CANDIDATE BULLETIN:
Regionalism In Connecticut
OFFICERS President, Michael J. Freda First Selectman of North Haven 1st Vice President, Luke A. Bronin Mayor of Hartford 2nd Vice President, Jayme J. Stevenson First Selectman of Darien
DIRECTORS Elinor Carbone, Mayor of Torrington Thomas Dunn, Mayor of Wolcott Justin Elicker, Mayor of New Haven John A. Elsesser, Town Manager of Coventry Laura Francis, First Selectman of Durham Joseph P. Ganim, Mayor of Bridgeport Barbara M. Henry, First Selectman of Roxbury Matthew Hoey, First Selectman of Guilford Laura Hoydick, Mayor of Stratford Catherine Iino, First Selectwoman of Killingworth Matthew S. Knickerbocker, First Selectman of Bethel Marcia A. Leclerc, Mayor of East Hartford Curt Leng, Mayor of Hamden W. Kurt Miller, Chief Fiscal Officer of Ansonia Rudolph P. Marconi, First Selectman of Ridgefield Michael Passero, Mayor of New London Brandon Robertson, Town Manager of Avon John Salomone, Town Manager of Norwich Scott Shanley, General Manager of Manchester Erin E. Stewart, Mayor of New Britain Mark B. Walter, Town Administrator of Columbia
• 545 Long Wharf Drive, New Haven, CT • (203) 498-3000 • www.ccm-ct.org
Table of Contents Executive Summary 4 Introduction 5 Council of Governments and Regionalism Initiatives
6
Regionalism: Connecticut’s Future 9 Summary/Conclusion 13 Regionalism: On The Books Today
14
Executive Summary
G
overnments stand at a crossroads. For over a decade, local governments in the state benefited from a strong economy and stable revenues. This stability depended crucially on the local property tax and reliable and adequate state aid. The lack of diversity in revenue sources and uncertainty at the state level are now eroding the capacity of local governments to meet their obligations to the public. As a state with high property taxes, the ability of local governments to respond to these challenges by simply raising the property tax rates is extremely limited.
er, we can all agree that regionalism has proven to improve efficiency, contain costs and improve service quality through inter-local collaboration and service sharing. Some required or desired services are difficult to deliver efficiently by a single municipality because the availability of the required technical expertise is limited. In other cases, the level of service demand may be low enough that either the quality of service provided is insufficient, or the necessary capital or labor costs to meet the demand results in excess capacity for a single jurisdiction. Good management of public resources may argue for improved efficiency or enhanced service quality through sharing of services with other public entities.
As we begin to move Connecticut into the future togeth-
4 CCM Candidate Bulletin
Introduction What Is Regionalism?
governments in Connecticut. For the most part, these efforts fall into one of three categories:
R
egionalism is inter-local collaboration to provide services and functions in an efficient and cost effective manner. Regional initiatives range from economic development, equipment sharing, and police and emergency services; to waste water treatment, education services, health programs, social services and many other core programs for residents and businesses.
• Inter-local efforts sponsored and supported by one or more Councils of Governments • Inter-local agreements between two or more local governments • Informal sharing arrangements initiated through professional contacts and relationships
Regionalism In Connecticut Today
While a significant amount of effective inter-district cooperation is observable, significant new programming, particularly in the area of magnet school development, technological improvement and inter-district diversity initiatives, has been substantially facilitated by the availability of new, targeted state funding.
In Connecticut, inter-local cooperative activity is very often a “grass roots” phenomenon occurring frequently, even when government financial incentives are not available. Today, there are numerous examples of efforts by the state and municipalities to share services across local
5 CCM Candidate Bulletin
Council of Governments and Regionalism Initiatives
C
onnecticut currently recognizes nine regional planning organizations (RPO) or as they are commonly called, councils of government (COG). The COGs each represent a geographic region in the state. The purpose of the COG structure is to provide a broad range of regional planning functions and to serve as a forum for municipalities to undertake joint action on issues of concern (e.g., cooperative purchasing, organizing household hazardous waste collection programs, developing regional legislative priorities, etc.). COG’s help to focus municipal efforts within the different regional entities to foster and promote collaboration in the state.
o Fiber Infrastructure – Nutmeg Network, which consists of 97 towns o Geographic Information System (GIS) o Regional Solid Waste Management • Metro Region COG o Housing & Community Development o Grant Writing o Purchasing Cooperative o GIS Mapping/Analysis • Naugatuck Valley COG
COGs exist in each of the state’s nine planning regions, which the state delineates based on many factors, including economic development trends and transportation patterns. They are authorized to perform (jointly, alone, or in cooperation with another entity) any service, activity, or function that a political subdivision of the state is authorized to perform. The services they may choose to provide to member municipalities include those related to health and safety, data management, animal control, engineering and planning, land use management, education, transportation, and economic development (Source OLR, https://www.cga.ct.gov/2016/ rpt/pdf/2016-R-0291.pdf)
o Hosts the Naugatuck Valley Regional Brownfields Partnership, which has expanded to include 27 cities and towns in west central Connecticut. o Household Hazardous Waste Program o Regional Wastewater Treatment Consolidation Study o School Regionalization Study (Ansonia/Derby) o Transportation Planning • Northeastern COG o Regional Paramedic Program o Regional Animal Services Program
Inter-local cooperation at the Council of Governments level is actively being promoted and achieved across the state. In 2015, the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities published Innovative Ideas: Regional cooperation for a more viable Connecticut. (CCM 2015) The report highlights current service sharing on a number of fronts. Examples of intertown collaboration in the COG regions include:
o Regional Revaluation Program o Regional Engineering Program • Northwest Hills COG o Public Works Equipment Cooperative o Regional Cooperation Purchasing Program
• Capitol Region COG
o Northwest Corner Fuel Bank Administration
o Regional Online Permitting
o Staff Support for NWCT Regional Housing Council
o Capitol Region Purchasing Council – 110 towns participate
o Northwest ConneCT (regional broadband initiative)
6 CCM Candidate Bulletin
• River COG
o Human Resources Management
o Successfully facilitated the Regional Land Trust Exchange, an association of thirteen land trusts in the region and the town of Salem
o Regional Public Works Council o Facilities and Asset Management Regional Public Works Council
o Eight towns in the River COG have joined to form the “Gateway Commission” to protect the environmental and scenic resources and enhance the economic potential of the Lower Connecticut River Valley.
• Southeastern COG o Regional Waste to Energy Plant o Land Use Training
o Pump-out boat, which consists of seven towns
o Town Planning Staff Assistance
o Towns are members of multiple regional public health districts in the River COG region
o Regional Election Monitor • Western COG
o Electronic Document Management/HR/CRM Software
o Land Use Planning for Wireless Communications
• South Central Regional COG
o Regional GIS Mapping
o Electronic Document Management/HR/CRM Software
o Regional Animal Control
o Fleet Management
o Regional Plan of Conservation and Development
7 CCM Candidate Bulletin
Regional Cooperation Between Local Boards of Education
There are numerous examples of service sharing among Connecticut’s school districts. The Connecticut Association of School Business Officials (CASB) released a white paper in 2015 describing many current efforts to share services with towns and across school districts. The report also notes both challenges and additional opportunities for further increasing sharing.
Regional cooperation for educational purposes is authorized in a number of different statutes, including: • Two or more local boards of education may enter into a cooperative arrangement to share programs and services “to enable such boards to carry out the duties specified in the general statutes.” (C.G.S. Sec. 10-158a)
RESCs were established in 1972 by Connecticut’s legislature: CGS Sec. 10-66a. Establishment. A regional educational service center may be established in any regional state planning area designated in accordance with section 16a-4a upon approval by the State Board of Education of a plan of organization and operation submitted by four or more boards of education for the purpose of cooperative action to furnish programs and services.
• Two or more local or regional boards of education may enter into an agreement to establish a regional agricultural and technology center. (C.G.S. Sec. 10-64) • A board of education that does not have a high school may send its students to a designated high school located in another school district per an agreement between the two boards. (C.G.S. Secs. 10-33 and 10-35)
There are six RESCs established in the state; • Area Cooperative Educational Services (ACES), North Haven
• Regional educational service centers (RESCs) may be established at the request of four or more school boards with CSDE approval. (C.G.S. Sec. 10-166a)
• Capitol Regional Educational Council (CREC), Hartford
• Two or more towns are permitted to establish a regional school district (C.G.S. Sec. 10-39).
• EASTCONN, Hampton
• Cooperative Educational Services (CES), Trumbull • Education Connection, Litchfield
Currently, more than a dozen high schools have regional agricultural science and technology centers that provide training for students planning a career in agriculture. There are 17 regional school districts in the state, with the most recent established in 1987 (Regional District #19, providing grades 9-12 for students in the towns of Ashford, Mansfield, and Willington).
• LEARN, Old Lyme (CASB 2015)
Other Regional Initiatives In addition, there are often parallel efforts to share services across school districts, and between a school district and the town it serves. At the municipal level, there are examples of cooperative arrangements in energy, health insurance, economic development, public safety, environmental preservation, equipment sharing, property revaluation, senior and youth services, public health, and regional trails.
Regional cooperation between local boards of education has been part of the efforts of the Connecticut Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR), regional planning organizations, and 2002 program review committee study of regional school district governance. The Municipal Opportunities & Regional Efficiencies (MORE) Commission also studied various aspects of regional cooperation between local boards of education. (Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee)
Initiatives also span multiple regions in efforts such as the Nutmeg Service Cloud which is a cloud server and high-speed broadband service used by 97 municipalities, public safety entities, schools, and libraries in the state.
8 CCM Candidate Bulletin
Regionalism: Connecticut’s Future
D
espite the efforts already made in Connecticut around regionalism, opportunities for increased cooperation across the state are hindered by both policies and practices. Communities must be given the flexibility to use alternative revenue sources to meet pressing financial needs and/or grant property tax relief. They need policy changes that would result in greater revenue flexibility at the local level and generally less reliance on state aid.
imposed by existing collective bargaining agreements. The following proposals provide municipalities greater opportunities to share services: • Collective bargaining issues pertaining to regionalization of services shall not be mandatory subjects of collective bargaining. a) CCM suggests the following amendment to CGS Section 7-478a(c), which addresses inter-local agreements: “The decision to reassign or subcontract bargaining unit work as a consequence of inter-local sharing of such services shall not be subject to collective bargaining.”
The state should focus its efforts on removing the impediments to sharing services and amending municipal labor laws positioning local governments for the future; realizing our shared goal of strengthening municipalities to strengthen our state.
• In all future collective bargaining agreements, municipalities cannot bargain away, or be required through arbitration to give up their right to assign employees to carry out their normal responsibilities in a new location or to provide services to a different municipality.
The following proposals may not be the panacea, nor will they be policies that will work for every community, they are tools that local governments can use to find the appropriate revenue balance for their towns and cities, or at least begin the conversations around these options.
• Provide for when service sharing arrangements affect two or more collective bargaining units, the interests of all employees affected by the new arrangement will be represented by either a coalition of bargaining units or a new bargaining unit be created to represent all employees.
CCM encourages the state to take the following steps towards supporting municipal services sharing and regional efficiencies: I. Some challenges frequently encountered when towns seek to pursue shared services are the limitations
9 CCM Candidate Bulletin
• Inter-local agreements or service sharing contracts override any relevant limitations in a participating municipality’s charter or ordinance.
• Services in Lieu of Taxes (SILOTs) - Permit municipalities to charge a user fee on all non-profits, not just colleges and universities, who are exempt from the property tax. While they are non-profit entities, they still require municipal services such as police, fire, emergency management, public works, etc.
Formation of Coalition Bargaining Units The City of Hartford explained that there are instances where there are tremendous difficulties sharing services even within a community or intra-municipality. The City attempted to share IT services between the city side and the board of education and it proved challenging to consolidate services in order to deliver them more efficiently.
• Allow for inter-local agreements or service sharing contracts involving two or more municipalities to override any participating municipality’s relevant charter sections and ordinances. Charter restrictions and town ordinances have limited some towns’ abilities to pursue significant restructuring and cooperative agreements.
This is why we also support a provision that states when a service sharing arrangement affects two or more bargaining units, operating under two or more contracts, that those bargaining units be represented in the future, for future negotiations, by a coalition or by the establishment of a new bargaining unit.
• Consolidate and/or share services for selected non-instructional education expenditure categories across school districts. • Change state law to allow town governments to require consolidation and/or sharing of non-instructional services and resources between school districts and the municipality in which they are located.
Due to the delays and obstacles when towns and cities attempt to share services, there are lost opportunities to achieve greater efficiencies and real cost savings. Examples where collective bargaining or contracts have impeded regional efforts to enable municipal governments from providing more efficient services and reduce costs:
• Require that municipal audits of the financial statements of each school district operating within the boundaries of a municipality (1) be as detailed as audits of other municipal departments, and (2) include a review and report of whether the board of education in the district is complying with all relevant state statutes, municipal ordinances and board of education policies. School districts already provide this document to the State Department of Education. We are only asking that it be made available to the public.
The Town of Portland attempted to share a Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO) with the City of Middletown, but because of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in Middletown they were unable to do so in a timely manner. Rather than waiting for the next CBA negotiation, Portland hired a part-time ZEO that they now share with their Council of Government. The Town of New Fairfield needed to fill its fire marshal position due to a retirement. They approached the City of Danbury to provide fire marshal services, but because of Danbury’s collective bargaining unit, Danbury was unable to assign one of its six fire marshals to provide services in New Fairfield. The Town of Litchfield attempted to partner with the Town of Goshen to share an animal control officer. They were unable to do so because of the CBA. Upon the retirement of Litchfield’s animal control officer, they eliminated the position and eventually came to an agreement with Goshen and the City of Torrington to share animal control services.
This proposal would seek to enhance oversight and transparency of board of education budgets. Increasing opportunities for local fiscal transparency not only protects the integrity of municipal budgets but it also provides local governments better tools to manage cash flow more efficiently.
II. In addition, the proposals below provide municipalities further relief from unfunded mandates, opportunities to share services and contain costs and generate revenue.
10 CCM Candidate Bulletin
• Restore funding for the Regional Performance Incentive Program and target that funding on initiatives identified as most effective in reducing costs, improving services or containing further cost increases. This much needed program is essential to encourage municipalities to participate in municipal shared services projects on a regional basis, with the goal of producing measurable economies of scale and lowering the costs and tax burden related
IV. Lamont -Bysiewicz Transition Policy Committee on Shared Services
to the provision of such services. In the limited time it was operational, it was a very successful program. III. The proposals suggested above remove statutory barriers to significantly increase the level of service sharing in the state. The following proposals provide additional opportunities for municipal collaboration.
In 2019, the Lamont-Bysiewicz Administration held a policy summit during the transition where they announced the creation of 15 committees that were each assigned a topic encompassing a wide-variety of critical state issues. The committees were tasked with developing policy recommendations for consideration. CCM actively participated, serving on a number of the established committees, most notably the Committee on Shared Services, which presented the following recommended policy goals to Governor-Elect Lamont:
• Develop model regional cooperation codes for municipalities that can pass legal muster. This would encourage towns and cities to engage in regional cooperation efforts and help them avoid legal and other pitfalls when establishing ordinances and reaching agreements.
1) Delivery of Local and Regional Services - This goal centers on the creation of an efficient system of service delivery that is both data-driven and transparent. To that end, the Committee agrees that the following policy changes must be implemented statewide:
• Increase state financial and other incentives for cost-effective inter-municipal and regional cooperation. While the 2015 General Assembly enacted and allocated $3 million in FY13, and $7 Mil- lion thereafter to Councils of Government (COGs) for regional service grants (COGs would have to submit a spending plan for the funding to OPM in order to receive a grant), this amount is not enough to foster concerted regionalism. Such investments would pay more than fourfold in dividends to municipalities – and the State.
• · Re-tooling State Government – The state currently has no effective means of facilitating the delivery of services on the local and regional level. The state must reorganize state agencies and other state entities toward this purpose by:
• Empower Councils of Government (COGs) to deliver services on a regional basis; and make land use decisions on regionally-significant projects.
o Repurposing OPM’s CPIP Division, and consider reallocating some responsibilities for local and regional services among other agencies, such as DECD.
• Reinvest in planning and technical assistance capacity at OPM to assist COGs and municipalities in collaborative efforts.
o Modifying the makeup and charge of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) to become the policy development board among stakeholders for developing specific policy initiatives.
• Strengthen collaborations with partners to enhance the ability of the Connecticut Education Network, the “Nutmeg Network”, to provide essential highspeed Internet access and data transport to, among others, towns and cities at affordable rates.
• Creating Data-Driven Performance Standards – Using existing analytical tools, including the Uniform Chart of Accounts (UCOA), the state must require that all local costs of services be measured for the purpose of determining their cost-effectiveness. Utilize the UCOA and other data to enable more analytical and informed decision making around service delivery.
• Eliminate the red tape and bureaucratic obstacles with state entities that thwart municipalities’ ability to engage in regional cooperation efforts. • Make greater staffing investments in entities like the Connecticut Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR). ACIR previously had the staffing wherewithal to publish important documents like a compendium of all significant regional cooperation efforts by towns and cities. This publication gave municipalities and the State examples of successful regional efforts that could be emulated across the State.
• Enhancing the Roles of COGs, RESCs and Other Regional Agencies – Again, these systems have been created and enhanced in recent years to provide the capacity to member towns and districts to offload services that are currently provided locally. These regional entities can take the place of what
11 CCM Candidate Bulletin
other states provide on a county level.
• Overriding Unnecessary Obstacles - To the extent state and local governments have provisions that might otherwise block common sense reforms, the legislature should eliminate them. Examples include:
• Moving the Needle – While town-by-town sharing of services is a start, the state must move on a bigger scale. Using data driven metrics, the state, towns and boards of education must look to their larger cost drivers, such as health care, protection services, public works and special education, for expense reductions that can have the greatest impacts on costs.
o Local charters that inadvertently may prevent consolidations with other towns or town departments; and o Statutory mandates that require local reporting or specify methods of service delivery without any identifiable purpose.
• Tying State Financial Support to Local Efficiencies – Using data-driven analyses, establish a fundamental understanding between the state and local governments that the state cannot underwrite inefficiency at either level. Statutory and competitive grant formulas to local and regional entities must include objective and measurable efficiency matrices to determine eligibility. The state must also commit to enhancing local government’s capacity to become more efficient. Focus on incentives and capacity-building to achieve real change and to avoid the “state mandate” tag.
2) Funding for Local and Regional Services This goal requires reimagining how Connecticut residents pay for local services, and how the state incents efficiency. • Diversification of Local Revenue Sources – Exclusive reliance on property taxes for local revenue is regressive for all taxpayers and untenable for major cities whose property tax base cannot sustain reasonable service delivery costs. While local sales and income taxes would provide more progressivity in our tax system, they may not impact the overall tax burden. Instead, the Committee recommends:
• Evaluating Labor Impacts – In any restructuring, government must include its labor partners in evaluating their impacts. In many cases, restructuring can include improvements for both labor and management.
o Increasing the basis for service fees beyond the cost of providing the service;
o Coalition bargaining should be strongly encouraged, particularly for health benefits and pensions. • State Management of Special Education – More than any other cost, Special Education is recognized as the most volatile and costly burden on local taxpayers. While many aspects of these services may still be offered through local school districts and teachers, the cost and volatility of these services can be driven downward through: o Statewide cost standards for all outplacement facilities o Coordination of transportation and other services through the RESCs o Reversal of the regulatory “burden of proof” standards in contested IEP cases, consistent with 40 other states o Exploration of a “Reinsurance Fund” among school districts that would stabilize annual budgets.
12 CCM Candidate Bulletin
o Abolishing local taxing districts that encourage inefficiencies; and o Enabling greater use of regional tax strategies for specified economic development purposes (e.g. Regional Asset Districts, etc.). • Repurposing Existing State Revenue Streams – Over the past ten years, the legislature has created dedicated revenue streams to promote local and regional policy goals. Specifically, a portion of the Hotel and Car Rental Tax was established in 2011 to pay for the successful Regional Performance Incentive Program, and a portion of the Sales Tax was dedicated in 2013 to finance the equalization of a statewide car tax cap. These funds, which together generate over $30 million annually, have been swept in recent years to cover budget deficits but must be re-purposed to effectuate our policy goals, including re-staffing state agencies and enhancing service capacities for COGs and RESCs, without otherwise raising taxes at the state or local level to pay for them.
Summary/Conclusion
T
he reductions in municipal revenue over the past decade speak volumes to the reality that local governments can no longer sustain on the promise of continued state aid. This new economic reality further emphasizes why it is imperative that the state take seriously the policy changes necessary to give local governments the flexibility to adopt initiatives that allow them to sustain and react to the changing fiscal climate today and into the future. These changes must include a structural shift in how the state views municipal government. Current State policies have created a scenario that have limited local governments to dependence on regressive property taxes and increasingly insufficient and unpredictable state aid to fund schools, provide for public safety and maintain vital infrastructure. The lack of diversity in local revenue coupled with repeated and significant budget deficits at the state level have created the perfect storm in which, if action is not taken, will see towns and cities unable to provide these needed local services.
In closing, while CCM recognizes that not all service sharing efforts to date have been successful at reducing costs or improving services, it is clear that these efforts demonstrate a recognition that service sharing is viable and necessary. These efforts demonstrate a willingness on the part of local officials to consider, experiment, and implement service sharing arrangements. CCM strongly encourages the state to take seriously the recommended policy changes outlined in this report. These initiatives, while not the panacea, will provide the foundation for more sustainable and efficient municipal viability and growth. These proposals will serve to limit if not help reduce property taxes, enable towns and cities to maintain current services, improve and expand infrastructure and provide the needed economic stability to promote needed economic development. As we move Connecticut forward, we cannot expect our towns and cities to grow and prosper if we continue the current polices that got us here. Municipalities remain committed to continuing to be a part of the solution through creative initiatives and shared sacrifice.
13 CCM Candidate Bulletin
Regionalism: On The Books Today
S
ummarized below are a number of examples of existing state laws that enable municipalities to enter into either regional or inter-municipal agreements today for a variety of reasons and initiatives, such as to pursue economic development, regional and charter schools and municipal shared services jointly. CGS Section 7-148kk, Public Act 09- 231 Regionalism This legislation authorizes chief elected officials of two or more municipalities that are members of the same federal economic development district, established under 42 USC 3171 to initiate a process to enter into mutual agreement to: (1) promote regional economic development and (2) share the real and personal property tax revenue from new economic development. The agreement shall: (1) specify that municipalities agree not to compete for new economic development and (2) specify the types of new economic development projects subject to the terms of the agreement. CGS § 4-124i and CGS § 8-31b Regional Councils of Government COGs exist in each of the state’s nine planning regions, which the state delineates based on many factors, including economic development trends and transportation patterns.
They are authorized to perform (jointly, alone, or in cooperation with another entity) any service, activity, or function that a political subdivision of the state is authorized to perform. The services they may choose to provide to member municipalities include those related to health and safety, data management, animal control, engineering and planning, land use management, education, transportation, and economic development. CGS Section 7-148cc Joint performance of municipal functions. Two or more municipalities may jointly perform any function that each municipality may perform separately under any provisions of the general statutes or of any special act, charter or home rule ordinance by entering into an inter-local agreement pursuant to sections 7-339a to 7-339l, inclusive. As used in this section, “municipality” means any municipality, as defined in section 7-187, any district, as defined in section 7-324, any metropolitan district or any municipal district created under section 7-330 and located within the state of Connecticut. CGS Section 7-148bb Agreement between municipalities to share revenue received for payment of property taxes.
14 CCM Candidate Bulletin
Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes or any special act, municipal charter or home rule ordinance, the chief elected officials of two or more municipalities may initiate a process for such municipalities to enter into an agreement to share revenues received for payment of real and personal property taxes. The agreement shall be prepared pursuant to negotiations and shall contain all provisions on which there is mutual agreement between the municipalities, including, but not limited to, specification of the tax revenues to be shared, collection and uses of such shared revenue. The agreement shall establish procedures for amendment, termination and withdrawal. The negotiations shall include an opportunity for public participation. The agreement shall be approved by each municipality that is a party to the agreement by resolution of the legislative body. As used in this section “legislative body” means the council, commission, board, body or town meeting, by whatever name it may be known, having or exercising the general legislative powers and functions of a municipality and “municipality” means any town, city or borough, consolidated town and city or consolidated town and borough. CGS Section 7-148kk Negotiated agreement to promote regional economic development and
share tax revenue from new economic development. The chief elected officials of two or more municipalities that are members of the same federal economic development district, established under 42 USC 3171, may initiate a process for such municipalities to enter into an agreement to promote regional economic development and share the real and personal property tax revenue from new economic development. Such agreement shall provide that the municipalities agree not to compete for new economic development and shall specify the types of new economic development projects subject to the agreement. The agreement shall also have terms providing for (1) identification of areas for (A) new economic development, (B) open space and natural resource preservation, and (C) transit-oriented development, including housing; (2) capital improvements, including the shared use of buildings and other capital assets; (3) regional energy consumption, including strategies for cooperative energy use and development of distributive generation and sustainable energy projects; and (4) promotion and sharing of arts and cultural assets. CGS Section 2, Public Act 09-60 Municipal option to Delay Revaluations, and Annual Adjustments in Property Values. Section 2 of this act authorizes any two or more towns to enter into an agreement to establish a regional revaluation program. Towns participating in such an agreement must provide for the re- valuation of all parcels of real property encompassed within such towns at the
same time and not less than once every five years, or must annually revalue approximately one-fifth of all such parcels over a five-year period. The act specifically allows a regional planning organization to be the coordinating agency to oversee a regional revaluation program. CGS Section 7-136n Joint issuance of bonds by two or more municipalities This statute authorizes two or more municipalities to jointly issue bonds at their discretion, subject to the approval of the legislative body of each municipality. These bonds can be issues for the purposes of paying all or any part of the cost of any project or activity, including acquisition of necessary land and equipment therefore, entered into jointly. CGS Section 7-137 Regional economic development commissions The statute authorizes any two or more towns, cities or boroughs having economic development commissions to join in the formation of a regional economic development commission. The area of jurisdiction of the regional commission shall be coterminous with the area of the e municipalities so joining. The economic development commissions of the municipalities comprising the regional commission shall jointly determine the membership of the regional commission. A regional commission shall have the same duties and authority, in respect to its area of jurisdiction, as a municipal commission has in respect to the municipality.
CGS Section 7-148bb Agreement between municipalities to share revenue received for payment of property taxes This statute authorizes the chief executive officers of two or more towns, cities, or boroughs to negotiate an agreement to share real and personal property tax revenue. The public must have an opportunity to participate during the negotiation process. Each participating municipality’s legislative body must approve the agreement by resolution. The agreement must contain all of the provisions on which the municipalities agree and procedures for amending, terminating, and withdrawing from it. The provisions can identify the tax revenue to be shared and col- lection and distribution mechanisms. Municipalities can enter these agreements notwithstanding other state laws, charters, or home rule ordinances. CGS Section 7-148cc Joint performance of municipal functions This statute authorizes two or more municipalities to “jointly perform any function that each municipality may perform separately�. Each municipality is required to approve the agreement for joint action in the same manner as provided for the approval of an ordinance. The terms of each agreement shall establish a process for withdrawal from such agreement and shall re- quire that the agreement be reviewed at least once every five years by the body that approved the agreement to assess the effectiveness of such agreement in enhancing the performance of the
15 CCM Candidate Bulletin
function that is the subject of the agreement. CGS Section 7-277a Police Assistance Agreements This statute authorizes two or more municipalities to enter into an agreement for the temporary assignment of police personnel from one municipality to another. The agreement allows the chief executive officer of a participating municipality to request assistance from other participating towns when he or she determines it to be necessary “to protect the safety or well-being of his municipality.� For example, East Windsor and its neighboring municipalities (South Windsor, Manchester, East Hartford, Coventry, Glastonbury, Windsor, Hartford and the Connecticut State Police) have entered into an agreement to cooperate on mutual police assistance. CGS Sections 7-333 through 7-339 Metropolitan Districts A Metropolitan District is a regional body formed when a central city establishes a relationship with any number of municipalities within the metropolitan area for the performance of any function, service or work that each municipality can perform on its own. Metropolitan districts are formed by a vote of the legislative bodies of participating municipalities or by the petition of the electors of those municipalities. Such a district may adopt a charter establishing its powers, duties, and means of financing. It is governed by a commission consisting of five to fifteen members selected by the legislative bodies of the participating municipalities.
CGS Section 7-339a through 7-339l Inter-local Agreements Chapter 105 of the Connecticut General Statutes authorizes public agencies to develop and implement inter-local agreements to provide for a number of shared services, equipment and other assets. The legislative body of any public agency may vote to enter into an inter-local agreement with any other public agency. Such action may be taken after a proposed agreement is submitted to the legislative body of each potential participating member and a public hearing is conducted. Once the legislative bodies have approved an agreement, an Inter-Local Advisory Board comprised of representatives from each of the participating agencies is formed. Agreements may provide for the contracting of services, personnel, and equipment between or among participating agencies, and must include certain specified provisions, such as cost sharing, the resolution of disputes and the receipt of state or federal funds. CGS Section 8-139 Joint action by two or more municipalities This statute authorizes the legislative bodies of two or more municipalities to: (a) create a regional or metropolitan planning agency and to authorize such agency or the planning agency of any of such municipalities to make a comprehensive or general plan of the area included with in such municipalities as described in section 8-127, and (b) exercise the powers granted in this chapter to the legislative body of any municipali-
16 CCM Candidate Bulletin
ty. In all matters under this chapter requiring the approval of the legislative body, such approval shall be by the legislative body of each municipality only as to the portions of the redevelopment plan situated in such municipality. CGS Section 8-169j Joint activity by two or more municipalities This statute authorizes two or more contiguous municipalities to enter into an agreement for the purpose of jointly carrying out a community development activity. Such an agreement may include provisions for furnishing municipal services to the project and sharing costs of and revenues from the project, including property taxes and rental receipts. The statute also authorizes each municipality that is a party to the agreement to make appropriations and levy taxes and issue bonds in accordance with current laws. CGS Section 8-196 Joint projects Any two or more municipalities by vote of their respective legislative bodies may, through their respective development agencies, jointly initiate a development project where the project area is to be located in one or more of such towns, and after approval by the commissioner of the project plan therefore if any state aid is to be requested under section 8-190 or 8-195, enter into, and thereafter amend, an agreement for the purposes of jointly carrying out the project plan through their respective development agencies, which agreement may include provisions for furnishing municipal
services to, and sharing costs of, and revenues, including property tax and rental receipts, from, the development project. A proposed form of the agreement to be entered into by such towns shall be included as part of the project plan. In furtherance of its obligations under such an agreement, each town which is a party thereto may make appropriations and levy taxes in accordance with the provisions of the general statutes and may issue bonds in accordance with section 8-192. CGS Section 32-224(f) Provisions of joint municipal development projects This statute authorizes the implementing agencies of two or more municipalities, after approval by each
municipality’s legislative body, to jointly initiate a development project if the project area is to be located in one or more of such municipalities. After approval by the Commissioner of the Department of Economic and Community Development of the development plan for any project for which state aid is to be requested under CGS Section 32-223, such implementing agencies may enter into and amend an agreement to jointly carry out the development plan. Such an agreement may include provisions for furnishing municipal services to the project and sharing costs of and revenues from the project, including property tax and rental receipts. The development plan shall include a proposed form of the agreement to be entered into by the municipalities. Each municipality
which is a party to an agreement may make appropriations and levy taxes in accordance with the provisions of the general statutes and may issue bonds in accordance with CGS Section 32227 to further its obligations under the agreement. CGS § 7-330 Municipal Districts Allows any two municipalities, by vote of their legislative bodies, to form a district to perform any municipal function which the municipalities may perform separately under the general statutes or special act. Any municipality may, by vote of its legislative body, apply to subsequently join the district and the district’s board may admit the municipality.
17 CCM Candidate Bulletin
CGS § 19a-240
C.G.S. Sec.10-39
Regional Health Districts
Regional School District
Many municipalities have chosen to form regional health districts, which provide local public health services, including enforcing the health code and monitoring community health issues. There are 20 such districts, each serving between two and 20 municipalities.
Two or more towns are permitted to establish a regional school district.
CGS § 8-2e Transfer of Development Rights Allows two or more municipalities with zoning authority, with the approval of each municipality’s legislative body, execute an agreement providing for a system of development rights and the transfer of these rights across the boundaries of the participating municipalities. The system must be implemented in a way approved by the legislative body of each municipality and by the commission or other body which adopts each municipality’s zoning regulations. CGS § 7-272 Joint Operation of Sewerage Systems Two or more municipalities may enter into, revise, and fulfill contracts jointly to acquire, construct or operate all or any part of a sewerage system. The agreement must specify (1) the portions of the sewerage system to be jointly acquired, constructed or operated; (2) the acts relating to acquiring, constructing or operating such portion or portions of the sewerage system to be performed jointly by the municipalities; and (3) how to apportion the costs of the system.
C.G.S. Sec. 10-158a Cooperative Arrangements Two or more local boards of education may enter into a cooperative arrangement to share programs and services “to enable such boards to carry out the duties specified in the general statutes.” C.G.S. Sec. 10-64 Regional Agricultural and Technology Center Two or more local or regional boards of education may enter into an agreement to establish a regional agricultural and technology center. C.G.S. Secs. 10-33 and 10-35 High School A board of education that does not have a high school may send its students to a designated high school located in another school district per an agreement between the two boards. C.G.S. Sec. 10-166a
CGS § 4-66m Inter-town Capital Equipment Purchase Incentive Program Grants to municipalities for jointly buying or leasing vehicles or capital equipment. CGS § 4-66g Small Town Economic Assistance Program Grants to groups of municipalities collaborating on eligible capital projects. CGS § 4-66k Regional Planning Grants
Regional Education Service Centers (RESCs)
Formula grants to all councils of governments (COGs).
Regional educational service centers (RESCs) may be established at the request of four or more school boards with CSDE approval.
CGS § 4-66l
CGS Section 4-124s, as amended by Section 253 of Public Act 13-247 Regional Performance Incentive Program (RPIP) Grant proposals may be submitted
18 CCM Candidate Bulletin
by any Council of Governments (COG) in Connecticut, any two or more municipalities acting through a COG, any economic development district(s) or any combination thereof. An individual municipality may only submit a proposal for funding to connect to the Nutmeg Network. The goal of RPI is to encourage municipalities to jointly participate in projects that will produce measurable “economies of scale” that will benefit the municipalities providing desired or required services and lowering the costs and tax burden related to providing those services.
Regional Services Grants Formula grants to all COGs for planning purposes and to achieve efficiencies in delivering municipal services on a regional basis.
CCM is the state’s largest, nonpartisan organization of municipal leaders, representing towns and cities of all sizes from all corners of the state, with 169 member municipalities. We come together for one common mission — to improve everyday life for every resident of Connecticut. We share best practices and objective research to help our local leaders govern wisely. We advocate at the state level for issues affecting local taxpayers. And we pool our buying power to negotiate more cost-effective services for our communities. CCM is governed by a board of directors that is elected by the member municipalities. Our board represents municipalities of all sizes, leaders of different political parties, and towns/cities across the state. Our board members also serve on a variety of committees that participate in the development of CCM policy and programs. Federal representation is provided by CCM in conjunction with the National League of Cities. CCM was founded in 1966.
