Regionalism: Connecticut’s Future

Despite 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.

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.

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.

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 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.”

• 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.

• 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.

• Inter-local agreements or service sharing contracts override any relevant limitations in a participating municipality’s charter or ordinance.

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.

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.

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:

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.

II. In addition, the proposals below provide municipalities further relief from unfunded mandates, opportunities to share services and contain costs and generate revenue.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

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.

• 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 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• Empower Councils of Government (COGs) to deliver services on a regional basis; and make land use decisions on regionally-significant projects.

• Reinvest in planning and technical assistance capacity at OPM to assist COGs and municipalities in collaborative efforts.

• 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.

• 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.

IV. Lamont -Bysiewicz Transition Policy Committee on Shared Services

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:

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:

• · 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:

o Repurposing OPM’s CPIP Division, and consider reallocating some responsibilities for local and regional services among other agencies, such as DECD.

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.

• 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.

• 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 other states provide on a county level.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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 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.

• 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:

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.

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:

o Increasing the basis for service fees beyond the cost of providing the service;

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.