Committee Staff on Project

Maryellen Duffy

Anne E. McAloon

Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee

Connecticut General Assembly

State Capitol Room 506

Hartford, CT 06106

Tele: (860) 240-0300 E-Mail: Pri@cga.ct.gov Web: www.cga.ct.gov/pri/index.htm

Introduction

The need to address specific public policy issues on a regional versus individual town basis has gained momentum over the years, and is based on the understanding that a joint approach to common problems is often necessary. Today, all but one municipality in the state of Connecticut is a member of a Regional Planning Organization (RPO). These voluntary organizations provide a forum for intermunicipal discussion of a variety of issues affecting member towns, and facilitate development of regional development plans that consider a broad range of matters including land use, housing, transportation, the environment, recreational areas, and public utilities. Some Regional Planning Organizations also assist their member towns by facilitating regional purchasing opportunities and service sharing agreements.

The state's Office of Policy and Management (OPM) is responsible for the designation and redesignation of “logical planning regions” within Connecticut. OPM has designated 15 such planning regions. Through local ordinances, the municipalities within each of those regions have voluntarily created one of the three types of RPOs defined in state statute -- a Regional Council of Elected Officials (RCOE), a Regional Council of Governments (RCOG), or a Regional Planning Agency (RPA).

In April 2007, the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee voted to study Connecticut's Regional Planning Organizations. The focus of the study is on comparing and contrasting the breadth and depth of the activities undertaken by each of the 15 RPOs, the oldest of which was created in 1948. As part of the study, the committee is examining the range of services RPOs might provide in the future and seeking to identify ways to promote best practices that encourage regional collaboration among municipalities.

Based on interviews with each of the 15 RPO executive directors, it is clear that the executive directors view their primary role as being responsive to the needs of their member towns. With the exception of federal transportation funds, most RPO funding comes from the member towns, and, therefore, the activities performed by the RPOs are chiefly at the direction of the towns, not the state. Although RPOs have some limited review and comment responsibility for certain local projects, and they develop regional plans of development, they do not have authority to direct actions on the part of their member towns -- their statutory authority is advisory. Consequently, the effectiveness of any Regional Planning Organization in Connecticut is dependent on achieving consensus among its member towns.

Over the last few years, there has been increased interest among state policy leaders in supporting greater regional cooperation, primarily for two reasons. First, there is a realization that service sharing arrangements can achieve cost savings, which is important as municipalities face increased pressure to control local budgets and contain rising property taxes. Ideally, rather than 169 towns independently providing the same services to their residents or purchasing the same product, two or more towns could jointly share a service or gain volume discounts for joint purchasing.

The second reason for promoting regionalism is the recognition that land use planning needs to occur in a more methodical and integrated manner in order to preserve the character of the state and reduce sprawl. State law requires conservation and development planning take place at the state, regional, and local level of government, although the state and regional plans are largely advisory. Under Connecticut's “home rule” system, the right to regulate local land use rests with the towns. As discussed in the current State Plan of Conservation and Development, “[t]o a certain degree, municipal land use decisions can be influenced by state infrastructure plans and capital investments in transportation facilities, public water supply and sewer lines, sewage treatment plant upgrades, and property acquisitions for open space and other restricted development purposes,”¹ but ultimately municipal development decisions are made by local leaders in Connecticut's 169 towns.

Recently, both the governor and the legislature have introduced stricter planning requirements at all levels of government, but neither has suggested the overturn of municipal home rule authority regarding land use decisions, and shifting that authority to RPOs or the state. In October 2006, Governor M. Jodi Rell issued Executive Order No. 15 declaring that the state needs to “actively steer the continued growth and development of our state to prevent sprawling development patterns from forever changing the character of our communities.” The order created the Office of Responsible Growth (ORG) within the Office of Policy and Management to help the state and towns achieve that goal. During the 2007 legislative session, the Connecticut General Assembly adopted Public Act 07-239, An Act Concerning Responsible Growth, building on the governor's initiative and promoting regional service sharing arrangements. A key provision of the act establishes a regional performance incentive program.

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

As presented in more detail in Section II, the concept of responsible growth in Connecticut seeks to achieve similar goals. Implementation of these concepts will require support from all levels of government -- state, local, and federal -- as well as the private sector -- developers and local citizens.

As specific efforts in Connecticut move forward, Regional Planning Organizations can be important participants in the process of achieving responsible growth. Their longstanding presence in their regions as organizations that enable municipal leaders to discuss issues of common interest and seek solutions in a cooperative atmosphere will be a valuable resource. As the program review committee study continues during the next few months, particular attention will be given to identifying ways to enhance the role of RPOs in the planning process and facilitate greater collaboration in the future.

Report Organization

The briefing report has five sections. Section I provides a history of the development of Regional Planning Organizations in the state. Section II describes OPM's role in promoting regional initiatives. Section III explains the types of RPOs allowed in Connecticut and compares and contrasts their activities. Section IV examines the RPO budgets, and Section V discusses conservation and development planning at the local, regional, and state levels of government.

[blank page]

Section I

Evolution of Regional Planning Organizations in Connecticut

Under current state law, municipalities are allowed to establish three types of Regional Planning Organizations. All have the same authority with respect to regional planning activities. They differ, however, with regard to the range of other responsibilities they have and the authorities they hold. (Section III discusses those similarities and differences in more detail.)

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

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

Initial Entities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Process for Defining Planning Regions

According to CDC documents, early in the process of developing “logical economic and planning regions,” the commission determined that the regions:

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

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

All of that information was combined to identify similarities and differences among groups of towns. A point scoring system was developed to weight the relative importance of the measures listed above, and a scoring summary was prepared for each town in the state. As part of the summary, consideration was also given to the geographical relationship of towns, with one score for towns contiguous to an urban center, and an additional score for instances where “substantial, continuous urban development spread from the urban center across the boundary into an adjoining municipality.”⁷

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

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

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

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

Redefining 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 specific region was not initially strong should be allowed later to join an established authority.¹⁰

Under current practice, a town that is contiguous to the area of an existing Regional Planning Organization (but not located within its defined region) may petition the RPO and request inclusion. The RPO then forwards the request with a recommendation to OPM, the successor to CDC and now responsible for planning regions. OPM makes the final decision whether to redefine the region to include the petitioner.

Until 2007, no town had ever formally requested a move from one region to another. Indeed, until the recent assignment of Union to a specific planning region and the possible assignment of Stafford to another planning region, there have not been any changes in the boundaries since the finalization of the logical regions in 1972.

Over the years, a few towns expressed interest in moving to a different region, but those that met with OPM about such a move were encouraged to make an informal change. The result was that Ashford did start attending RPO meetings and interacting with towns from a planning region that was different than the one it was assigned to. Meanwhile, the RPO whose territory included Ashford, which had stopped attending meetings (and paying dues) was still responsible for certain activities involving the town, such as preparation of a plan of development for a region that encompassed Ashford. Recently, Ashford submitted a formal request for a change, and OPM will be scheduling a public hearing on the matter later in the year.

Process for Establishing a RPA

During the period while CDC was working to define the logical regions, the legislature made several changes to the statutory requirements for regional planning authorities. The first, adopted in 1957, affected the process of establishing RPAs. Beginning that year, in order to create a Regional Planning Authority, the number of towns within a defined region that adopted ordinances to join the RPA had to represent at least 60 percent of the total possible representation on the board.¹¹ (If membership subsequently fell below 40 percent of the total possible representation, the RPA would cease to exist.)

In 1959, Public Act 613:

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

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

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

Other Types of Regional Planning Organizations

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

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

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

Initially, Regional Councils of Elected Officials were authorized to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[blank page]

Section II

Role of the Office of Policy and Management in Planning

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

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

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

OPM Organizational Structure and Staffing Trends

Figure II-1 shows the organizational structure of the Intergovernmental Policy Division within OPM. Currently there are eight positions within the Intergovernmental Affairs Unit – seven filled and one vacant – in addition to the division director and the undersecretary.

This unit is responsible for developing the State Plan of Conservation and Development, reviewing regional plans of developing and local plans of conservation and development, acting as liaison to RPOs, and staffing the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR). The newly created Office of Responsible Growth is also located within the Intergovernmental Affairs Unit. The Office of Responsible Growth currently has four staff and will be adding two new staff when it is fully operational.

Office of Responsible Growth

On October 6, 2006, Governor M. Jodi Rell issued Executive Order No. 15 establishing an Office of Responsible Growth within the Intergovernmental Policy Division of OPM. The order also added two additional planning staff and required the OPM Secretary to designate a member of his staff to serve as the State Responsible Growth Coordinator.

The language contained in the executive order embraces the “smart growth” concepts described in the Introduction of this report, and states:

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

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

An Act Concerning Responsible Growth

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

Task force. The act establishes a 19-member Responsible Growth Task Force charged with identifying responsible growth criteria to help guide the state's future investment decisions and study land use laws, policies, and programs. The task force is supposed to report back to the governor no later than February 15, 2008. As of September 1, 2007, the task force has not convened because not all of the appointments have been made.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submitted proposals must also attach a resolution from the legislative body of each municipality affected by the proposal endorsing it. In addition, each municipality must certify that there are no legal obstacles to providing services in the manner proposed, including but not limited to binding arbitration agreements.

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

Section III

Regional Planning Organizations

In Connecticut, Regional Planning Organizations are creations of the state in the sense that state statutes specify the manner in which such entities shall be formed, but there is no requirement that such entities be formed. Likewise, many of the permissible activities of such entities are described broadly, providing for flexible implementation 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 character of each region to be reflected in the particular structure, budget, and staff that member towns collectively decide upon.

In Connecticut today, there are 15 Regional Planning Organizations, encompassing all but one of the 169 towns in the state.¹² (See Figure I-3 in Section I for a map showing the geographic boundaries of the regions.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regional Planning Agencies, on the other hand, offer proportionate representation to members. Each member town gets at least two seats on the board of the RPA, plus additional representatives if the town population exceeds 25,000 people. Furthermore, while chief elected officials serve on the boards of some RPAs, at least one of the town's representatives must be appointed by the local planning commission, if such an entity exists. Consequently, at least some board members have backgrounds and direct experience dealing with planning and related land use issues. Table III-1 provides a comparison of the statutory requirements related to the organizational structure of each type of RPO.

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

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

The shift from one type of RPO to another has predominately been a change from a Regional Planning Agency to a Regional Council of Governments. Indeed, all but one of the 15 RPOs operated as a Regional Planning Agency at one time. However, the paths of organizational change were diverse. Some regions that began as informal regional entities have changed structures multiple times, and one region has operated at different times as each of the three statutorily recognized types of RPO. At the same time, five regional organizations established in the 1960s -- four of which are RPAs -- have never changed structures.

Twelve of the RPOs were first established during the 1960s. Two RPOs (South Central and Capitol) pre-date that period, while the final RPO to be formed (Northwestern) began operating in 1972. The current distribution of RPO types is about five years old, with the last change occurring in 2002 when the Valley Regional Planning Agency became the Valley Regional Council of Governments. Table III-2 summarizes the history of the organizational structures of the 15 planning regions in the state from 1947 to the present.

Demographics

Individually, the make-up of the RPOs differs considerably, even within the same type of 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; cover between 58 and 762 square miles; and have populations of 23,374 to 739,399 people. Table III-3 lists the 15 RPOs by name and provides information about the demographic characteristics of each.

Duties and Functions

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

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

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

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

The permissiveness of the statutory language governing RPOs in Connecticut allows each organization to perform a broad range of activities at the direction of its member towns. In fact, a key role that RPOs perform is consensus-building among the members around the various issues with which the organization deals. Another important function RPO staff perform, which is not captured in the statutory language, is as a conduit of information. Based on program review staff interviews with RPO executive directors, the RPO staff provide their member towns with details about new state initiatives, recently adopted legislation or regulations, new grant programs that may be available for one or more towns in their region (or the region as a whole), as well as changes to existing federal and state laws that will impact the region or member towns.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homeland security. The newest issue area that RPOs are being asked to get more involved with is homeland security and emergency management. As also discussed in the staff briefing report for the program review committee's current study of that topic, implementation efforts in this area are based on a regional approach that uses only five geographic regions. This means some or all of several different RPOs are grouped together for purposes of funding homeland security and emergency preparedness initiatives.

The issue related to homeland security of most immediate concern to the RPOs is the new system for distributing Connecticut's share of federal homeland security money to the municipalities through the RPOs. The Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (DEMHS) has asked the RPOs located within each of the five DEMHS regions to designate a lead RPO by October 2007. This lead RPO will act either as a conduit to distribute federal emergency planning grant funds to others or be responsible itself for planning for the entire region. In areas of the state where no RPO within a DEMHS region volunteers to serve as lead, the RPOs will not receive federal emergency planning grants. Instead, the central DEMHS office will consolidate the available funding and undertake the planning itself.

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

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

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

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

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

Other. State law gives RPOs a lot of discretion in the types of activities they perform so they can respond to the needs of their member towns and address the issues important to the region as a whole. Table III-5 provides examples of the wide array of activities undertaken by each RPO directly on behalf of its member towns, and the examples show the value of the RPOs in providing a regional perspective.

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

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

Section IV

Resources

An important factor controlling the breadth and depth of the activities undertaken by the 15 Regional Planning Organizations in Connecticut is the quantity of resources available to each. As described in more detail below, the annual operating 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 number of staff employed per RPO ranges from 1.5 to 20 people, although some organizations hire additional outside consultants to perform specific tasks.

Funding

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

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

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

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

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

Figure IV-3 shows the total amount of membership dues each RPO collected for FY 06. The amounts range from slightly less than $50,000 to $437,000.

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

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

The amount of the grant is determined annually by a statutory formula. Each RPO receives the same base amount of money; then those that raise more than the base amount in local dues receive a pro-rated share of the remainder of that year's total state appropriation for the program.

For FY 07, the total SGIA allocation was $640,000; the minimum base grant amount was $33,920. Table IV-1 lists the total amount of SGIA funding each RPO received that year.

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

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

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

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

In the case of federal transportation dollars, the amount of and manner in which the money is received by each RPO depends on their designation as an urban or rural region, using Federal Highway Administration definitions. Most of this money represents a pass through of funding from the federal government through the MPO to the town governments within the region that is served by the RPO. On the other hand, under the recently established system for disbursing homeland security money in Connecticut, DEMHS is asking one of the RPOs within each of the five DEMHS regions in the state to serve as the coordinating RPO for purposes of administering the funds on behalf of all of the RPOs within that geographic area. The coordinating RPO will receive $125,000 for that function.

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

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

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

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

Staffing

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

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

Section V

Conservation and Development Planning in Connecticut

As mentioned earlier, the impetus for Regional Planning Organizations in the 1940s and 1950s came from the recognition that more coordinated planning was needed in Connecticut for the economic well-being of its citizens. Further, one of the primary statutory duties given to RPOs, once they were established, was the preparation of a Regional Plan of Development. As the middle ground between the individual Municipal Conservation and Development Plans and the State Plan of Conservation and Development (State C&D Plan), the regional plan is an important mechanism to balance local interests with the overall goals of the state. This section provides a detailed look at the characteristics of all these types of plans and the process used to prepare them.

Conservation and development plans are used at all levels of government to provide a vision and general idea of how land should be used to assure public health, safety, and welfare. In Connecticut, conservation and development planning is statutorily mandated at the local, regional, and state level. Since the 1970s, the issue of inconsistency among the three planning levels has been noted in a number of reports produced for the Connecticut General Assembly, and recommendations to better integrate planning to promote consistency among the various plans have been proposed several times.

The strength of “home rule” and the autonomy of local government to make land use decisions in Connecticut's 169 towns is part of the foundation of Connecticut government. Thus, although state law mandates the State C&D Plan incorporate and integrate a wide variety of interrelated traditional policy areas (i.e., economic development, transportation, housing, 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 accomplish such planning activities as may be necessary. This section describes state mandates regarding conservation and development planning at the state, regional, and local level. It includes the processes that must be followed for adopting each type of plan, the major elements plans must address, and the requirements for OPM review of regional and local plans.

State Plan of Conservation and Development

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

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

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

Process for plan revision. Under the law, OPM must revise the conservation and development plan every five years after consulting with “all appropriate state, regional, and local agencies and other appropriate persons.” The statutory process for revising the plan allows government agencies and individuals to comment on the preliminary draft conservation and development plan, but does not explicitly give them a role in preparing that draft. In practice however, OPM solicits input from each relevant state agency in preparing the draft plan.

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

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

Plan content. The law requires the State C&D Plan to address certain broad policy areas, linking housing, transportation, and economic development objectives with land use. In addition, the 2005-2010 plan introduces six Growth Management Principles and associated policy recommendations in order to better integrate state planning functions across

state agencies and provide more guidance for municipalities and Regional Planning Organizations when they revise their own plans. The plan is comprised of two separate components – the plan text and the locational guide map.

The plan's growth management principles are:

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

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

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

In addition to the state agency actions described above, state law also requires certain state agency plans be consistent with the State C&D plan, while others need only consider the State C&D Plan. Table V-2 lists the state agencies and plans that are required to be consistent with the State C&D plan.

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

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

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

Process for interim change. When the OPM secretary receives an application for a change to the state C&D plan (i.e., the locational guide map portion of the plan), the secretary notifies the chief elected official or persons designated to exercise planning or zoning powers in the municipality that is the subject of a change application. The OPM secretary must also notify any legislators representing the area that is the subject of an application. After notification, a joint public hearing by the OPM secretary and the Continuing Legislative Committee on State Planning and Development is held in the municipality if one is requested by its chief elected official or a member of the planning or zoning committee(s).

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

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

Number and type of applications for plan changes. Program review committee staff examined data related to the number and type of applications for plan changes since 1988. Based on data provided by OPM, requests to revise the state plan have become much more frequent over the years. Since 1988, there have been 22 interim change applications with 18 of them (82 percent) submitted during the last five years. Of these, 12 were related to sewer service expansion; nine concerned requests for state aid; and one was from the Department of Public Safety seeking to build a new facility. The majority of the applications came from the chief executive officer of a town (13), while eight were from developers, and one was from a state agency.

Table IV-3 compares the decision rendered by the CLCSPD on interim plan requests to OPM's recommendation. Of the 22 applications, OPM recommended to the CLCSPD that: 12 applications be approved; four be opposed; and two receive partial support. No recommendation has yet been made in four applications, which are in process. The committee decisions were: 15 approved, two denied; one partially approved; and four no vote yet.

Regional Plans of Development

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

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

In practice, most of the executive directors of the Regional Planning Organizations when interviewed by program review committee staff stated that their particular regional plan was developed by examining each of the local plans of conservation and development of the member towns in the region and aggregating them on a regional level. Some of the executive directors stated that this process could be difficult if the local municipalities have not updated their plans within a reasonable timeframe.

Process for adoption of regional plan of development. The process to adopt a regional plan of development is laid out in statute and shown in Figure V-2. There are recently adopted timeframes associated with each of the steps, and these are shown in the figure. The process requires a RPO to hold at least one public hearing with written notice provided to each municipality's chief executive officer and planning commission member. At least 65 days before the public hearing, the RPO must post the plan on the internet, if it has a website, and submit a copy to the secretary of OPM for comments and recommendations. The findings by OPM must include a review of the plan to determine if the proposed plan is “not inconsistent” with the State C&D Plan and the State Economic Strategic Plan. To date, two RPO development plans have been submitted to OPM and both were determined to be consistent with the state plan.

Prior to the public hearing, the law requires the RPO to note on the record any inconsistency with the state plan and the reasons for such inconsistency, but it does not require

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

Municipal Conservation and Development Plans

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

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

The law also requires the plan to:

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

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

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

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

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

After completion of the hearing, the commission may revise the plan, and then may adopt the whole plan or parts of the plan. Any plan or part of a plan or recommendation not endorsed by the legislative body can only be adopted by the commission by a vote of at least two-thirds of all the members of the commission. Not more than 60 days after adoption of the municipal plan, the commission must submit a copy of the plan to OPM and include with it a description of any inconsistency between the plan adopted and the state C&D plan and the reasons for the inconsistency.

[blank page]

APPENDICES

[blank page]

¹ Office of Policy and Management Intergovernmental Policy Division, Conservation and Development: Policies Plan for Connecticut, 2005-2010, p. 1.

² Lin Ye, Sumedha Mandpe and Peter B. Meyer, “What is 'Smart Growth?' -- Really?, Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 19, No. 3 (February 2005).

³ Connecticut Development Commission, Progress Toward Regional Planning in Connecticut (1959), Chapter 1.

⁴ Chapter 161, Sec. N178, November, 1955, Supplement (Special Session, November 1955), p. 81.

⁵ 1959 CDC report, p. 11.

⁶ 1959 CDC report, Chapter 3.

⁷ CDC report, p.25.

⁸ In some cases, the definition included a “core” minimum (consisting of the urban center and towns clearly related to it) as well as “environs” (where future development related to the urban center was anticipated). Towns with equal orientation to two or more urban areas might be included to obtain local opinion about their preferable designation.

⁹ 1959 CDC report, p. 34.

¹⁰ CDC report, p. 13.

¹¹ This meant the total number of board seats each town was entitled to had to be determined, using the statutory formula for additional seats based on population. Then, the total number of possible seats if all towns joined the RPO had to be determined. Finally, the number of representatives that would constitute at least 60 percent of that total had to be calculated.

¹² The final unaffiliated town from the 1950s process of defining logical planning regions -- Stafford -- is expected to join an existing RPO this year.

¹³ In Education/Instruccion, Inc. v. Moore, 503 F.2d 1187 (1974), the U.S. Court of Appeals held that since Regional Councils of Governments do not exercise governmental powers or perform governmental functions, there is no requirement that the representatives of the council being proposed for the Hartford area (i.e., CRCOG) be apportioned on a one man, one vote basis.

¹⁴ The sole exception to this rule is Hartford, which through a 1974 Special Act was given three additional seats.

¹⁵ In some regions, the time periods covered by individual municipal plans are very different because some towns have been slow to update their C&D plans. In those cases, the RPO is less likely to make extensive use of the municipal plans in preparing the Regional Plan of Development. However, new legislation requiring municipal plans to be updated at least every 10 years in order to receive state discretionary funding should result in the availability of more up-to-date local plans in the future.

¹⁶ The material about MPOs and TMAs is summarized from: OPM and ConnDOT, Transportation in Connecticut: The Planning Process (October 2005), pp. 4, 13-17.

¹⁷ Capitol Region Council of Governments web page [http:// www.crcog.org/purchasing%20_coun/member.html], August 30, 2007.

¹⁸ South Western Regional Planning Agency web page [ http://www.swrpa.org/projects/PurchasingCo-Op.htm], September 7, 2007.

¹⁹ Public Act 07-239 increased the thresholds from $100,000 to $200,000 effective July 1, 2007.

²⁰ Office of Legislative Research, 2006-R-0452.