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=20 be appointed by the local planning commission, if such an entity exists. = Consequently, at least some board members have backgrounds and direct = experience=20 dealing with planning and related land use issues. Table III-1 provides = a=20 comparison of the statutory requirements related to the organizational = structure=20 of each type of RPO.

Related to = these=20 discussions is the issue of the appropriate overall size for a regional = board.=20 During interviews with program review staff, representatives of many of = the=20 existing RPOs talked about the importance their members place on having = a board=20 that is small enough for the members to be able to have a = =93conversation=94 about=20 issues. They expressed concerns that too large a membership necessitates = the use=20 of subcommittees, thereby negating the personal contact among town = leaders that=20 can be so beneficial to achieving cooperative efforts.

Changes = over=20 time. As previously noted, the three types of RPOs were authorized = by state=20 statute at different times between 1947 and 1971. As a result, when new = options=20 became available, some groups of municipalities decided to change the = type of=20 Regional Planning Organization they belonged to, while others decided to = finally=20 form a regional planning group.

The shift from = one type=20 of RPO to another has predominately been a change from a Regional = Planning=20 Agency to a Regional Council of Governments. Indeed, all but one of the = 15 RPOs=20 operated as a Regional Planning Agency at one time.

The paths of=20 organizational change were diverse. Some regions that began as informal = regional=20 entities have changed structures multiple times, and one region has = operated at=20 different times under each of the three statutorily recognized types of = RPO. At=20 the same time, five regional organizations established in the 1960s -- = four of=20 which are RPAs -- have never changed structures.

Twelve of the = RPOs were=20 first established during the 1960s. Two RPOs (South Central and Capitol) = pre-date that period, while the final RPO to be formed (Northwestern) = began=20 operating in 1972.

The current = distribution=20 of RPO types is about five years old, with the last change occurring in = 2002=20 when the Valley Regional Planning Agency became the Valley Regional = Council of=20 Governments. Table III-2 summarizes the history of the organizational = structures=20 of the 15 planning regions in the state from 1947 to the = present.

Individually, = the=20 make-up of the RPOs differs considerably, even within the same type of=20 organizational structure. For example, in terms of the dimensions of the = geographic region of each, the RPOs range in size from four towns to 29 = towns;=20 cover between 58 and 762 square miles; and have populations of 23,000 to = 739,000=20 people. Table III-3 lists the 15 RPOs by name and provides information = about the=20 demographic characteristics of each.

Although the = depth of=20 activity may differ, the focus of many of the functions performed by = RPOs in=20 Connecticut is the same, regardless of their organizational type. One = source=20 that provides evidence of this is the individual mission statements of = the 15=20 RPOs. While some are more detailed than others, common themes include = increasing=20 cooperation among member towns and providing a forum for the discussion = of=20 issues affecting quality of life. (See Appendix A for a table listing = the=20 individual statements.)

Planning-related tasks=20 are a primary statutory function of all three types of RPOs. As the = first of the=20 three types of organizations to be established, Regional Planning = Agencies have=20 the most detailed enabling legislation regarding their powers and = duties.=20 However, when the laws establishing RCEOs and RCOGs respectively were = adopted,=20 each was given the same functions as RPAs, but rather than listing the = items=20 again, the statutes authorize both to exercise all the powers and duties = of a=20 RPA. Table III-4 summarizes the statutory roles and responsibilities = included in=20 the RPA enabling legislation (and thus by reference in the RCEO and RCOG = enabling legislation).

When Regional = Councils=20 of Elected Officials were authorized in 1965, three additional functions = were=20 included with the reference to exercising all the powers of a RPA (if no = such=20 entity existed in the region). Specifically, under C.G.S. Sec. 4-124d, = RCEOs are=20 authorized to:

Under C.G.S. = Sec.=20 4-124f, a Regional Council of Elected Officials is also authorized to = enter into=20 a contract with any of the three types of Regional Planning = Organizations in=20 order to carry out its purposes. In 1971, when the statutory language=20 establishing Regional Councils of Governments was adopted, the section=20 concerning their rights and duties was very brief. Basically, RCOGs were = authorized to =93exercise all the rights and authority=94 and =93be = subject to all of=20 the responsibilities and duties=94 of RCEOs and RPAs.

The = permissiveness of=20 the statutory language governing RPOs in Connecticut allows each = organization to=20 perform a broad range of activities at the direction of its member = towns. In=20 fact, a key role that RPOs perform is consensus-building among the = members=20 around the various issues with which the organization deals.

Another = important=20 function RPO staff perform, which is not captured in the statutory = language, is=20 as a conduit of information. Based on interviews with RPO directors, the = RPO=20 staff provide their member towns with details about new state = initiatives,=20 recently adopted legislation or regulations, new grant programs that may = be=20 available for one or more towns in their region (or the region as a = whole), as=20 well as changes to existing federal and state laws that will impact the = region=20 or member towns.

Land use = tasks.=20 With respect to Responsible Growth efforts in the state, the key = statutory=20 responsibilities of the RPOs include several review and comment duties = regarding=20 certain municipal actions -- zone use changes within specified areas, = certain=20 subdivision changes, and the content of the local and state plans of=20 conservation and development -- and the preparation of a Regional Plan = of=20 Development.

As will be = described in=20 more detail in Chapter Five, prior to the adoption of a Municipal = Conservation=20 and Development Plan, the town must provide the RPO in its area with a = copy of=20 the plan for review and comment. Then the RPO must provide the = municipality with=20 an advisory report containing findings on whether the municipal plan is=20 consistent with the existing:

During the = process of=20 developing the regional plan, which is required at least every 10 years, = the RPO=20 will take into consideration issues identified in the local plans of=20 conservation and development prepared by the towns within its defined = planning=20 region. However, the extent to which those plans are directly = incorporated into=20 the regional plan and the specific format of the regional plan varies = from=20 region to region.¹⁵

Several = statutes=20 concerning local entities with land use responsibilities also contain = mandates=20 involving Regional Planning Organizations. Two key provisions require = written=20 notification to the RPO in the state-defined region where a town is = located=20 whenever:

In the first = case, the=20 RPO then has the opportunity to study the proposal and report its = findings and=20 recommendations to the municipal zoning commission. Reports by the RPO = can=20 address potential negative inter-municipal and environmental impacts = created by=20 the proposal. Inter-municipal concerns may include issues such as = traffic,=20 density, environmental impact and the burden placed on the adjacent = community.=20 Regional concerns may include those objectives and goals supported in = the=20 Regional Plan of Development. The report is advisory. However, if one is = submitted, it must be made part of the public hearing record.

In the second = case, the=20 RPO can submit its findings on the inter-municipal aspects of the = proposed=20 subdivision including street layout, storm drainage, and sewer and water = service. In both instances, failure to submit a report at or before the=20 town's public = hearing on the=20 matter results in a presumption that the RPO does not disapprove of the=20 proposal.

State statute = also=20 requires that RPOs be notified, and in some cases comment on, various = other=20 projects occurring within a region. These include certain economic = development=20 programs, hazardous waste facilities and burial of radioactive waste, = solid=20 waste management plans, water supply and water flow issues, and public = utility=20 projects. Appendix B shows the notification and comment = requirements.

Transportation=20 issues. For most RPOs, a broad array of transportation issues = consume a=20 large portion of staff and board member time. Indeed, in some regions, = based on=20 the proportion of transportation-related funds available, this is the = primary=20 function of agency staff. Some RPOs focus on public transportation modes = such as=20 buses and trains; other regions concentrate on highway congestion and=20 improvement projects. In still other regions, the major concern is road = repairs.=20 In FY 07, the RPOs combined received $6.2 million in federal = transportation=20 funds for planning.

For federally = mandated=20 transportation planning purposes, 11 of the RPOs have been designated as = Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs).¹⁶ This means:

=95 they are = located in=20 urbanized areas that meet federal population criteria based on = population and=20 density measures;

=95 ConnDOT = and transit=20 operators work cooperatively with them on devising and guiding projects; = and

=95 they have = veto=20 authority over projects proposed by ConnDOT for inclusion in the = Statewide=20 Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which is a list of projects = the state=20 expects to fund during a five-year period with federal money as well as=20 regionally significant projects that could affect air = quality.

Eight of those = 11 RPOs=20 are further grouped into three Transportation Management Areas (TMAs). = The=20 TMAs:

RPOs = functioning as MPOs=20 and TMAs receive money directly from the Federal Highway Administration = to=20 perform the duties listed above. The exact amount is based on a formula = that=20 takes into consideration factors such as the nature of the projects = being=20 considered and activity measures (i.e., vehicle miles traveled, = congested=20 vehicle miles traveled, and lane miles), but provides a minimum = allocation.=20

As part of = their role as=20 MPOs, the RPOs also have to develop a Transportation Improvement Program = (TIP),=20 which is a list of federally funded transportation projects that = maintain and=20 enhance the roadway network in the particular region. Another task = required of=20 the RPOs is preparation of a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that = provides a=20 25-year overview of proposed major transportation investments in the = region. The=20 RTP must be updated every three years.

The other four = RPOs in=20 Connecticut -- Litchfield Hills, Northeastern, Northwestern, and Windham = -- have=20 been designated as Rural Regional Planning Organizations (RRPOs). (None = of these=20 regions meets the 50,000 population and density measure required by the = federal=20 government for designation as an urbanized area.) ConnDOT works with the = RRPOs=20 to devise and guide projects in cooperation with the local officials in = those=20 regions, and it distributes federal transportation funding to = them.

Another=20 transportation-related effort that involves RPOs is the Transportation=20 Investment Areas (TIAs). These areas, which encompass the five major=20 transportation corridors in the state, were created to assist the = Connecticut=20 Transportation Strategy Board (TSB) with development of a statewide = strategic=20 plan. The role of the RPOs is to be one of the resources providing local = and=20 regional input into the planning process.

Homeland=20 security. The newest issue area that RPOs are being asked to get = more=20 involved with is homeland security and emergency management. = Implementation=20 efforts in this area are based on a regional approach that uses only = five=20 geographic regions. This means some or all of several different RPOs are = grouped=20 together for purposes of funding homeland security and emergency = preparedness=20 initiatives.

The issue = related to=20 homeland security of most immediate concern to the RPOs in 2007 was the = new=20 system for distributing Connecticut's share of = federal=20 homeland security money to the municipalities through the RPOs. The = Department=20 of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (DEMHS) asked the RPOs = located=20 within each of the five DEMHS regions to designate a lead RPO by October = 2007.=20 In three areas, a RPO has been selected as the coordinating entity for = that=20 area. In two regions, DEMHS staff will handle the coordinating=20 function.

Cooperative = purchasing efforts. The extent to which RPOs actively assist their = member=20 towns with cooperative purchasing or service delivery opportunities = varies=20 widely. Currently, only two RPOs directly operate purchasing=20 programs.

Since 1968, = CRCOG has=20 operated a voluntary purchasing cooperative called the Capitol Region = Purchasing=20 Council (CRPC). Membership is open to municipalities, boards of = education, and=20 other governmental agencies in the state, each of which pays annual = membership=20 dues. CRPC currently has 67 members. This includes one or more entities = from all=20 of the towns that belong to CRCOG as well as one or more entities = operating in=20 34 other towns in the state.

The council = functions as=20 a supplemental procurement office for its members and serves as a = clearinghouse=20 for the collection and distribution of purchasing-related information. = Members=20 have access to a secure, automated, online bidding system that they can = use to=20 manage competitive and other procurement processes over the Internet. = Total=20 savings by members in FY 07 were estimated at $1.5 million. The savings = among=20 individual towns for a product category such as =93grass seed and = fertilizer=94=20 ranged from $337 to $22,752; savings for =93treated road salt=94 ranged = from $150 to=20 $24,000.¹⁷

In 1996, SWRPA = created=20 the South Western Region Purchasing Cooperative, a voluntary program = open to all=20 SWRPA member towns. There is no charge for towns to participate, and = other towns=20 may join upon an affirmative vote of the cooperative members. Municipal=20 purchasing staff take turns as the lead to handle specific bids, = providing=20 technical assistance to SWRPA staff regarding information needed for = successful=20 execution of that bid. After bid specifications are developed, = invitations are=20 sent to vendors, and legal notices are placed in local newspapers. The = lowest=20 responsive and responsible bidder is accepted, and member towns enter = into=20 contracts/agreements with the selected vendor when they need the = specific goods=20 or services.¹⁸

While all of = the RPOs=20 indicated a willingness to help member towns obtain information about = specific=20 purchases, several noted a lack of interest among their members for this = service. Many municipalities are eligible to take advantage of bids = obtained by=20 the Department of Administrative Services for state agencies, and some = also make=20 use of federal procurement lists. Still others, especially some of the = smaller=20 towns in the state, informally work with neighboring towns. They may buy = expensive, limited use items jointly for use on an individual basis as = needed.=20 Or, they might recruit someone for the same type of position, and each = hire the=20 person for a limited number of hours that when combined equals a = full-time=20 job.

Other. = State law=20 gives RPOs a lot of discretion in the types of activities they perform = so they=20 can respond to the needs of their member towns and address the issues = important=20 to the region as a whole. Table III-5 provides examples of the wide = array of=20 activities undertaken by the RPOs directly on behalf of their member = towns, and=20 the examples show the value of the RPOs in providing a regional = perspective. It=20 should be noted that the examples contained in the table are meant to be = illustrative of the range of activities performed not the scope of work = of each=20 RPO. All of the RPOs carry out many other functions besides those listed = in the=20 table, and multiple RPOs carry out many of the tasks listed in the table = for a=20 single RPO.

One function = RPOs=20 previously provided that is no longer as important is serving as the = Census Data=20 Center for their respective regions. The availability of so much census=20 information on-line has greatly reduced the need for RPOs to provide = this=20 service.

One authority = that does=20 not apply to all types of RPOs is ownership of property. In 2000, = Regional=20 Councils of Governments received statutory authorization to purchase = real=20 property to use as administrative office space for the council=20 itself.


Table = III-5.=20 Examples of Types of Activities Performed by Connecticut RPOs for = Member=20 Towns
*Region*	*Example = of RPO=20 Activity*
Capitol = Region=20 Council of Governments	=95=20 developed Regional=20 Emergency Deployment Plan (CRED) =95=20 member = of regional=20 collaboration project on People, Prosperity &=20 Place
Central=20 Connecticut Regional Planning Agency	=95=20 participate in=20 central Connecticut Economic Development Alliance =95=20 prepared = =93Busway=20 West=94 Plan to improve accessibility
Connecticut River=20 Estuary Regional Planning Agency	=95=20 provide=20 administrative services to Connecticut River Gateway = Commission =95=20 used=20 grant from Connecticut DEP to develop an in-water trail guide for = areas=20 located along the lower reaches of the Connecticut=20 River
Council = of=20 Governments of Central Naugatuck Valley	=95=20 organized and=20 funded regional recycling program and oversee household hazardous = waste=20 program =95=20 helped = with=20 efforts to obtain state designation for Naugatuck River=20 Greenway
Greater = Bridgeport=20 Regional Planning Agency	=95=20 provide = staff to=20 implement and administer the Greater Bridgeport Affordable Housing = Compact =95=20 worked = with=20 Bridgeport Port Authority to finalize market and operation plans = for a=20 Container Feeder Port Barge Service to link Bridgeport Harbor with = the=20 ports of New York and New Jersey
Housatonic Valley=20 Council of Elected Officials	=95=20 coordinate=20 Regional Public Health Mutual Aid Agreement =95=20 provide=20 administrative support to Housatonic Resources Recovery=20 Authority
Litchfield Hills=20 Council of Elected Officials	=95=20 administer Urban=20 Action Rural Facade Improvement Program =95=20 joint=20 Public Safety Task Force with Northwestern CT = COG
Midstate = Regional=20 Planning Agency	=95=20 provide = assistance=20 to Connecticut River Gateway Commission =95=20 prepared = linguistic analysis of region's = population to=20 facilitate accessibility to transportation = planning
Northeastern=20 Connecticut Council of Governments	=95=20 prepare=20 =93administrative=94 audits for member towns =95=20 prepared = comprehensive economic development strategy with WINCOG to qualify = for=20 funding from U.S. Economic Development = Agency
Northwestern=20 Connecticut Council of Governments	=95=20 prepared = Housatonic River Management Plan for Housatonic River=20 Commission =95=20 provide=20 administrative support for Fuel Bank for towns in=20 region
South = Central=20 Regional Council of Governments	=95=20 prepared = environmental impact evaluation for new railroad station in West = Haven or=20 Orange =95=20 developed regional=20 trail maps for hikers
Southeastern=20 Connecticut Council of Governments	=95=20 provide = staff to=20 Route 11 Greenway Authority Commission =95=20 helping = towns in=20 the region establish a Regional Dog = Pound
South = Western=20 Regional Planning Agency	=95=20 utilized = grant=20 from DEP Long Island Sound Fund to produce canoe/kayak in-water = trail=20 guide for Norwalk Islands =95=20 developing=20 detailed inventory of protected open space parcels in=20 Connecticut's = southwestern=20 region with the intent to promote best practices in open space = acquisition=20 and stewardship
Valley = Council of=20 Governments	=95=20 operate = regional=20 Brownfields Partnership for 25 towns in west central Connecticut=20 =95=20 provided = staff to=20 Paramedic Task Force examining delivery of pre-hospital paramedic = care in=20 the region
Windham = Region=20 Council of Governments	=95=20 co-chair = subcommittee of 10-year Plan to End Homelessness =95=20 prepared = maps for=20 member town to apply for two recreational trails=20 grants
Sources of=20 data: Web sites for individual RPOs and interviews with RPO=20 directors.

An important = factor=20 controlling the breadth and depth of the activities undertaken by the 15 = Regional Planning Organizations in Connecticut is the quantity of = resources=20 available to each. As described in more detail below, the annual = operating=20 budgets of the individual RPOs in state FY 07 ranged from $176,000 to $7 = million, including federal funding passed through the RPO to member = towns. The=20 number of staff employed per RPO ranges from 1.5 to 20 people, although = some=20 organizations hire additional outside consultants to perform specific=20 tasks.

Regional = Planning=20 Organizations in Connecticut do not have any revenue raising power = (i.e., taxing=20 authority). However, they are statutorily authorized to accept money = from a=20 variety of public and private sources. The primary revenue sources for = RPOs=20 are:

In FY 07, the = 15 RPOs=20 received a combined total of $16 million in revenue from all = sources.

Member = dues. The=20 total amount of the dues paid annually by all member towns to their = respective=20 RPOs has increased about 70 percent since FY 89. Figure IV-1 shows the = total=20 amount of municipal dues paid annually since then.

Each RPO is = allowed to=20 establish its own system for calculating how much member towns will pay = in dues.=20 Most of the RPOs, regardless of type, charge member towns on a per = capita basis.=20 In a few cases, there is a minimum base amount that all members pay, but = even=20 then there may be a distinction made between urban and rural towns. = Several RPOs=20 use formulas that take into consideration multiple factors. One such = formula=20 (used by at least two RPOs) is based on three factors -- population, = land area,=20 and wealth as measured by the Grand List of each member town. Figure = IV-2 shows=20 the average per capita dues rate charged by each RPO from FY 00 through = FY=20 07.

As can be seen = in the=20 figure, the average per capita rates for the 15 RPOs during FY 07 ranged = from 26=20 cents to $2.40. Thirteen of the RPOs charged less than one dollar, with = 10=20 charging between 38 cents and 68 cents.

Figure IV-3 = shows the=20 total amount of membership dues each RPO collected for FY 07. The = amounts range=20 from slightly less than $50,000 to $437,000. In total, the RPOs received = $1.7=20 million in dues from their member towns in FY 07.

In return for = their=20 dues, member towns receive a basic array of services that usually = includes=20 review of required zoning and subdivision changes as well as structured=20 discussions about issues such as housing and the environment. Of course, = RPO=20 staff also prepare the Regional Plan of Development for approval by the = RPO=20 board. In addition, some RPOs may provide a certain amount of general=20 consultative time that each town can use as needed. In other instances, = where=20 individual towns want the RPO staff to perform specific tasks such as = preparing=20 the local conservation and development plan or helping revise local land = use=20 regulations, the RPO will receive additional compensation for that=20 work.


Table = IV-1. FY=20 08 SGIA
*RPO*	*Grant*
CRCOG	$138,434
SCRCOG	$73,565
HVCEO	$73,386
CRERPA	$68,175
COGCNV	$67,642
SCCOG	$66,044
SWRPA	$64,699
CCRPA	$60,781
GBRPA	$58,828
NECCOG	$58,434
MRPA	$57,322
NWCCOG	$53,689
LHCEO	$53,000
VCOG	$53,000
WINCOG	$53,000
Source = of data:=20 OPM

State = grants. The=20 state has provided SGIA funds to the RPOs since 1959. Originally only = Regional=20 Planning Agencies were eligible for the money, but since 1978, all RPOs = receive=20 this type of funding.

The amount of = the grant=20 is determined annually by a statutory formula (C.G.S. Sec. 4-124q). Each = RPO=20 receives the same base amount of money; then those that raised more than = the=20 base amount in local dues receive a pro-rated share of the remainder of = that=20 year's total state=20 appropriation for the program.

For FY 08, the = total=20 SGIA allocation is $1 million; the minimum base grant amount was = $53,000. Table=20 IV-1 lists the total amount of SGIA funding each RPO received this year. =

SGIA funds are = supposed=20 to provide RPOs with financial assistance toward the cost of their = statutory=20 planning functions. However, several of the RPO executive directors = noted that=20 the money is insufficient to cover the cost of preparing a Regional Plan = of=20 Development or even allowing for detailed comments on the statutorily = required=20 referrals of certain zoning and subdivision changes submitted by = municipalities=20 in the region.

Figure IV-4 = shows the=20 total amount of SGIA funding disbursed annually during the past 20 = years. The=20 figure displays the actual total as well as the amount adjusted for = inflation.=20 The annual allocation for the current fiscal year is $1 million, the = first=20 increase in seven years. Until then, based on the inflation-adjusted = dollars,=20 the relatively flat funding since 1995 had resulted in a one-quarter = decline in=20 the purchasing power of this category of support for the RPOs. =

RPOs can also = receive=20 purpose-specific state funding, but the amount and frequency are more = variable.=20 One of the most common uses of these funds is for activities related to = the=20 environment (e.g., recycling, hazardous waste, and Rails to = Trails).

Federal = grants.=20 RPOs serve as the conduit for several different kinds of federal grants. = In some=20 instances, the federal government sends the money directly to the RPOs = for them=20 to pass through to the towns in their regions; in other cases, the RPOs = receive=20 the funds from the state agency responsible for that subject = area.

In the case of = federal=20 transportation dollars, the amount of and manner in which the money is = received=20 by each RPO depends on their designation as an urban or rural region, = using=20 Federal Highway Administration definitions. Most of this money = represents a pass=20 through of funding from the federal government through the MPO to the = town=20 governments within the region that is served by the RPO.

Total = revenues. A=20 few of the larger RPOs in the state also obtain funds from other = governmental=20 entities or private organizations to operate specific programs or = provide=20 services for member towns or the citizens of those towns. For example, = CRCOG=20 coordinates a Jobs Access Program that provides transportation to work = sites in=20 the Greater Hartford area for more than 3,000 workers every workday, = while=20 several other RPOs receive money to operate paratransit = districts.

Another source = of income=20 for RPOs is interest earned on the reserves they have on deposit in = financial=20 institutions. In FY 06, these amounts ranged from $121 to $25,513. Most = received=20 less than $5,000.

Total revenue = for the 15=20 RPOs in FY 06 varied widely, ranging from $176,000 (Northwestern) to $7 = million=20 (Capitol). Only one RPO received more than $1.2 million; the median = amount of=20 revenue was $661,000. Figure IV-5 summarizes the revenues received by = the=20 individual RPOs during FY 06, based on the annual audit each filed with = OPM for=20 that year. The figure shows the amount of money provided by different = government=20 levels as well as an =93all other=94 category (which contains fees for = service,=20 interest income, etc.).

Future=20 opportunities. Legislation passed during the 2007 General Assembly = session=20 included up to $10 million in additional state funding for RPOs. $1.4 = million=20 will be used to enhance Geographic Information System (GIS) services = provided by=20 the state. The remaining $8.6 million will pay for a new competitive = grant=20 program to encourage regional cooperation among = municipalities.

The number and = type of=20 staff employed by the individual RPOs varies considerably. The = composition=20 depends on the emphasis each RPO places on particular activities as well = as the=20 needs of member towns, especially for services such as assistance with = planning,=20 zoning, or mapping tasks. To achieve the mix of personnel that meets the = needs=20 of their particular region:

=95 some RPOs = employ=20 multiple planners on staff, while others focus on people with = specialized skills=20 such as knowledge of GIS and mapping;

=95 some have = limited=20 administrative support staff, while others have multiple people in this=20 category;

=95 some use = part-time=20 staff to increase the range of skills they have access to; = and

=95 some rely = on outside=20 consultants for one-time studies or reviews occurring at intermittent=20 intervals.

Each RPO = employs an=20 executive director. In FY 07, their length of service ranged from just = about one=20 year to nearly 40 years. One quarter of the directors had been in the = position=20 for less than three years, but seven had been directors for more than 15 = years.=20 Table IV-2 indicates the total number of positions each RPO had at the = end of FY=20 07.

As mentioned = earlier,=20 the impetus for Regional Planning Organizations in the 1940s and 1950s = came from=20 the recognition that more coordinated planning was needed in Connecticut = for the=20 economic well-being of its citizens. Further, one of the primary = statutory=20 duties given to RPOs, once they were established, was the preparation of = a=20 Regional Plan of Development. As the middle ground between the = individual=20 Municipal Conservation and Development Plans and the State Plan of = Conservation=20 and Development, the regional plan is an important mechanism to balance = local=20 interests with the overall goals of the state.

The strength = of =93home=20 rule=94 and the autonomy of local government to make land use decisions = in=20 Connecticut's 169 towns is = part of=20 the foundation of Connecticut government. Thus, although state law = mandates the=20 State C&D Plan incorporate and integrate a wide variety of = interrelated=20 traditional policy areas (i.e., economic development, transportation, = housing,=20 and land use decisions), the State C&D Plan is primarily an advisory = document at the local level.

By law, OPM is = responsible for coordinating regional and state planning activities, and = accomplishing such planning activities as may be necessary. This chapter = describes state mandates regarding conservation and development planning = at the=20 state, regional, and local level. It includes a description of the = statutory=20 processes that must be followed for adopting each type of plan, the = major=20 elements plans must address, and the extent of OPM review of regional=20 plans.

The State Plan = of=20 Conservation and Development is statutorily required under Chapter 297 = (C.G.S.=20 Sections 16a-24 through 16a-33). The plan serves as a statement of the=20 development, resource management, and public investment policies of the = state.=20 The plan provides a framework for evaluating other state agency plans = and=20 proposals as well as regional and local plans submitted to OPM for = review=20 through mandated review processes. The most recent State C&D Plan, = effective=20 from 2005 to 2010, was adopted by the legislature and signed into law = under=20 Public Act 05-205.

Appendix C = depicts the=20 evolution of the State Plan of Conservation and Development since it was = first=20 required in the 1970s. Originally conceived as the official state policy = for=20 land and water resource conservation and development, the legislature = has=20 increasingly required additional policy areas be integrated into the = plan, such=20 as transportation, housing, energy, air, environment, and economic = development.=20

Legislative = committee. A key participant in the process is the Continuing = Legislative=20 Committee on State Planning and Development (CLCSPD). This 10-member = committee=20 was originally established in 1967, and now consists of five senate = members and=20 five house members. The chairs of this committee are also the chairs of = the=20 legislature's standing = Committee on=20 Planning and Development. Under C.G.S. Sec. 4-60d, the committee is = charged with=20 establishing broad goals and objectives for the physical and economic=20 development of the state and transmitting those to the secretary of OPM. = The=20 committee also must approve any interim changes to the State Plan of=20 Conservation and Development.

Process for = plan=20 revision. Under the law, OPM must revise the conservation and = development=20 plan every five years after consulting with =93all appropriate state, = regional,=20 and local agencies and other appropriate persons.=94 The statutory = process for=20 revising the plan allows CLCSPD and government agencies to have input = into the=20 preliminary draft conservation and development plan leading up to the=20 development of a draft plan for public review

Figure V-1 = shows the=20 statutory process OPM must follow during the next state C&D planning = cycle.=20 As shown in the figure, OPM must:

=95 present a = preliminary=20 draft plan to the Continuing Legislative Committee on State Planning and = Development for preliminary review by September 1, 2008 (two years = before the=20 current plan expires);

=95 publish = and circulate=20 copies of the revised draft plan by March 1, 2009;

=95 hold = public hearings,=20 in cooperation with the Regional Planning Organizations, between March = and July=20 31, 2009; and

=95 consider = the comments=20 received at those hearings, make any changes to the proposed plan, if = necessary,=20 and submit the recommended plan to CLSPD for its approval, revision, or=20 disapproval by November 1, 2009.

The Continuing = Legislative Committee on State Planning and Development must then hold = its=20 hearing on the document and advise the legislature on whether to approve = or=20 disapprove the plan. It must do both within 45 days after the = legislature=20 convenes for a regular session. If the General Assembly approves the = plan, it=20 becomes effective. If it disapproves the plan, it is returned to CLCSPD = for=20 =93appropriate action.=94 The statute does not define any process for = revising the=20 plan if it is disapproved by the General Assembly.

Plan = content. The=20 law requires the State C&D Plan to address certain broad policy = areas,=20 linking housing, transportation, and economic development objectives = with land=20 use. In addition, the 2005-2010 plan introduces six Growth Management = Principles=20 and associated policy recommendations in order to better integrate state = planning functions across state agencies and provide more guidance for=20 municipalities and Regional Planning Organizations when they revise = their own=20 plans. The plan is comprised of two separate components =96 the plan = text and the=20 Locational Guide Map.

=95 redevelop = and=20 revitalize regional centers and areas with existing or currently planned = physical infrastructure;

=95 expand = housing=20 opportunities and design choices to accommodate a variety of household = types and=20 needs;

=95 = concentrate=20 development around transportation nodes and along major transportation = corridors=20 to support the viability of transportation options;

=95 conserve = and restore=20 the natural environment, cultural and historical resources, and = traditional=20 rural lands;

=95 protect = and ensure the=20 integrity of environment assets critical to public health and safety;=20 and

=95 promote = integrated=20 planning across all levels of government to address issues on a = statewide,=20 regional, and local basis.

The other plan = component, the Locational Guide Map, divides the state into four types = of=20 development areas and four types of conservation areas (shown in Table = V-1). The=20 map is developed from demographic, census, density, land use, and = natural=20 resource data. While municipal C&D plans often serve as a guide in = adoption=20 of zoning regulations that address allowable density of development or = use=20 (e.g., residential versus commercial), the Locational Guide Map is a = policy=20 guide encouraging the protection of resources over large areas, such as=20 watersheds or ridges. It is important because it serves as a geographic = map=20 depicting the state's conservation = and=20 development policies and focuses on how state dollars should be invested = to=20 encourage desirable development.

Plan=20 applicability. The state plan is largely an advisory document at the = state,=20 regional, and local level, although certain state-funded development = projects=20 must be consistent with it. State law requires state agency actions = be=20 consistent with the plan for certain federal- or state-funded=20 developments including:

=95 = acquisition of real=20 property when the acquisition costs exceed $200,000;

=95 = development or=20 improvement of real property when development costs exceed = $200,000;

=95 = acquisition of public=20 transportation equipment or facilities when the acquisition costs are in = excess=20 of $200,000;

=95=20 acquisition,=20 development, or improvement of public transportation equipment or = facilities=20 when the acquisition cost exceeds $200,000; and

=95=20 the third=20 phase of UConn 2000.¹⁹

In each of = these cases,=20 state law requires a state agency to request, and OPM to provide, an = advisory=20 statement commenting on whether the agency's actions = conform to the=20 plan. The secretary of OPM must also submit the advisory statement to = the State=20 Bond Commission, which must consider the statement prior to allocating = any bond=20 funds.

In addition to = the state=20 agency actions described above, state law requires the Economic = Strategic Plan,=20 to be developed by DECD by July 1, 2009, be consistent with the State = C&D=20 Plan, while other agency plans need only consider the = State=20 C&D Plan. Table V-2 lists the state agencies and plans that are = required to=20 consider the State C&D Plan.


Table = V-2. State Agency Plans Required to Consider the = State=20 C&D Plan
*Agency*	*Type of=20 Plan*
ConnDOT	Individual Airport=20 Plans Long = Range=20 Transportation Plan Master=20 Transportation Plan Statewide Bicycle=20 Plan
DECD	Statewide Housing=20 Plan Statewide Economic=20 Development Plan
DEP	2020 = Park=20 Plan Connecticut=20 Climate Change Action Plan Clean = Water=20 Funding Priority List Green=20 Plan State=20 Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan Trails=20 Plan Wastewater=20 Planning
Department of=20 Public Health	Long = Term Water=20 Plan
Community-Technical=20 Colleges	Community=20 Technical College Campus Development Plan
State = University=20 System	State = University=20 Master Plan
ConnDOT/DEP	Public=20 Transportation Plan
Source of=20 data: OPM

Priority = funding=20 areas. The OPM secretary is statutorily required to develop = recommendations=20 for setting and revising boundaries for priority funding areas (i.e., = geographic=20 areas that would receive priority for state funding, such as enterprise = zones).=20 These designations are subject to legislative approval. The secretary is = also=20 required to consult with RPOs, the chairman of the Transportation = Strategy=20 Board, and the economic and community development, environmental = protection,=20 public works, agriculture, and transportation commissioners. The = secretary must=20 submit his recommendations to the Continuing Legislative Committee on = State=20 Planning and Development for its review in conjunction with its review = of the=20 2010 =96 2015 State Conservation and Development Plan. The continuing = committee=20 must submit its recommendations for priority funding areas to the = legislature at=20 the time the plan is submitted. The boundaries of the priority funding = areas=20 then become effective upon the approval of the legislature. Once the = boundaries=20 are effective, each state agency must review its regulations and modify = them to=20 carry out coordinated management of growth-related projects in priority = funding=20 areas.

Interim = plan changes=20 during five-year cycle. State law delineates the process for interim = plan=20 changes during the five-year planning term. Any plan change requires the = approval of the Continuing Legislative Committee on State Planning and=20 Development. After receiving approval from CLCSPD, the OPM secretary can = undertake interim changes to the plan upon the secretary's own = initiative or upon=20 application by:

The secretary = of OPM=20 adopted regulations to establish procedures for applications for interim = changes=20 to the plan. The regulations include:

Process for = interim=20 change. When the OPM secretary receives an application for a change = to the=20 State C&D Plan, there are two separate processes that must be = followed=20 depending on whether the change is to the plan text or the Locational = Guide Map.=20 In both cases, the secretary notifies the CLCSPD. For applicants seeking = a=20 change to the plan text, CLCSPD must hold a public hearing within 30 = days of the=20 receipt of the application and OPM then has 10 days to provide the = committee=20 with a report of its findings and recommendations. After receipt of the = OPM=20 report, the committee has 30 days to render a decision.

For = applications seeking=20 a change in the Locational Guide Map, OPM must notify, in addition to = the=20 committee, the chief elected official or persons designated to exercise = planning=20 or zoning powers in the municipality that is the subject of a change = application=20 and any legislators representing the area. After such notification, a = joint=20 public hearing by the OPM secretary and the Continuing Legislative = Committee on=20 State Planning and Development is held in the municipality = if one=20 is requested by its chief elected official or a member of the planning = or zoning=20 committee(s). The committee must review the nature of the request and = may=20 consult directly with the applicant, the secretary of OPM, state and = local=20 agencies, the RPO in the region, and any other persons or agencies in = order to=20 gain further knowledge regarding the application.

The continuing = legislative committee must also hold a separate hearing, in addition to = any=20 hearing required to be held in any municipality, concerning the proposed = change=20 to the map. After this public hearing, the continuing legislative = committee must=20 approve or disapprove the application and notify the OPM secretary of = its=20 decision within 10 days following the hearing. The secretary must make = interim=20 changes in the plan to reflect the approved changes, if = applicable.

A report = written by the=20 Office of Legislative Research notes that an increasing number of = developers and=20 other parties are submitting applications for changes to the Locational = Guide=20 Map. It indicated many of these applications are a result of the = Department of=20 Environmental Protection's policy = regarding the=20 possible denial of state funding for sewer projects in rural areas, if = the=20 project is inconsistent with the State C&D Plan, and there is no = identified=20 public health or environmental problem. (DEP usually requires that = modifications=20 to local sewer service area plans be consistent with the State C&D=20 Plan.)^=20
20

Number and = type of=20 applications for plan changes. Program review committee staff = examined data=20 related to the number and type of applications for map changes since = 1988. Based=20 on data provided by OPM, requests to revise the map have become much = more=20 frequent over the years. Since 1988, there have been 23 interim change=20 applications with 19 of them (83 percent) submitted during the last six = years.=20 Of these, 13 were related to sewer service expansion; nine concerned = requests=20 for state aid; and one was from the Department of Public Safety seeking = to build=20 a new facility. The majority of the applications came from the chief = executive=20 officer of a town (14), while eight were from developers, and one was = from a=20 state agency.

Table V-3 = compares the=20 decision rendered by the CLCSPD on interim plan requests to = OPM's = recommendation. Of the=20 23 applications, OPM recommended to the CLCSPD that: 12 applications be=20 approved; four be opposed; and six receive partial support. No = recommendation=20 has yet been made in one application, which is pending. The committee = decisions=20 were: 16 approved; two denied; four partially approved; and one with no = vote=20 yet.

Regional = planning=20 organizations are also statutorily required to have regional development = plans.=20 The law requires the plan be =93based on studies of physical, social, = economic and=20 governmental conditions and trends and shall be designed to promote with = the=20 greatest efficiency and economy the coordinated development of its area = of=20 operation and the general welfare and prosperity of its people.=94 It = also=20 requires the plan to:

=95 show = recommendations=20 for the general use of the area including land use, housing, principal = highways,=20 recreational space, public utilities, agriculture, and other matters = determined=20 to be beneficial to the area;

=95 promote = abatement of=20 the pollution of the waters and air of the region;

=95 identify = areas where=20 it is feasible and prudent to have compact, transit accessible,=20 pedestrian-oriented mixed use development patterns and land reuse, and = promote=20 such development patterns and land reuse; and

=95 note any=20 inconsistencies with the six growth management principles contained in = the State=20 C&D Plan.

Until = recently, although=20 the law required each RPO to adopt a plan of development, it set no time = frame=20 for doing so. In 2005, the legislature began requiring plans of = development to=20 be updated at least once every 10 years and that an initial revision = begin no=20 more than three years after July 1, 2005 (i.e., by July 1, = 2008).

In practice, = some of the=20 executive directors of the Regional Planning Organizations stated that = their=20 particular regional plan was developed by examining each of the local = plans of=20 conservation and development of the member towns in the region and = aggregating=20 them on a regional level. Some of the directors stated that this process = could=20 be difficult if the local municipalities have not updated their plans = within a=20 reasonable time frame.

Process for = adoption=20 of Regional Plan of Development. The process to adopt a Regional = Plan of=20 Development is laid out in statute and shown in Figure V-2. There are = recently=20 adopted time frames associated with each of the steps, and these are = shown in=20 the figure.

The process = requires an=20 RPO to hold at least one public hearing with written notice provided to = each=20 municipality's chief = executive=20 officer and planning commission. At least 65 days before the public = hearing, the=20 RPO must post the plan on the internet, if it has a website, and submit = a copy=20 to the secretary of OPM for comments and recommendations. The findings = by OPM=20 must include a review of the plan to determine if the proposed plan is = =93not=20 inconsistent=94 with the State C&D Plan and the State Economic = Strategic Plan=20 (due July 2009). To date, more than half of RPOs have submitted = development=20 plans to OPM and all have been determined to be consistent with the = state=20 plan.

Prior to the = public=20 hearing, the law requires the RPO to note on the record any = inconsistency with=20 the state plan and the reasons for such inconsistency, but it does not = require=20 the regional plan be made consistent with the state plan. In particular, = the=20 regional plan must note any inconsistencies with the growth management=20 principles included in the state plan. Adoption of the plan, any part of = the=20 plan, or an amendment to the plan requires an affirmative vote of not = less than=20 a majority of the representatives on the RPO board. Once adopted, the = plan must=20 be posted on the website, if there is one, and a signed copy must be = transmitted=20 to the chief executive officer and the planning commission, if any, in = the towns=20 that are members of the region, and to OPM.

Municipalities = are also=20 required by law to have conservation and development plans. Municipal = planning=20 commissions are required to prepare, or amend, and adopt plans of = conservation=20 and development at least once every 10 years, and regularly review and = maintain=20 the plans.

Legislation = adopted last=20 session strengthens the link between discretionary state-funding and = maintaining=20 and revising municipal C&D plans at least every 10 years. If a = municipality=20 has not updated its plan within a 10-year period, the chief elected = official=20 must submit a letter to the OPM secretary and the commissioners of=20 transportation, economic and community development, and environmental = protection=20 explaining the reasons why. In addition, a copy of the letter must be = included=20 in each application the municipality submits to any state agency for = funding for=20 conservation and development of real property. Until the plan is = updated, the=20 municipality is ineligible for any discretionary state funding, unless = such=20 prohibition is expressly waived by the OPM secretary.

Plan = contents. In=20 preparing the municipal plan, the local planning commission may appoint = one or=20 more special committees to develop and make recommendations. By statute, = there=20 are 10 areas the commission or special committee must consider, = including=20 the:

=95 community = development=20 action plan of the municipality, if any;

=95 need for = affordable=20 housing;

=95 need for = protection of=20 existing and potential public surface and ground drinking water=20 supplies;

=95 use of = cluster=20 development and other development patterns to the extent consistent with = soil=20 types, terrain, and infrastructure capacity within the = municipality;

=95 State Plan = of=20 Conservation and Development;

=95 Regional = Plan of=20 Development;

=95 physical, = social,=20 economic, and governmental conditions and trends;

=95 needs of = the=20 municipality including but not limited to human resources, education, = health,=20 housing, recreation, social services, public utilities, public = protection,=20 transportation and circulation, and cultural and interpersonal=20 communications;

=95 objectives = of=20 energy-efficient patterns of development, and the use of solar and other = renewable forms of energy and energy conservation; and

=95 protection = and=20 preservation of agriculture.

=95 be a = statement of the=20 policies, goals, and standards for the physical and economic development = of the=20 municipality;

=95 provide = for a system=20 of principal thoroughfares, parkways, bridges, streets, sidewalks, = multipurpose=20 trails, and other public ways as appropriate;

=95 be = designed to=20 promote, with the greatest efficiency and economy, the coordinated = development=20 of the municipality, and the general welfare and prosperity for its = people, and=20 identify areas where it is feasible and prudent;

=95 recommend = the most=20 desirable use of land within the municipality for residential, = recreational,=20 commercial, industrial, conservation, and other purposes and include a = map=20 showing such proposed land uses;

=95 recommend = the most=20 desirable density of population in different parts of the=20 municipality;

=95 have = compact, transit=20 accessible, pedestrian-oriented mixed use development patterns and land = reuse;=20 and

=95 promote = such=20 development patterns and land reuse consistent with the = state's growth = management=20 principles.

Since 2005, = any=20 inconsistencies with the growth management principles contained in the = State=20 C&D Plan must be noted in the municipal plan, including the = principle of=20 integrated planning across all levels of government to address issues on = a=20 local, regional, and state-wide basis. Stronger requirements, in terms = of what=20 the plan must address, exist for municipalities that are contiguous to = Long=20 Island Sound.

Permissive = statutory=20 language allows the municipal plan recommendations to address a number = of other=20 areas if desired (e.g., recreation, location and improvements for = schools and=20 other public buildings, location of public utilities and terminals, and = the=20 extent and location of public housing projects).

Table V-4 = summarizes how=20 long it has been since the towns in the state last adopted a Municipal=20 Conservation and Development Plan. Twenty-seven towns have plans that = are more=20 than 10 years old, although some are in the process of being updated. = Given the=20 recently adopted legislation that restricts state discretionary funding = if a=20 town does not have a plan, all of these towns will likely begin updating = their=20 plans in the near future.

Process for = adoption=20 of municipal plan. Figure V-3 shows the process for adoption of a = Municipal=20 Conservation and Development Plan. At least 35 days prior to holding a = public=20 hearing on adoption, the local planning commission (or special = committee) must=20 submit a copy of the plan (or amendment) for review and comment to the=20 legislative body or, if that body is a town meeting, the board of = selectmen. The=20 legislative body or board may hold one or more public hearings on the = plan and=20 must endorse or reject the entire plan, part of the plan, or amendment; = it also=20 may submit comments and recommended changes to the = commission.

In addition, = the law=20 requires the local planning commission to submit the draft plan to the = relevant=20 Regional Planning Organization. It requires the RPO to submit an = advisory report=20 along with its comments to the commission at or before the public = hearing. The=20 comments must include a finding on the consistency of the draft plan = with the=20 Regional Plan of Development and the State Plan of Conservation and = Development=20 and the C&D plans of other municipalities in the area of operation = of the=20 RPO. The local commission may revise the plan based on the comments = submitted,=20 although it can also render a decision on the plan without the report of = the=20 Regional Planning Organization.

After = completion of the=20 hearing, the commission may revise the plan, and then may adopt the = whole plan=20 or parts of the plan. Any plan or part of a plan or recommendation not = endorsed=20 by the legislative body can only be adopted by the commission by a vote = of at=20 least two-thirds of all the members of the commission.

Not more than = 60 days=20 after adoption of the municipal plan, the commission must submit a copy = of the=20 plan to OPM. The submission must include a description of any = inconsistency=20 between the municipal plan adopted and the State C&D Plan and the = reasons=20 for the inconsistency.

The program = review=20 committee surveyed municipal chief elected officials to gather their = opinions on=20 three studies being conducted by the committee -- Regional Planning=20 Organizations in Connecticut, Homeland Security in Connecticut, and the=20 State's Long-Term = Planning=20 Efforts. The survey contained 20 questions, of which 10 were directly = related to=20 RPOs. As part of the survey, municipal chief elected officials were = asked their=20 opinion regarding the roles and responsibilities of RPOs in their = region, the=20 current performance of the RPOs in their region, and what future tasks, = if any,=20 they would like RPOs to undertake in their region. This chapter = highlights the=20 survey results. (A copy of the survey instrument and response totals are = contained in Appendix D.)

The committee = sent=20 surveys to the chief elected official in each of Connecticut's 169 towns; = 101 (or 60=20 percent) were returned. Although the committee received 101 responses, = it is=20 important to note that not every question was answered by all = respondents so the=20 response rates vary from question to question.

Based on the = results of=20 the survey, it is clear that municipal chief elected officials would = like more=20 opportunities to pursue joint service sharing, although they do not want = any=20 state mandates requiring them to do so. Furthermore, most of those that = wanted=20 to take advantage of joint opportunities cited funding from the state as = the=20 number one incentive that would promote this concept. On the other hand, = there=20 still was a strong sentiment stressing the voluntary nature of such = agreements,=20 and that authority should still rest with local officials on whether or = not to=20 come together jointly or go it alone.

Reasons = towns join a=20 Regional Planning Organization. A primary purpose of the program = review=20 committee's study was to = examine=20 how RPOs can be used to encourage towns to come together and provide = certain=20 services on a regional rather than a town basis thereby sharing costs. = To gain=20 an understanding of why towns currently belong to RPOs, the committee = asked=20 municipal chief elected officials to identify, from a list of options, = the=20 reasons that their town belonged to the RPO in their planning area. The=20 responses are shown in Table VI-1.


Table = VI-1. Why=20 Belong to a Regional Planning Organization = (N=3D99)
*Reason*	*Percent = Selecting=20 Answer*
To = address issues=20 that cross town boundaries	97%
Facilitate the=20 sharing of services	75%
Improve = the way=20 land use decisions are made	61%
Address = concerns=20 about environmental issues	58%
Enable = town to=20 purchase a item with other towns that it could not afford to buy=20 itself	46%
Make = group=20 purchases at a reduced price	43%
Source of=20 data: PRI database

In addition, = 27 percent=20 of the chief elected officials provided =93other=94 responses to this = question.=20 These responses ranged from the broad (promote cooperation and problem = solving)=20 to the specific (discuss homeland security and transportation issues). = Other=20 reasons cited by the chief elected officials included: prioritize = municipal=20 issues to lobby legislature, address solid waste disposal and recycling = issues,=20 and coordinate economic development.

Functions = of RPOs.=20 One group of survey questions listed a variety of functions and = activities=20 RPOs could perform in their regions, and chief elected officials were = asked to=20 agree or disagree whether they believed, in general, that RPOs should = perform=20 these functions. All of the 95 chief elected officials who responded to = the=20 question about whether RPOs should review and comment on state = development=20 projects that affect their regions agreed they should, and most (91 = percent)=20 agreed that RPOs should create and adopt Regional Plans of Development. = To a=20 lesser extent (84 percent), the responding chief elected officials = agreed that=20 one of the functions of RPOs is to assist with the preparation of = Municipal=20 Conservation and Development Plans.

There was also = general=20 agreement among chief elected officials regarding the role RPOs should = have in=20 reviewing and commenting on local projects with potential for regional = impact.=20 Table VI-2 shows that most agreed that RPOs should review and comment on = local=20 zoning projects with regional significance. Currently, this is the only = type of=20 project of the three listed in the table that RPOs have not been granted = statutory authority to do, although it has been proposed numerous times = in=20 legislation since the early 1980s.


Table = VI -2.=20 RPO Input on Local Projects with Potential for Regional=20 Impact
*Review and=20 Comment on Local Projects*	*Agree*	*Disagree*
RPOs = should review=20 and comment on LOCAL zoning projects with regional significance=20 (N=3D91)	92%	8%
RPOs = should review=20 and comment on proposed subdivisions that abut or include land in = two or=20 more towns (N=3D92)	91%	9%
RPOs = should review=20 and comment on proposed zone use or zone use changes within 500 = feet of=20 another town boundary (N=3D92)	89%	11%
Source of=20 data: PRI database

Other = functions for=20 which there was widespread agreement among chief elected officials that = RPOs=20 should perform were in the areas of transportation planning, any tasks = that=20 member towns collectively choose, and creating economic development = strategies=20 for their regions.

There was less = agreement=20 in the survey responses on whether RPOs should assist in the development = of=20 zoning regulations for individual towns (26 percent of 90 respondents=20 disagreed); discuss affordable housing issues (18 percent of 90 = respondents=20 disagreed); and coordinate emergency management and homeland security = efforts=20 (14 percent of 92 respondents disagreed).

Conservation and=20 development planning. With respect to conservation and development = planning=20 activities in Connecticut, Figure VI-1 shows the percent of survey = respondents=20 agreeing or disagreeing with how much conservation and development = within their=20 town is guided by each of the three levels of development plans. As the = figure=20 shows, the vast majority of respondents (81 percent) did not believe = that the=20 State C&D Plan is used extensively to guide development in their = town.=20 Survey respondents were split on the regional plans, with slightly more = than=20 half agreeing that Regional Plans of Development reflect the development = issues=20 in their town. In terms of their own local plans of conservation and=20 development, although most believed that their town's plan was = effective in=20 guiding development within their town, 16 percent of the respondents = disagreed.=20

The lack of = consistency=20 between local and regional plans of conservation and development and the = State=20 C&D Plan has been cited often since the 1980s. Currently, the law = requires=20 that inconsistencies with the State C&D Plan be noted in the local = or=20 regional plan, but OPM cannot require these plans be changed. One survey = question asked chief elected officials whether development projects = within a=20 town should be required to comply with the State C&D Plan -- = one-third of=20 the 85 respondents agreed, and two-thirds disagreed.

RPO = membership.=20 Chief elected officials were asked several questions about the = boundaries of the=20 existing regional planning areas. The responses indicate that a majority = of the=20 87 respondents (68 percent) believe that eligibility for membership in = an RPO=20 should be limited to the state-defined boundaries. However, 93 percent = of 89=20 respondents agreed that these boundaries should be re-evaluated=20 periodically.

Since the type = of RPO=20 selected by the member towns determines whether there are chief elected=20 officials or planners on the RPO board, the survey included two = questions=20 regarding board composition. Responses indicate:

RPO current = efforts=20 and future responsibilities. The committee survey asked chief = elected=20 officials to describe the efforts of the RPO in their regions. Of the 91 = chief=20 elected officials that responded to the question, 81 percent rated the = RPO=20 performance as excellent or good, while 13 percent rated it fair, and 6 = percent=20 rated it poor.

Fifty-one of = the survey=20 respondents gave written responses to an open-ended survey question that = asked=20 what, if any, additional functions they would like the RPO in their = region to=20 perform. Of the total responses received, 10 stated no changes were = needed.=20 Common areas where respondents suggested RPOs should take on additional=20 functions included economic development planning; affordable housing = planning;=20 promoting service sharing and joint purchasing agreements among member = towns;=20 and water supply planning. One respondent suggested that RPOs be given = the=20 authority to levy a regional tax or to share in a percent of the sales = tax in=20 that region.

Promoting = regional=20 cooperation. Most respondents (87 percent of 92) believe the state = of=20 Connecticut should provide incentives to encourage more regional = cooperation.=20 For those responding positively, the survey contained an open ended = question=20 asking specifically what types of incentives the state could provide = that would=20 encourage towns to participate in more regional activities. Sixty-six of = the=20 chief elected officials provided written comments on how to encourage = towns to=20 engage in more regional activities. The suggestions included:

=95 give = grants to prepare=20 conservation and development plans;

=95 allow = revenue sharing=20 (i.e., sales tax revenue should be dedicated to regional = activities);

=95 provide = start-up or=20 seed money;

=95 present = information=20 and explain how centralization would work, while allowing towns to = maintain=20 their identity and autonomy;

=95 provide = more money to=20 RPOs to lead/promote efforts;

=95 provide = monetary=20 incentives to towns participating in regional activities; and

=95 encourage = regional=20 education.

A few chief = elected=20 officials either did not believe the state should provide funding, = noting that=20 it would eventually lead to unfunded mandates, or they wanted funding to = bypass=20 the RPO and go directly to the town.

Cooperative = purchasing. Municipal chief elected officials also were surveyed on = whether=20 they used existing purchasing agreements and contracts negotiated by = other=20 entities. Of the 88 responses received, 92 percent stated that they used = purchase agreements and contracts negotiated by the state of = Connecticut; 60=20 percent used those offered by organizations such as the Connecticut = Conference=20 of Municipalities or the Capitol Region Education Council; 50 percent = used those=20 offered by their own RPO; 36 percent had direct agreements with one or = more=20 towns; and 26 percent used programs operated by other RPOs.

Chief elected = officials=20 were also asked about participating in several specific purchasing or = service=20 delivery opportunities in the future. Almost all of the 88 respondents = (92=20 percent) would be interested in participating in cooperative purchasing=20 agreements in the future, while 83 percent were interested in buying = equipment=20 with other towns to share. The listed area with the least interest = shown,=20 although still a majority, was in sharing the use and expenses of = recreational=20 facilities located in another town -- only 60 percent of respondents = were=20 interested.

Many efforts = aimed at=20 increased regionalism are currently taking place at the state agency = level as=20 well as jointly among state government, regional entities, and local=20 governments. The program review committee believes that building on = these=20 efforts will allow participation in such activities to still be = voluntary and=20 recommends state dollars be targeted to encourage more of these = region-wide=20 initiatives to occur. In this way, the state can promote a regional = perspective=20 that contributes to the long-term development of Connecticut.

The overall = goal of the=20 recommendations contained in this chapter is to encourage towns to = continue to=20 address issues through Regional Planning Organizations to foster the = growth and=20 development of regional activities in the state. The = committee's findings and = recommendations are focused on three broad areas:

The workload = of each=20 Regional Planning Organization is driven by three factors:

The primary = statutory=20 responsibilities of all three types of Regional Planning Organizations = are the=20 same. The key recurring duty involves review and comment tasks in = response=20 to actions undertaken by local towns or developers related to zoning and = subdivision changes. In operation, the extent of this responsibility = varies=20 considerably among RPOs, depending on the size and characteristics of = the=20 region, and it is driven by activity at the municipal level. Another key = statutory requirement -- preparation of a Regional Development Plan -- = is=20 mandated only once every 10 years.

Federal = transportation=20 money is an important source of revenue for the 11 RPOs that have been=20 designated Metropolitan Planning Organizations. Consequently, some of = the=20 most commonly performed tasks carried out by RPO staff are the ones = needed to=20 meet the ongoing requirements of such federal grants. Major = activities=20 include development of a Transportation Improvement Program and = preparation of a=20 Regional Transportation Plan.

With the = exception of=20 transportation planning, which already has a regional focus, and a few=20 state-mandated responsibilities related to conservation and development=20 planning, most of the activities performed by the RPOs are at the = direction of=20 their member towns. As detailed in Chapter Three, all of the RPOs = handle a=20 wide variety of activities for the member towns within their regions. = However,=20 the scope of those tasks is dependent on financial and staffing = resources, which=20 vary greatly among the RPOs.

Since 1999, at = least a=20 half dozen studies have examined Connecticut's social, = physical, and=20 economic conditions and made recommendations that call for a broader = regional=20 role, if Connecticut is to avoid the risk of economic = decline.²¹ The studies describe the impact that = land use=20 regulations have on the quality of life in Connecticut, and = consequently, how=20 this affects patterns of economic development, transportation, housing, = and the=20 environment. Most of the studies also cite the negative impact of local = property=20 taxes in Connecticut, which causes towns to compete against each other = for new=20 development in order to sustain services by increasing their grand list = totals.=20 Thus, the studies conclude that limiting sprawl, yet keeping Connecticut = economically viable and a desirable place to live, requires certain = issues to be=20 addressed at a regional level.

Over the = years, the=20 objective of state legislation related to regionalism has been to = encourage,=20 rather than require, towns to jointly cooperate. Towns have = opportunities to=20 work formally through statutorily authorized Regional Planning = Organizations or=20 other regional entities, or they can use permissive statutory language = that=20 allows not only two or more municipalities to join together to = accomplish=20 certain tasks, but also allows RPOs to join together for the same=20 purposes.

More and more = frequently=20 in recent years, growing numbers of towns in Connecticut are entering = into joint=20 efforts with groups of towns for an ever widening array of purposes. A = report by=20 the Connecticut Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations in = June 2000=20 identified dozens of types of programs that involve cooperative = arrangements=20 involving multiple towns. The report listed approximately 1,000 = inter-municipal=20 joint ventures, including education arrangements. When general = government=20 services alone were counted, there were 436 specific programs in 30 = different=20 categories.²² Since then, additional programs have = been started=20 or expanded.

An examination = of the=20 ACIR report shows these efforts involve a variety of different = approaches.=20 Sometimes arrangements are headed by an RPO, other times by two or more = towns,=20 and still other times by an entirely different regional entity with = different=20 geographic boundaries than the RPOs.

Numerous = studies since=20 the 1950s have called for greater regional cooperation, but beyond = conservation=20 and development planning requirements, no major mandates limiting local=20 government authority have been enacted. Rather, the approach that state = policy=20 leaders have taken over the years has been to promote the formation of = Regional=20 Planning Organizations. However, until recently, there has not been much = state=20 financial support for RPOs to address issues of a regional nature. =

Because of the = structure=20 of local government in Connecticut, with 169 municipal governments, a = strong=20 preference for home rule, and an aversion to unfunded state mandates, = the state=20 legislature has never granted RPOs the authority to override local land = use=20 decisions or empowered RPOs to address specific issues regarding housing = or=20 economic development on a region-wide level. 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.

Many = individuals=20 knowledgeable about public budget trends maintain that as local budget = pressures=20 build to very high levels, towns will be forced to act cooperatively by = sharing=20 services, or else they will be forced to raise taxes, or they will need = to=20 reduce the level of services provided to their residents. While the = committee=20 agrees that more cooperative arrangements will likely occur as municipal = fiscal=20 pressures increase, it is important that support for regional = cooperation=20 continue to increase, whether it is on an ad hoc basis involving a small = number=20 of towns or on a broader region-wide basis.

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

Instead, most = local=20 officials surveyed, as well as the RPO executive directors interviewed, = believe=20 the decision to identify services or functions to share with neighboring = towns=20 or a broader region should rest with local elected officials. In = addition, most=20 also said the state should provide greater incentives (such as the = Regional=20 Performance Incentive Program adopted last session) to encourage greater = regional cooperation, but they cautioned against a =93top-down=94 = approach to=20 regionalism.

Thus, the = philosophical=20 debate remains almost unchanged over the last 60 years =96 how much = authority=20 should regional entities in Connecticut be given. Figure VII-1 shows a = continuum=20 of decision-making authority that ranges from strong local control to a=20 state-recognized regional entity to strong state control.

At the top of = the=20 figure, there are no cooperative arrangements among towns; each town = does=20 everything on its own. The next stage involves voluntary efforts among a = small=20 number of neighboring towns, but there are no formal models to follow or = outside=20 financial incentives provided. As activities expand, successful projects = get=20 copied, and an entity such as a Regional Planning Organization can serve = as the=20 coordinator or administrator of the program.

As the = continuum moves=20 toward what is often described as a =93top down=94 approach to = regionalism, the=20 state takes a more active role, ranging from offering incentives to = towns for=20 voluntary cooperation to providing funding only when specific results = are=20 achieved. At the next stage, RPOs could operate as sub-state districts = with=20 independent revenue raising powers. Other single-purpose regional = entities could=20 be consolidated into the strengthened RPOs, along with authority over = certain=20 land use decisions as well as administration and/or operation of certain = region-wide functions. At the extreme, the state performs the desired = tasks=20 itself.

The trend in = recent=20 years has been to move away from towns going it entirely alone. Most = towns in=20 Connecticut have embraced the use of regional entities for some = purposes, but=20 there is less support for state-imposed joint efforts. At the same time, = in=20 Connecticut, the state does take on the role played by county and other = regional=20 entities in other states to the extent that state government operates = jails,=20 distributes assistance payments to needy families, and provides other = types of=20 social services.

There are = several=20 obstacles to the establishment of stronger Regional Planning = Organizations in=20 Connecticut. The most significant barrier is ideological. Some = individuals=20 believe that local government is more responsive and service is of a = higher=20 quality at the local level, while others think planning and delivering = services=20 in 169 towns in Connecticut is costly, inefficient, and leads to poor = land use=20 decisions that encourage sprawl.

As mentioned = previously,=20 RPOs are currently authorized by the state, but must be established by = local=20 legislative bodies. To move to a stronger regional system, the committee = believes that the state would need to:

=95 = re-establish RPOs as=20 state-created entities so that they are not dependent on approval of = local=20 legislative bodies for their existence and funding;

=95 mandate = they be given=20 region-wide authority for certain land use decisions and any other = regional=20 functions, including those currently performed by state agencies, other=20 single-purpose regional entities, and local governments; and

=95 grant them = independent=20 taxing authority in order to generate revenue, or at least give them a = set=20 percentage of other tax revenues collected by state or local=20 government.

Given that = there appears=20 to be no consensus for moving in this direction, the committee believes = the=20 current evolution of regional activity should be encouraged to continue. = In=20 order to promote additional efforts at a faster pace, the program review = committee is proposing recommendations to adjust the existing RPO=20 system.

Today, three = types of=20 Regional Planning Organizations are authorized to operate in Connecticut = --=20 Regional Councils of Governments, Regional Councils of Elected = Officials, and=20 Regional Planning Agencies. As detailed in Chapter Two, the = organizational=20 structure of these entities has evolved since the 1940s, but the current = distribution of seven RCOGs, three RCEOs, and five RPAs has existed = since=20 2002.

With = respect to the=20 RPO boards of directors, depending on the type of RPO structure adopted = in a=20 given region, the size, appointing authority, and type of appointees to = the=20 board will differ. Table VII-1 summarizes the statutory provisions = regarding=20 the composition for the three types of RPOs.

As indicated = in the=20 table, the size of a RPA board is based on the populations of the towns = located=20 within its boundaries, and it includes representatives of the planning = bodies=20 within those towns. The RCEO and RCOG board memberships generally allow = only one=20 seat per member town, and that representative is the chief elected = official. As=20 noted, bylaws can be adopted to allow alternates to attend meetings in = place of=20 the chief elected official.

The number of = board=20 members per existing RPO ranges from four to 32, with a median of 15. = With the=20 exception of the Capitol Region Council of Governments, where the city = of=20 Hartford gets three extra seats under Special Act 73-79, the number of = board=20 members equals the number of towns for the RCEOs and RCOGs. Table VII-2=20 indicates the size of the board for each of the five RPAs, which by = statute=20 apportion seats based on individual town populations.

Currently, = there are two=20 inter-related issues regarding the composition of RPOs in Connecticut. = They=20 concern the qualifications of the people who sit on the boards of = directors and=20 whether three different types of regional planning organizations should = continue=20 to exist.

Board=20 composition. The discussion about board membership is focused on two = different types of potential representatives to the boards of directors. = A=20 number of people support a requirement that all RPO boards have at least = some=20 members who have formal credentials (i.e., education and experience) in = the=20 field of planning. This view is based on the belief that such = individuals can=20 provide information and insight during discussions about the many land = use and=20 other planning responsibilities that are statutorily assigned or = voluntarily=20 undertaken by RPOs. Appointees with planning expertise complement and = could=20 potentially supplement the work of the RPO staff.

At the same = time, other=20 people believe it is vital that the chief elected official of each = member town=20 serve on the board of the RPO. The chief elected officials are regarded = as being=20 able to discuss development issues from multiple perspectives reflecting = the=20 many different interests of the taxpayers in their respective towns, and = they=20 are accountable to the public. Perhaps more importantly, the chief = elected=20 officials generally also have the authority needed to commit their towns = to=20 participate, financially or otherwise, in regional efforts.

The program = review=20 committee survey about regional planning sent to municipal chief elected = officials asked them about these two types of representatives. Nearly = two-thirds=20 (64 percent) of 86 respondents agreed at least one individual serving on = a RPO=20 board should have planning experience, while 55 percent of 89 = respondents agreed=20 that chief elected officials should be required to serve on the RPO = board in=20 their area.

As previously = noted,=20 RPAs have a minimum of two representatives per town, and state statutes=20 currently require one of the town representatives on the board of a RPA = to be=20 appointed by the local planning commission. The appointee is not = required to be=20 a planner or a member of that commission, but in practice, it appears = many are.=20 The legislative body of the town decides how the other RPA = representatives will=20 be selected, but there are likewise no work experience or education=20 requirements. In practice, a few towns do have their chief elected = official=20 serve on the board, but many appointees are town employees, while others = are=20 citizens who are retired or work in the private sector.

Towns that = belong to=20 RCEOs and RCOGs, on the other hand, only have a single representative -- = the=20 chief elected official. Those individuals may or may not have expertise = in the=20 planning field. Some are allowed under the bylaws of the organization to = designate an alternate to attend meetings in their place, but in many = cases this=20 must be the town manager or another member of the board of = selectmen.

A RCEO may = co-exist with=20 a RPA within the same state-defined planning region. In such cases, the = RPA=20 continues to perform the planning duties outlined in Chapter 127 of the=20 statutes, while the RCEO focuses on broader issues. Currently, two RPAs = have=20 formed a joint RCEO that meets monthly. The joint RCEO is not included = in the=20 count of 15 RPOs in the state because it basically serves as an = information=20 sharing body rather than a decision-making or implementation entity. The = three=20 RCEOs counted as part of the 15 RPOs all perform the statutory functions = of RPAs=20 because such entities do not operate in their regions. In those cases, = the RCEOs=20 generally have access to planning expertise through the RCEO staff. (In=20 addition, one has established a Regional Planning = Commission.)

A mechanism = available to=20 RCOGs to obtain input from a planner's perspective = is a=20 Regional Planning Commission. When RCOGs were originally authorized = under state=20 law in 1971, each had to establish a Regional Planning Commission that = handled=20 all planning duties and responsibilities on behalf of the council. Towns = had the=20 same amount of representation on the planning commission as on the = council. The=20 requirement for a Regional Planning Commission was repealed in 2000, and = the=20 commissions became optional, advisory bodies. Today, six of the seven = RCOGs=20 still have Regional Planning Commissions, although the extent to which = the=20 commissions are used varies.

Types of = RPOs.=20 With respect to the organizational structure of the RPOs, the = legislature has=20 expanded the available choices over the years. When logical planning = regions=20 were defined by the state in the 1950s, the only organizational type = available=20 was the RPA model, which focused on land use planning = functions.

The = introduction of the=20 RCEO model in 1965 provided any two or more towns in a region with an = option for=20 an organization that would be able to address a broader array of issues = and=20 would be governed by the chief elected officials from the member towns. = Regions=20 could also have a RPA. Authorization to create RCOGs in 1971 built upon = the RCEO=20 model, but to ensure greater participation required that 60 percent of = the=20 eligible towns join. In addition, creation of a RCOG within a region = resulted in=20 the subsequent dissolution of any existing RPA and/or RCEO and a = prohibition on=20 a new RPA and/or RCEO as long as a RCOG exists.

When three = types of RPOs=20 first became available, the differences between them were clearer with = respect=20 to their responsibilities and the amount of local municipal support = needed to=20 establish the particular entity. Over the years, the statutory language=20 describing each entity has been amended multiple times, giving each the = same=20 general duties and authority. Today, there are few differences = between a RCEO=20 and a RCOG, while the primary difference between those two types of = structures=20 and a RPA is who sits on the board of directors (as discussed=20 above).

Increasingly = people who=20 interact with multiple RPOs have noted the difficulty distinguishing = between the=20 three types of organizations. Questions have been raised as to whether = one type=20 of structure should be required for all RPOs in Connecticut. This would = simplify=20 the existing system by applying a single name and terminology to all of = the=20 elements and activities of the RPOs.

The specific = model most=20 frequently supported is the RCOG. It is cited for the historically = successful=20 work of the largest of the existing RCOGs, the direct involvement of = municipal=20 chief elected officials, and the fact that the RCOG model is the one = currently=20 used in the largest number of state-defined planning regions in the = state. The=20 seven existing RCOGs cover about half of the state's towns (57 = percent),=20 population (52 percent), and square mileage (58 percent). Furthermore, = the three=20 largest RPOs in the state, in terms of the number of towns belonging to = the RPO=20 and the total geographic area, are RCOGs.

In considering = changes=20 to the current RPO structure, however, it is worthwhile to examine the = history=20 of the state's efforts to = promote=20 local government participation through regional organizations. From the = time the=20 legislature first adopted formal statutory language regarding Regional = Planning=20 Organizations in the 1940s, the state has never mandated that towns = become=20 members of RPOs. Instead, over the decades, as the issues facing local=20 governments increased and the services that town residents wanted came = with ever=20 higher price tags, more and more towns chose to participate in RPOs as a = mechanism to help address their individual needs.

One RPO was = established=20 in the 1940s, and a second in the 1950s. A dozen RPOs were created in = the 1960s,=20 and the last of the current 15 RPOs was established in 1972.

In 1965 and = 1971, when=20 the state devised the new types of RPOs, it did not require existing = RPOS to=20 change. The new models were simply options that offered towns within a = given=20 region a approach more directly involving chief elected officials in the = process. The fact that nine RPOs changed from the RPA structure to the = RCEO or=20 RCOG structure and another RPO was created as a RCEO could be considered = an=20 endorsement of those models, but the changes occurred slowly. Four RPOs = made the=20 change in the 1970s, three in the 1980s, and one each in the 1990s and = 2000. In=20 recent years, however, two other RPAs considered changing to a RCEO or = RCOG, but=20 decided not to.

Connecticut = citizens are=20 innovators in many ways, but changes in governmental structure and = operations=20 tend to occur slowly. Given the ability of all three types of RPOs to = perform=20 the same functions, the program review committee believes that forcing a = change=20 to a single structural model would be counterproductive. It also could = destroy=20 the institutional goodwill that the RPOs have created within their = respective=20 areas. Noting that a number of towns studied and rejected the idea of = changing=20 their RPO design only a few years ago, the program review committee is = concerned=20 that eliminating choices could dampen the willingness of towns to = participate in=20 regional activities. Instead of promoting more regionalism, towns might = withdraw=20 from formal participation in a RPO.

The program = review=20 committee believes the fact that all but one town in the state belongs = to a=20 Regional Planning Organization, but groups of neighboring towns have = chosen to=20 establish different models, demonstrates the value of offering options.=20 Therefore, the program review committee recommends:

To the extent = that state=20 officials believe one particular RPO structural model is preferable to = the other=20 models for some or all program purposes, the state can offer more = technical or=20 financial support to towns using that particular model. A recent example = of this=20 is the new Regional Performance Incentive Program, authorized under = Public Act=20 07-239. The law specifies that proposals submitted by RCOGs that include = participation by 50 percent or more of their member towns will be given = priority=20 for the funding available.

The committee = does=20 believe several modifications to the current statutory requirements for = RPOs=20 should be made. The next two recommendations are aimed at clarifying = terminology=20 and explicitly confirming powers and duties. A third recommendation = seeks to=20 enhance communication with local chief elected officials.

As previously = discussed,=20 the three types of RPOs operating in Connecticut share the same major=20 responsibilities, and many people have difficulty keeping track of the = specific=20 type of RPO employed in each region. Increasingly, informal references = intended=20 to include all three models will use the more generic reference of = Regional=20 Planning Organization. Until 2007, this term did not appear in any = statutory=20 language. In order to clarify what the term RPO means and to facilitate = the use=20 of the term on a more formal basis, the program review committee=20 recommends:

RCOGs are = statutorily=20 authorized to do all of the things that RCEOs and RPAs do, as well as a = few=20 other things (such as own property for use as their administrative = offices).=20 RCEOs are statutorily authorized to exercise all the powers of a RPA, if = there=20 is no RPA in the region, but there is no cross reference to the powers = of a=20 RCOG. To clarify that RCEOs have the same authority as Regional Councils = of=20 Governments, the program review committee recommends:

For the = present time,=20 the committee believes access to relevant planning information is = available to=20 board members of all three types of RPOs. Although the information is = provided=20 to different degrees and in different formats, via the mechanisms = described=20 above, in all cases staff of each organization is available to provide = expertise=20 in this area.

The absence of = direct=20 involvement by municipal chief elected officials in the state-defined = planning=20 regions that use the RPA model could be more problematic. The committee = believes=20 the person empowered by the citizens of each member town to act on = behalf of=20 that town needs to be kept informed and consulted when solutions to = complex,=20 long-term, and potentially costly regional issues are being decided. = Under the=20 arrangements currently in place in the five existing RPAs, some of the=20 mechanisms for communicating with local chief elected officials are more = structured than others. As efforts to increase regional activities = expand, with=20 the possibility that RPOs might be given additional responsibilities in = the=20 future, it will be even more important to ensure that communication with = all=20 local chief elected officials occurs.

Under the = proposed=20 recommendation, Regional Planning Agencies would have flexibility to = make use of=20 existing mechanisms that meet the proposed requirement or set up a new=20 structure. In either case, the chief elected officials would have to = meet at=20 least four times a year. Examples of acceptable mechanisms = include:

=95 a = complementary=20 Regional Council of Elected Officials established by all of the member = towns of=20 the Regional Planning Agency for that area alone or in conjunction with = another=20 RPA;

=95 a = subcommittee of the=20 board of the Metropolitan Planning Organization that operates in the = region=20 where the RPA is located, if the chief elected officials of all member = towns=20 serve on the subcommittee; or

=95 a new = committee or=20 subcommittee of the Regional Planning Agency that is composed of the = chief=20 elected officials of all member towns and is charged with receiving = information=20 and providing guidance to the board of directors about regional = cooperative=20 efforts.

The existing = 15 RPOs=20 vary considerably in terms of their physical characteristics. Table = VII-3=20 summarizes the ranges of four characteristics that measure the size of = the=20 regions. (See Table III-3 in Chapter Three for the specific numbers for = each=20 RPO.) As indicated, two RPOs are the smallest in two categories each, = while one=20 RPO is the largest in three categories.

Connecticut = is=20 divided up on a regional basis in many different ways. Some of the = designations=20 are state-driven, and others are determined by the towns that choose to = join a=20 particular activity. State-defined configurations frequently cover = all 169=20 towns, and the total number of regions tends to be smaller than the = number=20 established through local initiatives. Conversely, when local towns = voluntarily=20 create regional programs, the number of participants often evolves over = time,=20 starting with a few towns, and then expanding to larger numbers if the = initial=20 effort is successful.

While state = agencies and=20 the legislature have made efforts in recent years to align regions for = related=20 programs, the results have been mixed. In 1993, in response to Special = Act=20 92-22, OPM identified boundaries for six uniform regional service = delivery areas=20 to be used by the state's four health = and human=20 services agencies. In 2005, one task of the new Department of Emergency=20 Management and Homeland Security was development of regional boundaries = for=20 planning and operational purposes. DEMHS sought to match its lines with = those of=20 regions that were already established such as the RPOs. In the end, = however,=20 several towns were grouped with different towns, based on police and = fire mutual=20 aid agreements.

The 2002 ACIR = report on=20 regional activities included data about the number of voluntary = inter-municipal=20 cooperative programs that each town in the state participated in at that = time.=20 The report indicated the smallest number of general town and education = programs=20 combined was 33, and the largest number was 94. The number of = non-education=20 programs alone per town ranged from 26 to 71.²³ (See Appendix E for a map summarizing = the data=20 that were in the ACIR report.)

The complexity = and=20 extent to which individual towns have to deal with multiple regions is=20 illustrated by the experience of one RPO. The Central Connecticut = Regional=20 Planning Agency has identified at least 20 different purposes for which = its=20 member towns are assigned to specific =93regions,=94 =93committees,=94 = or =93areas.=94 In=20 four cases, the boundaries are the same seven towns that comprise the = RPO. In=20 other cases, the seven towns are grouped with other towns to form a = larger=20 region. In at least eight cases, the seven RPO towns are split among = multiple=20 regions. This means the chief elected officials must interact with = different=20 groups of colleagues for those purposes, and RPO staff must attend = multiple=20 meetings on the same topic, if they want to represent the interests of = their=20 region on that topic.

Determining = the exact=20 number of geographic regions to establish for a particular program or to = accomplish a specific function is not easy. The ultimate goal of the = effort is=20 the creation of an area that can support but not overwhelm the = organization that=20 will carry out the desired purpose within the specified regions. In = order for=20 that entity to be viable, members of the board must feel that their = input=20 receives equal consideration, and the entity also must have sufficient=20 resources.

In the 1950s, = the=20 Connecticut Development Commission examined a number of factors before = it=20 defined the boundaries that eventually became the current 15 RPOs. The = process=20 used by CDC was summarized in Chapter One. Major characteristics that = CDC looked=20 at included:

Since the = original=20 designation of logical planning regions, changes in the economy of = Connecticut,=20 housing patterns, environmental concerns, and technology in general have = occurred and are continuing to occur. This means factors such as = newspaper=20 circulation and telephone service are less helpful, while the commuting = patterns=20 of a wider range of workers and the location of viable urban centers are = more=20 important. Environmental elements such as wetlands, sewer capacity, and = aquifer=20 protection are also relevant. Another factor that should be considered = is local=20 perceptions of social and historic ties.

Under C.G.S. = Sec.=20 16a-4a, the Office of Policy and Management has the authority to = designate or=20 redesignate logical planning regions within the state. Municipal chief = elected=20 officials who responded to the program review committee survey = overwhelmingly=20 supported periodic re-examination of the planning regions. Ninety-three = percent=20 of 89 respondents agreed the boundaries of the existing areas, = originally=20 developed in the 1950s and 1960s, should be re-evaluated=20 periodically.

Given these = factors, the=20 program review committee believes OPM should be required to reexamine = the=20 boundaries of the state's planning = regions=20 periodically. Specifically, the program review committee=20 recommends:

At least every = 20 years,=20 the Office of Policy and Management shall conduct an analysis of the = boundaries=20 of the state-defined logical planning areas in Connecticut and adopt new = boundaries, if appropriate, based on that analysis. As part of its = review, OPM=20 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.

The program = review=20 committee believes the analysis by OPM should build on the structures = and=20 relationships already in place among the existing RPOs, taking into=20 consideration how the needs and interests of the citizens of Connecticut = may=20 have changed since the existing regions were originally defined. As with = the=20 current RPO system, towns would continue to have the option of joining = the=20 planning organization operating within their designated area, although = failing=20 to maintain membership in a reconfigured RPO would mean a town would = lose access=20 to the benefits of belonging to a RPO. Based on the increased level of = support=20 towns have been showing for regional projects, the committee is = optimistic that=20 towns will continue to participate in RPOs, even if the existing = boundaries are=20 revised.

The proposal = of a review=20 every 20 years is intended to ensure a periodic re-examination of = regional=20 activities and economic development trends within the state, while = providing a=20 degree of stability to the ongoing operation of RPOs. Much of the = planning work=20 of the RPOs involves multi-year time periods, and the RPOs need = consistent=20 boundaries to make long-range projections and measure results. A 20-year = review=20 period should meet both of the intended purposes.

The portion of = the=20 recommendation concerning the identification of a minimum size for a = logical=20 planning region is intended to reflect the results of other = planning-related=20 efforts in recent years that produced state-based maps with smaller = numbers of=20 regions. A specific number of regions is not proposed in order to allow = the=20 results of the recommended analysis to guide the outcome.

The Office of = Policy and=20 Management, among its many duties, is responsible for the preparation of = the=20 State Plan of Conservation and Development and providing support to the = Regional=20 Planning Organizations. Its responsibilities related to both of these = functions=20 have grown over the years. As discussed in Chapter Two, significant=20 responsibilities were added in 2006 and 2007, when state government = leaders put=20 forth several key policy initiatives to coordinate responsible growth = policies=20 across state agencies and among the state, the Regional Planning = Organizations,=20 and local government.

State = conservation=20 and development planning. The State Plan of Conservation and = Development is=20 statutorily required under Chapter 297. The plan serves as a statement = of the=20 development, resource management, and public investment policies of the = state.=20 The most recent State C&D Plan, effective from 2005 to 2010, was = adopted by=20 the legislature and signed into law under Public Act 05-205. As = discussed in=20 Chapter Five, it contains two components =96 the plan text and the = Locational=20 Guide Map, which is a physical representation of the conservation and=20 development policies encouraged by the state. The map contains four = development=20 and four conservation areas, which are assigned a relative priority=20 value.

The 2005 State = C&D=20 Plan departed from the format of previous plans by introducing six = Growth=20 Management Principles and associated policy recommendations in order to = better=20 integrate state planning functions across state agencies. Table VII-4 = lists the=20 six principles, the number of policies contained in the plan text = assigned for=20 each growth management principle, and the number of recommendations to = implement=20 the policies within each principle. Altogether there are 46 policies and = 353=20 recommendations in the plan text.

The committee = believes=20 the shift to integrate conservation and development planning by using = the six=20 growth management principles is beneficial because it acknowledges that = land use=20 planning affects other policy areas. However, the policy goals contained = in the=20 plan text should be prioritized, and estimates regarding funding levels = needed=20 to implement a particular policy should be provided. This will help the=20 Interagency Steering Council focus its efforts and make the plan more = useful as=20 a blueprint on ways to target state dollars.

The committee = believes=20 prioritizing the policies and accompanying recommendations provides the=20 necessary link between planning and funding decisions. Furthermore, it = is=20 important to know the extent to which progress has been made in = implementing the=20 policies in the plan. Given that 81 percent of the chief elected = officials=20 responding to the committee's survey = disagreed that=20 the State C&D Plan was used to guide development in their town, = relating the=20 goals in the plan to state funding will make it a more dynamic=20 document.

OPM review = of=20 regional plans of development. Although regional plans of = development are=20 purely advisory, the plans should be viewed as key documents that link = together=20 towns with common interests, while supporting the overall goals of the = State=20 C&D Plan. Since 2005, RPOs must submit proposed Regional Plans = of=20 Development to the secretary of OPM for findings, in the form of = comments and=20 recommendations, before the RPO holds a public hearing on the regional = plan and=20 adopts it. The findings by OPM must include a review of the plan to = determine if=20 the proposed plan is =93not inconsistent=94 with the State C&D Plan = and the=20 State Economic Strategic Plan (which is not due until July 2009). After = a RPO=20 adopts a regional plan, if there are still any inconsistencies with the = State=20 Plan of Conservation and Development, the RPO must notify OPM of those=20 inconsistencies and the reasons for them.

Until = recently, although=20 the law required each RPO to adopt a plan of development, it set no time = frame=20 for doing so. In 2005 the legislature began requiring plans of = development to be=20 updated at least once every 10 years, and an initial revision had to = begin no=20 more than three years after July 1, 2005. As of November 19, 2007, more = than=20 half of the RPOs had submitted updated plans, and OPM has found none to = be=20 inconsistent with the state plan.

To facilitate = the=20 development of future regional plans, the committee believes there = should be=20 clearer guidance regarding how those plans will be evaluated. Therefore, = the=20 program review committee recommends:

The program = review=20 committee is also recommending a technical change to the name of the = regional=20 plan. State statutes refer to the State Conservation and Development = Plan and=20 Municipal Conservation and Development Plans, but at the regional level, = the=20 plan is called the Regional Plan of Development. For consistency, the = program=20 review committee recommends:

Targeting = state=20 investments. Targeting state dollars, through infrastructure = investments=20 and open space policies, is an important mechanism that the state can = use to=20 control growth at the local level. Since 1983, certain state = infrastructure=20 investments that exceed $100,000 (raised to $200,000 in 2007) are = required to be=20 consistent with the State C&D Plan. State law requires state agency = actions=20 be consistent with the plan for certain federal- or = state-funded=20 developments including:

In each of = those cases,=20 state law requires a state agency to request, and OPM to provide, an = advisory=20 statement commenting on whether the agency's actions = conform to the=20 plan. The secretary of OPM must submit that advisory statement to the = State Bond=20 Commission when an item is placed on the agenda, and the commission must = consider the statement prior to allocating any bond funds. In practice, = items=20 are rarely placed on the agenda if the advisory statement is negative. = Beyond=20 this, the state plan is largely an advisory document, with state law = requiring=20 certain state agency plans only consider the State C&D Plan.=20

In = Connecticut, land use=20 decisions are made at the local level. Recently, legislative and = executive=20 branch strategies have begun to focus on linking state investment = decisions with=20 implementation of responsible growth principles at the local level. = Specific=20 strategies include:

=95 = establishing an=20 Interagency Steering Council (described previously) under Executive = Order No. 15=20 and charging it with coordinating policy development and capital=20 planning;

=95 = establishing a=20 19-member Responsible Growth Task Force (also noted above) under P.A. = 07-239,=20 which includes all Interagency Steering Council members, and is charged = with=20 identifying responsible growth criteria to help guide the = state's future = investment=20 decisions;

=95 making = municipalities=20 ineligible for discretionary state funding if a municipality has not = updated its=20 conservation and development plan within a 10-year period, unless = specifically=20 waived by the OPM secretary;

=95 requiring = the state=20 Economic Strategic Plan that is to be developed on or before July 1, = 2009, to be=20 consistent with the text and Locational Guide Map of the State C&D = Plan;=20 and

=95 requiring = the OPM=20 secretary to develop and submit recommendations for setting and revising = boundaries for priority funding areas in order to target state = investment to=20 specific areas in conjunction with the 2010 =96 2015 State Plan of = Conservation=20 and Development, both of which are subject to legislative approval. Once = the=20 boundaries are effective, each state agency will be required to review = its=20 regulations and modify them to carry out coordinated management of=20 growth-related projects in priority funding areas.

State = bonding.=20 Public Act 07-7 (June Special Session) created a new Responsible = Growth=20 Incentive Fund with $15 million in bond money -- $5 million in FY 08 and = $10=20 million in FY 09 =96 authorized for disbursement. For FY 09, half of the = money is=20 to be used for grants of $250,000 to $1 million each to implement=20 transit-oriented plans in designated pilot program areas. In order to be = eligible for a grant, participating municipalities must have completed a = memorandum of understanding involving one or more Regional Planning=20 Organizations.

The act also = provides=20 bond funds for RPOs to use for geospatial information systems data = collection=20 and mapping (up to $400,000), and water pollution control projects (up = to=20 $1,000,000). An additional $500,000 in bond funds was targeted to = municipalities=20 to prepare and revise their Municipal Plans of Conservation and=20 Development.

In the first = case, the=20 RPO is required to study the proposal and report its findings and=20 recommendations to the municipal zoning commission. Reports by the RPO = can=20 address potential negative inter-municipal and environmental impacts = created by=20 the proposal. Inter-municipal concerns may include issues such as = traffic,=20 density, environmental impact, and the burden placed on the adjacent = community.=20 Regional concerns may include those objectives and goals supported in = the=20 Regional Plan of Development. The report is advisory, but it must be = made part=20 of the local public hearing record for the proposed change. In the = second case,=20 the RPO must submit its findings on the inter-municipal aspects of the = proposed=20 subdivision including street layout, storm drainage, and sewer and water = service.

In both = instances,=20 failure to submit a report at or before the town's public = hearing on the=20 matter results in a presumption that the RPO does not disapprove of the=20 proposal. Data provided to the committee on the number of such reviews = conducted=20 by RPOs in a three-year period indicated RPOs typically review a large = number of=20 zone use changes and to a lesser extent, changes involving subdivisions. =

State statutes = also=20 require that RPOs be notified, and in some cases comment on, various = other=20 projects occurring within a region. These include certain economic = development=20 programs, hazardous waste facilities and burial of radioactive waste, = solid=20 waste management plans, water supply and water flow issues, and public = utility=20 projects.

Although = legislation has=20 been raised since 1979 that would allow RPOs to either comment on = projects of=20 regional significance or actually approve them, in neither case has such = authority been granted. As recently as last session, SB 1215 proposed = giving=20 RCOGs the authority to establish a process for the review of projects of = regional significance and required their approval in order for such a = project to=20 move forward. Projects of regional significance were defined as those = meeting=20 the threshold established for review by the State Traffic=20 Commission.²⁴

One question = on the PRI=20 committee survey sent to municipal chief elected officials listed a = number of=20 functions that could be performed by RPOs and asked respondents whether = they=20 agreed or disagree that RPOs should perform those functions. A high = percentage=20 of the chief elected officials who responded agreed that RPOs should = comment on=20 proposed subdivisions that abut or include land in two or more towns (91 = percent=20 of 92 respondents) as well as review and comment on proposed zone use or = zone=20 use changes within 500 feet of another town boundary (89 percent) =96 = the two=20 areas where RPOs already have authority. The same number (92 = percent of=20 91 chief elected officials) agreed that RPOs should review and comment = on local=20 zoning projects with regional significance.

In order to = make=20 regional planning relevant, the committee believes that RPOs should at = least be=20 allowed to comment on projects that would have a regional impact. It = would=20 provide a broader perspective on development that occurs in one town, = but has an=20 impact beyond that town's border, and = such=20 comments should discuss such projects in the context of the goals = contained in=20 the Regional Plan of Development. Therefore, the program review = committee=20 recommends:

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 Regional Development Plan = as well=20 as other issues the Regional Planning Organizations believe are critical = to the=20 analysis. Notice shall be provided to a Regional Planning Organization = not later=20 than 30 days before the public hearing to be held by the town where the = project=20 will be located. The RPO shall study any such proposal and shall report = its=20 findings and recommendations to the zoning commission at or before the = hearing.=20 The report of the RPO shall be advisory, but it shall be made a part of = the=20 record of such hearing. If the RPO does not submit a report at or before = the=20 hearing, it shall be presumed that it does not disapprove of the = project.=20

Regional = planning=20 organizations have no revenue-raising authority. They are dependent = on=20 federal, state, and local governments for funding. As noted in Chapter = Four,=20 RPOs receive dues from member towns, but for many of them, most of the = funding=20 they receive comes from federal transportation dollars. The state = increased SGIA=20 funding from $640,000 to $1 million in FY 08, the first increase in = seven years,=20 with the money shared by the 15 RPOs according to a statutory=20 formula.

Since 2000, = state law=20 has allowed chief elected officials in two or more municipalities to = share real=20 and personal property tax revenue, subject to approval by their = legislative=20 bodies (C.G.S. Sec. 7-148bb). The agreement must be negotiated, with an=20 opportunity for public participation, and adopted by resolution of each=20 participating municipality's legislative = body. It=20 must contain all of the provisions on which the municipalities agree. = These=20 provisions can include: (1) which tax revenue will be shared, and (2) = how it=20 will be collected. The agreement must contain procedures for its = amendment and=20 termination and a municipality's withdrawal = from it. To=20 date no municipalities in Connecticut have entered into such agreements. =

It seems = highly unlikely=20 that two or more municipalities will share property tax revenue without = it being=20 mandated by the state. In the past, legislation was proposed to give = RPOs a=20 separate revenue stream including bonding authority, a portion of the = state=20 sales tax collected in the region, or a portion of the property tax = collected by=20 towns in their regions. To date, however, no such legislation has been=20 adopted.

Under Public = Act 07-239,=20 OPM must conduct two studies and submit recommendations to the planning = and=20 development and the finance, revenue, and bonding committees by July 1, = 2009.=20 The first concerns regional tax-based revenue sharing programs; the = other=20 examines regional asset districts operating in other states. Future = discussions=20 of these topics will be a valuable addition to the debate on how these = types of=20 programs could be structured to provide property tax relief.

One example of = a=20 successful revenue-sharing model operating in another area of the = country is in=20 the Minneapolis-St. Paul region where seven-counties share property tax = revenue=20 as a way to reduce the fiscal disparity between large cities and the = surrounding=20 suburbs. Since 1971, municipalities within the Twin Cities region have = been=20 contributing 40 percent of the growth in their commercial and industrial = tax=20 base to an areawide pool. This pool is then apportioned to each = municipality=20 based on its population and relative fiscal capacity.

In terms of a = model for=20 regional asset districts, the state of Pennsylvania allows Allegheny = County to=20 levy a 1 percent sales tax to support regional recreational and cultural = attractions. The county must split the tax between itself and the = regional asset=20 district charged with supporting these attractions. It must use its = share to=20 reduce county property taxes. Another way that states have tried to ease = the=20 pressure on local property taxes bases is to allow municipalities to = levy sales=20 and income taxes, a move that shifts some of the tax burden to = nonresidents who=20 work or shop in the municipality.

Regional = Performance=20 Incentive Program. There is general agreement that sharing services = on a=20 voluntary basis often is more efficient, and that efforts to expand the = number=20 and variety of cooperative services should be encouraged. Public Act = 07-239=20 established a Regional Performance Incentive Program to be administered = by OPM.=20 A one-time appropriation of $8.6 million was allocated for FY 08. It = allows any=20 RPO to submit a proposal for joint provision of a service or services = that are=20 currently provided by municipalities within the region of the RPO (or = contiguous=20 to the region), but not currently provided on a regional = basis.

Proposals must = include a=20 resolution endorsing the proposal from the legislative body of each = municipality=20 participating in the project. In addition, each municipality must = certify that=20 there are no legal obstacles to providing services in the manner = proposed,=20 including but not limited to binding arbitration agreements. These two=20 requirements have been identified by multiple people at the state, = regional, and=20 local level as obstacles in the current language establishing the=20 program.

The deadline = for=20 submission of proposals was December 3, 2007. The Office of Policy and=20 Management provided some aggregate data on the proposals it received. = According=20 to OPM:

The categories = included=20 proposals for regional efforts in public safety, economic development,=20 information technology, animal control, and land use.

Although this = initial=20 program is a one-time event, the program review committee believes the = idea=20 behind it is a good one, and the program should continue, but with some=20 modifications. Specifically, the program review committee=20 recommends:

Towns that act = regionally should be rewarded to encourage more regionalism. Because the = program=20 is new and one-time, OPM has not yet developed criteria to rank the = proposals=20 received. OPM could establish a point system to reward RPOs that submit=20 proposals that provide for revenue sharing or other high priority = project areas.=20 Regions with the most points would get the most incentive revenues. =

An Office of = Legislative=20 Research report examined other states that provide grants to two or more = towns=20 that share or consolidate municipal services.²⁵ The report looked at states in the = Northeast and=20 found at least four of those states -- Maine, New Jersey, New York, and=20 Pennsylvania -- provide grants to municipal and county governments to = share=20 services. The amounts allocated for the programs in FY 07 ranged from = $500,000=20 in Maine to more than $25 million in New York. Some of the states target = funds=20 to encourage specific activities or services be shared, while others = allow the=20 use of funds for a broad array of purposes. In addition, in two of the = four=20 states, a local match of funds is required ranging from 10 percent in = New Jersey=20 to 50 percent in Maine. Appendix F contains a table comparing the four=20 programs.


Appendix B. RPO=20 Notification and Review Requirements
*C.G.S.=20 Section*	*Subject*	*Referred = From*	*Report=20 to*	*Review = (R) or=20 Notify (N)*	*Review=20 Period*	*Required = Action*
7-136e	Municipal=20 application for establishment of foreign trade = zone	Municipality	Municipality	R	90=20 days	Advisability of=20 establishing zone
8-3b	1.=20 proposed change in zone of any parcel within 500 feet of municipal = boundary 2. Change=20 in zoning regulations of any parcel within 500 feet of municipal=20 boundary	Zoning=20 Commission	Zoning=20 Commission	R	35=20 days	Advisory=20 review, study proposal and report findings and recommendations and = it=20 becomes part of the hearing record
8-23	Municipal=20 plans of conservation and development	Planning = Commission	Planning = Commission	R	65=20 days	Advisory=20 report with comments regarding plan consistency state, regional, = and plans=20 of other towns in the same RPO
8-26b	Proposed=20 subdivision on municipal boundary	Planning = Commission	Planning = Commission	R	30=20 days	Advisory=20 review, particularly as to intermunicipal aspects of proposed=20 project
8-165=20	Preparation of=20 overall economic development program by the Municipal Economic = Development=20 Commission or Regional Economic Development = Commission	Municipal or=20 Region Economic Development Commission	Municipal or=20 Regional Economic Development Commission	R	n/a	Submit=20 recommendations and comments
8-191	Proposed=20 plan for a development project	Local = Development=20 Agency	Local = Development=20 Agency	R	35=20 days	Review to=20 determine if plan is consistent with regional development=20 plan.
13b-31a	Guidelines for=20 design and construction of roads and streets in residential=20 subdivisions	DOT=20 commissioner	n/a	N	n/a	May use=20 standards in adoption of municipal subdivision=20 regulations
16-32f	Gas=20 company supply and demand forecast reports and conservation=20 plans	Gas=20 companies	n/a	N	n/a
16-50l	Proposed=20 application for certification of transmission line = site	Public=20 Utility	CT = Siting=20 Council	N	n/a	Public=20 utility must show that Siting council RPO has received copy of=20 application. No comment required
16-358	Underground gas=20 facilities report	Gas = company owning=20 or operating underground gas facility	n/a	N	n/a	Receive=20 copy
16a-28	Revisions=20 to State Plan of Conservation and Development	OPM	n/a	n/a	n/a	Within=20 five months after revised plan is published, OPM in conjunction = with RPO,=20 to hold public hearing
22a-102d	Revisions=20 to Municipal Plan of Conservation and d Development	Planning = Commission	Planning = Commission	R	90 day=20 review	Review=20 and suggest modifications
22a-118	Application to CT=20 Siting Council for Certificate of Public Safety and Necessity for=20 Hazardous waste facility	Applicant for=20 certificate	Not=20 applicable	N	n/a	Applicant=20 must show proof of service of application to = RPO
22a-137	Application to=20 bury radioactive waste	General = Assembly:=20 Environment Committee	General=20 Assembly: Environment=20 Committee	N	30=20 days	Committee=20 must notify RPO 30 days before hearing and consider any RPO=20 recommendations
25-33g	Assessment of=20 water supply conditions and problems	Water = Utility=20 Coordinating Committee	Water = Utility=20 Coordinating Committee	R	n/a	Solicited=20 for comments
25-68d	State=20 agency applications to DEP for exemption from certification of = activity=20 affecting a floodplain	DEP=20 commissioner	n/a	N	n/a	Notified=20 of exemption approval
Public=20 Act 07-70	The=20 Commissioner of Public Works shall consult with the Department of=20 Transportation, transit districts or regional planning agencies on = the=20 current and future status of railroad and motor bus routes prior = to=20 leasing, purchasing or contracting for the purchase of a state=20 facility.	DPW=20 commissioner	n/a	R	n/a	Consult
Source: = Greater=20 Bridgeport RPA.


Appendix = C.=20 Legislative Changes to Connecticut's = State = Plan of=20 Conservation and Development (State C&D = Plan)
*Public=20 Act*	*Requirement*
	House = Joint=20 Resolution No. 40 directs executive branch to prepare State = C&D=20 Plan
	Executive Order=20 No. 28 makes State C&D Plan official policy for executive = branch in=20 matters pertaining to land and water resource=20 conservation
76-130	Establishes=20 process for General Assembly recognition, adoption, and = implementation of=20 the State C&D Plan and provides commissioner of Planning and = Energy=20 Policy with overall supervision of process
77-614	Replaces = commissioner of planning and energy policy with secretary of = Office of=20 Policy and Management (OPM) and requires State C&D Plan to be=20 submitted directly to Committee on Planning and Development rather = than to=20 committee via intermediary agency, State Planning = Council
79-402	Defines = =93plan=94 and=20 adds details regarding interim changes to State C&D=20 Plan
81-156	Provides = for=20 notice to municipal officials on proposed map changes and hearing = on such=20 changes in the municipality only at the request of such=20 officials
83-203	Provides = for plan=20 revision every five years instead of every three years Provides = that the=20 plan apply to the acquisition of real property, development, or=20 improvement of real property, acquisition of public transportation = equipment or facilities, only when such costs are in excess of = $100,000=20 Provides = that each=20 state agency preparing a plan consider the State C&D=20 Plan
89-331	Requires = the=20 secretary of OPM provide a statement rather than a report to state = agencies commenting on the extent to which actions specified in = P.A.=20 83-203 conform to the State C&D Plan
90-297	Requires = an=20 advisory statement rather than an advisory report from OPM to the = State=20 Bond Commission commenting on the extent to which an action is in=20 conformity with the State C&D Plan
91-101 91-395	Requires = State=20 C&D Plan identify major transportation proposals identified in = the=20 master transportation plan Provides = actions=20 by state agencies be consistent with the State C&D Plan = (previously=20 the plan was advisory)
95-240 95-307 95-335	Requires = any=20 project included in the first or second phase of UConn 2000 be = part of the=20 State C&D Plan Extended = deadline=20 for plan revision to 1997 Added = provisions=20 regarding greenways
01-9,=20 JSS	Extended = deadline=20 for plan revision to March 1, 2003
02-3	Added = requirements=20 requiring UConn to request and OPM to provide an advisory = statement=20 commenting on the extent the projects included in the third phase = of UConn=20 2000 conform to the State C&D Plan, and submit it to the State = Bond=20 Commission, which must consider the statement prior to approving = any bond=20 funds.
03-4,=20 JSS	Requires = any=20 revision to the State C&D Plan after August 20, 2003, take = into=20 account: 1) economic and community development needs and patterns = of=20 commerce; and 2) linkages of affordable housing objectives and = land use=20 objectives with transportation systems.
04-144 04-248	Requires = plan=20 revisions made after March 1, 2006 to: 1) take into consideration = risks=20 associated with natural hazards, including, but not limited to, = flooding,=20 high winds, and wildfires; 2) identify the potential impacts of = natural=20 hazards on infrastructure and property; and 3) make = recommendations for=20 the siting of future infrastructure and property development to = minimize=20 the use of areas prone to natural hazards, including, but not = limited to=20 flooding, high winds, and wildfires Added = provision=20 requiring plan for 2004 =96 2009 be submitted on or before = December 1,=20 2004
05-205	Extended = deadline=20 for plan revision to March 1, 2009 Extended = time for=20 the Continuing Legislative Committee on State Planning and = Development to=20 hold public hearing from =93within 35 days=94 to =93not later than = 45 days=94=20 after the General Assembly convenes, and requires committee to = submit=20 recommendation to approve or disapprove the plan not later than 45 = days=20 after completion of the public hearing
05-205=20 (cont.)	Requires = plan=20 revisions include: 1) areas where it is prudent and feasible (A) = to have=20 compact, transit accessible, pedestrian-oriented mixed-use = development=20 patterns and land reuse, and (B) to promote such development = patterns and=20 land reuse; 2) Priority funding areas; and (3) corridor management = areas=20 on either side of a limited access highway or rail line. In = designating=20 corridor management areas, the OPM secretary must make = recommendations=20 that: promote land use and transportation options to reduce the = growth of=20 traffic congestion; connect infrastructure and other development=20 decisions; promote development that minimizes the cost of new=20 infrastructure facilities and maximizes the use of existing = infrastructure=20 facilities; and increase intermunicipal and regional=20 cooperation Requires = regional=20 planning organizations to revise their existing plans of = development by=20 July 1, 2008 and at least once every 10 years after that. Modifies = the=20 process for adopting these plans and requires them to: (1) = identify any=20 inconsistencies with six growth management principles, which are = included=20 in the current State Plan of C&D and (2) note on the record = any=20 inconsistencies with that plan and the reasons for them. = Expands = contents=20 of local plans of C&D, requires them to address the same six=20 principles, modifies the process for adopting the plans, and = establishes a=20 process under which anyone may request plan changes. Bars the = environmental protection commissioner from denying a water quality = permit=20 based on the proposal's = inconsistency=20 with the plan. Removes = provision=20 in the legislative findings of the Water Diversion Policy Act that = states=20 that diversions shall only be permitted when consistent with the=20 plan.
06-24	Limits=20 applications for interim plan changes to the owner of the affected = property and the chief elected official of the municipality. = Prohibits=20 applications for towns that do not have updated municipal plans of = conservation and development. Requires application to include = opinion of=20 planning commission. Requires local planning commissions to: (1) = send a=20 copy of their municipal C&D plans to OPM within 60 days of = their=20 adoption and (2) include a description of any inconsistencies with = the=20 State C&D Plan
07-239	Establishes a=20 Responsible Growth Task Force and specifies its membership. = Requires the=20 task force to: (1) identify responsible growth criteria and = standards to=20 guide the state's future investment decisions; and (2) study = transfer of=20 development rights laws, policies, and programs. Task force must = report=20 its recommendations to the governor by February 15, 2008. It will=20 terminate on the day it submits the report. Raises = the=20 threshold of capital projects undertaken by state agencies that = must be=20 consistent with the State Plan of Conservation and Development to=20 $200,000. Imposes sanctions on municipalities that fail to amend = their=20 local plans of conservation and development every 10 years, as = required by=20 law. Requires = the=20 commissioner of economic and community development to prepare a = State=20 Economic Development Strategic Plan by July 1, 2009 and every five = years=20 thereafter. Requires = regional=20 plans of development to include a finding as to whether they are=20 consistent with the State Economic Development Strategic Plan. = Makes=20 transportation one of the issues that Regional Councils of Elected = Officials and Regional Councils of Governments must address. = Establishes=20 incentive grant program to encourage the provision of municipal = services=20 on a regional basis. Requires = the OPM=20 secretary to review, within available appropriations: (1) regional = tax-based revenue sharing programs and (2) establishment of = regional asset=20 districts.
JSS =3D = June Special=20 Session Sources = of data:=20 Connecticut General Statutes, Public Acts, and Reports by Office = of=20 Legislative Research

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


Table = III-1.=20 Structural Requirements of Regional Planning=20 Organizations
	*Regional=20 Planning Agency*	*Regional = Council=20 of Elected Officials*	*Regional = Council=20 of Governments*
Initial = statutory=20 authorization	1947, = but 1955=20 within a state-defined region	1965	1971
Representation	2 per = member town=20 + 1 per 50,000 people (or fraction thereof greater than=20 25,000)	1 per = member=20 town	1 per = member town=20 (except Hartford gets 4 seats)
Minimum=20 participation	2 or = more towns=20 within planning region that represent 60%+ of total possible=20 representation	2 or = more towns in=20 single planning region or multiple contiguous planning=20 regions	60% or = more of all=20 towns in any planning region
Selection of=20 representatives	if = planning=20 commission exists, it appoints at least one representative; other=20 representative(s) elected/appointed as town = chooses	elected = chief=20 executive of each member town; if none, member of town legislative = body=20 chosen by that body	chief = elected=20 official of each member town; if none, elected official appointed = by=20 town's = legislative body=20 per local ordinance
Alternates	not=20 mentioned	bylaw = can provide=20 for alternate representative to attend meetings	bylaw = can provide=20 for alternate representative to attend and vote at=20 meetings
Source of=20 data: Connecticut General = Statutes


Table = V-1.=20 Types of Development and Conservation Areas in Locational Guide=20 Map
*Development=20 Areas*	*Conservation=20 Areas*
Regional = Centers	Existing = Preserved=20 Open Space
Neighborhood=20 Conservation Areas	Preservation=20 Areas
Growth=20 Areas	Conservation=20 Areas
Rural = Community=20 Centers	Rural=20 Lands
Source = of data:=20 State Conservation and Development Plan 2005 =96=20 2010


Table = V-3.=20 Decisions on Interim Plan Application Requests (1988 =96=20 Present)
*Decision*	*OPM=20 (recommended)*	*CLCSPD*
Approve	12	16
Deny	4	2
Partial	6	4
Pending	1	1
Total	23	23
Source of=20 data: OPM


Table = VII-1.=20 Composition of RPO Boards
	*Regional=20 Planning Agency*	*Regional = Council=20 of Elected Officials* OR *Regional = Council=20 of Governments*
Representation	2 per = member town=20 + 1 per 50,000 people (or fraction over 25,000)	1 per = member town=20 (except Hartford gets 4 seats, based on Special = Act)
Selection of=20 representatives	if = planning=20 commission exists, it appoints at least one representative; other=20 representative(s) elected/appointed as town legislative body=20 chooses	chief = elected=20 official of each member town; if none, representative selected by=20 town's = legislative=20 body
Alternates	not=20 mentioned	bylaws = can provide=20 for alternate representative
Source of = data:=20 Connecticut General = Statutes


Table = VII-2.=20 Size of Boards of Directors of RPAs in = Connecticut
*Name = of=20 RPA*	*Towns*	*No. of = Board=20 Members*	*Total = Population=20 of Region*
Central=20 Conn.	7	17	232,460
Conn. = River=20 Estuary	9	18	62,184
Greater=20 Bridgeport	6	18	310,739
Midstate	8	17	109,761
South=20 Western	8	22	362,193
Sources = of data:=20 Documents from individual = RPAs

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


Table = III-2.=20 Changes in Organizational Type by Individual = RPO
*Region*	*Original = Type*	*Year*	*Changes = in=20 Structure*	*Current=20 Type*
South = Central=20	RPA	1948	started = with a few=20 towns; by 1960 - serving all towns in region; 1982 - became=20 RCOG	RCOG
Capitol	RPA	1958	1966 - = RCEO=20 organized; 1973 - RPA and RCEO merged to form RCOG	RCOG
Greater=20 Bridgeport	RPA	1960	no=20 changes	RPA
Central = Naugatuck=20 Valley	RPA	1960	1970-1983 - RCEO=20 and RPA operate jointly; 1984 - RCEO becomes the RPO, but uses = Council of=20 Governments in its name and has Regional Planning = Commission	RCEO
Southeastern	RPA	1961	1992 - = became=20 RCOG	RCOG
South=20 Western	RPA	1962	no=20 changes	RPA
Midstate*	RPA	1962	no=20 changes	RPA
Central=20 Connecticut	RPA	1966	originally called=20 New Britain - Bristol RPA; by 1973 - serving all towns in=20 region	RPA
Valley	RPA	1966	1970 - = Council of=20 Governments created, but it did not officially replace RPA until=20 2002	RCOG
Windham	RPA	1966	2000 - = became=20 RCOG	RCOG
Northeastern	RPA	1967	1958 - = Quinebaug=20 Valley Action Committee preceded RPA; 1987 - became RCOG; c.2001 - = previously unaffiliated Union joined	RCOG
Litchfield=20 Hills	RPA	1967	1980 - = RPA ceased=20 operating; 1987 - current entity established	RCEO
Connecticut River=20 Estuary*	RPA	1967	no=20 changes	RPA
Housatonic=20 Valley	CEO	1968	no=20 changes	RCEO
Northwestern	RPA	1972	1985 - = became=20 RCOG	RCOG
* = Connecticut=20 River Estuary RPA and Midstate RPA are connected through a joint = Regional=20 Council of Elected Officials that includes all of the towns in the = two=20 RPAs. In this case, the RCEO is primarily an information sharing=20 opportunity rather than a decision-making mechanism. Therefore, = the two=20 RPAs are dealt with as separate organizations for all purposes in = this=20 report. Sources = of data:=20 Individual RPO web sites and interviews with RPO staff; OPM, = Profiles=20 of Regional Planning Organizations in Connecticut (1989)=20


Table = III-3.=20 Demographic Characteristics of Connecticut = RPOs
*Name = of=20 Regional Planning Organization*	*Acronym*	*Type of=20 RPO*	*Location = of=20 Office*	*No. of=20 Towns*	*No. of = Bd.=20 Members*	*Region=20 (sq.mi.)*	*Popula.* *(2004=20 est.)*
Capitol = Region=20 Council of Governments	CRCOG	RCOG	Hartford	29	32	762	739,399
Central=20 Connecticut Regional Planning Agency	CCRPA	RPA	Bristol	7	17	164	232,460
Connecticut River=20 Estuary Regional Planning Agency	CRERPA	RPA	Old=20 Saybrook	9	18	205	62,184
Council = of=20 Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley	COGCNV	RCEO	Waterbury	13	13	316	281,401
Greater = Bridgeport=20 Regional Planning Agency	GBRPA	RPA	Bridgeport	6	18	146	310,739
Housatonic Valley=20 Council of Elected Officials	HVCEO	RCEO	Brookfield	10	10	335	221,481
Litchfield Hills=20 Council of Elected Officials	LHCEO	RCEO	Goshen	11	11	417	82,011
Midstate = Regional=20 Planning Agency	MRPA	RPA	Middletown	8	17	247	109,761
Northeastern=20 Connecticut Council of Governments	NECCOG	RCOG	Killingly	11*	12*	420	81,520
Northwestern=20 Connecticut Council of Governments	NWCCOG	RCOG	Warren	9	9	359	23,374
South = Central=20 Regional Council of Governments	SCRCOG	RCOG	North=20 Haven	15	15	387	560,105
Southeastern=20 Connecticut Council of Governments	SCCOG	RCOG	Norwich	18	20** = + 4=20 nonvoting	559	249,592
South = Western=20 Regional Planning Agency	SWRPA	RPA	Stamford	8	22	225	362,193
Valley = Council of=20 Governments	VCOG	RCOG	Derby	4	4	58	86,888
Windham = Region=20 Council of Governments	WINCOG	RCOG	Willimantic	10*	9*	327	88,681
* The = town of=20 Ashford (4,349 people within 40 square miles) is part of the = state-defined=20 territory assigned to the Windham region. However, it is no longer = participating as a member of the WINCOG board. Instead, it has = joined the=20 NECCOG board. Ashford has petitioned OPM to move to the = Northeastern=20 region, but the request is still pending. Therefore, for the = present time,=20 Ashford remains part of the WINCOG geographic area for regional = planning=20 purposes. The town = of=20 Stafford (11,815 people within 59 square miles) has never been = part of a=20 planning region. It is considering joining WINCOG, which would = give that=20 region an additional town and an additional member on its board of = directors. ** = Includes both=20 the Town of Groton and the City of Groton as well as the Town of=20 Stonington and the Borough of Stonington. The four non-voting = members=20 represent the Mashantucket Pequot tribe, the Mohegan tribe, = Submarine=20 Group Two/Naval Region Northeast, and the Coast Guard = Academy. Sources=20 of data: Connecticut Register and Manual and interviews with = individual=20 RPO directors and OPM = staff.


Table = IV-2.=20 Staff Employed by Individual RPOs, June = 2007
*Name = of=20 RPO*	*Number = of=20 Professional Staff*	*Number = of=20 Administrative Staff*	*Total=20 Staff*
Capitol = Region=20 Council of Governments	15	5	20
Central=20 Connecticut Regional Planning Agency	7	2	9
Connecticut River=20 Estuary Regional Planning Agency	7	2	9
Council = of=20 Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley	6	2	8
Greater = Bridgeport=20 Regional Planning Agency	7	2	9
Housatonic Valley=20 Council of Elected Officials	3	2=20 part-time	4 = FTE
Litchfield Hills=20 Council of Elected Officials	1	1 part=20 time	1.5
Midstate = Regional=20 Planning Agency	2	2	4
Northeastern=20 Connecticut Council of Governments	3 =	1	4*
Northwestern=20 Connecticut Council of Governments	1	1	2
South = Central=20 Regional Council of Governments	6	1	7
Southeastern=20 Connecticut Council of Governments	8	1	9
South = Western=20 Regional Planning Agency	8	1	9
Valley = Council of=20 Governments	3	2	5
Windham = Region=20 Council of Governments	2.5	1	3.5
FTE =3D = full-time=20 equivalent *also = employs=20 1=20 animal = control=20 officer, 3 part-time assistant animal control officers, and 11 = transit=20 drivers. Sources = of data:=20 documents from and interviews with RPO executive=20 directors


Table = V-4. Year=20 Last Conservation and Development Plan Adopted (as of = July=20 2007)
*Year*	Number = of=20 Towns*
Pre-1990	5=20
1990	2
1991	1
1992	3
1993	0
1994	6
1995	6
1996	4
1997	13
1998	7
1999	14
2000	15
2001	11
2002	20
2003	15
2004	15
2005	16
2006	12
2007	5
*Separate plans=20 are done for the city and the town of Groton Source = of data:=20 OPM


Table = VII-3.=20 Physical Characteristics of 15 Existing Regional Planning = Organizations=20
*Characteristic*	*Min.*	*Max.*	*Median*	*Smallest = RPO*	*Largest=20 RPO*
Total = No. of=20 Towns	4	29	10	Valley	Capitol
Total=20 Population	23,374	739,399	221,481	Northwestern	Capitol
Total = Square=20 Miles	58	762	327	Valley	Capitol
Density=20 (people/sq.=20 miles)	271	2,128	661	Northwestern	Greater=20 Bridgeport
Source of=20 data: Connecticut Register and=20 Manual


Table = VII-4.=20 State Plan of Conservation and Development, 2005 -=20 2010
Growth = Management=20 Principle	Number = of=20 Policies	Number = of=20 Recommendations to Implement Policies
1)=20 Redevelop and Revitalize Regional Centers and Areas with Existing = or=20 Currently Planned Physical Infrastructure	8	79
2) Expand=20 Housing Opportunities and Design Choices to Accommodate a Variety = of=20 Household Types and Needs	1	21
3)=20 Concentrate Development Around Transportation Nodes and Along = Major=20 Transportation Corridors to Support the Viability of = Transportation=20 Options	4	54
4)=20 Conserve and Restore the Natural Environment, Cultural and = Historical=20 Resources, and Traditional Rural Lands	17	100
5)=20 Protect and Ensure the Integrity of Environmental Assets Critical = to=20 Public Health and Safety	16	90
6)=20 Promote Integrated Planning Across all Levels of Government to = Address=20 Issues on a Statewide, Regional and Local = Basis	0	9
Total	46	353
Source of=20 data: OPM, Conservation and Development - Policies Plan for=20 Connecticut: 2005 - = 2010


APPENDIX=20 A Mission = Statements=20 of the 15 Regional Planning Organizations in=20 Connecticut
*Region*	*Mission=20 Statement*
CRCOG	expand = the concept=20 of voluntary cooperation and regional stewardship among member=20 municipalities as the means to successfully respond to many of the = region's = pressing=20 governmental and public challenges
CCRPA	provide = a regional=20 framework within which to plan and promote regional policies and = programs=20 to enhance the vitality, accessibility, and quality of life in our = communities
CRERPA	plan for = and=20 promote voluntary cooperative approaches to changing land use and = other=20 issues affecting the character and the people of the=20 region
COGCNV	serve as = forum for=20 chief elected officials to discuss issues of common concern and = develop=20 programs to address them on a regional level; operate as planning=20 organization concerned with economic development, land use, water=20 planning, and transportation needs of the = region
GBRPA	serve as = the=20 responsible regional planning body for the metropolitan area; = proactively=20 shape a comprehensive vision for the region's future = growth
HVCEO	make = region a=20 better place to live, do business, and visit through coordinated = planning=20 and cooperative approaches
LHCEO	provide = a forum=20 where officials can discuss issues of regional concern, identify = the needs=20 of the region, and prepare reports/plans that respond to those=20 needs
MRPA	provide = regional=20 planning for eight municipalities in the northern portion of = Middlesex=20 County
NECCOG	provide = a forum to=20 meet, regionally, the goals of economic development and natural = resources=20 preservation; foster inter-town cooperation in areas extending = municipal=20 services, design, and development; and identify opportunities for = better,=20 cost-effective government services
NWCCOG	serve as = regional=20 forum for sharing ideas, resources, and costs
SCRCOG	enable = cities and=20 towns, through regional cooperation, to work together to = accomplish=20 projects they cannot do as efficiently or cost effectively by = themselves,=20 create sense of pride in the region by aspiring to the highest = quality of=20 life and economic wellbeing that can be achieved, and increase = voluntary=20 cooperation in the region to achieve productive results that = benefit the=20 region
SWRPA	preserve = and=20 improve the quality of life and economic vitality in southwestern=20 Connecticut, focusing on issues of transportation, land use, the=20 environment, housing, open space, and regional = security
SCCOG	provide = a basis=20 for intergovernmental cooperation in dealing with a wide range of = issues=20 facing southeastern Connecticut
VCOG	solving = regional=20 problems, improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the=20 region's local=20 governments as well as the quality of life
WINCOG	plan for = the=20 physical and economic future of the region and provide a forum for = inter-municipal discussion and = decision-making
Sources = of data:=20 documents from individual = RPOs


1. Why = is your=20 town a member of a Regional Planning Organization (i.e., the = Regional=20 Council of Governments, Regional Council of Elected Officials, or = Regional=20 Planning Agency that operates in your area of the state)? (Please = check=20 all that apply.)
	Response=20 Percent	Response = Count
Address=20 issues that cross town boundaries	97.0%	96
Facilitate the=20 sharing of services among towns	74.8%	74
Improve=20 the way land use decisions are made	60.6%	60
Enable = town to=20 purchase an item with other towns that it could not afford to buy = by=20 itself	45.5%	45
Address=20 concerns about environmental issues	57.6%	57
Make=20 group purchases at a reduced price for specific = items	43.4%	43
Other=20 (please specify)	27.3%	27

answered = question	99
skipped=20 question	2


2. With = respect to=20 Regional Planning Organizations in Connecticut (i.e., the Regional = Councils of Governments, Regional Councils of Elected Officials, = and=20 Regional Planning Agencies established in the 15 state-defined = planning=20 areas of the state), please indicate whether you agree or disagree = that=20 the functions of Regional Planning Organizations should be=20 to:
	Agree	Disagree	Rating=20 Average	Response = Count
Create = and adopt=20 regional plans of development	90.5%=20 (86)	9.5%=20 (9)	1.09	95
Assist = with=20 preparation of municipal plans of conservation and=20 development	88.4%=20 (84)	11.6%=20 (11)	1.12	95
Assist = in the=20 development of zoning regulations for individual = towns	74.4%=20 (67)	25.6%=20 (23)	1.26	90
Review = and comment=20 on proposed zone use or zone use changes within 500 feet of = another town=20 boundary	89.1%=20 (82)	10.9%=20 (10)	1.11	92
Review = and comment=20 on proposed subdivisions that abut or include land in two or more=20 towns	91.3%=20 (84)	8.7%=20 (8)	1.09	92
Review = and comment=20 on LOCAL zoning projects with regional = significance	92.3%=20 (84)	7.7%=20 (7)	1.08	91