,851 4,241,474 2,918,785 1,812,035 1,499,402 10,071,822 1,315,828 3,617,316 957,861 2,834,797 11,466,917 12,432,792 12,852,548 522,830 5,878,415 683,478 6,345,289 5,601,640 2,988,046 1,317,207 621,254 5,197,621 1,774,571 2,775,997 796,214 639,715

588,292 320,847 73,297 68,324 60,369 38,263 31,213 27,124 23,803 20,214 19,566 18,117 16,339 14,797 14,701 14,643 14,413 14,037 14,024 13,983 13,853 13,480 12,031 11,827 9,761 8,815 7,898 7,722 6,314 6,145 5,421 5,393 5,391 5,234 4,913 4,913 4,731 4,537 4,285 4,266 4,219 3,809 2,913 2,857 2,614 2,099 1,905 1,648 1,332 617 370

Excludes areas corresponding to counties but having no organized governments.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Census of Governments and July, 2007 Population Estimate

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51