Connecticut's Regional Planning Organizations Briefing Report

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:

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

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

• the importance of pedestrian oriented communities that have access to public transportation; and

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

• be “clearly identifiable with local objectives and local problems” since town participation in a Regional Planning Authority had to be voted on by each local legislative body;

• include one or more municipalities serving as an urban center and the surrounding municipalities;

• include towns likely to develop strong relationships to the urban center in the future; and

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

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:

• circulation patterns of daily newspapers published in Connecticut (which the CDC report noted was “one of the more valuable areas of investigation”);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

• traffic flow patterns;

• topography;

• watersheds and drainage;

• state highway plans;

• population and economic growth trends in urban centers and surrounding areas;

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

• the influence of Connecticut urban centers on municipalities in other states.

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:

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

• one region with a finalized definition (Capitol);

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

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

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

• 13 towns (Andover, Canton, Colchester, Coventry, Enfield, Granby, Hartland, Hebron, Marlborough, Stafford, Somers, Suffield, and Union) that had not been assigned to any region because the studies conducted by CDC failed “to establish a clearly dominant urban center orientation.”⁹

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.

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.)

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

• mandated preparation of an annual RPA report;

• added notification requirements to the regional plan of development process; and

• specified that a majority of the representatives to the RPA had to approve the regional plan.

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.)

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.

• consider matters of a public nature common to two or more member towns that were deemed appropriate, including health, safety, welfare, education, and economic issues;

• promote cooperative arrangements;

• coordinate actions among member towns; and

• make recommendations regarding those activities.

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.

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:

• designating and re-designating regional planning areas, as described in Section I;

• reviewing regional development and municipal conservation and development plans for consistency with the State Plan of Conservation and Development described in detail in Section V;

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

• serving as a repository for certain budgetary and other information regarding RPOs;

• operating the new Office of Responsible Growth created by Executive Order No. 15;

• chairing a 19-member Responsible Growth Task Force; and

• administering a regional performance incentive grant program.

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.

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.

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:

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

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.

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:

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

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

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

• include a cost benefit analysis for the provision of such service by the municipality and by the RPO;

• set out a plan of implementation for such regional service; and

• estimate the savings that will be realized by each municipality.

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.

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.

There 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.

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.

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:

• consider such matters of a public nature common to two or more member towns as it deems appropriate (including health, safety, welfare, education, and economic conditions of the area comprised by its members);

• promote cooperative arrangements and coordinate action among member towns; and

• make recommendations therefore to member towns and other public agencies within the region.

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:


Table II-1. Responsibilities of Office of Responsible Growth and Implementation Status.
*Provision*	*Status*
Chair an Interagency Steering Council (consisting of the commissioners of the Departments of Economic and Community Development, Environmental Protection, Agriculture, Transportation, and Public Health as well as the executive directors of the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority and the Connecticut Development Authority) that is charged with coordinating policy development and capital planning.	The first meeting was convened on March 26, 2007, and it was decided that the bulk of the work would be done by two workgroups: 1. A Policy Workgroup, comprised of deputy commissioners of each agency, will develop responsible growth policies, standards, and criteria. This group has met once since March. 2. A Project Review Workgroup, comprised of planners from each agency, will develop a system to evaluate projects and “vet” projects as a body in order to move desirable responsible growth projects along. This group has met several times since March.
Create Regional Roundtables to facilitate participation of local officials and foster the development of planning agendas.	OPM staff plan to visit all 15 RPOs by October 2007 to talk about scheduling Regional Roundtables.
Develop support and incentives for towns to plan regionally, update zoning maps and ordinances, and build the capacity of municipal staff, boards, and agencies to make complex land use decisions by establishing a new municipal training program.	A Land Use Training Advisory Council has been established comprised of groups that currently provide training to local land use officials and staff. The advisory council will formalize the curricula and ensure programs are consistent. Funding for FY 07 was $100,000; it increased to $150,000 for FY 08.
Update the “Green Plan” for Connecticut by June 2007.	DEP has completed its re-draft of the “Green Plan,” and it is available on the DEP website.
Review transportation policies/projects to increase opportunities to promote mass transit and roadway design that support state/local economic development, while preserving and enhancing “walkability” of our communities.	A deputy commissioner at ConnDOT has been appointed to supervise Connecticut's mass transportation efforts with a new emphasis on transit oriented development.
Expand housing opportunities to meet the needs of all Connecticut residents and support an expanding workforce with housing that provides ready access to passenger rail and bus service.	P.A. 07-4, JSS included a provision allowing local planning and zoning commissions to establish incentive housing zones with several grant programs to assist municipalities and housing authorities.
Review all state funding that impacts growth and development in Connecticut and establish criteria to target funds for uses consistent with responsible growth concepts.	Towns failing to update their local plans of conservation and development by 2010 will be ineligible for state discretionary funding
Target economic incentives to support development in designated responsible growth areas.	Responsible Growth Task Force established in P.A. 07-239 to address this issue
Create a “Green and Growing” webpage to highlight best practices.	The Office of Responsible Growth is currently designing the website and will launch it in early Fall of 2007.
Designate a State Responsible Growth Coordinator.	The Undersecretary of Intergovernmental Policy was appointed the coordinator by the OPM Secretary on October 20, 2006.
Source: Executive Order No. 15 and OPM.


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


TABLE III-3. Demographic Characteristics of Connecticut Regional Planning Organizations.
*Name of RPO*	*Acronym*	*Type of RPO*	*Location of Office*	*No. of Towns*	*No. of Bd. Members*	*Region (sq. miles)*	*Popula.*	*Density (People/ sq. mi.)*
Capitol Region Council of Governments	CRCOG	RCOG	Hartford	29	32	762	739,399	970
Central Connecticut Regional Planning Agency	CCRPA	RPA	Bristol	7	17	164	232,460	1,417
Conn. River Estuary Regional Planning Agency	CRERPA	RPA	Old Saybrook	9	18	205	62,184	303
Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley	COGCNV	RCEO	Waterbury	13	13	316	281,401	891
Greater Bridgeport Regional Planning Agency	GBRPA	RPA	Bridgeport	6	18	146	310,739	2,128
Housatonic Valley Council of Elected Officials	HVCEO	RCEO	Brookfield	10	10	335	221,481	661
Litchfield Hills Council of Elected Officials	LHCEO	RCEO	Goshen	11	11	417	82,011	197
Midstate Regional Planning Agency	MRPA	RPA	Middletown	8	17	247	109,761	444
Northeastern Connecticut Council of Governments	NECCOG	RCOG	Killingly	11	11	420	81,520	194
Northwestern Connecticut Council of Governments	NWCCOG	RCOG	Warren	9	9	359	23,374	65
South Central Regional Council of Governments	SCRCOG	RCOG	North Haven	15	15	387	560,105	1,447
Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments	SCCOG	RCOG	Norwich	18	20 + 4 nonvoting*	559	249,592	446
South Western Regional Planning Agency	SWRPA	RPA	Stamford	8	22	225	362,193	1,610
Valley Council of Governments	VCOG	RCOG	Derby	4	4	58	86,888	1,498
Windham Region Council of Governments	WINCOG	RCOG	Willimantic	10**	9**	327	88,681	271
* Includes both the Town of Groton and the City of Groton as well as the Town of Stonington and the Borough of Stonington. The four non-voting members represent the Mashantucket Pequot tribe, the Mohegan tribe, Submarine Group Two/Naval Region Northeast, and the Coast Guard Academy. ** The town of Stafford (11,815 people within 59 square miles) has never been part of a planning region, but it is expected to join WINCOG this year, which would give the region 11 towns and a 10-member board. Ashford, which is part of the state-defined region, is no longer participating as a member of the WINCOG board; instead, it attends NECCOG meetings, and it has petitioned to move to that region. For the present time, however, Ashford remains part of the WINCOG geographic area for regional planning purposes. Sources of data: Connecticut Register and Manual and interviews with individual RPO executive directors and OPM staff.


TABLE III-2. Changes in Organizational Type by Individual RPO
*Region*	*Original Type*	*Year*	*Changes in Structure*	*Current Type*
South Central	RPA	1948	started with a few towns; by 1960 - serving all towns in region; 1982 - became RCOG	RCOG
Capitol	RPA	1958	c.1949 - informal entity preceded RPA; 1966 - became RCEO; 1973 - became RCOG	RCOG
Greater Bridgeport	RPA	1960	no changes	RPA
Central Naugatuck Valley	RPA	1960	1970 - became RCEO (but uses Council of Governments in its name and has Regional Planning Commission)	RCEO
Southeastern	RPA	1961	1992 - became RCOG	RCOG
South Western	RPA	1962	no changes	RPA
Midstate*	RPA	1962	no changes	RPA
Central Connecticut	RPA	1966	originally New Britain - Bristol RPA; by 1973 - serving all towns in region	RPA
Valley	RPA	1966	1970 - Council of Governments created, but it did not officially replace RPA until 2002	RCOG
Windham	RPA	1966	2000 - became RCOG; 2007 - previously unaffiliated Stafford expected to join	RCOG
Northeastern	RPA	1967	1958 - Quinebaug Valley Action Committee preceded RPA; 1987 - became RCOG; 2001 - previously unaffiliated Union joined	RCOG
Litchfield Hills	RPA	1967	1980 - RPA ceased operating; 1987 - current entity established	RCEO
Connecticut River Estuary*	RPA	1967	no changes	RPA
Housatonic Valley	RCEO	1968	no changes	RCEO
Northwestern	RPA	1972	1985 - became RCOG	RCOG
* Connecticut River Estuary RPA and Midstate RPA are connected through a joint Regional Council of Elected Officials that includes all of the towns in the two RPAs. In this case, the RCEO is primarily an information sharing opportunity rather than a decision-making mechanism. Therefore, the two RPAs are dealt with as separate organizations for all purposes in this report. Sources of data: Individual RPO web sites and interviews with RPO staff; OPM, Profiles of Regional Planning Organizations in Connecticut (1989)