LGA Lyceum

Connecting Contiguous Communities

Submitted By Amy Bishop, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh

alb199+@pitt.edu

University of Pittsburgh’s David Miller,who is the director of the Innovation Clinic at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs (GSPIA), has a new proposal to foster communication among the 35 municipalities that share a common border with the City of Pittsburgh and the city itself.

Still lacking an official name, the initiative is centered around creating a forum, or congress, in which all 36 communities would act as equal partners in finding common ground on issues that face the Pittsburgh area.

“We note an increasing sense of common issues associated with the city and these surrounding communities,” Miller said. “GSPIA should be creating an opportunity for discussion of these issues.”

A planning meeting for the congress is set for October 31. Miller has invited a representative from each of the 36 municipalities to come together to discuss whether a congress of this scope is desired and whether it is feasible.

 “We’re creating this opportunity for these communities to see if this makes sense to them. The ultimate decision about the creation of the congress is up to the participants,” Miller said.

 So far, the idea has generated positive response. According to Miller, elected officials in these communities have expressed a growing interest in this forum and are beginning to recognize that many of the solutions to problems facing this area involve consultation across municipal lines.

According to Miller, most current intergovernmental cooperation starts at the city border and moves outward to the county border. This will be an opportunity for these common-border communities to begin a conversation that includes the City of Pittsburgh.

 The 36 municipalities invited to participate represent a total population of 680,000. Only roughly 310,000 reside within the Pittsburgh city limits. And while Miller and his team will be providing necessary research and institutional support throughout the congress, he will leave the direction of the concerns up to the participants that represent these 680,000 citizens.

 “We want the communities to drive the agenda,” he said.

 The agenda for the planning meeting includes discussing the feasibility of such a congress, topics that could be presented to the forum and an official name for the group. The congress would launch in April or May.

 “I have two main goals for the October 31 meeting,” said Miller. “First, to see that common border issues are significant and important enough to continue to have structured meetings. And second, that at the conclusion we have created a planning process for follow-up actions that includes the representatives from those municipalities, so in a way there is a handing off of the agenda from GSPIA to the group itself.”

 Questions with regard to the initiative may be directed to Ann Pollack  and the Innovation Clinic, Graduates School of Public and International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh.  (apollack@pitt.edu).

The Woodland Hills Intercouncil

Submitted by:
Michael Belmonte
Councilman, Forest Hills Borough
412-351-7330
www.foresthillspa.org

    The Woodland Hills Intercouncil is comprised of council representatives of the twelve municipalities within the Woodland Hills School District.  The group was formed in January of 2007 when we asked ourselves three questions. Number one: what is your biggest issue as it pertains just to your municipality? Number two: what is your greatest concern as it relates to neighboring communities? Number three: what is your largest issue relative to the Woodland Hills School District?

     Since our inception, the goal of our monthly meetings (with the exception of July and December, which we take off) is to work collectively in an effort to better all of our communities and our school district. Some topics covered thus far, involving relevant speakers, included waste collection, insurance plans, multi-municipal planning, real estate, and meeting with school administrators and directors.

     As elected officials, we understand that this process takes more time than just looking at what goes on within our own individual communities. We have also come to the realization that working together is the way of the future. The biggest concern for all the communities involved were individual budgets. Specifics included grant monies disappearing, employee costs continuously increasing, and the overall cost of public safety.

     As far as issues relating to neighboring municipalities; what can be done to save tax dollars by working together was the salient point. Sub-topics included pensions, a stagnant real estate market, struggling fire departments, garbage fee increases, police regionalization, code enforcement, and public works.

     The greatest concerns people had for the school district were discipline and improving academics. Action items for the near future include working more closely with the Woodland Hills School District. In October of 2007, the WH Intercouncil hosted a meeting with the WH school administrators and six of the nine directors. There was also a dinner hosted by the Intercouncil last month to meet the new WH Superintendent. On August 11, the district hosted a realtors' luncheon. This was an opportunity for Dr. Calinger and other administrators to meet some of the local realtors. The goal was for the realtors to build confidence in the school district's future. For the long term, the plan is for more close communication between the school district and member municipalities.

     Other action items include multi-municipal planning, exploring health insurance plan options, and always trying to reduce costs by working together. The latter opens the door to other ideas requiring short-term action, and also sets the foundation for long-term problem solving.

     As a group, the Woodland Hills Intercouncil realized that working collectively is the answer to the viability of our future. We can not continue to go in twelve different directions. The more we focus on this, the better off we will be.

Fire Capacity:Potential for Intergovernmental Cooperation in Fire Protection Services

 A new PA Senate bill is proposed to help recruit more volunteer firefighters. Volunteer departments are plagued by fundraising issues and staff shortages in the Pittsburgh  region and across the country, according to anarticle in USA Today. Senator Andrew Dinniman (D-19) introduced a bill to incentivize people to join volunteer fire protection and emergency medical service providers with a tax credit against their earned income tax liability. As of February 11, 2008, Senate Bill 1169 providing for municipal volunteer emergency responder incentives was passed into first consideration. Another bill introduced by Senator Donald C. White (R-41), Senate Bill 1236, would give financial incentives for Pennsylvania fire departments to create partnerships to share resources, but does not include any clauses to prevent duplication of service within these partnerships. This last action taken on this bill, however, was that it was re-referred to appropriations on October 3, 2006.

These bills reminded us of a 2006 study where fellows at the Coro Center for Civic Leadership researched whether there is excess capacity of fire service within the City of Pittsburgh that can fulfill a need for service in suburban municipalities. In conducting this work, the Coro Fellows referenced previous studies on this topic that found that there is an excess of engine and truck stations in Pittsburgh,  as well as staffing. For example, the 1996 Competitive Pittsburgh Task Force Study indicated that Pittsburgh had a staffing complement of 894 firefighters, 66% higher than the survey of comparable cities with an average of 538. A CMU study found that although Pittsburgh only needs 12 engine stations and 4 truck stations to meet National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) Standards 90% of the time (the required amount), the City had 33 engine stations and 11 truck stations in 2004, creating much double and triple coverage.  

To obtain the most up-to-date information on staffing and the number of fire stations, we consulted Denice Haas, an Assistant to the Pittsburgh Public Safety Director.  Denice explained that Pittsburgh has reduced the members of staff and stations in the past five years. In 2008, there are 853 budgeted uniform positions in the Bureau of Fire, and at any time there are 159 personnel working in the Operations Division, or the stations. In addition to Operations, there are non-suppression personnel assigned to Administration, Training, Prevention and Investigation, and there are also civilian support personnel. Denice noted that Pittsburgh currently has 24 engines and 11  trucks housed in 29 stations. She also informed us that a study of the Fire Bureau was commissioned by the Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority (ICA) oversight group in 2006. The study was conducted by TriData and is expected to be released soon.

According to the Coro Fellow's report, the State Fire Commissioner's office should also conduct a study of the City's fire department, but should perform a needs/capacity assessment and inventory among all fire departments in the suburbs of Pittsburgh to eliminate duplication of services among Pittsburgh suburbs. From September 5th through October 3rd of 2006, Tonya Bennitt and Kate Peilemeier interviewed fire chiefs, service officials, and other municipal officials, and conducted research through the Office of the State Fire Commissioner, the Allegheny County Emergency Management team, and the internet. Their purpose was to assess whether or not there should be more intergovernmental cooperation in fire service for the greater Pittsburgh region.

Fire departments are typically staffed by volunteers in the region with some paid departments, the largest of which serves the city of Pittsburgh. Although the region's population has been in decline for over thirty years, the fire protection structure has
not changed, resulting in staff shortages and fundraising difficulties for many volunteer departments, and continued strain on the budgets of municipalities with paid departments. Some municipalities have mutual aid agreements, but there is usually little cross-over assistance between paid and volunteer departments. Bennitt and Peilemeier researched the possibility of intergovernmental cooperation between the city’s paid fire department and thirty-four surrounding municipalities, where there is one paid department, four combined, and the rest volunteer.

Bennitt and Peilemeier recommended that a needs/capacity assessment and inventory among all fire departments in the suburbs of Pittsburgh be conducted to eliminate duplication of service while encouraging sharing of services among suburbs. However, recognizing the significant amount of time that this would require, they made a short-run recommendation that a contract be made for the City of Pittsburgh Fire Department to act as a first responder for Pittsburgh's inner-ring   suburbs during peak hours of 8am-6pm, Monday through Friday.

They also recommended that the suburbs pay a fee to the city’s fire department, and that the effort be partially funded by the State of Pennsylvania through the Volunteer Fire Company and Volunteer Ambulance Service Grant Program, Shared Municipal Services Grants, and Community Revitalization Grants. Not only would this reduce the city’s costs for its department, it would create a large amount of savings in reducing wasted spending in duplication of fire services, equipment, and personnel. The city of Pittsburgh and its surround suburbs would also enjoy greater protection and a more efficient emergency response system.

In anticipation of the TriData study, which according to an article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette  is expected to help implement changes for netting savings of $193,000, two questions come to mind:

• Will the report indicate that there is an excess of fire service in the city and if more intergovernmental cooperation can help address the shortage in fire      service in the suburbs?

• If excess city capacity exists, how will this modify proposals such as Senate Bill 1169 which seeks to solve a volunteer staffing need by incentivizing municipal    volunteer emergency responder service?

Fire fighting is inherently a discussion about intergovernmental cooperation. Indeed, fire fighters have the longest tradition of intergovernmental cooperation than any public service—mutual aid in answering the emergency call is both a tradition and a necessity. Intergovernmental cooperation, combined with encouraging volunteerism provides a route to assuring effective, efficient fire protection now and in the future.

To read more on fire service and intergovernmental cooperation in Pennsylvania, read the April 03, 2008 Lyceum entry entitled “York Area United Fire and Rescue: Intergovernmental Cooperation and Fire Services” by Dean Fernsler, former Local Government Policy Manager of the DCED Governor’s Center for Local Government Services. 

Update:

TriData's report on their study of Pittsburgh' Fire Bureau commissioned by the Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority (ICA) oversight group in 2006 was released in June 2008.

Visit the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette website to read an article on the findings.

 

 

 

Joint Hearing on Multi-Municipal Planning and Shared Services

LGA Executive Director Susan Hockenberry provided testimony to the Pennsylvania Senate Local Government and Urban Affairs and Housing Committee hearing on “Multi-Municipal Planning and Shared Services.” This joint public hearing was held April 10 at the Greensburg Garden and Civics Center in Westmoreland County. 
The Senate Local Government Committee is chaired by Senator Bob Regola (R-39), and the Senate Urban Affairs and Housing Committee is chaired by Senator John Pippy (R-37). Both Senators identified intergovernmental cooperation as a way to make government and service delivery more efficient.

Read Susan’s testimony and provide your own comments below, and please visit our website for more information on LGA’s 2008 Multi-Municipal Planning Grant Program. To read the full testimony from the hearing and watch videos of the hearing, visit Senator Regola’s website.

Submitted by:

Susan Hockenberry

Local Government Academy, Executive Director

Phone: 412-237-3171

E-mail: shockenberry@localgovernmentacademy.org

My name is Susan Hockenberry and I am the Executive Director of Local Government Academy (LGA). I thank you for allowing me to provide comments today to the Senate Local Government and Senate Urban Affairs and Housing Committee.

LGA is an independent, nonprofit collaboration of business, government, civic and academic leaders that promotes excellence in local government. LGA serves all of southwestern Pennsylvania and has been in business since 1983. It is funded in almosequal thirds from state and county contracts and grants, foundations and corporate donations, and user fees, where 2/3 of all LGA program participants are either government officials or employees, and 1/3 is individuals from the broader community. 

LGA, in pursuit of a mission to promote excellence in local government, has 4 goals:

- promote a strong a responsive local government system

- develop local leaders

- educate public officials, employees and citizens

- build collaboration and partnerships.

To accomplish these goals, we offer 3 services: training, technical assistance and interns.

Towards the goals to promote a strong and responsive local government system and to build collaboration and partnerships, LGA offers a multi-municipal planning grant program. The grant program places a priority on projects that demonstrate an urgent environmental, economic or social need. Projects must be multi-municipal, and the work product must be a comprehensive plan or an implementing device of a comprehensive plan, such as an ordinance. I have provided a listing of projects funded and the current status of each project. The projects are at various states of progress and you may review the list at your convenience, but the purpose of my comments today is not to tell you about LGA or the multi-municipal planning grant program, but to comment on the Land Use Planning and Technical Assistance Program, or LUPTAP, and how it can serve as a catalyst for investment in local communities.

The LGA multi-municipal planning grant program functions as a match to the LUPTAP funds. Teams of municipalities may receive up to $7,500 per municipality in support of their multi-municipal planning efforts from LGA. For even the smallest teams of two municipalities, the LGA grant funds potentially $15,000 in planning activity. As the number of communities grows, the funding grows exponentially. This grant often times substantially funds the municipality's local share for their LUPTAP approved project.

This speaks to the value of the state's LUPTAP program. Not only has the Commonwealth's LUPTAP support contributed to community development initiatives at the local level, it has also leveraged additional private investment through this program. To date, the LGA's grant program has provided almost $500,000 in grants to municipalities in southwestern Pennsylvania with funds provided by foundation services. Additionally, the Commonwealth priority that the LUPTAP program supports in this case, the  multi-municipal planning amendments to the Municipalities Planning Code, has also stimulated support for LGA to offer additional training and facilitation services for municipalities. From LGA's point of view, this combination of a well aligned funding program with improvements to the MPC is the combination our Commonwealth needs to pursue in a more robust nature.

That pursuit could take many forms. Obviously, greater funding to the LUPTAP program could accelerate community development activities. But additionally, funds specifically supportive of multi-municipal planning within LUPTAP are needed. Currently, multi-municipal projects must compete with other important community development initiatives that are not necessarily multi-municipal comprehensive plans, but valuable to communities nonetheless. The point here is not to reduce support to those efforts, as LUPTAP has a broader mandate than only supporting multi-municipal activity, but to further incentivize multi-municipal planning.

Additionally, and in line with incentives, priority for projects identified through multi-municipal comprehensive planning from other Commonwealth departments and agencies should occur. Greater resources should be given for the Department of Community and Economic Development to evaluate and assess the viability of potential projects and to assure that intergovernmental and community development objectives are being met—including coordination with other state agencies, but also planning done on the regional level—by agencies such as the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission or County planning offices. All of this activity has the potential to stimulate more private investment in local governments—because local governments will be more clearly pursuing broad regional goals.

Beyond financial support, engaging political leadership in a constructive dialogue about the needs of communities and the effectiveness of the Municipalities Planning Code at meeting those needs must occur across the state, engaging not only government officials, but planning professionals and community groups focused on missions to promote economic vitality, environmental quality and social equity. Both technical issues related to zoning, subdivisions, overlay districts and the like should be addressed, as well as qualitative matters such as the importance of local planning in providing effective services to local communities. Reframing the discussions about planning as an activity about control to an activity about providing quality governance that constituents are entitled to is needed.

It is these attitudinal changes that I want to switch to now, in the hope that your committee and the legislature can provide needed leadership. While LGA does not have direct survey information about attitudes about multi-municipal planning, it does have experience in working the communities engaged in multi-municipal planning and a bead on what makes projects succeed and what happens when they fail. Additionally, LGA conducted a survey in 2006 of attitudes about intergovernmental cooperation, which while not scientific, provides some insight.

What we have learned is there is a gap between what is seen as beneficial and what is seen as likely. I provided a summary of those results in advance of my testimony today and I will not review them in detail at this time, unless you have questions. The essence of that information is not negative. In fact when asked, the majority of respondents indicated that all services, when provided intergovernmentally, provide some or substantial benefit, versus no benefit or negative effect. Likewise, the majority of respondents indicated that their municipality would be likely or very likely to offer services intergovernmentally. But there was a gap. Closing the gap should be a bi-partisan priority of the Commonwealth.

Your leadership on this, as well as targeted funding, cooperation with the municipal associations, assistance from the states’ great academic institutions, and professional organizations serving local governments will help to motivate that change in attitudes.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony.

The Innovation Clinic at GSPIA

 A new initiative of the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public and International Affairs Local Government will examine ways in which intergovernmental cooperation can address uneven growth and a decline of some communities in the Pittsburgh region. The Innovation Clinic at GSPIA will focus on a number of areas of concern.

Most notably, “fiscal mercantilism,” or the pursuit of economic development activities that negatively impact a municipality’s neighbors will be examined. Additionally, the Clinic will focus on segregation by race and class, difficulties with land-use planning, and disparities in technical expertise for managing local government.  These topics are emerging as important throughout southwestern Pennsylvania. David Miller of the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public and International Affairs has conducted research showing the growing gap between the wealthy and poor neighborhoods in Pittsburgh, exacerbated by the governing challenges presented by the region's fragmented governmental system.

Recognizing that "no man is an island", the innovation clinic will work on new solutions for local government, including expanding current intergovernmental cooperation and developing new forms of it.   Three "innovation areas" that could lead to reform in the region: increasing the role of county governments as regional governing bodies, transforming councils of governments (COGs) as active public service providers and decision makers within their organizations, and finally, increasing the use of special districts for the delivery of certain services.

While there have been intergovernmental cooperation successes in the region, more can be done. Dr. Miller wants to conduct research and prepare case studies in the three areas of government stated above, and analyze how they could be applied in the Pittsburgh region. The clinic will help facilitate intergovernmental cooperation efforts, and will also aid in providing technical assistance for communities in these efforts through the use of faculty, graduate, and undergraduate students.  

The work of the clinic will be supported by an interdisciplinary faculty advisory group from the University of Pittsburgh and other schools, a practitioner advisory group of elected and appointed  government officials at the state and local levels, and members of civic organizations from the region. The clinic would also partner with these civic organizations, such as the Local Government Academy and Sustainable Pittsburgh, for training and technical support for municipalities.

The Innovation Clinic emerges as a response by the University to information provided in three recent studies that mention the importance of local governments working together for service delivery. The Brookings Institution produced two reports, one entitled Committing to Prosperity: Moving Forward on the Agenda to Renew Pennsylvania, and another entitled Strengthening Rural Pennsylvania: An Integrated Approach to a Prosperous Commonwealth.

These reports talk of the “hollowing out”, or population loss, in the Pittsburgh region and PA rural counties, and makes recommendations for intergovernmental cooperation for service delivery. The Pennsylvania Economy League’s 2007 report found that communities in PA are declining in fiscal health and that tools for dealing with distress are not effective. The report also recommends regional service delivery and intergovernmental cooperation. 

For more information on the University  of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public and  International Affairs, visit www.gspia.pitt.edu.

For more information on intergovernmental cooperation in the Pittsburgh region, please  visit www.igcsuccess.org.

David Miller, PhD
Associate Dean/Associate Professor
Graduate School of Public and International  Affairs University of Pittsburgh

 

York Area United Fire and Rescue: Intergovernmental Cooperation and Fire Services by Dean Fernsler

Dean Fernsler
former Local Government Policy Manager
DCED Governors Center for Local Government Services

Local governments in Pennsylvania are very independent organizations and conduct their business just as independently. Often there is little consideration of how a decision or action may affect their neighboring municipalities. However, there are those local governments who have reached out to their neighbors in an effort to ease the burden of providing services to their constituents.

The process of intergovernmental cooperation is not new to some local governments and some have decades of history working with their neighbors. It is most common in public works, purchasing, policing, and administration. However, intergovernmental cooperation is relatively rare regarding partnerships of emergency service organizations, such as volunteer fire and rescue companies. Even more rare are partnerships involving career fire departments.

That is why there is a compelling story to be told surrounding the formal established partnership of two combination fire departments in two different local governments. Springettsbury (a township of the second class) and Spring Garden (a township of the first class) Townships are located just east of the City of York, York County. Springettsbury is the larger of the two municipalities, but both have career firefighters supported and assisted by volunteers. Career firefighters are in the majority with Springettsbury having 17 positions and Spring Garden with 16 paid positions.

In 2002, the managers and a few elected officials from both townships met with a representative from DCED to inquire if assistance was available to investigate the feasibility of combining fire service operations of both municipalities. The idea was to determine if it was possible to combine similar yet different services into a single organization to serve both townships. A strategy was developed to facilitate the creation of a partnership and in December of 2002, a resolution was approved by both municipalities to proceed. 

An Emergency Services Task Force was created consisting of elected representatives of both local governments, fire services officials, and most importantly, selected citizen representatives from both municipalities. This group consisted of 13 members and was charged with creating a combined fire service organization. The Task Force soon recognized the need for some professional assistance with their evaluation and engaged a consultant to assist their effort. The study was underwritten with a DCED shared services grant and proved to be beneficial to the entire process.

Throughout the long and complicated process of debate, deliberation and decision-making, both municipal governments were openly supportive and understanding of the needs of the fire services and kept employees and members informed and engaged. The learning curve was steep for all involved, and the Task Force correctly realized that this was an educational process for everyone involved. 

The result of this effort is that today in Springettsbury and Spring Garden Townships, there exists a new emergency services organization known as the York Area United Fire and Rescue (YAUFR). This is a consolidated fire and rescue service organization with a new chief (selected from a nationwide search) and administrative staff that brings together two formerly independent and separate organizations. It required combining two labor unions, two pension plans, satisfying the volunteer component, and a new ordinance defining and creating the new entity.

The newly appointed chief began duties on February 11, 2008. There are plans being developed for a central station to house the organization to bring all assets together. The career firefighters were in favor of this effort because they saw this as an opportunity to be part of a larger, more responsive and capable organization that can have a regional application in the greater York suburban area. The volunteers were experiencing declining resources and saw this as a way to enhance fire service capabilities for the region. 

This was an ambitious, complicated and yet rewarding process for all involved. It also stands as a progressive and beneficial result for the entire region and is a model of intergovernmental cooperation. In addition to the Task Force, one of the other significant driving forces behind this success were the managers of both municipalities who orchestrated all of the detail work involved. In the words of the Springettsbury manager, it required “patience, patience, and evidence of monthly progress” to keep this effort on track.

In light of the obstacles that had to be overcome, this is an extraordinary example of intergovernmental cooperation in Pennsylvania. The elected and appointed officials, firefighters, and citizens have reason to be proud and excited about their accomplishment and can be shared and promoted as a model of what local governments can achieve with patience, persistence and commitment.

LGA introduces: www.igcsuccess.org

Municipalities know that when they work together, it is possible for large numbers of citizens to benefit.  There are numerous examples of successful intergovernmental cooperation throughout Pennsylvania.  LGA has begun an effort to collect those success stories and make them available as a repository of innovation.  LGA has launched the web site www.igcsuccess.org, where the stories of “IGC Success” are located.   But it is not a static website with LGA serving as the gatekeeper of what is presented there.  It is a wiki, which means any member can add and edit content.  This presents a great opportunity for communities and community leaders to showcase their accomplishments and share ideas with other communities that may have similar needs.  As a wiki, multiple “editors” serve to get the information as accurate and complete as possible. 

Some of the initial content available on www.igcsuccess.org so far includes:

Butler County Sewage Association

Centre County COG

Municipal Code Enforcement Association

Northern Regional Police Department

Have a great story of how intergovernmental cooperation in Pennsylvania solved a community problem, saved taxpayers dollars or promoted good local decision making?  Share it.  Not only will other communities not have to “reinvent the wheel”, your community will enjoy the public relations benefits that come with being a leader.

Join the wiki at www.igcsuccess.org today!