The Honorable David J. Steil represents the 31st District in the PA House of Representatives and was a major force behind the amendments to the Municipalities Planning Code in the year 2000, Acts 67 and 68, allowing for multi-municipal planning. Steil has experience as a township supervisor in Lower Makefield Township and was a member of a local planning commission. He highlighted how multi-municipal planning aids local government administrators in addressing challenges in protecting their economic, social, and environmental assets. Steil explained how multi-municipal planning differs from traditional methods of regional planning, and gave an overview and update of efforts across the state since the amendments were passed. He also gave advice on where municipalities can receive technical and financial assistance for multi-municipal planning efforts, and how to avoid making common mistakes in implementation and in gaining support at the grassroots level.

 

Steil noted that the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) was passed in 1968. It was outdated and needed changed to reflect new challenges. There are over 2,000 municipalities in PA, all with subdivision and land development authority, and according to Steil, this can be a good and bad thing. Municipal officials feel that they know what is best for their municipality, but their decisions may not always be best for the community.

 

While addressing the MPC, Steil explained that the role of counties in planning is not strong enough, many communities in PA are without zoning plans, and infrastructure is not coordinated across municipal lines. Land planning is bipartisan, but breaks along the urban/rural lines, according to Steil. He found that in working together with the Senate to gain support for the amendments to the MPC, there were many people across the state that were for the changes, but also many that opposed them. Many were worried that their property rights would not be protected, but the amendments were meant to make sure that land use by some would not infringe on the rights of their neighbors. By bringing all stakeholders together, namely the municipal associations, the homebuilders associations, and the environmental groups, all concerns could be addressed in the objectives of Acts 67 and 68. The purpose was not to tell municipalities what to do, but to provide municipalities tools for the most efficient planning and land use processes.

 

Cooperative municipality planning options were the tools offered to municipalities. Allowing the option of traditional neighborhood development for integrated communities using multiple-use zoning as opposed to single-use zoning, and protecting private property rights, were key in passing Acts 67 and 68. Municipalities could decide the extent of their multi-municipal planning, whether it is a shared piece of equipment or a joint inter-municipal plan. Steil explained that municipalities need to focus on the issues facing their communities, not politics or individual motives.

 

At the time, Steil noted that over 550 communities in PA were cooperating in one form or another and most are using intergovernmental cooperation agreements. He explained the resources and tools that those communities had used in their efforts, including those offered by the Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED). Steil felt that the $2.5 million in grant money awarded per year was still too low because the incentives for municipalities to work together are not strong enough.

The future challenges and opportunities for more cooperation, according to Steil, are legislative obstacles relating to impact fees, coordinated infrastructure and development planning, and outreach and education on the importance of smart planning relating to open space and managing density. Steil explained common-base zoning as another option that municipalities can use in planning and conceptualized what Lower Makefield Township could look like if common-base zoning were used, preserving areas of continuous open space. Steil advocated the use of incentives to guide municipalities to cooperate.

Tom Headley, Executive Director of Westmoreland Heritage, also served as a Township Supervisor for Forward Township and as President of The Twin Rivers Council of Governments. Mr. Headley is also Chairman of the Twin Rivers Regional Planning Committee, a group responsible for the development of a new Regional Plan for the Twin Rivers COG communities. Headley moderated a panel on case studies of multi-municipal planning, featuring panelists who shared the factors contributing to their success with multi-municipal planning, as well as the things that they would do differently next time they embarked on a collaborative plan.

 

Ray Reaves, planning consultant and a Local Government Academy Board Member, presented an overview of LGA's Multi-Municipal Comprehensive Planning Grant Program supported by the Heinz Endowments, encouraging attendants of the conference to apply. Reaves explained that eligible applicants must involve two or more municipalities where an intergovernmental cooperative agreement has been signed, they must attend three workshops on multi-municipal planning, and must be able to provide 10% of the project cost in cash. The grants are awarded twice a year of up to $7500 per municipality for the preparation of a multi-municipal plan or the implementation of ordinances.

Rosemary Bradley (second from right) was the Executive Director of the Twin Rivers Council of Governments(TRCOG), a voluntary organization that engaged in multi-municipal planning for a regional stormwater management and land use plan. Bradley noted that because the TRCOG has been in existence since 1977 and many of the communities had already been involved in shared services and other forms of intermunicipal cooperation, there was trust among the communities entering into the multi-municipal plan. She recommended realistic and clear goals, such as the plan’s goal to preserve older communities. Bradley explains that every community had one vote regardless of size, and that public meetings were widely publicized where dinner was provided as a thank you at some of the meetings. She wished that more meetings could be held because there were 14 communities involved, but insufficient funding was an issue. Unfortunately, one community did not accept the plan and it was not passed.

Sylvia Wack (center), Assistant Secretary of Lancaster Township, Butler County, explained the joint initiative in Lancaster Township and Muddy Creek Township to develop and implement a Comprehensive Plan with a Geographic Information System component to provide these communities with the ability to promote future development, planning, and economic growth. Wack noted that there is a small population between the two communities, and a main problem was choosing a steering committee that supported the comprehensive plan because many residents did not want growth. Residents had to be informed that growth would come with or without planning, but that planning for growth would protect the interests of the residents more effectively. Despite objections, the plan was signed.

Click here to read about the Lancaster Township and Muddy Creek Comp. Plan

Rob Ritson (second from left), Township Manager for Hempfield Township, was appointed to serve on the Hempfield/Greensburg joint multi-municipal planning committee. Ritson explained that despite the rural nature of Westmoreland County, Hempfield Township has experienced growth and leadership change. The elected officials noticed that complaints on growth and infrastructure demanded a change in planning. The comprehensive plan was from 1976 and the City of Greensburg had adopted a new plan two years before, so when the Smart Growth Partnership of Westmoreland County approached Hempfield with the idea for them to hold multi-municipal planning workshops with the help of the Local Government Academy, they invited all their neighboring municipalities and prepared themselves to develop a multi-municipal plan. Although they lost a few of the municipalities because of perceptions of loss of power, the plan moved forward with a visioning process by building their credibility through actions and not words. The planner for the City of Greensburg worked on the plan with Hempfield, offering professional planning experience.

Click here to read about the Hempfield Township and City of Greensburg Comp Plan

Lew Villotti is the Planning and Development Director for the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC),the ten county regional commission responsible for transportation planning and local development in southwestern Pennsylvania. Villotti talked about the status of the county comprehensive plans as well as the status of the new regional comprehensive plan. Villotti began by explaining that there are different types of regional planning, from city and county planning, to multi-municipal planning, and multi-county regionalism. Municipal comprehensive plans should be generally consistent with county comprehensive plans, which according to Villotti had been either very old or nonexistent until recently. Three counties had recently adopted comprehensive plans or amendments to their comprehensive plans at the time of the 2004 conference, and the other seven counties in the ten county region were not far behind. Villotti anticipated that all ten counties would have comprehensive plans within three years for the first time in the history of southwestern Pennsylvania.

Villotti discussed the role of the SPC in the region and explained that they are "the forum for regional consensus in public decision-making.” They receive state and federal funds for regional decision-making. SPC had a requirement to develop a 20 year regional plan, which is the “new” regional plan since the region became ten counties. The plan's purpose is to empower the new ten county region, focusing on the positive qualities. Villotti noted that seventeen states have populations less than the southwestern Pennsylvania region making it comparable to a state as far as population goes, so developing a new regional plan for the ten-county region was important as far as coordinating transportation and economic development and responding to industry demands and market realities.

The new plan built on the past two regional plans, while emulating successful strategies from comprehensive plans across the country, or the use of technology for a stronger, more thorough approach to public participation in forming a comprehensive plan. Visual presentation of information, expanding the use of the internet to reach people, and visioning processes to identify communities" wants and needs are all part of this. The three goals of the plan are to empower the region, transcend boundaries, and build on what came before. Empowering the region includes involving all members of communities in a transparent planning process, while identifying common goals among different sectors within the region by transcending boundaries. The SPC holds many public meetings in addition to collecting information from the public via internet.

Click here to read the SPC's 2035 Transportation and Development Plan for Southwestern Pennsylvania, which was adopted June 28, 2007.

Marshall Bond (second from right), Manager of the Municipality of Monroeville, was the moderator of a panel on the successes, obstacles, and trends of intergovernmental cooperation in the region. Bond gave a short background on the panelists before they spoke. Fred Reddig, Deputy Director for the Governor's Center for Local Government Services, administers the Center"s range of information, training, technical and financial services, and programs for local governments. Reddig spoke first on the diversity and fragmentation of Pennsylvania as both strengths and weaknesses from environmental, social, and economic perspectives. He explained that local governments are not only in competition with each other, but with other cities and states across the country. Reddig noted that trends of out-migration and decline in Pennsylvania make the state and its local governments less competitive, and that change is necessary to slow and reverse these trends. One change that helps strengthen the stability of metropolitan areas is structural change in municipal mergers, multi-municipal planning, and intergovernmental cooperation. Reddig mentions some success stories in Pennsylvania along the continuum of intergovernmental cooperation from shared services, to Councils of Governments, to boundary change. He highlighted the success of the 911 emergency response services consolidation in Allegheny County.

Local governments have three roles in economic development according to Reddig: establishing an environment for economic development through effective and efficient service delivery, comprehensive planning, and implementation; establishing partnerships with all stakeholders in the economic development arena; and developing a toolbox of resources for implementing economic development in cooperation with the state. Reddig recognized some tools that the state makes available for economic development and intergovernmental cooperation. He explained how the "three C’s of intergovernmental cooperation” are necessary for successful ventures, which include creativity, communication, and commitment.

Tom Benecki (second from left) joined the Allegheny Valley North Council of Governments (AVNCOG) as Executive Director in 1991. The AVNCO G is a voluntary association of fourteen municipal governments and two authorities in the northeastern corner of Allegheny County. Benecki's presentation focused on Councils of Governments, or COGs, in Allegheny County of which there are eight. Allegheny County is unusual, according to Benecki, because of the amount of incorporation of individual municipalities, but also because the COGs have a formal organization that they all belong to, the Allegheny InterCOG Council, where they can work closely together and discuss regional issues. Benecki explained that the COGs provide services specific to the wants and needs of their member municipalities, and stressed that COGs are not another layer of government. COGs are a voluntary municipal association to serve their member municipalities. Benecki elaborated on four classes of programs that are well-subscribed to by member municipalities in COGs across the state because they have proven to be successful: joint purchasing, grant administration, shared equipment, and shared services. Benecki stated that he believes these programs are so successful because of the economies of scale that can be achieved. Benecki also described some failures of COGs. For example, the sewer maintenance and cleaning program and police consolidation programs were failures at the AVNCOG.

Denny Puko (left) is a professional planner and works for the Governor's Center for Local Government Services southwest and northwest regional offices assisting local governments with planning and related matters. He previously was Executive Director of the Mercer County Regional Planning Commission, a joint municipal-county planning commission. Puko spoke about mergers and consolidations and used the Shenango Valley story as a case study. At the time, there was a Shenango Valley consolidation measure on the ballot for November.

First, Puko went over the legal context of the 1994 Merger Act, and then discussed the history of mergers in Pennsylvania, noting that from 1975 to 2004 there had been 22 consolidation proposals, with 8 passing. Puko presented the Shenango Valley case, explaining that Ferrel was in Act 47 bankruptcy and it was recommended that they consider consolidating. The study process included hiring a professional consultant, creating an advisory committee with 8 subcommittees to discuss different service provision, and other professional resources with an emphasis on partnerships and evaluation. The advisory committee did not recommend consolidation and the municipalities did not initiate it, but a petition was circulated and the referendum was put on the ballot for November 2004. Puko evaluated the factors leading to the outcome, noting that local leadership was strong and there was a sense of commonality, but there were also separate histories and segregation based on wealth. There was a history of cooperation, but Puko notes that critical issues were not resolved early enough. The process moved too slowly, especially within the subcommittees. Puko also feels that the proposal may have been too narrowly focused and restrictive. Ultimately, the referendum did not pass.

Click here to read the Shenango Valley Intergovernmental Study Committee Final Report

For more information on the Shenango Valley case, please listen to the George Gearhart and Anthony Moscato presentations from the 2005 Road to Excellence Conference Podcasts.

Rob Jones is currently the Chairman of the Local Government Academy's Board of Directors. At the time of the 2004 Road to Excellence Conference, he was Vice Chairman of LGA"s Board and Senior Manager of External Affairs at Dominion. Jones moderated a panel on intergovernmental revenue trends, tax-sharing, and public-private partnerships. David Donahue (right) was named the first Executive Director of the Allegheny Regional Asset District (ARAD) in 1995. Authorized by state law, The District distributes dedicated public funds to libraries, parks, cultural and regional attractions, and sports facilities in Pittsburgh and Allegheny County, Pa. Donahue gave a ten year review of the ARAD as they were celebrating their tenth anniversary. Donahue said that ARAD is an example of fiscal regionalism.

According to Donahue, these fiscal regionalism entities are government without being government because although they spend public money, they do not provide service. They provide for a distribution of the benefits of growth to neighboring municipalities where growth occurs. Fiscal regionalism entities minimize fiscal mercantilism, which encourages development other than tax-producing development, Donahue explained. These entities prevent free-riding so that all people who benefit share in the cost. True tax-base sharing agreements are very rare, and fiscal regionalism can incorporate some of the benefits of these agreements into the region. The entities help avoid the wins and losses associated with annexation laws and they try to level the playing field as far as wealth and service disparities. Before the ARAD was created, Pittsburgh was paying 56% of the bill for regional assets like museums, stadiums, libraries, the zoo, etc. when it only had 25% of the county’s tax base. A sales tax increase of 1% took place in 1994, where about 75% is paid by the residents of Allegheny County and 25% is paid by nonresidents. The pot is divided every month, where 50% is allocated among regional assets, 25% goes to the County, and 25% is distributed among the rest of the municipalities. The municipal distribution formula measures municipal tax burden relative to other municipalities. Donahue mentioned that the ARAD reduces reliance on property tax and other taxes and all that benefit and use regional assets pay into it. Finally, ARAD promotes cooperation and private initiative, and makes available more private funding and state funds like intergovernmental aid. Donahue closed by recommending a clear communications plan between stakeholders before the agreement is made.

David Davare (second from right) is the director of research services for the Pennsylvania School Boards Association. Davare provided an overview of the changes in state funding of municipalities and school districts over the years and an analysis of the relationships between local and state governments and school districts. Davare deals with school districts in terms of economic development. He explained that school districts are dealing with revenue changes such as subsidies and special education funding due to intergovernmental trends. Davare showed a graph to illustrate why school district tax dollars keep increasing compared to state contributions, and explained that state educational mandates, special education services, and the No Child Left Behind Act are major reasons for the rise in expenditures. Davare reminded participants that education is the only public service mandated by the state constitution.

Property tax was the original tax-base sharing in Pennsylvania. All the taxing jurisdictions shared the same tax base. However, municipal entities prefer residential development and school districts prefer commercial development. The school district tax base is dependent on property value and personal income, but school districts have increased the personal income contribution at much different rates in PA from 1979 to 1999. The market value of homes indicates how much state aid municipalities will get for their schools. However, school districts have very little time to provide input in economic development decisions before they are approved by counties or municipalities. Davare noted that school districts are important in economic development because they make up about 70% of the average property tax bill; they cover several municipal jurisdictions, and perhaps overlap counties. Davare explained that although the intent of economic development is to address blighted areas with vacant properties so that they can increase their tax base and increase employment through development, municipalities do this based on entire jurisdictions instead of targeted areas. This does not make sense in terms of strengthening the community, and it creates competition for residents because of differences in property tax rates. School districts want to take part in economic development, but do not have the opportunity to deal with zoning issues and changes, which can lead to more students in the district, problems with space, and transportation issues. Davare said school boards need to ask municipal governments for more time and greater roles in economic development decisions, and they should hold public hearings on the decisions and joint meetings with the municipal governments, because economic development and zoning decisions can greatly affect school districts.

Finally, Davare explained how Act 72 tax reform provides homestead exemption and limits tax increases without voter approval. It will require school districts to shift away from property tax to higher earned income tax and offsets from state gaming revenue. Davare noted that people will react to earned income tax increases and property tax reductions, and these changes will greatly affect school districts in the near future.

Barry Ford (center) is the President of Development for Continental Real Estate in Pittsburgh. Ford explained how three municipalities worked together in a tax-base sharing plan to attract The Waterfront Development in the Monongahela Valley. Ford told the story of the intergovernmental cooperation that occurred between Munhall, Homestead, and West Homestead to bring development to an area where the Homestead Works steel mill used to exist and where a vacant brownfield remained. Ford explained that a plan was needed to create infrastructure for development such as roads and sewer lines, and a tax-increment financing district was developed to come up with the money. All three municipalities had different zoning ordinances, and a common zoning ordinance was needed to create The Waterfront. The Steel Valley School District was at the table from the beginning of the discussions. The solution to the question of where each business would go and which municipality would benefit was the creation of a tax-base sharing plan through the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act. Munhall received 30% of the property in the TIF district, 50% is in Homestead, and 20% is in West Homestead. The revenues go into a fund controlled by Allegheny County through the Redevelopment Authority and is redistributed back to the communities according to these percentages. The communities decided to do the tax sharing for twenty years although by law it should exist for fifteen years. They cooperated on zoning, tax-sharing, and set some money aside for other projects such as main street development.

Deb Lange (second from left) is the Executive Director of the Steinbrenner Institute for Environmental Education and Research. The mission of the Steinbrenner Institute for Environmental Education and Research (SEER) is to help to change the ways the Carnegie Mellon University community and the world thinks and acts about the environment. She is also the Executive Director of the Brownfields Center at CMU. Lange provided an overview of public-private partnerships with regards to federal funding for brownfields cleanup and development. Lange defined brownfields from federal legislation as "…real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant…” and explained the benefits of cleaning up and developing them. Economic development on brownfields sites allows communities to benefit from land that was unused and potentially hazardous by creating taxable properties and jobs. Lange described the Environmental Protection Agency's Brownfields Program and briefly explained the monetary amounts and uses for the grant money available through it. The Brownfields Program offers four kinds of grants: Assessment Grants, Revolving Loan Fund Grants, Job Training Grants, and Cleanup Grants. Lange identified some recipients of Brownfields Program grants from the Pittsburgh region and noted that although federal money is available, success occurs at the local level. She also expressed the belief that local incentives are needed to attract private investors in brownfield redevelopment.

Richard M. Nemoytin (left), Field Office Director in Pittsburgh for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), provided some tips and perspectives on retaining federal funds. Nemoytin expressed the opinion that communities need to enter into partnerships that leverage the private sector to invest. He also explained the importance of a well-written grant in competing for federal funds. Nemoytin described the strategy of partnering with other people who already receive federal funds, such as entitlement communities and nonprofits, rather than going after them directly. Finally, Nemoytin explained that using multiple federal funding partners is an option for receiving more money.

J. Bracken Burns, Chair of the Washington County Board of Commissioners, presented his vision of the southwestern Pennsylvania region in 20 years, including the role of local governments and the legislative actions that can be taken to respond to and build on the region's successes. Commissioner Burns envisioned a region where human needs are met and where wellness is present. Burns defined wellness as "a sense that things are as they ought to be; it is peace of mind; it is an environment where order and beauty are dominant features." Burns' initial representation of his vision was idealistic and inspiring. He warned of the depleting natural resources, increases in waste and energy consumption, and noted that Pittsburgh is one of the least ethnically diverse regions in the county. Burns explained that a challenge is being able to pay for all of the things we want and need to do, such as building a new arena for the Pittsburgh Penguins and repairing the sewer infrastructure.

Burns noted that regional consensus is important to move forward cohesively, and a mechanism is needed to reach that consensus. The public, private, and nonprofit communities need to be represented in the appropriate forums for a regional voice. Burns said he believes that a study should be done on the "multiplicity of municipalities” in the region to deal with the fragmentation in the region and the state. He gave examples of small municipalities in the state, questioning whether or not some small communities can provide quality leadership and services, and wondering whether or not communities such as those he mentioned should be consolidated.

Uniform Boundary Change legislation was required under amendment to the Constitution, and municipal consolidation was examined as a possibility during a Constitutional Convention in 1968. This Convention did not mandate or authorize mergers or consolidation. Burns noted that under his hypothesis, small communities, which according to his definition had fewer than 5,000 residents, were not capable of providing services and leadership. Therefore, the state of PA and its southwest region had a long way to go considering the small number of consolidations and the creation of new states since the Constitutional Convention of 1968.

Commissioner Burns recommended that another Constitutional Convention be convened to readdress the issue of the multiplicity of municipalities. An appropriate combination of incentives and mandates should be set in place so that Pennsylvania has a “workable” number of municipalities where economies of scale can be achieved. Burns explained that this is important to the ability of southwestern PA to function as a region. Burns revisited the example of the aging water and sewer infrastructure in the region, and explained that the $10 billion price tag that the Environmental Protection Agency put on the problem was most likely too conservative, given the number of individual municipalities involved in trying to address the issue. Regional authorities should be created with taxing power to address regional issues, according to Burns.

Burns acknowledged that his ideas may seem unattainable to many, but asked how southwest PA can call itself a region when institutions and organizations with a regional name or title serve a population that is far below the regional, ten-county service area. The vision of a Pittsburgh region where people want to live is attainable, Burns explained, and encouraged attendants to strive for it.