A bill pushed by Gov. Ned Lamont’s administration would override town charter language that prevents the sharing of services with neighboring towns and allow municipal unions to form coalitions to collectively bargain labor contracts for those shared services.
The legislation is a potential cost-saving measure for Connecticut’s 169 municipalities, allowing them to voluntarily join services together without having to amend their town charters that prevent such cooperation. Currently, some towns share animal control services, building officials and assessors, ambulance services and tax collection, according to a 2020 report by the Municipal Shared Services Task Force. Furthermore, many smaller towns have formed regional education systems.
“Providing some services 169 ways is not [the] most effective means of delivery,” the report indicated. “Some services just lend themselves to shared approaches.”
Lamont offered written testimony to the Planning and Development Committee, saying that carving out an easier path for sharing services will give municipalities “an opportunity for increased collaboration and streamlined services.”
“By voluntarily joining a regional consolidation agreement, municipalities can benefit from the increased access to workforce, services, and the cost savings associated with these collaborations,” Lamont wrote in testimony. “These interlocal and regional agreements are made possible in part by allowing municipal collective bargaining units to establish a coalition representing multiple towns. These coalitions are dependent on mutual agreement and would not move forward unless all parties are on board.”
The initial bill was also supported by the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM), the Connecticut Council of Small Towns (COST), and some regional Councils of Government (COGs), with caveats, as lawmakers attempted to craft language that would meet the concerns of both the municipalities and the unions representing municipal workers, who also had some concerns around the original bill language.
Some of the municipal concerns centered on overriding town charters and language regarding the potential establishment of regional boards and commissions, while union leaders were concerned with the ability to protect bargaining rights.
During a Planning and Development Committee meeting in March, Rep. Doug Dubitsky, R-Chaplin, raised concerns about the charter language, inquiring whether it affects only language in the charter specifically restricting shared services or could be interpreted to override any language that could impede sharing services.
While the Legislative Clerk’s Office indicated the bill language was specific to charters that specifically restrict sharing services, Dubitsky said the language remained unclear as to how closely towns might have to examine their charters to understand what language is rescinded.
“It throws complete confusion into anybody who needs to follow the charter because how do you know which provisions are repealed, revoked and rescinded?” Dubitsky said. “It’s completely confusing.”
Committee co-chair, Rep. Eleni Kavros-DeGraw, D-Avon, said the bill would prevent towns from having to open their charters to make revisions.
“You would not have to open the entire charter to move forward with shared services,” Kavros DeGraw said, but indicated she was open to working with the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) to adjust the language. “It could be we’re much closer than we think we are, but it’s just a difference of language.”
Sen. Ryan Fazio, R-Greenwich, said he was hopeful the joint favorable language would better help towns share services but felt the final product was “problematic” because it would override charters rather than allowing towns to open those charters and amend them, and the final committee language struck a section of the original bill that restricted “questions of wages, hours and other conditions of employment,” from preventing a municipality from entering a shared service arrangement.
“That, I think, was really the operative part of the bill that would enable us to have sharing of services in an effective manner,” Fazio said. “Unfortunately, I think this bill becomes an easy no.”
Rep. Tom Delnicki, R-South Windsor, however, said the coalition bargaining language – something advocated for by both the unions and the municipal associations – would remove one of the primary barriers to towns sharing services.
“I’m glad to see the comment in there having the coalition to bargain to get a contract that works for everybody,” Delnicki said. “That was the one thing that typically would be a roadblock.” Delnicki voted for the bill with some concerns over how the bill would affect municipalities that didn’t want their charter revised.
Kavros-DeGraw indicated that the language of the bill is “enabling, not mandatory,” and that towns would not be forced to share services but could do so voluntarily.
Rep. Tami Zawistowski, R-Suffield, said that despite the municipal associations’ initial support for the bill, she was now hearing they were disappointed with the final language, something Kavros-DeGraw said she’d not heard at that point.
Reached for comment, Executive Director of COST Betsy Gara said the final language of the bill is still being negotiated before potentially coming to a vote.
“COST continues to be supportive of provisions that remove some barriers to ensure that municipalities can enter into shared services agreements,” Gara said. “I think we were looking for stronger language to address some of the collective bargaining issues that towns bump up against when they’re trying to consolidate services or enter into shared service arrangements.”
“There is language that is under discussion, relative to the coalition bargaining piece,” Gara said. “We’re concerned that weakens the bill. I don’t think that be addressed this session; however, we still support the provisions that will remove barriers to shared service agreements.”
Gara said towns could agree to share services like fair rent commissions, develop affordable housing plans, and appoint building officials. “This will ensure towns can work with neighboring municipalities to perform those functions rather than incur all the costs themselves,” Gara said.
The bill ultimately passed the Planning and Development Committee with a 14-7 vote, but committee leaders indicated there would still be more work done on the bill with OPM as it heads to the House of Representatives.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
