Click to hear Ron Painter, CEO of the Three Rivers Workforce Investment Board, explain the important of human capital for businesses looking to develop in a region

The 2008 Road to Excellence Conference entitled "Putting Intergovernmental Cooperation to Work: Employing Multi-Municipal Planning to Link Communities and Conserve Costs" was sponsored by Comcast and offered in partnership with Three Rivers Workforce Investment Board. Ron spoke on the consequences of the trend in development where residential, commercial, and office developments were spread over the southwest Pennsylvania region, separating where people live and where they work.

Ron explained the classic economic equation of land+labor+capital = the cost of our doing business. He said that in this age, talent, or human capital, is the most important part of the equation. Companies search for talent, making the location where they choose to do business very important. Therefore, it is important for Pennsylvania and the southwest Pennsylvania region to educate, train, and retrain our labor force. Ron noted that PA commits about $20 million of general revenue dollars for incumbent worker training, making the state a national leader in talent development.

Listen to Ron note that the southwest PA region has more people over the age of 65 and less under the age of 18 than the benchmark city average, which are those cities with comparable industries to southwest PA

The aging of the workforce in the region is also important. The region has more people over the age of 65 and less under the age of 18 than the benchmark city average. Benchmark cities are those that have similar industries as southwest PA. These regions compete with southwest PA for talented workers as well as industry and development.

Click to hear Ron explain that the migration of workers in, out, and within the region affects the region's ability to retain workers, especially younger workers

Ron reminded participants that a major issue for PA and the region is workforce retention, particularly the retention of younger workers. Migration in, out, and within the region affects workforce retention. People within the region tend to stay in one neighborhood for long periods of time, but more people are leaving than coming into the region. Ron explained that people, especially younger people, like the density of cities, and that Pittsburgh needs to consider density in all of the development decisions we make. He also reminded participants that 40% of the PhDs and scientists working in the U.S. are foreign-born, and that immigration is important to workforce development. The United States and PA needs to compete internationally as well as domestically for the most talented workers.

Listen to Ron speak about the consequences of sprawl and spatial mismatch, explaining that available jobs are not always located where the workers who would fill those jobs actually live, making commuting difficult, expensive, and nearly impossible for some workers

Ron explained that suburbanization and decentralization of job sites leads to urban sprawl, where more land is being consumed for development and existing jobs may be moved around the region instead of new jobs coming in. The region will be better off if more people are coming in and more net jobs are created. Ron asked the question, "Where is the work, and where is the worker?” People are commuting out of their home communities for work because the jobs that exist there often do not match the skills, education, and salary requirements of the residents. This decreases quality of life by adding to traffic congestion, because suburban jobs are spread along major transportation corridors. This can necessitate having a workforce that drives, making hiring and retaining workers more difficult in these areas. This phenomenon is called “spatial mismatch”, where the jobs that many low-income workers would fill are located in the suburbs, far from their homes in the urban core. This makes commuting difficult and expensive for many workers. Pittsburgh, however, is a city that has a high number of jobs in the city, in fact, the count is higher than many comparable cities.

Click to hear Ron explain how intergovernmental cooperation can be used to create of good jobs, improve access to these jobs through infrastructure and multi-modal transportation, and create affordable housing

Addressing the mismatch between “where is the work and where is the worker” involves intergovernmental cooperation for the creation of good jobs, improved access to these jobs through infrastructure and multi-modal transportation, and affordable housing. Many low-income workers do not drive and rely on public transportation, which is a major problem for suburban employers who cannot attract these workers. Three Rivers Workforce Investment Board can help with economic development project assessment, so that communities can minimize spatial mismatch.

Click to view the 2008 Road to Excellence Conference Handout Booklet

Click to hear Court Gould, Executive Director of Sustainable Pittsburgh, define the principles of sustainability and what makes sustainable community development

 Court explained that sustainability is a process that is continuously adapting and changing to better maximize economy, environment, and equity at the systems level, which speaks to the need for regional coordination. Court said that the sprawling land-use patterns that have been traditionally used in the region are not cost-effective and contribute to the growing social inequity in the region. The challenge of sustainability is where we should more effectively use our community assets and avoid the costs of poor planning to the region.

Listen as Court explains how the Municipalities Planning Code and its amendments allowed for multi-municipal planning, which provided a tool for municipalities to work towards sustainable community development

Multi-municipal comprehensive land-use planning within the framework of sustainability and coordination of issues should not be thought of as conflicting with the state of Pennsylvania or the region's local control, because multi-municipal planning respects both. The Municipalities Planning Code does not explicitly mention sustainability, but Court noted that it references sustainable concepts enabling municipalities to adopt comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances, for example. Acts 67 and 68 of 2000 authorized multi-municipal planning, and allowed for traditional neighborhood development. Court explained that the Municipalities Planning Code and its amendments enabled multi-municipal planning to be undertaken, providing a tool for working towards sustainable development in the "bricks and mortar sense”, but also through the idea of the coordination of services across boundaries.

Click to hear Court present a case study of Cranberry Township to explain some resources that municipalities can use to incorporate sustainability principles into their planning

Court responded to a question on incorporating sustainability principles in planning and the available resources to help municipalities. The question was posed by Alex Graziani of the Smart Growth Partnership of Westmoreland County. Court explained how Sustainable Pittsburgh assisted Cranberry Township in comprehensive planning for a sustainable community. Cranberry learned how to use the principles of sustainability as a framework for their comprehensive plan. Experts on sustainability assessed the municipal operations and conducted an “extreme sustainability makeover”, recommending how Cranberry could conserve resources, become more equitable, and save costs. Alex also asked how municipalities like Cranberry can get assistance for sustainability planning. Court confirmed that Cranberry used state funds, and he mentioned that the hiring of sustainability coordinators is a route that corporations in Pittsburgh have taken to become more sustainable, which is a trend that could be explored in the public sector.

Other resources:

Sustainable Development Diagram

Sustainability Checklist

Sustainability Assessment Tool

Principles to Guide Cranberry Township's Sustainable Development

Click to view the 2008 Road to Excellence Conference Handout Booklet

The Honorable William Currin, Mayor of Hudson, Ohio, explained how Northeast Ohio is promoting regional planning. Mayor Currin started by proclaiming that our region has promise if we, as elected officials, professional managers and government employees, and community leaders, set the necessary policies for cooperation. Currin noted that businesses are attracted to areas with more efficient governments, and explained his hope for having a sustainable, collaborative economic development plan in place in Northeast Ohio by the end of next year. He reminded participants that planning is very important before embarking on revenue-sharing programs and collaborative projects. Next, Mayor Currin explained the role of the Northeast Ohio Mayors and City Managers Association in promoting regionalism in the region.

Click here to listen to Mayor Currin explain Northeast Ohio's pursuit of regional planning and how the region is working towards a tax-base sharing plan. Mayor Currin also identifies the role of the Northeast Ohio Mayors and City Managers Association in the program

Mayor Currin explained that the Fund for Economic Future was formed in 2004 by some philanthropic organizations in Northeast Ohio to strengthen the region's competitiveness through research. In 2005, the main issues that regional leaders identified in Northeastern Ohio were similar to Southwest PA. Territorialism, regional governance, competition between local governments for the same businesses, and spatial mismatch were major issues. The Advance Northeast Ohio initiative, involving over 20,000 people, identified the number one issue as government collaboration and efficiency. The phase one study resulted in an action plan to implement region-wide land-use planning and revenue-sharing in the region. Currin quoted an MIT economist, saying that the economic unit of the 21^st century is the region, not cities.

Click here to listen to Mayor Currin explain the similarities between the issues that Northeast Ohio and Southwest PA deal with, such as fragmentation, and how the Advance Northeast Ohio initiative created a region-wide land-use planning and revenue-sharing plan

Mayor Currin suggested that Northeast Ohio needs to form one Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), as Southwestern PA has in the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission. He would also like to see the region minimalize environmental degradation and regionally manage stormwater, to name a few strategies. He said that citizens need to be informed and mobilized, because the greatest things accomplished in this society are started at the grassroots level. Currin even asked participants to envision the competitiveness of a Cleveland-Youngstown-Pittsburgh region that could be formed one day.

Listen to Mayor Currin present strategies for Northeast Ohio into the future

Click to view the 2008 Road to Excellence Conference Handout Booklet

Phil Klotz, professional planner for the Pennsylvania Local Government Commission, explained the origins of the term "development of regional impact” and the state and federal laws that relate to it. Phil referred to the Kilbuck Township Landslide Task Force and Advisory Committee Report, which resulted in a proposed Geologically Hazardous Areas Act. He also mentioned the Proposed House Resolution 845 of 2008 to authorize the Joint State Government Committee Task Force/Advisory Committee to study developments of regional significance and impact. Phil noted that the American Law Institute put out a document in 1976 that provides a definition and factors for determining Developments of Regional Impact which is still referenced today. 

Click to view the 2008 Road to Excellence Conference Handout Booklet

Blaine Lucas is the solicitor for several local governments and shareholder in the Public Sector Services and Business Services Groups of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C. Blaine spoke about DRSIs, or Developments of Regional Significance and Impact as they are referred to under Pennsylvania Law, and what 'triggers' can be used to implement the DRSI process. According to Blaine, there are three ways to implement DRSIs in PA: a joint zoning ordinance, a joint municipal planning implementation agreement and consistent ordinance process, and finally, a loose, 'volunteer' approach of 'plugging it [DRSI language] in when you can' into existing ordinances. The latter choice, Lucas noted, is voluntary, meaning it can always be changed. He mentioned some DRSI triggers, such as location near municipal boundary, use of publicly-owned sewage treatment facility, public or private school, public facilities, expansion of growth area or utility service area, etc. Many will engage in the Act 67 and 68 multi-municipal planning laws, but many do not implement their plans. Blaine recommended using a loose form of implementing DRSIs, because if a plan is too binding, implementation will not be as likely. He reminded participants that there is a maximum of one review process for plans and that host communities have the final word. A loose, less-restrictive process is better than no plan at all.

Click to view the 2008 Road to Excellence Conference Handout Booklet

 

Denny Puko, planning program manager for the Governor's Center for Local Government Services, called for municipal officials to see intergovernmental cooperation as an opportunity for strength through collaboration instead of a concession of individual control. Denny noted that we have the tools available to target DRSIs to specific locations supported by zoning. Tools like revenue-sharing and tax-sharing reward collaboration, enhance communities, and increase the competitiveness of regions. Denny reminded participants that the tools and funding for intergovernmental cooperation are out there, but it is up to municipal and elected officials to pursue them.

Click to view the 2008 Road to Excellence Conference Handout Booklet

 

Click the podcast to hear John's entire presentation and view his corresponding slide show

John Theilacker, Associate Director for the Brandywine Conservancy Environmental Management Center, gave a presentation on how TDR, or Transfer Development Rights, can be a "win-win” situation on the local and multi-municipal levels through the creative use of zoning. The use of TDRs can preserve greenspace and direct development to the desired places. According to John, conventional zoning often leads to sprawl. By using TDR, landowners from one area sell their development rights to landowners or developers from another area. Therefore, John explained, 'the land from which the development rights are sold is permanently protected while land where the sold development rights are applied is enhanced in development value.' In Pennsylvania, TDR is authorized by the Municipalities Planning Code. There are a few municipalities in the state that have TDR programs, but only one in Allegheny County.

John noted that TDRs are 'established by local ordinance but, ultimately, are a market-driven tool.' They only work when buyers want what can be built with TDRs, when landowners want to sell TDRs, and when developers want to buy TDRs and transfer them. John showed some examples of TDRs from across the state, such as those in West Hempfield and Warwick Townships in Lancaster County where farmland has been preserved. John gave some tips on implmenting TDRs for more than one municipality, and explained that extra density can be acheived through some TDR Ordinances. Finally, he said that TDR is not a new tool, and has significant potential for developments of regional impact.

Click to view the 2008 Road to Excellence Conference Handout Booklet

The 2008 Road to Excellence Conference entitled "Putting Intergovernmental Cooperation to Work: Employing Multi-Municipal Planning to Link Communities and Conserve Costs" was sponsored by Comcast and offered in partnership with Three Rivers Workforce Investment Board. Ron Painter, CEO of the Three Rivers Workforce Investment Board, spoke on the consequences of the trend in development where residential, commercial, and office developments were spread over the southwest Pennsylvania region, separating where people live and where they work. Ron identified the need for an intergovernmental solution to the consequences of spatial mismatch, focusing on job creation and access and affordable housing.

Click to view the 2008 Road to Excellence Conference Handout Booklet

Court Gould, Executive Director of Sustainable Pittsburgh, spoke about the role of municipal governments in the sustainability of communities. Court defined sustainable community development, and explained that the ways in which local governments respond to economic and social changes will determine the quality of life in a community.

Click to view the 2008 Road to Excellence Conference Handout Booklet

Allen Kukovich, Director of the Governor's Southwest PA Regional Office, gave a progress report on multi-municipal planning in the region. Allen also explained the benefits of multi-municipal planning, and highlighted the state's priorities relating to planning.

Click to view the 2008 Road to Excellence Conference Handout Booklet

The Honorable William Currin, Mayor of Hudson, Ohio, presented a case study of Northeast Ohio's pursuit of regional planning. Mayor Currin explained how the region is working towards a tax-base sharing plan, and identified the role of the Northeast Ohio Mayors and City Managers Association in the program.

Click to view the 2008 Road to Excellence Conference Handout Booklet

The 2008 Road to Excellence Conference closed with a panel discussion on handling the costs and consequences of developments that have regional impact. Panelists identified the criteria of developments of regional impact, and discussed the use of tools such as Transfer of Development Rights to enhance the ability of local governments to respond to developers in their communities. The other panelists were Phil Klotz (left), professional planner for the PA Local Government Commission; Blaine Lucas (second from left), solicitor for several local governments and shareholder in the Public Sector Services and Business Services Groups of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C.; Denny Puko (center), planning program manager for the Governor's Center for Local Government Services; and John Theilacker (second from right), Associate Director for the Brandywine Conservancy Environmental Management Center.

Click to view the 2008 Road to Excellence Conference Handout Booklet

 

Susan Hockenberry, Executive Director for The Local Government Academy, summed up the lessons learned at the 2008 Road to Excellence Conference and gave an update on the latest enhancements to the Multi-Municipal Planning Grant Program. To date more than $500,000 in grants have been awarded to 24 groups of municipalities. The purpose of this program is to support the creation and implementation of multi-municipal plans in conformance with the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC). Applicants are eligible for grants up to $8,500 per municipality. The program is being administered by the Local Government Academy (LGA) with funds from the Heinz Endowments. All grants are contingent on receipt of funds by LGA.

Click to read the Multi-Municipal Planning Grant Program guidelines, or to view the 2008 MMP Program brochure.

Click to view the 2008 Road to Excellence Conference Handout Booklet

Listen to Ron Painter's entire presentation and questions from the audience

The 2008 Road to Excellence Conference entitled "Putting Intergovernmental Cooperation to Work: Employing Multi-Municipal Planning to Link Communities and Conserve Costs" was sponsored by Comcast and offered in partnership with Three Rivers Workforce Investment Board. Ron Painter, CEO of the Three Rivers Workforce Investment Board, spoke on the consequences of the trend in development where residential, commercial, and office developments were spread over the southwest Pennsylvania region, separating where people live and where they work. In an era of rising fuel costs, this produces a dilemma for both employers and employees. Ron identified the need for an intergovernmental solution to the consequences of spatial mismatch, focusing on job creation and access and affordable housing.

Click to view the 2008 Road to Excellence Conference Handout Booklet

Listen to Court Gould's entire presentation and questions from the audience

Court Gould, Executive Director of Sustainable Pittsburgh, spoke about the role of municipal governments in the sustainability of communities. Court defined sustainable community development, and explained that the ways in which local governments respond to economic and social changes will determine the quality of life in a community.

Click to view the 2008 Road to Excellence Conference Handout Booklet

Listen to Allen Kukovich's entire presentation and questions from the audience

Allen Kukovich, Director of the Governor's Southwest PA Regional Office, gave a progress report on multi-municipal planning in the region. Allen also explained the benefits of multi-municipal planning, and highlighted the state's priorities relating to planning.

Click to view the 2008 Road to Excellence Conference Handout Booklet

Listen to the Honorable William A. Currin's entire presentation and questions from the audience

The Honorable William A. Currin, Mayor of Hudson, Ohio, presented a case study of Northeast Ohio's pursuit of regional planning. Mayor Currin explained how the region is working towards a tax-base sharing plan, and identified the role of the Northeast Ohio Mayors and City Managers Association in the program.

Click to view the 2008 Road to Excellence Conference Handout Booklet

Listen to the entire panel presentation and questions from the audience

The 2008 Road to Excellence Conference closed with a panel discussion on handling the costs and consequences of developments that have regional impact. The panel was moderated by Alex Graziani (right, at podium), Executive Director of the Smart Growth Partnership of Westmoreland County.  Panelists identified the criteria of developments of regional impact, and discussed the use of tools such as Transfer of Development Rights to enhance the ability of local governments to respond to developers in their communities. The other panelists were Phil Klotz (left), professional planner for the PA Local Government Commission; Blaine Lucas (second from left), solicitor for several local governments and shareholder in the Public Sector Services and Business Services Groups of Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C.; Denny Puko (center), planning program manager for the Governor's Center for Local Government Services; and John Theilacker, Associate Director for the Brandywine Conservancy Environmental Management Center.

Click to view the 2008 Road to Excellence Conference Handout Booklet

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.   

LGA asked Janie French, Watershed Programs Manager at 3 Rivers Wet Weather, to explain one of their Low-Impact Development, Stormwater Best Management Practices projects, the Green Roof Demonstration Project.

Three Rivers Wet Weather is a Pittsburgh-based nonprofit that is committed to improving the water quality in the region. One of the organization’s goals is funding Stormwater Best Management Practice demonstration projects, where they focus on lot-level or Low-Impact Development projects. Low-Impact Development projects control stormwater at the source and attempt to find uses for it instead of letting it enter and overflow the sewer systems. Two 3RWW demonstration projects that have been completed are the rain barrel project with the Nine Mile Run Watershed Association in 2004, and the LID green roof demonstration project on the Shadyside Giant Eagle, Hammerschlag Hall on Carnegie Mellon University’s campus, and the retrofitting of an existing commercial /residential building on the main street of Homestead with a green roof.

Read about 3RWW Green Roof Demonstration Project here.

In addition to funding the construction of these green roofs, 3RWW is funding the development of monitoring projects by the engineering departments at the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University (CMU). The roofs at the Giant Eagle and Hammerschlag Hall are being monitored, but monitoring on the building at 213-215 East Eighth Avenue in Homestead has not been started. The hope is that these monitoring processes will aid in offering standards to evaluate the performance of green roofs in stormwater management, energy efficiency, and temperature reduction caused by the urban heat island effect. The urban heat island effect is a phenomenon where urban built environments and suburbs can be several degrees warmer than surrounding rural areas.

Click on the podcast to hear Janie talk about the green roof demonstration projects and their successes.

Read an article about CMU’s roof.

Click on the link at the bottom of the page to read a report on CMU’s roof, see a picture, and to see a live web cam view of the roof.

See results from Pitt’s monitoring of the Shadyside Giant Eagle roof.

Pittsburgh experiences frequent “wet weather” such as rain, thunderstorms, and snow that affects its aging infrastructure due to the overwhelming amount of runoff that enters the combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). Although Pittsburgh has taken steps to address the issue, a heavy focus on end-of-pipe solutions for stormwater management still results in an excess of runoff entering the sewer systems. An increased focus on source controls for stormwater management, such as green roofs, can help.

Janie referred us to a report by Mike Plumb, legal intern for the Columbia Environmental Law Clinic working for Riverkeeper, for more information on how source controls can manage stormwater more efficiently and effectively. Plumb looks at how New York’s DEP was investing in what he calls “obsolete infrastructure” in the forms of end-of-pipe tanks and in-line storage for CSO overflows. Plumb’s research found that for every $1,000 invested in these projects, New York could decrease CSO overflow by 2,400 gallons per year, whereas the same investment in source controls would decrease this overflow much more significantly. Street trees would decrease overflows by 13,170 gallons per year, green streets by 14,800 gallons, rain barrels by 9,000 gallons, new green roofs by 810 gallons, retrofitted green roofs by 865 gallons, and incentivized green roofs by 12,000 gallons per year (Plumb, 2008).

Read more about other forms of green infrastructure source controls in Plumb’s report, “Sustainable Raindrops.”

Most green roofs require an insulation layer, a waterproof membrane, a root barrier to prevent the roots of plants from penetrating the waterproof layer, a drainage layer, a filter mat, soil and, of course, vegetation. The type of vegetation planted on green roofs depends on the climate in the area and the effects of the different types of vegetation on water retention and heat absorption. Green roofs can be either intensive or extensive, where intensive green roofs usually require a deeper soil layer because they are typically planted with larger plants with roots that run deeper. Intensive green roofs are often accessible to the public, acting as a “roof-top garden.” Extensive roofs are usually not accessible for people to walk onto and enjoy, but are less expensive to install.

The benefits of green roofs can be realized at the private or building-level, and the public, or city-level. At the private level, green roofs require a larger initial investment, but they are estimated to extend the life of the roof twice as long, and they contribute to savings on energy costs, heating and cooling costs, and stormwater costs. Additionally, they provide sound insulation and aesthetic value, and intensive green roofs and rain gardens can be used for food production and can create a place for “community involvement” among employees of the building, boosting employee morale.

At the public level, green roofs can significantly reduce stormwater runoff and the impact on sewer infrastructure from too much water in the system, and they can reduce the urban heat island effect, reduce greenhouse gases, and improve air quality by replacing traditional, heat-absorbing roof surfaces with vegetation that cool the air through evapotranspiration (or evaporation of water from leaves). Greening the urban environment also improves the aesthetic quality of the city. The costs of green roofs at the private level would be the higher initial cost of the green roof and maintenance, and the costs to the public sector are those relating to program administration and start-up. However in both instances, the argument is often made that the benefits outweigh the costs.

Read more about how green roofs are built and the benefits they offer by visiting the “Green Roofs for Healthy Cities” website.

During our interview with Janie, she noted that the major barrier for green roof implementation in the southwestern Pennsylvania region is funding. We discussed the Green Roof Grant Program in Chicago as an example of a way to use incentives to fund green roof projects.

Read about the Chicago Green Roof Grant Program.

We have identified some available funding sources through the Pennsylvania state and federal governments:

In Allegheny County, Conservation Consultants Inc. received $54,128 through an Energy Harvest Grant for a 1,700-square-foot green roof, and Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens received $250,000 for an integrated water management system. This system is used for geothermal heating and cooling, but also treats and reuses wastewater. Growing Greener II Grants, which give “$625 million to clean up rivers and streams; protect natural areas, open spaces and working farms” can be used for green roof demonstration projects and green infrastructure conservation projects. Pennsylvania also has grants and reimbursements awarded through the Stormwater Management Act 167 where local governments can be reimbursed for 75% of the money they put into a watershed protection program.

The EPA also awards grants for green roof demonstration projects and other green infrastructure projects under its Nonpoint Source Management Program. “Under section 319, State, Territories, and Indian Tribes receive grant money which support a wide variety of activities including technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer, demonstration projects, and monitoring to assess the success of specific nonpoint source implementation projects.”  Funding from the EPA can also be obtained through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund; Source Reduction Assistance Grants; Surveys, Studies, Investigations, Demonstrations, and Special Purpose Grants ; and Air Quality Grants. This grant money can be received through PA’s Department of Environmental Protection.

According to Katrin Scholz-Barth, expert and consultant for green roof installation, extensive green roofs are, “the single most effective solution to stormwater management,” because they do not take up additional land, are easily adaptable and are economically efficient, they are not difficult to add to architectural designs, and they are easily retrofitted to existing structures. For a developed city with a lot of existing buildings in need of renovations, Pittsburgh is a good candidate for green roofs.

Click on the podcast to hear Janie talk about retrofitting green roofs to existing structures and efforts to green the urban landscape.

Read more about green infrastructure in this report from the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Finally, Janie informed LGA how individual homeowners can become involved in managing stormwater. In addition to rain barrels, we discussed rain gardens and water conservation and water quality protection behaviors that any homeowner can engage in.

Click on the podcast to hear Janie talk about what homeowners can do to get involved in stormwater management.

View 3RWW’s education and outreach materials, including their “Role of the Homeowner” guide.

Read an article on planting rain gardens and Three Rivers Rain Garden Alliance.

* The construction of the rain garden at Phipps has been delayed *

Read an article about a new rain garden on Mount Washington.

The Pittsburgh region can focus on greening the urban landscape with various forms of green infrastructure, such as trees, vegetation, wetlands, and open space that can be preserved or created in built environments, because not only does green infrastructure contribute to stormwater management, it also aids in energy efficiency, causes a reduction in the urban heat island effect, and holds a greater aesthetic value than vast landscapes of concrete.

To read more on stormwater management in the southwest Pennsylvania region, read the LGA Lyceum piece “This needs to sink in” by Stan Kabala, Center for Environmental Research and Education, Duquesne University.

To learn about the use of adaptive governance for stormwater management, please visit the LGA Adaptive Governance wiki.

Jerry Andree, Township Manager of Cranberry Township, possesses a blend of innovative and traditional beliefs, particularly in the areas of neighborhood and community development. We spoke with Jerry about the Pennsylvania House Bill 1280, which would amend the Municipalities Planning Code to expand the power of municipalities to incorporate 'traditional neighborhood development' in their planning. The bill would give local governments the power to include 'standards and conditions for traditional neighborhood development designations…and providing for subdivision and land development ordinance provisions applicable to traditional neighborhood development.'

Jerry explained that traditional neighborhood development, or TND as it is commonly referred to, is 'an attempt to recreate a sense of place that people are looking for now where they live.' When looking back at development in previous generations, people valued the proximity to each other and connectivity. Pennsylvania’s zoning became segregated, splitting land for residential use, commercial use, etc., resulting in sprawl. Jerry explains TND as a design model rooted in tradition, although the incorporation of it in development today seems innovative compared to the sprawl that has been prevalent for years.

TND desegregates zoning to allow for mixed-use development, such as buildings with retail spaces on the first floor and residential spaces above. It also uses different design elements, such as streetlamps, benches, and traditional storefronts right on the sidewalks, offering more of a quaint, town-like atmosphere. TND uses wider sidewalks to encourage walking and biking, and on-street parking is encouraged for direct access to all available amenities. The proximity of different types of development and the services they have to offer encourage people to be friendly with each other. TND encourages people to get back to an integrated way of living, which is more sustainable than continuing sprawl.

Currently, TND can only be done as an overlay, and it is still a planning option for municipalities. Jerry described an overlay district as placing inducements over a single purpose zone, such as a retail zone, to incorporate mixed-use development, such as buildings that can serve both residential and commercial purposes. House Bill 1280 would give a community the power to make TND the primary type of land-use that they would allow, although it may be contested because of the costs associated with TND, which are higher than other forms of development. Jerry suggested that including incentives for TND and other measures for sustainable development would help cover some of the costs. House Bill 1280 is in the third consideration and final passage phase, meaning that it has a strong possibility of passing the Senate and becoming law.

Jerry acknowledged that Pennsylvania is not known for having the most innovative planning, and he cited fragmentation as a main reason for this. He said that local governments need to put resources into planning for tomorrow as well as today, and that those communities that are really preparing for future generations set goals for sustainability in development. Jerry mentioned that working together with neighbors was a good solution for cutting costs in service delivery and planning, such as efforts for TND. 'I would always advocate an intergovernmental approach in everything we do.'

When considering TND in a particular area, it is important to have planners, engineers, and the community working together for a holistic view of the effects it might have on the daily workings of the neighborhoods involved and the lives of the people residing there. Jerry explained the importance of a collaborative vision in planning. 'I am a big believer in visioning. Every community needs to know what they want to be when they grow up!' Cranberry just passed Ordinance 2007-377, creating a new planning advisory commission that will be dedicated to involving the citizens in their community in the planning process. Jerry expressed confidence in the 'community ambassadors', which are volunteers from Cranberry Township that will take a grassroots approach in finding out what is important to those who live in Cranberry. They have nearly 90 people who have signed up to become ambassadors.

The 'Cranberry Plan' is an update to the current comprehensive plan that includes a new phase of TND planning, using a bottom-up approach with the community ambassadors to really represent the wishes of community members. Jerry is proud that Cranberry’s elected officials are very supportive of significant citizen involvement in the plan. 'Anything that is sustainable cannot come from five, or seven, or nine elected officials. It must come from the community.'

The structure and functions of local government were the topics at the Local Government Academy's 2005 Road to Excellence Conference sponsored by Comcast. Dr. H. George Frederickson was the keynote speaker at the Road to Excellence Conference, entitled 'Form Follows Function'. The Road to Excellence Conference is an annual event, exploring issues related to intergovernmental cooperation in southwestern Pennsylvania. The 2005 Conference was a forum on the issue of government structure, a topic that continues to generate interest among elected and appointed officials, the media, and the general public. A valuable discussion was initiated about the functions of local government in an effort to better inform the ongoing political discussion about how local authority should be structured.

Dr. Frederickson is the Edwin O. Stene Distinguished Professor of Public Administration at the University of Kansas, one of the top rated public affairs departments in the United States. Dr. Frederickson has taught, been published, and is co-editor of The Future of Local Government Administration, published by the International City Management Association in 2002. Listen as Dr. Frederickson answers the questions: Why is local government structure important? What is the impact of structure in terms of achieving economic, efficient, equitable government and what is its impact on the business climate and the quality of life for the average citizen?

Michael Foreman serves as a Local Government Policy Specialist with the PA Department of Community and Economic Development, Governor’s Center for Local Government Services in the southwest regional office. He provides local government officials with policy guidance and advice, technical and consultive assistance, and training in the following areas: general government management and administration, financial management, revenue and taxation matters, personnel management, labor relations, service delivery systems, intergovernmental cooperation, boundary change, grant writing and administration, and economic and community development. Foreman explained the relationship that exists between the state and local governments in Pennsylvania. He broke down municipalities into First-class Townships, Second-class Townships, Boroughs, Cities, and Home Rule municipalities, and presented their differences relating to structure and powers.

Alan Kugler of PA Futures is a consultant working with municipal governments on how to report the potential benefits of consolidation to present to voters, in addition to providing information for policy decision-making for citizens, public officials, and civic and business leaders. Kugler explained the political, legal, and social challenges associated with intergovernmental cooperation, municipal consolidations, and boundary change. He discussed the powers that Article IX of the Pennsylvania Constitution gives municipalities through the home rule and intergovernmental cooperation laws. Then, Kugler explained the Municipal Consolidation or Merger Act of 1994 that was amended in 2003 to enable citizens to conduct a referendum to form a joint Government Study Commission to study potential merging of their municipalities. Citizens would decide if consolidation is in the long-term best interests of the municipalities involved.

Read Alan Kugler's Handout on Intergovernmental Cooperation, Municipal Consolidation, and Boundary Change

Tom Tulip is the Executive Director of the Mercer County Regional Council of Governments where he works on intergovernmental cooperative efforts for service delivery. COG programs and services include animal control, recreation program operations, a 25 vehicle fixed-route and county-wide transit system, a joint uniform construction code program, and Information Technology support provided through an on-staff specialist. Tulip was the Act 47 coordinator for Ferrel, one of the municipalities involved in the consolidation effort. Tulip spoke of his involvement in the Shenango Valley consolidation effort, which did not succeed at the referendum level. Five municipalities were involved, and it did not pass in all five. Tulip feels that the process went on for too long and too many municipalities were involved. The study leading up to the consolidation referendum took four years to complete.

 

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

http://www.mcrpc.com/svisc/finalreport.pdf

 

George Gearhart is the Director of the Shenango Valley Chamber of Commerce, and was a member of the Shenango Valley study committee for consolidation as a citizen representative of the city of Sharon. Gearhart believes that racial and economic issues were involved in preventing the consolidation referendum from being passed in all of the municipalities. He also talked about the process of conducting the study and getting the public involved, and noted that although opponents to the consolidation were organized and mobilized right away, the proponents of consolidation were not as organized as they should have been from the start. Gearhart also pointed out that the commonwealth promised grants and funding, but never confirmed exact figures or amounts, leaving municipalities wondering if the state would cover their outstanding debts moving into consolidation. Gearhart explained that after the four year study, the committee voted not to recommend anything. Then, the citizen group’s petition got the referendum on the ballot, which ultimately did not pass in all five municipalities.

Click here to read the Report of the Shenango Valley Intergovernmental Study Committee http://www.mcrpc.com/svisc/finalreport.pdf

Anthony Moscato is a Commissioner for Cameron County and was part of an effort to abolish the local and county governments in favor of one, centralized county government. The municipalities in Cameron County had talked about a plan for radical change, because some felt that there was too much government for less than 6,000 people living in the county. They planned to abolish the local and county governments and put in one, centralized county government. Only two of the county’s seven municipalities agreed to put the referendum on the ballot, however. Their biggest challenges were money and voter education, according to Moscato, in trying to get the referendum on the ballot. He also cited 'walls' that were put up by the township supervisors because they did not want to lose their jobs through consolidation, although Moscato explained to them that new jobs would be created in the process.

Dr. Beverly Cigler is a professor of public policy and administration at Penn State Harrisburg. She specializes in state and local relations and state and local policy, politics, and management, with key interests in alternative service delivery, land use, emergency management, public finance, counties, and general issues of governance. Dr. Cigler led a discussion on the various points of view and political perspectives on the essential functions of local government. She noted that the local government environment has changed, and issues transcend geographic and municipal boundaries. Cigler explained the differences between 'governance' as opposed to 'government', which includes nonprofit, public, and private sector stakeholders, and the need to learn how to collaborate in a fragmented environment. She also presented an overview of public opinion and national research on citizen expectations of local government, and the capacity of local governments to fulfill them. Cigler explained that because many local governments in PA are small, and smaller governments often have less capacity, they might have a lack of professional managers, technical capacity, financial capacity, political will, and collaborative skills. According to Cigler, there is a continuum of cooperation where local governments can start small and learn to trust each other, and once they start building capacity and become more efficient in service delivery, the objections to cooperation might begin to fade.

Barbara McNees, President of the Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce, discussed the expectations of local governments from the business sector. McNees thinks that the business community is easy to get along with, and all they want to see is basic services, safety and cleanliness, and predictability or uniformity before they make an investment in a community. She notes that many developments cross municipal boundaries, but cooperation and uniformity are lacking, which makes businesses wary of investment. McNees mentioned the Waterfront Development, and the issues they faced with permitting, taxing, etc. across the municipalities involved. She maintained that a technology deployment is essential because people want to do business on the internet, and said that areas doing this well will see more rapid development growth.

Sue Broughton is the president of the League of Women Voters of Greater Pittsburgh. Broughton talked about the collaboration involved in the Pine Creek Watershed Assessment project, which highlighted the League of Women Voters’ positions on multi-municipal planning and cooperation, improving water quality management, and encouraging active citizen participation in government. Broughton explained that the water management policies upstream affect those municipalities that are downstream in a watershed, and said that if form follows function, than streams would be best managed on a watershed basis. However, most watersheds include portions of several municipalities, making management more difficult. The Pine Creek Watershed includes parts of 14 municipalities. They applied for a Growing Greener Grant and received about one third of the amount requested. Broughton says that receiving only one third of the funding requested was a good thing because it resulted in public participation and municipal cooperation, raising the level of community awareness. The Environmental Alliance for Senior Involvement (EASI) were trained to do stream sampling and monitoring. They trained additional people to conduct stream sampling and monitoring, resulting in a citizen volunteer effort that saved money and produced results such as a Watershed Protection Inventory Survey that was distributed to the municipalities, where 13 out of 14 completed it. The steering committee of representatives from the municipalities such as engineers, the two sponsoring organizations, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, the North Area Environmental Council, and citizen groups is now attempting to apply the cooperative techniques used in this project to other mutual efforts.

Tom Klaum is the Executive Vice President of the Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs. Klaum reviewed the history of boroughs in the United States and in Pennsylvania, and mentions the importance of networking between representatives of municipalities to build trust so that cooperative efforts are more easily sought out and agreed upon. He described two things that have stood out to him about local governments in over 35 years of public service. The dedication and perseverance of elected officials that get involved is important and appreciated, but may also impede new people from getting involved was first. The second thing that stood out to Klaum was the resilience that boroughs have displayed as small communities to adapt to capacity challenges. Tom also noted the challenges in getting younger generations involved in local government, and mentioned the Pennsylvania State Association of Borough’s (PSAB) efforts to get young people involved through their junior councilperson program. Finally, Tom discussed an IGC success story from when he was a COG director in the Cameron and Somerset areas where four small communities developed a code enforcement and administration program that they would not have been able to afford on their own. When the state passed the Uniform Construction Code twenty-five years later, this COG’s code enforcement program is one of the most successful, with 22 municipalities contributing to it.

View other IGC Success Stories at www.igcsuccess.org

Elam Herr is the Assistant Executive Director of the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors. Herr said that the role of government is to provide the services that constituents want and that the private sector cannot or will not provide. Citizens in municipalities want to have choices on what their local government will do, and Herr stressed that cooperation and collaborations on service delivery projects between municipalities cannot be forced and must not threaten the existence of one area over another. He explained that the approach must be not be top down, but rather ground up where it meets with the state 'in the center' to compromise. Herr feels that new legislation should be introduced so that governments will not adhere to the 'whims of special interests and the dictates of Harrisburg'. He thinks that PA should encourage and provide local governments with training and support to make decisions that are good for them, instead of forcing cooperation and collaboration efforts.

Leanne Smith Nurse, Program Analyst for the US Environmental Protection Agency National Center for Environmental Innovation, painted a scenario of an environmental cleanup operation presented at a high school and resulting in public confusion and anger because of a lack of communication, education, and public outreach. Participants discussed the best examples of public participation that they were involved with that worked, and described what they felt made it work. Nurse explained the need for public education, and described a grassroots approach rather than top-down method as being a more effective strategy for getting the public involved. She said that an assessment of community needs and of the organization’s capacity to respond should always be conducted. Nurse cautioned that if an assessment is not performed, leaders might miss the important issues and lose the support of key participants. She suggested forming advisory committees to organize communities, and said that trips to neighborhoods who have already implemented proposed developments can be helpful in identifying what citizens want in their community. Finally, Nurse led an exercise dealing with aspects of public involvement, including: facilitation, communications, public relations, mediation, organizational health, and development.  She noted that face to face engagement, online activities, and whole system changes are formulas for successful public involvement.

Lew Villotti is the Planning & Development Director of the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC). Villotti described the need for people to get outside the 'comfort zone' that they are used to in public involvement, and explained new strategies and methods of engaging the public. He explained that the old method of public involvement in SPC meetings was traditional where SPC representatives would talk, and people would voice their questions. Now, there is an interactive touch screen survey station where people provide their opinions. SPC had a transportation investment strategy station which was interactive, asking people how they would like to see transportation monies invested. There was still an opportunity to provide testimony, but people put it into a laptop instead. SPC also began involving partners in their public meetings to answer questions on different topics, such as transportation and environmental justice. They encouraged their partners to have interactive visuals to 'show' the public the projects they were working on with maps, pictures, etc. Through these strategies, SPC was able to hear more people than through the traditional method of individuals speaking in front of the room, where some people may dominate the conversation and everyone may not be represented.