Local Government Collaboration Case Studies
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
2 likes•4,804 views
This presentation provides an overview of the work of the Local Government Institute, lessons learned from recent studies, factors for success in intergovernmental cooperation for service delivery and a review of some case studies.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (9)
Similar to Local Government Collaboration Case Studies
Similar to Local Government Collaboration Case Studies (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Local Government Collaboration Case Studies
- 1. Local Government Collaboration for Service Delivery Presented By: Gary W. Becker WAPA Conference June 13, 2013 B r i n g i n g L o c a l G o v e r n m e n t s T o g e t h e r t o S e r v e
- 2. Local Government Institute • Wisconsin Towns Association • Wisconsin Counties Association • League of Wisconsin Municipalities • Urban Alliance
- 3. Local Government Institute Purpose: Collaborate with others to find solutions for the efficient delivery and funding of local government services consistent with the needs of our citizens.
- 4. Why Collaboration? • Bottom-up approach to regional issues requires collaboration – alternative is top-down approach • Collaborative approach is generally more effective and lower cost than individual units each addressing an issue on their own. • Adopting a mindset of regional collaboration is linked to economic success and global competitiveness
- 5. Collaboration in Practice LGI Findings: • Collaboration is “in the genes” of local government – long history • Collaborations must be voluntary and organic – not mandated. One size does not fit all. • Focus on the way services are delivered, not the number of local government units.
- 6. Lessons Learned – General Collaboration • Collaboration can result in significant efficiencies over long-term, but not in short-term – not a quick fix • Not all services are suitable for collaboration. Factors include: – Association with community identity – Geography: Scope and Limitations – Operating & Capital Costs – Ratio of Line Staff to Customers – Mandates
- 7. Lessons Learned – General Collaboration Obstacles to collaboration include: • Turf • Competition for Revenue/Growth • Perceived Differences • Perceived Loss of Identity, Access, Reduced Control and Accountability, Threat to Employees
- 8. Lessons Learned – General Collaboration Many obstacles can be overcome, but it takes nearly all of the following: • Demonstrate improved service • Clear fiscal benefit • Shared perception of need • Community support • Trust • Collaborative Leadership
- 9. Legislative Authority Legislative authority for local government collaborative action in Wisconsin can be found in these statutes: • 66.0229 – Consolidation • 66.0301 - Intergovernmental Cooperation (including joint action agencies and regional service delivery organizations) • 66.0303 - Municipal Interstate Cooperation • 66.0305 – Political Subdivision Revenue Sharing • 66.0307 - Boundary Agreements (also addresses service delivery)
- 10. Legislative Authority • 66.0813 – Provision of Utility Service Outside of Municipality • 66.0823 – Joint Local Water Authorities • 66.1105 – Multi-jurisdictional TIF Districts • 33.21 – Public Inland Lake Protection Districts • 200 – Metropolitan Sewerage Districts • 91.86 – Agricultural Enterprise Areas • 92.12 – Soil & Water Conservation
- 11. Case Studies
- 12. Case Studies • Formal Collaboration Much More Prevalent in Urban Areas • Collaboration in Rural Areas Most Often at County Level
- 13. Case Studies DeForest/Windsor Cooperative Plan • 66.037 Cooperative Boundary Agreement • Years of Conflict – Primarily Over Development • Irregular Boundaries Created Problems – Community Identity, Planning, Service Delivery, and Budgeting • Also History of Working Together – Community/Senior Center, Joint Municipal Court, Fire/Police Protection – These Agreements Became Touchstones for Building Trust • Pro-development Forces Formed DAWN – To Bring Rationality to Development Process for Area
- 14. Case Studies • DAWN Pressured Both Jurisdictions to Come to a Resolution • 2004 Annexation Settlement Agreement Committed The Jurisdictions to Develop A Cooperative Boundary Agreement • Six Years to Reach Agreement on A Plan – Approved by DOA in Oct 2010 • In Addition to Boundaries & Land Use, Boundary Agreement Established a Joint Planning Mechanism, Common Police Protection Standards and Agreement on the Provision of Shared Services
- 15. Case Studies Benefits: • Greater political stability regarding land use decisions and new development • Increased private investment in area – greater tax revenue and increased funding for school • Expand intergovernmental agreements around key services • Greater protection of water quality through a coordinated approach to stormwater management
- 16. Case Studies Forums: Intergovernmental Cooperation • Brown County – Municipal Initiatives Committee • Racine County – Heads of Government Group (HOG) • Green Lake County • Western Wisconsin Intergovernmental Collaborative – 99 LUGs in St. Croix, Polk and Pierce Counties • Inter-county Coordinating Committee – Sauk, Columbia, Jefferson, Dodge, Green Lake & Marquette Counties • Good Neighbor Committee – Black Earth Creek Watershed Western Dane County
- 17. LGI Resources • www.localgovinstitute.org • Case Studies of Local Government Collaboration • Training for Local Elected Officials In WI • Roadmap for Government Transformation • Lean Government Conference • Regional Collaboration Initiative • Upcoming Events
- 18. Gary Becker Executive Director Local Government Institute Exec_dir@localgovinstitute.org www.localgovinstitute.org (608)831-1662
Editor's Notes
- History of local government reform in Wisconsin that culminated in formation of LGI.
- Third bullet references Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago study of older industrial cities and factors associated with resurgent cities and successful economic transformation. Local government is morally and legally obligated to protect the quality of our water. And it’s not because of the EPA. The charter from the State of Wisconsin that resulted in the formation of the City of Madison has the following language: “…have jurisdiction over the entire lakes bordering on the city so as to prevent deterioration of the waters by which the health of the inhabitants of the city or the purity of the water shall be impaired.” When it comes to water, collaboration is necessary because water is not tied to jurisdictional boundaries. Whether we take water from the surface or the ground the quality of that water depends upon what happens in other jurisdictions. And when municipalities treat their wastewater, that ends up flowing into other communities. So, we need to collaborate on a watershed level to really address water issues.
- So, with all these tools, why is it so hard? LGI recently published a directory of case studies of local government collaboration. There are remarkably few case studies that involve managing water resources on a multi-jurisdictional basis. Examples of what we have found include: Dane County joint permit authority that is the result of an intergovernmental agreement. Superior/Duluth There are several consortia around the state to discuss cooperative efforts around water quality There is one multi-jurisdictional stormwater utility.
- What tools do we have to work with? 66.0229 – consolidations are very rare 66.0301 provides broad powers for multi-jurisdictional action on regional issues across virtually any type of governmental entity, including authorizing the formation of an intergovernmental commission. For example, the Geneva Lake Environmental Agency that helps manage water quality in Geneva Lake. 66.0303 – allows a Wisconsin municipality to contract with another municipality or tribe in another state for the delivery or receipt of services or the joint exercise of any power. 66.0305 – any city, village, town or county may enter into agreements to share revenue. Example: Racine area revenue sharing agreement between Racine and 6 area cities and towns to address fiscal imbalances between the city and suburbs around development costs & benefits. 66.0307 – allows any combination of cities, villages and towns to determine the boundary between them following the development of a cooperative plan that addresses a number of issues including how services will be delivered within the area covered by the plan.
- 66.0813 – a water utility of one municipality may contract to provide services to another municipality 66.0823 – any city, village, town, county, town sanitary district, water utility district or public inland lake district with sanitary district powers may contract to establish or join a joint local water authority. Such an authority may produce, treat, store, transmit, purchase, distribute, sell or exchange water. This statute treats water as a commodity rather than a resource. 66.1105 – allows two or more municipalities to establish a multi-jurisdictional TIF district. Water management and treatment infrastructure are common TIF eligible expenses. 33.21 – allows local units of government to form lake protection districts as a vehicle for financing and implementing lake protection and rehab projects. Provides the power to levy taxes and assessments. Authorizes merger of contigous districts. Chapter 200 – authorizes cities, villages, towns and countys to form or join a metro sewerage district. 91.86 – authorizes local governments and farmers to establish ag enterprise areas for the purpose of preserving farmland Soil & Water Conservation 92.07(7) Assistance. Each land conservation committee, in the name of the county, may cooperate with, enter into agreements with, or furnish financial, technical, planning or other assistance to any agency, governmental or otherwise, or any landowner or land user within the incorporated or unincorporated parts of the county, in carrying out resource conservation operations and works of improvement for flood prevention or for the conservation, development, utilization and protection of soil and water resources within the county. (12) Contracts; rules. Each land conservation committee, in the name of the county, may make and execute contracts and other instruments necessary or convenient to the exercise of its powers. According to the latest annual report from the Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Board Funding for BMPs cost-shared through County Conservation departments amounted to $29.8 million, but all from state or federal sources. We’ll get back to this later.