Connecticut's Regional Planning Organizations Final = Report

In April 2007, = the=20 Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee voted to study=20 Connecticut's Regional = Planning=20 Organizations (RPOs). The focus of the study was on understanding the = activities=20 currently undertaken by each of the 15 RPOs, identifying additional = services=20 they might provide in the future, and suggesting ways to encourage = regional=20 collaboration among municipalities.

The overall = goal of the=20 recommendations adopted by the program review committee on December 20, = 2007,=20 was to encourage towns to continue to address issues through Regional = Planning=20 Organizations in order to foster the growth and development of regional=20 activities in the state. The committee's findings and = recommendations focused on three broad areas:

During the = course of the=20 study, a variety of state agencies and organizations interested in = regionalism=20 were contacted for their perspective on the current and future role of = RPOs in=20 Connecticut. During the early months of the study, committee staff also = visited=20 the office of each of the 15 RPOs, interviewing the executive director, = and in=20 some cases, other staff and board members as well. In September 2007, = the=20 committee held a public hearing at which 16 people spoke or submitted = testimony=20 related to the topic of Regional Planning Organizations, including a = panel=20 presentation by the staff and board members of eight of the = RPOs.

Another = mechanism used=20 to obtain information was a questionnaire sent to the chief elected = officials in=20 the state's 169 towns. = The survey=20 asked for their opinions regarding the roles, responsibilities, and = current=20 performance of the RPOs in their region, and what future tasks, if any, = they=20 would like those RPOs to undertake. A total of 101 of 169 surveys were = returned,=20 for a response rate of 60 percent.

Regional = Planning=20 Organizations are statutorily authorized regional entities voluntarily=20 established by the municipalities located within the 15 state-defined = planning=20 regions. There are three types: Regional Planning Agencies (RPAs), = Regional=20 Councils of Elected Officials (RCEOs), and Regional Councils of = Governments=20 (RCOGs).

The primary = statutory=20 responsibilities of all three types of RPOs are the same. However, with = the=20 exception of transportation planning, which already has a regional = focus, and a=20 few state-mandated responsibilities related to conservation and = development=20 planning, most of the activities performed by each RPO are at the = direction of=20 their member towns.

The boundaries = of the=20 regions that the current 15 RPOs represent were developed by the state = in the=20 1950s, based on an examination of a variety of factors and consultation = with=20 officials in the various regions. Since then, changes in the economy of=20 Connecticut, housing patterns, environmental concerns, and technology in = general=20 have occurred and are continuing to occur. OPM has statutory authority = to=20 designate or redesignate logical planning regions within the state, but = the only=20 change since the 1970s has been the assignment of a previously = unaffiliated town=20 to a specific RPO. Municipal chief elected officials who responded to = the=20 program review survey overwhelmingly supported periodic re-examination = of the=20 planning regions. Given these factors, the program review committee = believes OPM=20 should be required to reexamine the boundaries of the state's planning = regions=20 periodically.

The need to = address=20 certain public policy issues on a regional versus an individual town = basis has=20 been recognized in Connecticut since the 1940s when the state = legislature=20 authorized the creation of regional planning agencies. In recent years, = there=20 has been growing interest nationally and in Connecticut in expanding = efforts to=20 plan and act on a regional basis. There are two major reasons: = recognition that=20 land use planning needs to occur in a more methodical and integrated = manner in=20 order to preserve the character of the state and reduce sprawl; and a=20 realization that service sharing arrangements can achieve cost savings. = Although=20 most towns in Connecticut have embraced the use of regional entities for = some=20 purposes, there is less support for state-imposed joint efforts. =

In its survey = of=20 municipal chief elected officials, the program review committee found = there is=20 no consensus on whether the state should build the capacity of RPOs to = undertake=20 state-mandated tasks on a region-wide basis. In addition, there is no = agreement=20 on whether certain land use decisions should be shifted away from = municipalities=20 to regional or state government. Most of those interviewed acknowledged = that=20 regional planning is important, and increasing collaboration among towns = for the=20 provision of certain services would be more cost efficient. However, = almost all=20 local officials opposed the idea of the state imposing mandates that = would=20 require specific functions and activities to be regionalized.

If towns are = reluctant=20 to readily participate in regional endeavors, the state can take action = in four=20 ways: offer incentives; impose sanctions; mandate specific activities be = regionalized; or perform the activity itself. Over the years, the = objective of=20 state legislation in Connecticut related to regionalism has been to = encourage,=20 rather than require, towns to jointly cooperate. Thus, a major challenge = for=20 state policy makers is to balance regional needs that facilitate the = long-term=20 development of the state, with the long-held preference of retaining = control and=20 decision-making at the local level of government.

Conservation = and=20 development plans are used at all levels of government to provide a = vision and=20 general idea of how land should be used to assure public health, safety, = and=20 welfare. In Connecticut, conservation and development planning is = statutorily=20 mandated at the local, regional, and state level. The Regional Plan of=20 Development, as the middle ground between the individual Municipal = Conservation=20 and Development Plans and the State Plan of Conservation and Development = (State=20 C&D Plan), is an important mechanism to balance local interests with = the=20 overall goals of the state. Although regional plans are purely advisory, = they=20 are key documents that link together towns with common interests, while=20 supporting the overall goals of the State C&D Plan. Although a = Regional=20 Planning Organization must submit its proposed Regional Plan of = Development to=20 the secretary of OPM for findings to determine if the proposed plan is = =93not=20 inconsistent=94 with the State Plan of Conservation and Development, the = committee=20 found no formal criteria existed to conduct such a review.

State statutes = require=20 that RPOs be notified about, and in some cases comment on, certain types = of=20 projects occurring within a region. Legislation has been raised since = 1979 to=20 allow RPOs to either comment on projects of regional significance or = actually=20 approve them, but in neither case has such authority been granted. The = committee=20 believes that allowing RPOs to comment on such projects would provide a = broader=20 perspective on development that occurs in one town, but has an impact = beyond=20 that town's border, and = those=20 comments should be discussed in the context of the goals contained in = the=20 relevant Regional Plan of Development.

Public Act = 07-239=20 established a Regional Performance Incentive Program with an allocation = of $8.6=20 million to support regional cooperation. Under the act, RPOs are = encouraged to=20 submit proposals for joint provision of services that are currently = provided by=20 towns within the region of the RPO but not currently provided on a = regional=20 basis. There has been widespread interest in the program, with 11 of the = 15 RPOs=20 submitting proposals and 129 towns participating in one or more of them. = Several=20 other states in the Northeast also operate similar programs. The program = review=20 committee believes the idea is a good one, but a few modifications = should be=20 made in the existing program.

The = Legislative Program=20 Review and Investigations Committee adopted the following=20 recommendations:

1. All = three types of=20 Regional Planning Organizations currently allowed under Connecticut law = --=20 Regional Planning Agencies, Regional Councils of Elected Officials, and = Regional=20 Councils of Governments -- should continue to be = authorized.

2. Chapter 50, = Part IV,=20 of the Connecticut General Statutes shall be amended to add a definition = of the=20 term =93Regional Planning Organization.=94 The definition shall specify = that the=20 term collectively includes Regional Planning Agencies, Regional Councils = of=20 Elected Officials, and Regional Councils of Governments established = under the=20 provisions of Chapters 50 and 127 of the statutes.

3. C.G.S. Sec. = 4-124h=20 shall be amended to specify that a legally established Regional Council = of=20 Elected Officials can exercise all of the powers of a Regional Council = of=20 Governments as defined in Chapter 50 of the statutes.

4. Regional = Planning=20 Agencies shall be required to establish a mechanism for meeting with the = chief=20 elected officials of their member towns at least quarterly to = communicate=20 information about region-wide issues. The mechanism shall be established = by=20 January 1, 2009.

5. At least = every 20=20 years, the Office of Policy and Management shall conduct an analysis of = the=20 boundaries of the state-defined logical planning areas in Connecticut = and adopt=20 new boundaries, if appropriate, based on that analysis. As part of its = review,=20 OPM shall develop criteria that will examine the influence of urban = centers on=20 neighboring towns in the context of current trends related to economic=20 development and the environment, including characteristics such as = housing=20 patterns, employment levels, commuting patterns for the most widely held = job=20 classifications in the state, traffic patterns on major roadways, local=20 perceptions of social and historic ties, and environmental = considerations. OPM=20 shall also include a measure that takes into consideration the size of = the=20 proposed regions (e.g., the number of towns, total population, and/or = total=20 square mileage), with the goal of establishing a minimum size for = logical=20 planning areas.

The first = analysis of=20 the regions under this new system should be completed by October 1, = 2009, with=20 any revision of boundaries taking effect by July 1, 2010.

6. In = preparing the 2010=20 revision of the State Plan of Conservation and Development, the Office = of Policy=20 and Management shall:

7. The Office = of Policy=20 and Management shall develop criteria for the uniform review of Regional = Plans=20 of Development submitted to it in order to determine whether they are = consistent=20 with the State Plan of Conservation and Development.

8. The name of = the=20 Regional Plan of Development shall be changed to the Regional Plan of=20 Conservation and Development.

9. Regional = Planning=20 Organizations shall be given the statutory authority to comment on = =93projects of=20 regional significance=94 that will be located in one town but will = impact other=20 towns in the region, or that are located in a town in another region but = the=20 town is contiguous to the region. The criteria for comment shall include = analysis of the project's compliance = with the=20 Regional Development Plan as well as other issues the Regional Planning=20 Organizations believe are critical to the analysis. Notice shall be = provided to=20 a Regional Planning Organization not later than 30 days before the = public=20 hearing to be held by the town where the project will be located. The = RPO shall=20 study any such proposal and shall report its findings and = recommendations to the=20 zoning commission at or before the hearing. The report of the RPO shall = be=20 advisory, but it shall be made a part of the record of such hearing. If = the RPO=20 does not submit a report at or before the hearing, it shall be presumed = that it=20 does not disapprove of the project.

The Office of = Policy and=20 Management, in consultation with the Interagency Steering Council = established by=20 Executive Order No. 15, shall develop regulations that define the term = =93projects=20 of regional significance=94 and the criteria that would initiate a = review of such=20 projects by a Regional Planning Organization. The criteria used to = define=20 =93projects of regional significance=94 shall address, but not be = limited to, such=20 factors as project location, type, (such as energy, transportation, = major=20 infrastructure, water, or open space), and scope (size).

10. The = Regional=20 Performance Incentive Program shall:

In = Connecticut, Regional=20 Planning Organizations (RPOs) are statutorily authorized entities = voluntarily=20 established by towns within 15 state-defined logical planning regions. = All but=20 one municipality in the state is a member of a Regional Planning = Organization.=20 (See Figure I-3 for a map showing the boundaries of the = regions.)

There are = three types of=20 RPOs -- Regional Councils of Elected Officials (RCEOs), Regional = Councils of=20 Governments (RCOGs), and Regional Planning Agencies (RPAs). All have = similar=20 duties, which can be summarized as:

=95 providing = a forum for=20 intermunicipal discussion of a variety of issues affecting member=20 towns;

=95 = facilitating=20 preparation of a regional development plan that considers a broad range = of=20 matters including land use, housing, economic development, the = environment,=20 recreational areas, and public utilities;

=95 reviewing = and=20 commenting on various matters related to land use, including certain = zone use=20 and subdivision changes as well as local and state conservation and = development=20 plans;

=95 performing = transportation planning activities related to federal funding; and =

=95 assisting = member towns=20 with specific tasks identified by the towns, including coordination of = regional=20 purchasing opportunities and service sharing = agreements.

In April 2007, = the=20 Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee voted to study=20 Connecticut's Regional = Planning=20 Organizations. The focus of the study was on understanding the = activities=20 currently undertaken by each of the 15 RPOs, identifying additional = services=20 they might provide in the future, suggesting ways to encourage regional=20 collaboration among municipalities, and indicating whether a particular = model=20 exists that fosters the concept of regionalism.

The need to = address=20 specific public policy issues on a regional versus individual town basis = has=20 been gaining momentum nationally and in Connecticut. This trend is based = on the=20 understanding that a joint approach to common problems is often = necessary. Over=20 the last few years in Connecticut, there has been increased interest = among state=20 policy leaders in supporting greater regional cooperation, primarily for = two=20 reasons.

The first is a = recognition that land use planning needs to occur in a more methodical = and=20 integrated manner in order to preserve the character of the state and = reduce=20 sprawl. State law requires conservation and development planning take = place at=20 the state, regional, and local levels of government, although the state = and=20 regional plans are largely advisory. Under Connecticut's =93home = rule=94 system,=20 the right to regulate local land use rests with the towns. As discussed = in the=20 current State Plan of Conservation and Development (State C&D Plan): =

However, = ultimately=20 municipal development decisions are made by local leaders in=20 Connecticut's 169 = towns.

Neither RPOs = nor state=20 government currently have the authority to overrule land use decisions = made at=20 the local level. Because of this autonomy, towns do not have to follow=20 conservation and development plans that are prepared at the state and = regional=20 level. In response to this situation, state level efforts are focused=20 increasingly on linking state funding for capital and infrastructure = projects=20 with promotion of Responsible Growth at the local level. Rather than = changing=20 authority for land use decisions, the state is trying to discourage = decisions=20 that are not compatible with the State Plan of Conservation and=20 Development.

Recently, both = the=20 governor and the legislature introduced stricter planning requirements = at all=20 levels of government. However, neither suggested the overturn of = municipal home=20 rule authority regarding land use decisions nor shifting that authority = to RPOs=20 or the state.

In October = 2006,=20 Governor M. Jodi Rell issued Executive Order No. 15 declaring that the = state=20 needs to =93actively steer the continued growth and development of our = state to=20 prevent sprawling development patterns from forever changing the = character of=20 our communities.=94 The order created the Office of Responsible Growth = (ORG)=20 within the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) to help the state and = towns=20 achieve that goal. During the 2007 legislative session, the Connecticut = General=20 Assembly adopted Public Act 07-239, =93An Act Concerning Responsible = Growth,=94=20 building on the governor's initiative = and=20 promoting regional service sharing arrangements. A key provision of the = act=20 establishes a Regional Performance Incentive Program (RPIP).

These = activities and=20 Connecticut's focus on = responsible=20 growth are in keeping with similar efforts occurring nationally. In = recent=20 years, there has been growing interest in a concept referred to as = =93Smart=20 Growth.=94 While the term can be defined in a variety of ways, the broad = elements=20 usually include:

=95 = recognition of the=20 connection between development and quality of life, including the value = of mixed=20 uses (i.e., jobs, housing, and retail within near proximity of each=20 other);

=95 = preservation of open=20 space and, correspondingly, a desire to restore city centers and older = suburbs=20 whenever possible;

=95 the = importance of=20 pedestrian oriented communities that have access to public = transportation;=20 and

=95 the = existence of a=20 plan for development, based on a thoughtful process that considers the = future=20 needs and existing resources of a region.²

The concept of = responsible growth in Connecticut seeks to achieve similar goals. = Implementation=20 of these concepts will require support from all levels of government = (i.e.,=20 state, local, and federal) as well as the private sector (i.e., = developers and=20 local citizens). As specific efforts in Connecticut move forward, RPOs = can be=20 important participants in the process of achieving responsible growth. = Their=20 longstanding presence in their regions as organizations that enable = municipal=20 leaders to discuss issues of common interest and seek solutions in a = cooperative=20 atmosphere will be a valuable resource.

The second = reason for=20 increased interest in regionalism in Connecticut is a realization that = service=20 sharing arrangements can achieve cost savings. This is important as=20 municipalities face increasing pressure to control local budgets and = contain=20 rising property taxes. Ideally, rather than 169 towns independently = providing=20 the same services to their residents or purchasing the same product, two = or more=20 towns could jointly share a service or gain volume discounts for joint=20 purchasing. Because of these cost savings, such efforts help towns = maintain the=20 service levels they deliver to their residents.

Although = efforts to=20 regionalize have been underway in Connecticut for more than 50 years, = the number=20 and range of activities undertaken regionally has increased considerably = in=20 recent years. Towns are working together, often through the RPOs, to buy = equipment, operate animal shelters, promote recreational facilities, = plan for=20 natural disasters and other emergencies, protect the environment, and = administer=20 transit programs. Projects that involve working with private parties = jointly to=20 develop a specific parcel of land or operate a regional facility are = much more=20 limited. In any case, the extent to which individual towns or groups of=20 neighboring towns are embracing regionalism varies, and efforts to = expand=20 regionalism in Connecticut should be considered within the context of = existing=20 beliefs and practices.

The = characteristics of a=20 group purchasing or service delivery effort are important factors in a=20 town's decision to=20 regionalize that activity. Often, towns are more willing to work jointly = with=20 others when the services to be provided are those that do not involve = direct=20 contact between the town and its citizens. This includes activities in = the areas=20 of information technology, the processing of bills, and property tax = revaluation=20 assessments. Other popular efforts focus on opportunities for towns to = obtain=20 enhanced services at the same cost as going it alone. These types of = projects=20 include joint purchasing of office supplies and employment training = programs. A=20 third category with strong potential for a regional approach is = recruitment of=20 personnel for jobs that are difficult to fill because of a shortage of = skilled=20 workers or the need to combine tasks among several towns in order to = create a=20 full-time position.

Another factor = affecting=20 the willingness of towns to enter into regional ventures is the number = of other=20 entities that will be involved. Some smaller towns fear they will lose = their=20 identity within a group of larger towns, while larger towns may worry = that their=20 concerns will be lost in the diversity of issues raised by a large = number of=20 smaller towns. The fact that the 15 RPOs currently operating in = Connecticut have=20 good working relationships among most of their members would suggest = these=20 concerns can be resolved.

In some towns, = local=20 officials are concerned about a loss of autonomy, if their town joins an = effort=20 they cannot control completely. They worry that even if they agree with = a=20 decision now, in the future they might find their town is required to = give up=20 revenue or provide a service or an increased level of service that they = would=20 not have chosen. An example of this situation is the purchase of group = health=20 insurance for employees. The entity representing the region may = negotiate a more=20 generous package of benefits than the town wants to provide. Even though = the=20 cost of those benefits might be the same initially as the amount the = town was=20 paying for more limited benefits (due to the group purchasing discount), = in the=20 future the town might find it difficult to reduce benefits, if the price = rises.

The other side = of the=20 issue of costs concerns the willingness of the citizens of a town to pay = higher=20 taxes in order to receive more benefits. Theoretically, all towns want = to save=20 money, if they can. Sometimes though, the cost of a particular structure = or=20 service is not high enough for town residents to be willing to make a = change in=20 the frequency or the scope of that project, even if it would save money. = For=20 example, people often prefer to use a library within their own community = or=20 visit their local town hall for required permits and = licenses.

In those types = of=20 situations, the property tax burden on the individuals in the town that = goes it=20 alone can become very heavy. However, until the town reaches a financial = tipping=20 point where efforts to balance the provision of services with the cost = of those=20 services cannot be maintained, there may be little desire to seek out a = regional=20 solution. Only then will the town and its citizens be ready to give up = some=20 independence and join together with other towns for the provision of = goods and=20 services in order to stabilize or reduce local property = taxes.

In the case of = towns=20 that are reluctant to readily participate in regional endeavors, the = state can=20 take action in four ways. It can offer incentives, which would be = primarily=20 financial, but could include technical assistance. At the same time, or = as an=20 alternative, the state could impose sanctions in the form of = disqualification=20 for a wide range of state grants or the imposition of a fee for acting = alone.=20 (These choices are sometimes referred to as the =93carrot or stick=94 = approach.)=20 Another approach would be to mandate certain activities or functions = that are=20 currently performed on a town-by-town basis be regionalized. Finally, = the state=20 could perform the activity itself.

The = availability of=20 financial incentives might motivate towns to join cooperative efforts, = but new=20 money is not always the answer. Towns may be willing to forego cost = savings in=20 order to be able to locate a building where they want it or continue the = provision of a service in the way they want. For example, financial = incentives=20 to encourage towns to form regional Public Safety Answering Points = (PSAPs) have=20 had mixed results. Some towns that receive few =93911=94 calls are still = reluctant=20 to eliminate the job of the employee who currently handles that = function. In=20 such cases, it may be necessary for the state to threaten to eliminate = access to=20 all state funds for that program in order to get a town to participate = in a=20 regional center with neighboring towns.

The decision = about what=20 sanctions to impose and when to impose them should be considered in the = context=20 of the goals of the particular program. Harsh penalties in areas where = the=20 returns are small run the risk of generating resentment toward the = targeted=20 effort and a general loss in the level of goodwill achieved to date = through=20 voluntary regional efforts.

As Connecticut = seeks to=20 achieve greater regionalism in the area of government activities, the = state must=20 decide whether the nature and pace of the efforts currently underway are = moving=20 in the right direction, or whether stronger mandates or sanctions are = needed.=20 Many of the actions being taken to encourage more detailed discussions = about how=20 to implement the responsible growth principles, to promote greater = regional=20 awareness about land use issues and encourage service sharing = arrangements=20 through RPOs, and to examine how state investment dollars can influence=20 conservation and development efforts at the local level and whether land = use=20 laws, policies, or programs need to be changed are just getting = underway.=20 Therefore, the program review committee believes it is appropriate to = allow some=20 additional time to pass to see if the results of those efforts are = successful.=20 Consequently, instead of recommending a single regional model, the = committee is=20 proposing a series of revisions that modify elements of the Regional = Planning=20 Organizations, the role of OPM in regional efforts, and the use of state = funding=20 as a means of increasing regional activities. Chapter Seven contains a = more=20 detailed discussion of the issues related to regionalism and includes = all of the=20 committee's=20 recommendations.

Information = about=20 Regional Planning Organizations was obtained from a variety of sources. = Program=20 review staff read historic materials (e.g., annual reports, plans, and=20 histories) prepared by individual RPOs as well as the associations that = have=20 represented the RPOs over the years, viewed the web sites of the 13 RPOs = that=20 have web pages, and reviewed the most recent financial audit that each = RPO filed=20 with OPM. Committee staff also visited the office of each of the 15 = RPOs,=20 interviewing the executive director, and in some cases, other staff and = board=20 members as well.

In conjunction = with two=20 other program review studies, an electronic survey was sent to the chief = elected=20 officials of all municipalities in the state. The section of the survey = related=20 to the RPO study included questions about why towns belong to RPOs, what = functions RPOs should perform, who should serve on the boards of = directors, and=20 what the state should do to encourage more regional cooperation. A total = of 101=20 of 169 forms were returned, for a response rate of 60 percent. (See = Chapter Six=20 for a summary of the responses to the questions.)

During the = course of the=20 study, program review committee staff spoke with nonpartisan staff from = other=20 legislative offices (i.e., Office of Fiscal Analysis, Office of = Legislative=20 Research, and Legislative Commissioners Office). Committee staff also = met with=20 employees of the Office of Policy and Management, the Department of=20 Environmental Protection (DEP), and the Department of Transportation = (ConnDOT),=20 the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM), the Connecticut = Organization=20 of Small Towns (COST), and the Regional Plan Association as well as a=20 representative of the Connecticut chapter of the American Planning=20 Association.

Program review = staff=20 attended several bi-monthly meetings of OPM and the RPOs, which were = followed by=20 meetings of the Connecticut Association of Regional Planning = Organizations=20 (CARPO), as well as meetings of the Advisory Commission on = Intergovernmental=20 Relations (ACIR) and the Responsible Growth Task Force. Committee staff = also=20 attended: in March, a legislative forum on Smart Growth Policy Trends; = in April,=20 a community forum on the regional collaboration project =93People, = Prosperity, and=20 Place;=94 in July, the annual meeting of 1000 Friends of Connecticut; in = October,=20 a half-day Shared Services Symposium sponsored by OPM, ACIR, and the = League of=20 Women Voters of Connecticut; and in December, a regional forum on the=20 state's economic = strategic=20 plan sponsored by the Department of Economic and Community Development=20 (DECD).

On September = 25, 2007,=20 the program review committee held a public hearing regarding the issues = in this=20 and two other studies. A total of 16 people spoke or submitted testimony = related=20 to the topic of Regional Planning Organizations, including a panel = presentation=20 by the staff and board members of eight of the RPOs.

Information = about the=20 history of the RPOs was obtained from the legislative record, previous = studies=20 of RPOs in Connecticut, and conversations with individuals involved in = the=20 creation of logical planning regions in Connecticut. Various national = sources=20 and literature about regional government, conservation and development = planning=20 and its relationship to Smart Growth efforts, and joint purchasing = efforts were=20 also examined.

The report has = seven=20 chapters. The first provides a history of the development of Regional = Planning=20 Organizations in the state, while the second describes OPM's role in = promoting=20 regional initiatives. Chapter Three explains the types of RPOs allowed = in=20 Connecticut and compares and contrasts their activities, while Chapter = Four=20 examines the resources of the RPOs. The fifth chapter discusses = conservation and=20 development planning at the local, regional, and state levels of = government.=20 Chapter Six summarizes the results of the questionnaire sent to = municipal chief=20 elected officials. Chapter Seven contains the program review=20 committee's findings and = recommendations.

Appendix A = lists the=20 mission statement of the 15 RPOs. Appendix B summarizes statutory = notification=20 and review requirements involving RPOs, while Appendix C describes = legislative=20 changes to the State C&D Plan process since 1971. Appendix D = contains a copy=20 of the survey instrument sent to municipal chief elected officials. = Appendix E=20 provides data about the volume of cooperative activity pursued by = individual=20 towns in Connecticut; Appendix F compares the state grant programs for = shared=20 municipal services available in four other states.

It is the = policy of the=20 Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee to provide = agencies=20 subject to a study with an opportunity to review and comment on the=20 recommendations prior to publication of the final report, if they = choose. For=20 this study, that opportunity was offered to OPM and to the 15 RPOs = (through=20 their advocacy group CARPO). Appendix G contains the responses from both = entities.

Under current = state law,=20 there are three types of Regional Planning Organizations. All have the = same=20 authority with respect to regional planning activities, but they differ = slightly=20 with regard to the range of other responsibilities they have. In terms = of=20 day-to-day tasks, most activities performed by RPOs are at the direction = of=20 their member towns, not the state. The RPOs have limited authority to = direct=20 actions on the part of their member towns -- their statutory authority = is=20 primarily advisory.

The three = alternatives=20 evolved over time, as interests and concerns about land use and economic = development within the state changed. The type of Regional Planning = Organization=20 that exists within a specific region is decided upon by the member = towns, not=20 the state. Thus, a mixture of the three types exists throughout = Connecticut=20 today.

Figure I-1 = lists the key=20 dates related to the statutory creation of each of the types of Regional = Planning Organizations currently used in Connecticut. The remainder of = this=20 chapter traces the evolution of legislative efforts to encourage local = planning=20 and authorize entities to carry out regional planning and other=20 functions.

In = Connecticut, state=20 authorization for local planning and zoning began early in the = 20^th=20 century. In 1917, towns were given authority to create town planning = commissions=20 to map and plan for public buildings, highways, streets, and building = lines. In=20 1925, towns were authorized to establish zoning authorities to regulate = the=20 height and size of buildings, the proportion of a lot that could be = occupied,=20 and the size of yards and open-spaces.

In 1939, an = 11-member,=20 state commission called the Connecticut Development Commission (CDC) was = created=20 to study conditions affecting Connecticut business, agricultural, and=20 residential facilities, gather information about natural and economic = resources=20 of the state, and promote and encourage the location and development of = new=20 facilities within the state. This new commission also included a = division to=20 assist local governments with planning and zoning programs.

By 1947, state = law began=20 requiring towns with planning commissions to adopt municipal plans of=20 development. Each plan had to be based on studies of local physical, = social,=20 economic, and governmental conditions and be designed to promote = coordinated=20 development and the general welfare and prosperity of the people in the = town.=20 The plan could include planning commission recommendations regarding the = most=20 desirable use of land in the town, the most desirable population = density, and=20 the location of objects such as bridges, streets, airports, parks, = public=20 buildings, and utilities. In addition, the commission could make other=20 recommendations it thought would be beneficial to the town.

Regional = Planning=20 Authorities. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, Connecticut grew = rapidly. The=20 population increased from 1.75 million in 1940 to 2.5 million in 1959, = making=20 Connecticut the fourth most densely populated state in the country. In = the 1950s=20 alone, there was a 24 percent increase in the number of dwelling units = in the=20 state, a 33 percent increase in the number of motor vehicles, and an 18 = percent=20 increase in the number of non-agricultural jobs. By 1958, nearly 82 = percent of=20 the state's population = lived in=20 the 50 largest municipalities, which represented only one-quarter of the = state's land = area.³

In 1947, the = General=20 Assembly enacted legislation allowing two or more contiguous towns with = planning=20 commissions to form a Regional Planning Authority. Representation on the = authority board would be proportional, with each member town getting two = seats=20 on the board and additional representatives if the town population = exceeded=20 25,000 people. All town representatives were to be appointed by the = local=20 planning commission. The jurisdiction of each RPA would match the = boundaries of=20 the towns that actually joined the RPA.

Each RPA would = have to=20 prepare a plan of development for its region based on the same types of = studies=20 required for a municipal plan of development, with recommendations for = the=20 general use of the area and other matters deemed beneficial to the area. = RPAs=20 also were to assist the planning commissions of member towns in carrying = out the=20 regional plan.

Initially, = only one=20 group of towns took advantage of this opportunity. In 1948, a few = municipalities=20 in the New Haven area formed the Regional Planning Authority of South = Central=20 Connecticut. Some towns in other parts of the state also joined together = informally to work on regional planning, but no others organized as a=20 RPA.

Interest in a = more=20 formal regional approach to planning and the establishment of more RPAs=20 continued growing in Connecticut, but two unrelated events in the = mid-1950s are=20 often cited as spurring action. First, in 1954, federal grants became = available=20 that would pay for up to half the cost of planning work in metropolitan = and=20 regional areas. However, the only eligible recipients were official = regional=20 planning agencies.

Second, in = August 1955,=20 deadly flooding in the state affected people and property in 39 towns,=20 especially near the Farmington, Naugatuck, and Quinnebaug Rivers. Nearly = 100=20 people were killed, and property damage topped $203 million (the = equivalent of=20 $1.5 billion today). More flooding in October of that year killed 17 = people and=20 caused $20 million in damage in 60 towns. These incidents highlighted = the need=20 for comprehensive regional plans that would identify future = infrastructure needs=20 and provide guidance for development during reconstruction following a = natural=20 disaster as well as during periods of rapid economic = expansion.

Consequently, = in 1955,=20 during the regular legislative session and a special November session, = changes=20 were made in the procedures for establishing a Regional Planning = Authority.=20 Instead of contiguous towns that could potentially stretch irregularly = in=20 several directions, member towns now had to be located within the same = =93logical=20 economic and planning regions of the state.=94 The intent of this change = was:

The = Connecticut=20 Development Commission was given responsibility for defining the = planning=20 regions. CDC also was authorized to promote and assist with the = formation of=20 local and regional planning agencies and provide technical assistance to = towns=20 and regional areas regarding their functions.

According to = CDC=20 documents, early in the process of developing =93logical economic and = planning=20 regions,=94 the commission determined that the regions:

=95 be = =93clearly=20 identifiable with local objectives and local problems=94 since town = participation=20 in a Regional Planning Authority had to be voted on by each local = legislative=20 body;

=95 include = one or more=20 municipalities serving as an urban center and the surrounding=20 municipalities;

=95 include = towns likely=20 to develop strong relationships to the urban center in the future;=20 and

=95 be based = on existing=20 municipal boundaries (i.e., no town would be split into more than one=20 region).⁵

In order to = define the=20 new statutorily required logical planning regions, CDC developed a = six-step=20 process, which is summarized in Figure I-2. Work on the first step began = in the=20 summer of 1957.

During the = first step in=20 the process, CDC staff compiled data about the characteristics of the = 169 towns=20 in the state, focusing on population, employment, retail trade, and = property=20 taxes levied. After identifying towns that were =93urban centers,=94 = analysis=20 focused on determining which of those towns were centers of regional = influence.=20 Then, the existing degree of relationship that each town in the state = had to the=20 identified urban centers was measured. In order to accomplish that task, = CDC=20 staff examined:

=95 = circulation=20 patterns of daily newspapers published in Connecticut (which the CDC = report=20 noted was =93one of the more valuable areas of = investigation=94);

=95 the number = of days per=20 week of free parcel delivery service from urban department stores = to each=20 municipality;

=95 = commuting patterns=20 of manufacturing workers employed by plants with 100 or more = workers, which=20 made-up three-quarters of that type of employment;

=95 = commuting patterns=20 of high school students (which the CDC report noted was given = limited weight=20 because patterns were shifting as new schools were being = built);

=95 = telephone=20 service, in particular those areas where free telephone calling was = provided=20 to all or part of an urban center;

=95 general = hospital=20 service areas that had been established by the State Health = Department after=20 studying hospital admissions by place of residence; and

=95 = existing area=20 definitions, such as labor market areas defined by the State Labor=20 Department and Standard Metropolitan Areas established by the U.S. = Census (both=20 of which the CDC report noted had limited value for its purposes because = the=20 boundaries were for a single function and followed town = lines).⁶

All of that = information=20 was combined to identify similarities and differences among groups of = towns. A=20 point scoring system was developed to weigh the relative importance of = the=20 measures listed above, and a scoring summary was prepared for each town = in the=20 state. As part of the summary, consideration was also given to the = geographical=20 relationship of towns, with one score for towns contiguous to an urban = center,=20 and an additional score for instances where =93substantial, continuous = urban=20 development spread from the urban center across the boundary into an = adjoining=20 municipality.=94⁷

Next, the CDC = staff=20 examined other items considered relevant to defining a region. The = additional=20 factors included:

=95 traffic = flow=20 patterns;

=95 = topography;

=95 watersheds = and=20 drainage;

=95 state = highway=20 plans;

=95 population = and=20 economic growth trends in urban centers and surrounding = areas;

=95 the = influence of=20 out-of-state urban centers (e.g., Springfield, Massachusetts) on towns = in=20 Connecticut; and

=95 the = influence of=20 Connecticut urban centers on municipalities in other = states.

Weighing all = of the=20 information compiled, the commission identified tentative planning=20 regions.⁸ However, it did not make the boundaries = public until=20 it was contacted by local groups in a geographic area that were = interested in=20 establishing a regional planning authority. At that point, CDC staff set = up=20 meetings with municipal officials to discuss the proposed boundaries. = After=20 reviewing the feedback, advice, and information from those in the = region, the=20 Connecticut Development Commission determined the final definition of = the region=20 and announced it publicly.

After the = boundaries of=20 the regions were finalized, the towns within the defined area were = responsible=20 for the steps required to form a Regional Planning Authority. However, = CDC staff=20 was available to assist with informational meetings and other = promotional=20 efforts designed to explain the new regional system to the legislative = bodies=20 required to vote on membership in the authority.⁹

The first = finalized=20 region -- the Capitol Planning Region -- was announced in June of 1958. = In May=20 1959, CDC published a report with information about the status of = efforts to=20 establish RPAs, which was as follows:

=95 one = existing authority=20 predating the state study (South Central), which by law was allowed to = continue=20 operating;

=95 one region = with a=20 finalized definition (Capitol);

=95 seven = regions that had=20 been tentatively defined as of that date (Bridgeport, Central Naugatuck, = New=20 Britain/Bristol, Middletown, New London/Groton, Stamford/Norwalk, and=20 Danbury);

=95 three = regions that had=20 requested a definition (Norwich, Ansonia/Derby, and Meriden);

=95 five = regions where no=20 action had been taken but there was evidence of homogeneity=20 (Torrington/Winchester, Windham, Putnam/Killingly, Northern Housatonic = Valley,=20 and Lower Middlesex); and

=95 13 towns = (Andover,=20 Canton, Colchester, Coventry, Enfield, Granby, Hartland, Hebron, = Marlborough,=20 Stafford, Somers, Suffield, and Union) that had not been assigned to any = region=20 because the studies conducted by CDC failed =93to establish a clearly = dominant=20 urban center orientation.=94¹⁰

By 1972, the = 15 planning=20 regions still in use today had been defined. At that time, all but two = towns in=20 the state were assigned to a region. A few years ago, one of those towns = --=20 Union -- decided to join a RPO. Currently, the other unassigned town -- = Stafford=20 -- is in discussions about joining another RPO. Figure I-3 shows the = boundaries=20 of the regions (with the names of the RPOs currently operating in each=20 area).

Redefining=20 regions. In 1959, CDC was authorized to redefine (as well as define) = planning regions. The need for amending boundaries was identified by the = commission itself, which recommended municipalities whose orientation = toward a=20 specific region was not initially strong should be allowed later to join = an=20 established authority.¹¹

The statutes = (C.G.S.=20 Sec. 8-32a) also allow a town that is contiguous to the area of an = existing=20 Regional Planning Organization (but not located within any defined = region) to=20 petition the RPO and request inclusion. The RPO then forwards the = request with a=20 recommendation to OPM, the successor to CDC and now responsible for = planning=20 regions. OPM makes the final decision whether to redefine the region to = include=20 the petitioner. If the region is redefined, the area of operation of = that agency=20 is extended to include the additional town, and the town may join the=20 RPO.

Towns can also = request a=20 change in their designated region under C.G.S. Sec. 16a-4b. In that = case, the=20 town petitions OPM for a =93redefinition or redesignation as part of a = different=20 planning region.=94 OPM must hold a hearing on the petition and is to = consider=20 whether the services the petitioner needs can be better served by a = region other=20 than the one where the town is currently assigned.

Until 2007, no = town had=20 ever formally requested a move from one region to another. Indeed, until = the=20 recent assignment of Union to a specific planning region and the = possible=20 assignment of Stafford to another planning region, there have not been = any=20 changes in the boundaries of the logical regions since the = 1970s.

Over the = years, a few=20 towns expressed interest in moving to a different region, but those that = discussed such a move with OPM were encouraged to make an informal = change. In=20 2007, the town of Ashford began attending RPO meetings and interacting = with=20 towns in the Northeast region. It subsequently ended its membership in = the=20 Windham Region Council of Governments, the RPO whose territory includes = Ashford,=20 and became a member of the Northeastern Connecticut Council of = Governments.=20 Ashford submitted a formal request for a boundary change to OPM, but the = request=20 is still pending. In the meantime, the Windham COG will still be = responsible for=20 certain activities involving Ashford, such as preparation of a plan of=20 development for a region that encompasses the town.

During the = period while=20 CDC was working to define the logical regions, the legislature made = several=20 changes to the statutory requirements for regional planning authorities. = The=20 first, adopted in 1957, affected the process of establishing RPAs. = Beginning=20 that year, in order to create a Regional Planning Authority, the number = of towns=20 within a defined region that adopted ordinances to join the RPA had to = represent=20 at least 60 percent of the total possible representation on the=20 board.¹² (If membership subsequently fell below 40 = percent=20 of the total possible representation, the RPA would cease to = exist.)

=95 eliminated = the=20 requirement that a member town had to have a local planning or zoning = commission=20 in order to join an RPA;

=95 mandated = preparation=20 of an annual RPA report;

=95 added = notification=20 requirements to the Regional Plan of Development process; and

=95 specified = that a=20 majority of the representatives to the RPA had to approve the regional=20 plan.

Finally, that = same year=20 the name Regional Planning Authority was changed to Regional Planning=20 Agency.

Figure I-4 = summarizes=20 the steps now required to establish a RPA. In general, any municipality = within a=20 defined planning region can choose to join the RPA in its area. To do = so, the=20 local legislative body must adopt an ordinance authorizing membership. = Once a=20 town becomes a member, six months notice must be given before it can=20 withdraw.

Since 1957, = the=20 jurisdiction of a RPA has been the same as the state-defined planning = region for=20 its area. (Prior to that, jurisdiction was coterminous with the = boundaries of=20 the member towns.)

In 1965 and = 1971, the=20 state legislature enacted legislation giving local elected officials = from towns=20 located within the same planning regions authority to form two other = types of=20 regional entities -- a Regional Council of Elected Officials or a = Regional=20 Council of Governments. As described in more detail below, the former = could be=20 as small as two towns, while the latter had to include members from at = least 60=20 percent of the towns eligible to join.

Regional = Councils of=20 Elected Officials. In 1965, Public Act 511 authorized the = establishment of a=20 Regional Planning Organization that required the direct involvement of = the=20 elected chief executive of each member town. Under that law, two or more = towns=20 within any state-defined planning region can decide to establish a = Regional=20 Council of Elected Officials. In order to join the council, the = legislative body=20 of each participating town must adopt an ordinance to that effect. (If a = town=20 later wishes to withdraw, it adopts an ordinance to that = effect.)

Member towns = have equal=20 representation on the board, with a single seat per town filled by the = chief=20 elected official of the town (or, if none, by a member of the town = legislative=20 body chosen by that body). Alternates can attend meetings, if bylaws to = that=20 effect have been adopted. The officers of the council are selected = annually from=20 among the representatives on the council.

In 1971, any = RCEO=20 operating in a defined planning region without a Regional Planning = Agency was=20 authorized to exercise all the powers of the RPA. In addition, RCEOs = became=20 eligible for technical and financial assistance from the state, = including=20 funding in support of regional planning activities. (Previously, only = RPAs were=20 eligible for the latter grants.)

Regional = Councils of=20 Governments. Also in 1971, the legislature authorized the third type = of=20 Regional Planning Organization -- the Regional Council of Governments. = This=20 structure can be established within any state-defined planning region, = provided=20 at least 60 percent of the towns eligible to join adopt ordinances to do = so. In=20 cases where an RCEO or RPA already exists within the region, that entity = ceases=20 to exist once the RCOG is established.

Regional = Councils of=20 Governments exercise all the rights and authority, with the same=20 responsibilities, of RPAs and RCEOs. Initially, however, each RCOG also = had to=20 have a Regional Planning Commission (RPC) to carry out the planning = duties and=20 responsibilities for the state-defined planning region, including the = Regional=20 Plan of Development and the review of certain zoning and subdivision = matters. In=20 2000, the use of Regional Planning Commissions became optional, and = RCOGs can=20 now carry out all planning duties and responsibilities = directly.

Like the towns = that=20 belong to a Regional Council of Elected Officials, the members of a RCOG = have=20 equal representation on the board. One seat per town is filled by the = chief=20 elected official of the town (or, if none, by an elected official = appointed in a=20 manner determined by the town's legislative = body). The=20 one exception to the single seat provision is Hartford, which has three=20 additional seats on the RCOG board in its region (per Special Act = 73-79).=20 Alternates can attend and vote at RCEO meetings, if bylaws to that = effect have=20 been adopted. The officers of the council are elected annually from = among the=20 representatives on the council.

Membership on = the now=20 optional Regional Planning Commission, which is considered a subdivision = of the=20 RCOG, is also one per town (four for Hartford). Each member = town's = representative to the=20 Regional Planning Commission is appointed by the town's planning = commission.=20 The person has to be an elector of the town and a member of the local = planning=20 commission.

Any member = town wishing=20 to withdraw from the RCOG can do so by adopting an ordinance to that = effect.=20 However, the town must pay its pro rata share for any operating expenses = or=20 program activities already authorized by the council on the date of = withdrawal.=20 Finally, if the total membership on the council falls below 40 percent = of all=20 eligible towns within the state-defined planning region, the RCOG is = deemed a=20 Regional Council of Elected Officials.

The Office of = Policy and=20 Management is the primary state agency that guides the activities of = Regional=20 Planning Organizations in Connecticut (with the exception of=20 transportation-related planning duties). The responsibilities of OPM, as = they=20 relate to RPOs, are primarily as reviewer, liaison, and facilitator and=20 include:

=95 = designating and=20 re-designating regional planning areas, as described in Chapter = One;

=95 reviewing = regional=20 development plans and municipal conservation and development plans, and=20 examining regional plans for consistency with the State Plan of = Conservation and=20 Development, which is described in detail in Chapter Five;

=95 providing = information=20 on state initiatives and facilitating regional initiatives undertaken by = RPOs,=20 including hosting bi-monthly meetings;

=95 serving as = a=20 repository for certain budgetary and other information regarding=20 RPOs;

=95 operating = the new=20 Office of Responsible Growth created by Executive Order No. = 15;

=95 chairing a = 19-member=20 Responsible Growth Task Force; and

=95 = administering a=20 regional performance incentive grant program.

Since 2005, = state=20 government leaders have put forth several key policy initiatives that = move the=20 state towards implementing several of the Smart Growth concepts noted in = the=20 introduction. The lead agency for implementation of these initiatives is = the=20 Office of Policy and Management. Many of the mandates that are described = in this=20 chapter are still in the planning stages and have not yet been = implemented. The=20 legislature has recently adopted policies that require updated = conservation and=20 development plans at the local level in order to receive state funding = for=20 certain local projects. The intent of this, coupled with other financial = incentives, is to encourage responsible growth patterns in the future.=20

This chapter = describes=20 OPM's = organizational=20 structure and the staffing available to carry out its responsibilities = related=20 to encouraging greater regional cooperation among municipalities and = regional=20 planning through the multi-level conservation and development planning = process.=20 It also discusses the responsibilities of the Office of Responsible = Growth and=20 how this office, coupled with legislation adopted during the 2007 = session, is=20 leading conservation and development efforts, as well as providing = financial=20 incentives to encourage regional service-sharing.

Figure II-1 = shows the=20 organizational structure of the Intergovernmental Policy Division within = OPM.=20 Currently there are ten positions within the Intergovernmental Affairs = Unit =96=20 seven filled and three vacant =96 in addition to the division director = and the=20 undersecretary.

This unit is = responsible=20 for developing the State Plan of Conservation and Development, reviewing = Regional Plans of Development and local plans of conservation and = development,=20 acting as liaison to RPOs, staffing the Advisory Commission on = Intergovernmental=20 Relations, and administering the Local Capital Improvement Program. The = newly=20 created Office of Responsible Growth, established by Governor M. Jodi = Rell under=20 Executive Order No. 15 in October 2006, is also located within the=20 Intergovernmental Affairs Unit. The office currently has four staff and = OPM=20 intends to fill the three vacant positions and assign the new staff to = the=20 office.

The language = contained=20 in Executive Order No. 15 embraces the =93smart growth=94 concepts = described in the=20 Introduction of this report, and states:

=85We must = actively=20 steer the continued growth and development of our state to prevent = sprawling=20 development patterns from forever changing the character of our = communities. If=20 left unchecked, this trend will continue to fragment the landscape, = impair our=20 ability to remain economically competitive, consume precious natural = resources,=20 waste energy, pollute the air and water, increase Greenhouse Gases, that = can=20 accelerate the pace of climate change, and overwhelm local and state=20 infrastructure=85.

The executive = order also=20 notes that any state efforts to steer growth must include municipal = officials=20 and be respectful of =93home rule=94 and =93local = autonomy.=94

Responsibilities.=20 Many of the mandates contained in the executive order are aimed at=20 integrating comprehensive planning across state agencies and among the = local,=20 regional, and state levels. Responsibilities assigned to the new office = are=20 wide-ranging. The responsibilities and the implementation status are = shown in=20 Table II-1.

The = legislature also=20 adopted legislation that promotes responsible growth concepts at the = state,=20 regional, and local levels of government. During the 2007 legislative = session,=20 the Connecticut General Assembly adopted P.A. 07-239, An Act Concerning=20 Responsible Growth. This act gives OPM several additional = responsibilities=20 related to growth-related planning and incentives to promote regional = service=20 sharing, and it significantly adds to the provisions established under = the=20 governor's executive = order.=20


Table = II-1.=20 Responsibilities of Office of Responsible Growth and = Implementation=20 Status
*Provision*	*Status*
Chair an = Interagency Steering Council (consisting of the commissioners of = the=20 Departments of Economic and Community Development, Environmental=20 Protection, Agriculture, Transportation, and Public Health as well = as the=20 executive directors of the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority = and the=20 Connecticut Development Authority) that is charged with = coordinating=20 policy development and capital planning.	The = first meeting=20 was convened on March 26, 2007, and it was decided to form two = workgroups=20 to provide input to the council: 1. A = Policy=20 Workgroup, comprised of deputy commissioners of each agency, will = develop=20 responsible growth policies, standards, and criteria. This group = has met=20 twice since March. 2. A = Project=20 Review Workgroup, comprised of planners from each agency, will = develop a=20 system to evaluate projects and =93vet=94 projects as a body in = order to move=20 desirable responsible growth projects along. This group has met = six times=20 since March.
Create = Regional=20 Roundtables to facilitate participation of local officials and = foster the=20 development of planning agendas.	OPM = staff=20 completed visits with all 15 RPOs and plan to schedule Regional=20 Roundtables by spring 2008.
Develop = support=20 and incentives for towns to plan regionally, update zoning maps = and=20 ordinances, and build the capacity of municipal staff, boards, and = agencies to make complex land use decisions by establishing a new=20 municipal training program.	A Land = Use=20 Training Advisory Council has been established comprised of groups = that=20 currently provide training to local land use officials and staff. = The=20 advisory council will formalize the curricula and ensure programs = are=20 consistent. Funding for FY 07 was $100,000; it increased to = $150,000 for=20 FY 08.
Update = the =93Green=20 Plan=94 for Connecticut by June 2007.	DEP has = completed=20 its re-draft of the =93Green Plan,=94 and it is available on the = DEP=20 website.
Review=20 transportation policies/projects to increase opportunities to = promote mass=20 transit and roadway design that support state/local economic = development,=20 while preserving and enhancing =93walkability=94 of our=20 communities.	A deputy = commissioner at ConnDOT has been appointed to supervise=20 Connecticut's mass=20 transportation efforts with a new emphasis on transit oriented=20 development.
Expand = housing=20 opportunities to meet the needs of all Connecticut residents and = support=20 an expanding workforce with housing that provides ready access to=20 passenger rail and bus service.	P.A. = 07-4 (JSS)=20 included a provision allowing local planning and zoning = commissions to=20 establish incentive housing zones with several grant programs to = assist=20 municipalities and housing authorities.
Review = all state=20 funding that impacts growth and development in Connecticut and = establish=20 criteria to target funds for uses consistent with responsible = growth=20 concepts.	Towns = without=20 local plans of conservation and development prepared within the = last 10=20 years will be ineligible for state discretionary funding beginning = 2010.
Develop=20 responsible growth criteria to help guide the state's future = investment decisions.	Responsible Growth=20 Task Force established in P.A. 07-239 to address this=20 issue
Create a = =93Green=20 and Growing=94 webpage to highlight best = practices.	The = Office of=20 Responsible Growth launched the new website in November=20 2007.
Designate a State=20 Responsible Growth Coordinator.	The = Undersecretary=20 of Intergovernmental Policy was appointed the coordinator by the = OPM=20 Secretary on October 20, 2006.
Sources=20 of data: Executive Order No. 15 and = OPM.

Task = force. The=20 act establishes a 19-member Responsible Growth Task Force charged with=20 identifying responsible growth criteria to help guide the = state's future = investment=20 decisions and study land use laws, policies, and programs. The task = force=20 includes all members of the Interagency Steering Council noted in Table = II-1.=20 The task force is supposed to report back to the governor no later than = February=20 15, 2008.

Updated = municipal=20 conservation and development plans. By law, municipalities must = amend their=20 plans of conservation and development at least once every 10 years. If a = town=20 does not, the municipality's chief = elected official=20 must send a letter to the secretary of OPM and the transportation, = economic and=20 community development, and environmental protection commissioners = explaining why=20 the plan was not updated.

Under current = law, a=20 copy of this letter must be included with any application submitted to = these=20 state officials for funding related to the conservation or development = of real=20 property within that town. P.A. 07-239 expands this provision to require = that a=20 copy of this letter be included in each municipal application for = discretionary=20 funding submitted to any state agency. It also makes the municipality = ineligible=20 for such funding unless the OPM secretary expressly waives the = requirement for=20 an updated plan. This provision of the act is effective beginning July = 1,=20 2010.

Economic = strategic=20 plan. The act also requires the commissioner of economic and = community=20 development, within available appropriations, to prepare an Economic = Strategic=20 Plan for the state in consultation with a number of other state and = quasi-state=20 agencies and ensure the plan is consistent with the State Plan of = Conservation=20 and Development. The first economic strategy plan is due on or before = July 1,=20 2009.

Studies. The act=20 directs the secretary of OPM to undertake two studies, within available=20 appropriations, and submit them with recommendations to the planning and = development and the finance, revenue, and bonding committees by July 1, = 2009.=20 The first study involves a review of regional tax-based revenue sharing=20 programs, and the other is to examine regional asset districts. Both = studies are=20 supposed to include a review of any available models of such programs,=20 adaptations that may be needed to implement such programs in = Connecticut, and=20 other possible effects on both municipal and regional finances. The = study of=20 regional tax-based revenue sharing programs must also include an = analysis of the=20 effect such programs would have on property taxes and on = towns' grand = lists.

Regional = performance=20 incentive grant. Finally, the act establishes a Regional Performance = Incentive Program administered by OPM -- $8.6 million was allocated for = FY 08.=20 It allows any RPO to submit a proposal for joint provision of a service = or=20 services that are currently provided by municipalities within the region = of the=20 RPO (or contiguous to the region), but not currently provided on a = regional=20 basis. The proposal must include a service or services that may increase = the=20 municipalities' purchasing = power or=20 provide a cost savings initiative resulting in a decrease in = participating=20 municipalities' expenses and = in lower=20 property taxes. A copy of any proposal must be sent to state legislators = representing the participating municipalities.

The act is = very specific=20 in terms of the information that must be included in the proposal = submission.=20 The proposal must:

=95 describe = at least one=20 service currently provided by a municipality or municipalities within = the=20 Regional Planning Organization (or contiguous to the RPO) but not = currently=20 provided on a regional basis;

=95 provide a = description=20 of how such service would be delivered on a regional basis, including=20 consideration of what entity would be responsible for such service, and = how the=20 population would continue to be served;

=95 describe = the amount=20 and the manner in which the service will achieve economies of scale and = the=20 amount and manner in which each municipality will reduce its mill rate = as a=20 result of the savings realized by changing the municipal service to a = regional=20 service;

=95 include a = cost-benefit=20 analysis for the provision of such service by the municipality and by = the=20 RPO;

=95 set out a = plan of=20 implementation for such regional service; and

=95 estimate = the savings=20 that will be realized by each municipality.

As part of the = application process, each participating municipality must certify that = there are=20 no legal obstacles to providing services in the manner proposed, = including but=20 not limited to binding arbitration agreements. Municipalities were = required to=20 submit proposals to OPM by December 3, 2007, and to provide the = Resolution of=20 Endorsement from the legislative body of each municipality affected by = the=20 proposal by December 31, 2007.

The secretary = of OPM is=20 charged with reviewing all proposals and awarding grants to those = determined to=20 best meet the requirements. OPM anticipates the awards will be announced = in=20 January 2008. Furthermore, the act requires the secretary to give = priority to=20 proposals presented by Regional Councils of Governments that have at = least half=20 of their member towns participating in the proposal. The OPM secretary = must=20 report to the governor and the Committee on Finance, Revenue and Bonding = by=20 February 1, 2008, on how the grants were allocated.

In = Connecticut, Regional=20 Planning Organizations are creations of the state in the sense that = state=20 statutes specify the manner in which such entities shall be formed, but = there is=20 no requirement that such entities be formed. Likewise, many of the = permissible=20 activities of RPOs are described broadly, providing for flexible = implementation=20 of those tasks by the towns that voluntarily choose to come together and = establish a RPO. This approach to the operation of RPOs allows the = individual=20 character of each region to be reflected in the particular structure, = budget,=20 and staff that member towns collectively decide upon.

In Connecticut = today,=20 there are 15 Regional Planning Organizations, encompassing all but one = of the=20 169 towns in the state. (See Figure I-3 in Chapter One for a map showing = the=20 geographic boundaries of the regions.)

State law = allows three=20 different types of operating entity -- Regional Planning Agency, = Regional=20 Council of Elected Officials, and Regional Council of Governments. Each = type is=20 used in multiple planning regions within the state. Figure III-1 = summarizes the=20 current number of RPOs by organizational type.

There are = several=20 reasons for the availability and use of different types of regional = planning=20 structures in Connecticut. When the state wanted to offer a new = structure that=20 brought chief elected officials to the table, there was a reluctance to=20 arbitrarily impose another structure in place of the original structure = of=20 Regional Planning Agencies that was already established in multiple = regions and=20 which municipalities had willingly joined.

The desire to = add a type=20 of structure involving chief elected officials arose from differing = beliefs=20 about the importance of having political leaders and professional = planners=20 directly involved in the activities that Regional Planning Organizations = were=20 being authorized to perform. The philosophy in some municipalities is = that,=20 given the opportunity, the chief elected official should be directly = involved in=20 the decision-making process of any external entity that has jurisdiction = over=20 matters that might affect what and how the town can operate in the = future. Other=20 municipalities, however, believe a town's long-term = planning=20 interests are best represented by individuals with experience in = planning,=20 zoning, or land use.

The other = issue that=20 participants in the process view differently is the question of equal = versus=20 proportionate representation for member towns in situations where = regional=20 issues are being decided. Many towns are comfortable with a single voice = (and=20 vote) per town because they find the perspectives of the other towns in = their=20 geographic region compatible on issues such as Smart Growth and = transportation.=20 Also, they may fear proportionate representation will result in one or = two large=20 towns controlling enough votes to unduly influence the outcome of at = least some=20 regional decisions.¹³ Thus, these towns opt for equal = representation=20 within the regional organization they join.

Other = municipalities are=20 concerned a few small towns will be able to block actions that a = majority of the=20 people living in a particular region support, if each town has the same = number=20 of votes. Those towns prefer a structure with proportionate=20 representation.

Of the three = available=20 organizational structures, both the Regional Councils of Elected = Officials and=20 the Regional Councils of Governments are required to have the chief = elected=20 official of each member town serve on the board, although provisions can = be made=20 for alternates to attend meetings. In addition, regardless of size, = member towns=20 only get one representative (and therefore one vote) each.¹⁴ The primary difference between these two = structures=20 is in their creation and dissolution provisions.

Regional = Planning=20 Agencies, on the other hand, offer proportionate representation to = members. Each=20 member town gets at least two seats on the board of the RPA, plus = additional=20 representatives if the town population exceeds 25,000 people. = Furthermore, while=20 chief elected officials serve on the boards of some RPAs, at least one = of the=20 town's = representatives must

APPENDICES

A. = Mission=20 Statements of the 15 Regional Planning Organizations in = Connecticut

B. = RPO=20 Notification and Review Requirements

C. = Legislative=20 Changes to Connecticut's State Plan = of=20 Conservation and Development

D. = Legislative=20 Program Review & Investigations Committee Survey of Chief Elected=20 Officials

E. = Voluntary=20 Inter-Municipal Cooperative Programs

F. = Comparison=20 of Selected State Grant Programs for Sharing or Consolidating Municipal=20 Services

G. = Agency=20 Responses