Sections

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Town Planners Begin Talks on Regionalism

by Diana Stricker | Feb 5, 2010 7:30 am

(7) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Diana Stricker Photo New England’s small-town autonomy is one of the roadblocks to regional cooperation, according to town planners from Branford, Guilford and Madison.

“We’re really proud of being our own towns and having our own autonomy. … That’s really hard to overcome,” said Marilyn Ozols, Madison’s planning and zoning administrator. “For the most part, we’re not really willing to give it up unless we see a gain—a really big gain.”

Ozols met with town planners Shirley Rasmussen from Branford, and George Kral from Guilford, at a forum Monday sponsored by the League of Women Voters. The event, “Crossing Town Lines for Mutual Benefit,” was held at the Blackstone Memorial Library in Branford.

“One of the things we like about New England is that our decisions are made close to home,” said Kral, Guilford’s town planner since 1985.

As evidence of the spirit of self-governance, Kral said that the three neighboring planners had never met to specifically discuss regional land-use issues until they began preparing for the forum. “It was the first time the three of us have ever met together in a room,” he said.

“In many ways, it’s hard to think regionally because many of our decisions are land-use issues,” Kral said in regard to the town planners.

He cited the proposed Guilford Commons shopping center as an example. Neighboring towns were not invited to the table when decisions were made since the upscale shopping complex does not cross town lines. (Construction of the project was underway until the recession placed it on hiatus.)

Another example is the Soundview Family YMCA, which is currently under construction along Route 1 in Branford. The facility will serve families from Branford, Guilford, East Haven, North Branford and Madison. Although leaders from all five communities discussed the facility, the specific planning and zoning issues were designated to Branford.

Kral said Guilford deferred to Branford’s Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the YMCA project, and did not offer suggestions even though the site is one mile from the Guilford town line.

However, he said some projects could benefit from a broader approach. “If a project has regional significance, there could be a way to look at it regionally or have towns voice opinions,” Kral said.

Ozols said another roadblock to regionalism is the fact that towns often compete against each other for development projects in an effort to boost local tax revenue. She said a regional approach could be more logical if the towns share the revenue.

“There are real benefits in looking at the big picture,” she said, in regard to regionalism. “The biggest incentive seems to be a big financial benefit to break those walls.”

Kral discussed some ways of encouraging inter-town cooperation. He said a concept known as the Minneapolis Model of Tax Revenue Sharing stipulates that communities work together to attract a development project and then share the taxes.  “The impacts are spread beyond one town, so the revenue should be also,” he said.

There is no regional decision-making entity in Connecticut since there are no county governments. However, Kral said some land-use decisions are made at the state level and are exempt from local zoning. “Probably the most significant ones have been cell towers,” Kral said.

Last month in Hartford,  Democratic state lawmakers, including Branford State Rep. Lonnie Reed, unveiled 11 separate pieces of legislation whose aim is to get cities and towns to work together on a regional basis. One new Act concerns smart growth and plans of conservation of Development. Another Act addresses the Smart Growth zoning codes.

There are some regional efforts, Rasmussen said. She discussed regional entities where towns join forces to provide services and share expenses. Among the examples were the East Shore District Health Department, Bristol Resource Recovery System, the Greater New Haven Transit District, the Branford Sewage Treatment Plant and the Dan Cosgrove Animal Shelter.

“You certainly reap the benefits of cost sharing,” Rasmussen said.

In addition, she said project-specific alliances have been formed so that towns can apply for state and federal grants. One recently in the news is a coalition formed by Branford, Guilford, Madison, Westbrook, Durham and Killingworth. The towns are banding together to apply for federal stimulus funds to hire a regional energy manager.

The Connecticut Siting Council makes decisions regarding cell tower placement.  Branford and other shoreline communities are well-aware of that fact since there has been an upsurge in cell tower proposals to accommodate Amtrak’s desire for continuous cell coverage for train passengers.

Kral said the state’s Coastal Management Program, which is administered by the Department of Environmental Protection, is an example of a state agency having oversight over communities.  “The state can provide expertise to help us make better decisions,” he said in regard to coastal matters. “That type of concept could be expanded to include other issues.”

Rasmussen gave an overview of regional cooperation efforts, including the South Central Regional Council of Governments, which is comprised of 15 towns. The SCRCOG, which was formed in the mid 1950’s, was mandated by the federal government in order for regions to receive transportation money. 

According to the SCRCOG website the agency brings local governments together to coordinate land use and transportation planning.

Rasmussen said the federal government provided funds for regional planning purposes for about 20 years. “That type of planning money is no longer available,” she said.

A question and answer session followed the forum, which was attended by about two dozen people.

####

 

Share this story with others.

Share |

Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

posted by: Beverly Zimmerman on February 5, 2010  10:21am

There MUST be information sent out publically about these meetings and their agendas. If we don’t know about them, there will always be “12 people attended”

posted by: Connie on February 5, 2010  2:25pm

Very interesting article.  Thanks.  I’ll be following the story.

posted by: City Hall Watch on February 5, 2010  3:31pm

Town planning is one of the areas that would be more difficult to take a regional approach to and see any real benefit. How about combining schools? Then you could cut school administrative costs by 66%; have one union contract, larger insurance pool. Public works? There are a lot of opportunities if you search them out.

posted by: abg on February 5, 2010  10:30pm

It was kind of amazing when Kral said that the three neighboring planners had never before had a multilateral meeting to specifically discuss regional land-use issues. Unfortunately the kind of regionalism discussed at this forum tended to be confined to cooperation between wealthy shoreline towns. Of course it’s nice when Branford and Guilford can work together to save some open space, create a health district, or share sewer costs. But what about cooperation between the suburban towns and the urban core?  Without New Haven in the room, Guilford and Madison getting together is not going to help much in terms of closing the achievement gap, creating sensible regional transportation systems or rebuilding the region as an engine of job growth. (SCRCOG is fine but it has a very limited mandate.) Cities matter! I didn’t get the sense that people in the room were ready to have that kind of regionalism discussion.

posted by: susan barnes on February 6, 2010  8:09pm

There were 24 people, not 12, Mrs. Z. I knew about the meeting. People I know knew.  Why did you not know?  Knowledge is power. Did you know? I know. People I know know.  Why do you not know?  Do you expect special notices sent to you? I don’t know. People I know, don’t know.  Do you know? And is it reasonable? I don’t find that expectation reasonable. People I know don’t find it reasonable. Do you find it reasonable?  I do know it says that I must enter the word I see in the image below.  The image is “develop 96”. Too bad it is not “develop 56”. I know what you would say. People I know know what you would say. And finally, I know you know what you would say.  Same old same old. LOL

posted by: enrique on February 7, 2010  9:19am

We seldom seem to hear proposals for meaningful projects where cost sharing and shared services can reduce overall costs because cost is seldom a consideration when planners call for regionalism.

What is the legal or other impediment to having school, fire or other districts just voluntarily getting together to optimize their facilities, rolling stock, information systems, back office school services such as transportation, catering, etc??

Nothing, save the general indifference to driving towards cost efficiencies. In private corporations cost drivers attempt to strike a balance between cost reduction and optimizing effectiveness—it is true that the further decisions are removed from where they are applied the less responsive they can become—but this focus on costs is largely lacking in the area of governance. Very often this is because the option of raising taxes is always less painful.

Harry

posted by: JNeil on February 8, 2010  2:20pm

TABOR Drive-
Branford-Perrotti gets a split decision before the CT Supreme Court!
NE Estates option found not to be a protected interest. The Town was found to have acted dishonestly and made a false pretext in taking the Tabor Property to prevent affordable housing. They have to pay the full amount plus penalty and Attorneys fees to the property owners for the property taking. They are off the hook for lost profits and Attorneys fees for the developers.

Events Calendar

view the full calendar »

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

smartpill design