County Officials

Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

Center
Governors

for Local Government Services

Councils of Governments Director's Handbook

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Mark Schweiker, Governor www.state.pa.us Department of Community and Economic Development Sam McCullough, Secretary www.inventpa.com

DCED

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

Councils of Governments Directors Handbook

Second Edition Harrisburg, December 1997

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

Comments or inquiries on the subject matter of this publication should be addressed to: Governors Center for Local Government Services Department of Community and Economic Development 400 North Street, 4th Floor Commonwealth Keystone Building Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120-0225 (717) 787-8158 1-888-223-6837 E-mail: ra-dcedclgs@state.pa.us Additional copies of this publication may be obtained from: Governors Center for Local Government Services Department of Community and Economic Development 400 North Street, 4th Floor Commonwealth Keystone Building Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120-0225 (717) 783-0176 Publication is available electronically via the Internet: Access www.inventpa.com Select Communities in PA, select Local Government Services, then select Publications.

No liability is assumed with respect to the use of information contained in this publication. Laws may be amended or court rulings made that could affect a particular procedure, issue or interpretation. The Department of Community & Economic Development assumes no responsibility for errors and omissions nor any liability for damages resulting from the use of information contained herein. Please contact your local solicitor for legal advise.

Preparation and printing of this edition of the Councils of Governments Directors Handbook was funded from appropriations of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Copyright 1997, Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development, all rights reserved.

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

Table of Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1

1. Councils of Governments (COG) ....................................................................................................3 Mission of COGs..........................................................................................................3 Service Provision and Production ................................................................................5 Articles of Agreement ..................................................................................................6 2. Office of the Director .......................................................................................................................7 Responsibilities ............................................................................................................7 Annual Evaluation........................................................................................................8 Staff Relations..............................................................................................................9 Professional Development..........................................................................................11 3. Meetings ....................................................................................................................................13 Notice .........................................................................................................................13 Physical Arrangements...............................................................................................13 Agendas......................................................................................................................14 Rules of Order............................................................................................................15 Minutes.......................................................................................................................16 Role of the COG Director ..........................................................................................17 4. Communication and Information ...............................................................................................19 Orientation Sessions...................................................................................................19 Reports to Governing Bodies .....................................................................................20 Communications with Municipal Managers/Secretaries ............................................21 Relations with the Media ...........................................................................................21 Relations with Other Public Agencies........................................................................21 Relations with the Public ...........................................................................................22 5. Getting Started ..............................................................................................................................23 Rules of the Road.......................................................................................................23 6. Consensus Building ........................................................................................................................26 The Director as Consensus Builder............................................................................26

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

Ground Rules for Effective Groups ...........................................................................27 7. Budgeting and Finance ..................................................................................................................28 Revenues ....................................................................................................................28 Funding Formulas ......................................................................................................29 Budget ........................................................................................................................30 Accounting Systems ...................................................................................................31 Internal Controls.........................................................................................................31 Annual Audits ............................................................................................................31 Risk Management.......................................................................................................32 Purchasing..................................................................................................................33 8. New Partnerships ...........................................................................................................................34 Refuse Collection .......................................................................................................34 Regional Code Administration...................................................................................36 Regional Fire Protection.............................................................................................38 Intergovernmental Cooperation Law ................................................................................................42 Joint Services ....................................................................................................................................46 Sample Resolution Establishing COG Director Position .................................................................47 Sample Agenda ....................................................................................................................................50 Keystone COG Code Administration Budget ...................................................................................52

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

Introduction

COG directors have one of the most challenging positions in local government. Overcoming the barriers to intergovernmental cooperation and working with the participating municipalities to create a shared vision of the region requires a unique blend of management, negotiation and advocacy skills. Often, the COG director has little or no staff support, uncertain funding streams and tenuous municipal commitment. Despite these obstacles, the concept of local governments working together through regional agencies to develop shared solutions to common problems is at the forefront of municipal governance. As Pennsylvania local governments look to the future, the changes they confront will necessitate a rethinking of how public services are produced. In the future, most of the major problems confronting local governments will be regional in nature. Environmental concerns relating to water, air, noise, and land use cut across municipal boundaries and can only be meaningfully addressed at the regional level. Social problems -- drugs, crime, homelessness -- are carried across jurisdictions with the constant movement of people. This mobility affects the need for human and public services which must be planned and delivered on a regional scale. Economic relationships among local units within a region are numerous and strong. Recent studies indicate that cities and their suburbs are not distinct economies, rather they function as an interdependent region -- their fiscal well-beings are linked together. In addition, roads and highways do not begin or end at municipal boundaries. Instead, they cut across many municipalities to form an integrated network that permits the transport of people and goods. To successfully prepare for this future, local government officials should develop mechanisms capable of addressing the regional issues that affect their communities. COGs and other similar voluntary associations of local governments create partnerships having this capacity to address issues that transcend jurisdictional boundaries. Building on the collective strengths of their member municipalities, COGs can coordinate and direct public resources to respond to the regions concerns. In performing this service COGs can coordinate and direct public resources to respond to the regions concerns. In performing this service COGs lower the costs of government by eliminating or reducing duplication and achieving economics of scale. They enhance flexibility by offering the ability to shift personnel from one portion of the region to another, depending on the changing needs of the participating municipalities. They improve quality by providing a collective revenue base that is sufficient to retain professional staff, purchase necessary equipment and assure uniform service delivery throughout the entire region. These benefits are achieved, not by creating another layer of government or imposing new taxes, but by encouraging existing public officials to work cooperatively with their colleagues in neighboring communities. This commitment to collective action permits municipalities to lower expenditures and provide a high level of service than they could individually achieve. Past achievements of Pennsylvanias COGs are considerable and the future potential is unlimited. As these regional successes become more well known, elected officials will become increasingly interested in the benefits of regional cooperation. This interest raises the possibility of more regional programs and higher expectations for the individuals who administer them. Recognizing the great potential for regional cooperation, the two objectives of this handbook are: =To provide directors and administrators of COGs and other intermunicipal organizations with an information source that offers guidance in planning, organizing and implementing regional programs.

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

=To provide municipal elected officials with guidance in establishing a Council of Governments, selecting an administrator and becoming an active participant in regional governance. The handbooks underlying premises is that the critical key to a COGs success is the involvement of the elected and appointed officials in the COG decision making process. The emphasis will be on securing the active participation of all the municipal officials -- not just the few who may be members of the COG legislative body. Regardless of the activity -- proposing new programs, establishing budgets or evaluating performance -- the principal task of the COG director is to encourage active leadership by the municipal elected officials in the governance of the COG. When this involvement is not encouraged, or is limited to a small group, or relinquished to paid staff, the COG is in danger because the municipal officials participation and support will eventually diminish. Cultivating this broad-based support requires patient persistence. Historical conflicts and suspicion among municipalities within the COG create obstacles that take time to overcome. However, these barriers must be dismantled if Pennsylvanias municipalities are to be viable in the future. The current service-delivery arrangement in which each municipality produces a variety of programs independently from its neighboring communities, will be overcome by regional challenges, whether they be environmental, demographic or economic in character. By their interjurisdictional nature these regional concerns are not readily amenable to mitigation or resolution by uncoordinated action by some of the affected municipalities. In most cases individual municipalities lack the resources, geographic area and political clout to control regional issues. Instead solutions flow from cooperative partnerships, often guided by a regional consensus decision achieved through significant open dialogue among the elected officials. COGs provide tools that elected officials can use to establish this regional dialogue and implement the shared solution. Underlying the elected officials participation in the COG should be the common desire to create solutions that are not only good for each government but also will yield the desired benefits to the regional. Reaching new levels of cooperation entails moving beyond the limits imposed by jurisdictional boundary lines to a larger vision of the region.

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

1. Councils of Governments

The statutory foundation for Councils of Governments (COGs) is the Intergovernmental Cooperation Law, Act 180 of 1972. This legislation permits municipal governments to jointly cooperate with other municipalities in the exercise of their governmental functions, powers, or responsibilities. Considering that Act 180 is one of the most liberal grants of authority for intergovernmental cooperation in the United States, it is amazingly brief. Yet it has generated hundreds of cooperative activities including Councils of Governments, municipal leagues, regional police departments, joint purchasing agreements, and many other forms of municipal cooperation. Interestingly, Act 180 which has been amended several times, does not mention Councils of Governments or any other specific form of intergovernmental cooperation in its text. This exclusion has both advantages and disadvantages for COGs. The main problem is that it does not provide specific guidance to municipalities in establishing and operating COGs. Consequently, there are many gray areas in dealing with the legal status of COGs. The main advantage is that municipalities have the flexibility to tailor the COG organization to the needs and preferences of the local community. Some COGs are incorporated as nonprofit corporations, and others are classified as governments that are instrumentalities of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. A variation of the second option is for the COG to exist as a subunit of a member municipality for insurance and employee pension purposes, but to function as a political instrumentality for all other activities. The choice is the prerogative of the elected officials of the participating municipalities. Despite the variations in organizational charters all Pennsylvania COGs share the following characteristics: =They have no taxing powers. =They organizational structure, including voting representation, is a matter of local choice. =They are established by adoption of ordinances by the member municipalities.

Mission of COGs
COGs are generally defined as voluntary associations of elected public officials from most or all of the governments in a region, formed to accomplish some regional mission(s). Reasons why municipalities form COGs may include the following: =To produce local government services on a regional basis. =To coordinate planning and regulatory activities. =To provide a neutral forum to discuss issues of common concern. =To articulate common positions on major issues. =To spread costs of local programs or equipment among a number of users. As producers of public services, COGs have two main advantages over typical municipally operated departments: lower cost and more service. COGs may lower the cost of producing public services by reducing redundancy and overlap. By cooperating through a COG, a municipality can avoid duplicating personnel, facilities and equipment available in neighboring jurisdictions. For example, consider a case where four municipalities operate individual code administration programs. Each one requires a code official, office space and vehicles. In contrast, a COG program serving the same four communities requires a single code official, one office and one vehicle. Additional savings
1

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

may be attributable to the economies of scale that COGs can achieve by increasing the area served. By creating a larger market for suppliers, COGs have the leverage to negotiate a lower price for goods and services. For instance, one COG reduced the monthly cost of residential refuse collection by over 25% when the service area changed from individual municipalities to a region covering four townships. Concurrent with lower costs, COG programs may also offer more service to the residents. Because regional COG programs are typically larger in terms of personnel and resources than those offered by a single municipality, the residents' accessibility to a service is increased. For instance, a COG recreation office is typically able to offer a wider variety of specialized programs (such as those directed to children or senior citizens) than could be provided by any of the individual municipalities participating in the COG. Or in another example, a building code administration program of a small municipality may have only one part-time employee who is only available to the public a few hours per week. In contrast, a regional program could justify several full-time employees, giving residents more opportunity to schedule inspections. Often the services offered by a COG are of higher quality because the larger service base can support more competent and well-trained staff. As coordinators of planning and regulatory activities among geographic neighbors, the COG assists with the development and adoption of compatible ordinances and planning documents such as the following: = Model municipal ordinances for regulating false emergency alarms, managing stormwater, protecting well fields and groundwater and adopting building and fire code standards. Variations in these ordinances among neighboring governments in a single economic trading area often results in higher housing costs. Model ordinances developed by a COG establish a single uniform standard which may lower development costs by eliminating variations in construction designs and material due to conflicting municipal codes. By adopting uniform regional codes, enforcement activities are more readily accomplished. Regional plans for controlling land use and development, such as regional comprehensive plans, Act 537 Sewage Facility Plans and Transportation Management Plans. Regional plans for providing emergency services, such as emergency management plans, fire apparatus replacement schedules and fire company reorganization proposals.

As forums for discussion, COGs offer a neutral arena where elected officials can meet and start to build the professional relationships that are essential for successful intergovernmental programs. In addition they provide an opportunity to discuss mutual and regional problems and policies to address concerns. COGs serve to inform officials about regional problems, or state or national issues that may affect the region (such as tax reform or cable television regulation). Depending on the topic, these forums can and should be expanded to include representatives from other affected agencies, such as municipal authorities, county governments, school districts and other agencies. As an advocate for regional positions, COGs can articulate the concerns or recommendations that have been identified at the regional forums to county, state and federal elected officials or regulatory agencies. By presenting the regional position as a united front, the COG strengthens communications to other governments on such major issues as infrastructure planning, proposed legislation or budget appropriations and taxing policies. When legislators receive conflicting recommendations from municipalities, the impact of the recommendation is weakened. The legislator is unable to promote one community's position without diminishing another jurisdiction's recommendation, often resulting in stalemate. A regional position representing a number of municipalities expressed in unison by a COG sends a clear and strong message which may enhance the probability of a positive outcome for the municipalities.
2

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

The role of the COG director varies with the mission(s) of the COG. If the COG is a producer of local government services, the director is an administrator responsible for providing quality, cost effective programs to the public. In promoting coordinated planning, the COG director assists in achieving regional cohesion and creating an overall vision for the region. When the COG functions as a public forum, the director is an educator and facilitator who encourages the exchange of information to solve regional problems and identify consensual solutions to those concerns. As an advocate for regional positions, the COG director is a regional representative who seeks to use communication skills to affect the policy decisions of outside agencies. Appendix B provides an example of services COGs provide and some ideas for COG programs.

Service Provision and Production

COGs offset the fragmentation of local government within a region while maintaining the individual municipality's ability to select which services it will provide to the public. This capacity is inherent in the difference between providing and producing a public service. According to the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, providers decide whether to make a service available through public means. If a service is to be provided, the provider determines the quality and quantity, how funding will be obtained, and the appropriate unit(s) to produce the service. Municipalities are providers when they decide what services should be produced. For instance, a provision decision would be whether a municipality should have a building code enforcement program. In contrast, producers transform resource inputs into service outputs. COGs are producers when they organize the personnel, materials and equipment necessary to create a given service, such as building code enforcement. Once the elected officials decide to provide a service, the municipality has various options to produce it, including: assigning the service to a new or existing municipal department; contracting with a private company; creating a private/public partnership with shared responsibility for the service; or assigning the service to a regional agency. Increasingly, municipalities are opting to produce the service regionally or through a private/public partnership that is regionally based (for an example, see the chapter on New Partnerships - Refuse). Regional production of a service is a form of functional consolidation. This means the geographic area for the service is not confined to a single jurisdiction. Instead it is a combination of all the participating municipalities in a region. Functional consolidation does not affect jurisdictional boundaries, however. Each of the participating municipalities retains its separate identity. The larger service area is able to lower the production costs, while increasing the quality and quantity of the product. Additionally, the ability to contract with private companies is enhanced when services are coordinated regionally. For instance, bidding specifications for a regional refuse contract covering five municipalities is likely to generate more competition and lower customer collection rates than a single municipal bid. By participating in COGs, municipalities have the flexibility to decide whether they want to provide a specific service. Once they decide to do so, municipalities have the option of producing services regionally through the COG, thereby gaining the benefit of a larger service without sacrificing local autonomy. Thus, COGs allow municipalities to provide a service without having to produce it on an inefficient scale, which increases costs and lowers quality and quantity. This flexibility is also consistent with the public's interest in low cost services and the desire to maintain the local identity associated with the existing units of local government.

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

Articles of Agreement
To create a COG, each of the municipalities that want to join must adopt by ordinance, at a publicly advertised meeting, an intergovernmental agreement which addresses the following issues: = = = = = = = Conditions of the agreement. Duration of the agreement. Purpose and objectives of the agreement, including the powers and scope of authority delegated in the agreement. Manner and extent of financing the agreement. Organizational structure necessary to implement the agreement. Manner in which property, real or personal, shall be acquired, licensed or disposed of. Statement empowering the COG to enter into contracts for group insurance and employee benefits, including social security, for its employees.

These items can be covered in the ordinance itself, but usually they are addressed in the agreement (often called Articles of Agreement), and incorporated into the ordinance by reference (as an attachment to the ordinance). The Articles of Agreement act as the constitution of the COG, defining its scope of responsibility and establishing its organizational structure. As such, the document is of primary importance to the COG director. The Articles of Agreement determine whether the COG can own property, title vehicles, provide health and medical insurance to its employees or hire a director. The COG's Articles of Agreement should be periodically reviewed to assure that they are consistent with the current operation of the organization and the values of the municipalities in terms of how they believe the COG should function. Changes to the Articles of Agreement are approved in the same manner as the original document. Sources for sample Articles of Agreement include: the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development, the Pennsylvania Association of Councils of Governments, or by contacting other COGs.

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

2. Office of the Director

COG directors are unique among local government officials in terms of their relationship to municipal codes or state laws. Unlike city clerks, borough secretaries or township managers, the position of COG director is not mentioned in any state statute. The duties of the position, methods of appointment or dismissal and qualifications are purely a matter of local choice. In some COGs, the director is a full-time employee whose main duties are to provide overall administrative, financial and personnel management necessary for the organization to function. More often, the COG director is a part-time employee or an existing municipal or county employee whose job responsibilities include the administration of COG programs. In these cases, the COG director is a jack-of-all-trades, being responsible for all the management duties plus all other staff functions, including typing communications, duplicating reports and mailing agenda packages. The scope of the position's responsibilities is reflective of the COG's role in the region. A COG with few programs may be adequately staffed with a single part-time employee, but as the participating municipalities request additional services, additional full-time employees may be required. It is important to be realistic in setting the expectations for a part-time COG director position. Recording, transcribing, duplicating and mailing meeting minutes may be the principal job responsibility for a part-time position. When this occurs, the participating municipalities may be disappointed when new regional programs do not emerge or the COG is not successful in building municipal consensus on an important issue. Expectations must be commensurate with the resources committed to the COG. The establishment of the position of COG director is handled in a variety of ways. In some COGs the legislative body adopts a resolution which defines the position's responsibilities. Less formal, but still acceptable, is for the legislative body to approve a motion which establishes a job description for the position.

Responsibilities
Given the absence of state guidance in defining the duties of a COG director, it is left to elected officials to prepare a document that formally describes the position's responsibilities, qualifications and reporting arrangements. There is no single model for explaining the COG director's duties. Rather, a large number of variables determine how the COG director's position should be defined. Whether the duties of the COG director are of a managerial, secretarial or administrative nature is a matter of the size of the COG, its programs, its economic structure, its traditions and the political climate. A resolution or job description for the COG director is essential for assuring the successful implementation and maintenance of the position. It sets the limits of the COG director's powers, articulates duties and identifies the lines of reporting. Given the possibilities for changing membership on the COG legislative body as a result of municipal elections, the document provides a clear understanding of the position. This understanding protects both the elected officials and the COG director during periods of organizational change and it reduces potential areas of conflict. A resolution or job description needs to have the following elements: =Identify the position or committee responsible for supervising the COG director. =Define whether the position is full- or part-time, or a component of an existing position.

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

=Set the minimum qualifications for selecting the COG director. =Provide sample duties. As a provision in either document or as a separate policy statement, there should be an explanation of the procedures used in appointing, compensating and dismissing the COG director. Appendix C provides a model resolution for a COG director's position which addresses these issues. The appointment of the COG director is one of the most important decisions COG officials make. It is a task requiring careful planning, perceptive evaluation of the candidates and a clear understanding of the region's current and future needs. To attract a large pool of applicants, COGs should advertise the position as widely as possible to attract the best candidates. An active recruitment program is also highly compatible with the goals of the equal opportunity and affirmative action programs. The three most useful methods of recruitment are listed below. = = = Employment advertisement in regional newspapers. General publicity in professional journals such as the ICMA Newsletter, Pennsylvania Township News, and The Pennsylvanian. Personal invitations to selected individuals.

Annual Evaluation
The individual(s) who supervise the COG director should conduct an annual performance evaluation of the person holding the job. The term performance appraisal in personnel administration traditionally refers to a systematic evaluation of the job performance of an individual employee to assess whether predetermined objectives have been achieved. Ordinarily, the objectives of a performance evaluation are one or more of the following: = = = To provide feedback to the director and the supervising individual(s) or committee on job performance. To establish guidelines and recommendations for employe training and development to improve performance. To clarify or develop mutual goals, objectives and evaluation criteria.

Annual performance evaluations of COG directors are especially important, given the COG's complex political environment and changing membership. Often COG directors report to a subcommittee or executive committee of the main COG legislative group. Members of this supervisory committee bring varying perspectives on the objectives of the position and will tend to judge the director's performance according to those values. For instance, an elected official who places a high priority on joint purchasing may view the director's work performance as unsatisfactory when progress is slow in instituting a cooperative purchasing program. By contrast, another official who places a high priority on developing model ordinances for the municipalities may judge the same director's work performance as outstanding when progress is made in this area. Performance evaluations are a way of reconciling these conflicting assessments into a coherent evaluation of activities that identifies acceptable behavior, as well as behavior that needs to be improved. This uniform statement gives the director an overall rating of performance against the expectations of the organization. This knowledge offers security, thereby encouraging the director to be more committed and innovative in serving the member municipalities. The annual evaluation process for the COG director is also an effective tool for implementing the COG's work objectives. Prior to the start of the evaluation period, there should be an interview between the COG director and the supervisory committee to set standards and organizational objectives for the upcoming year.
2

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

These items define the municipal officials' expectations for the position and can range from developing or improving job skills to specific task accomplishments, such as drafting a model ordinance or initiating a new regional program. Ideally, the municipal officials' expectations should be linked to the COG's work program, as established in the COG's annual budget or other document which describes the objectives the COG wants to attain. This connection -municipal officials' expectations, budget statement, director's performance evaluationassures that both policy makers and staff have the same understanding of the COG's objectives. When the COG has other staff, this relationship should be expanded to include those employees. For instance, should the COG with a code administration agency desire to add a fire prevention program, that objective would be stated in the budget document and in the performance objectives for the COG director and the code official.

Staff Relations
Most COGs have small staffs and in some cases the director is the only employee. Where COG directors are fortunate to have staff support, then management style becomes an important skill. The relationship between the COG director and other staff must encourage teamwork among employees. This team approach is adaptable to changing situations and inspires commitment to the successful operation of the COG. With few employees and limited budgets, COG directors lack the flexibility to use promotions or monetary incentives to reward outstanding employees or to transfer or demote employees whose work does not meet organizational standards. Each employee must be motivated to help the COG become a high performance organization. To successfully encourage this motivation, the COG director must understand the rewards that employees seek from their jobs. Following is a rank-order listing of the top six rewards people want from their jobs: 1.A sense of accomplishment. 2.Doing meaningful work. 3.Pay. 4.Recognition for good work. 5.Job security. 6.Doing challenging work. Five of the six rewards concern the employee's sense of personal worth and not compensation issues. To enable the employee to achieve these rewards, the COG director must adopt a management style that empowers employees to strive toward reaching their full potential. Employees are more likely to feel empowered and committed to the COG when the following occur: Their tasks are interesting and varied and involve learning, challenge and responsibility. They have enough information, support and authority to get the job accomplished. They help make decisions that affect their jobs. They understand how their own work fits into the larger picture. They are treated as individuals who are personally important to the organization. These assumptions have important implications for determining a COG director's relationship to staff. They mean that COG directors should adopt a management style that supports and enables, rather than directs and controls. Generally, a director's relationship with staff can be characterized as authoritative, benevolent, consultive or participatory. Here are the features of these relationships:

Authoritative. Communication and goal setting are top down. No teamwork among employees and municipal officials. Staff behavior is motivated by security and money and their attitude is hostile. Output is typically mediocre.
3

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

Benevolent. Communication and goal setting are mostly top down. Teamwork among employees and municipal officials is minimal. Staff behavior is motivated by status and their attitude is mixed often toward negative. Output is typically fair to good. Consultive. Communication is up and down with goal setting made at top after consultation with employees. There is some teamwork among employees and municipal officials. Staff behavior is motivated by growth in job responsibilities and recognition of job accomplishments, and their attitude is typically mixed often toward positive. Output is typically good. Participative. Communication is up, down and sideways with goal setting occurring with group participation. There is significant teamwork among employees and municipal officials. Staff behavior is motivated by individual identity, commitment to achieving the regional goal and the ability to influence the decision-making excellent.
Recognizing that maximum work performance occurs when employees are actively involved in the development, implementation and evaluation of the programs that affect them, staff relations between the COG director and other personnel should be consultive and, ideally, participatory. This infers that many COG activities, reports, grant applications and proposals are not made by one individual, but by teams comprised of COG elected and appointed municipal officials, staff and other individuals with specialized knowledge of the issue such as authority personnel, state or federal officials or community representatives. The intent is to be inclusive rather than exclusive. The members of the team will, by necessity, vary in accordance with the issue and the expertise or knowledge required. For instance, the team for developing a proposal to create a joint purchasing program will be different than one assembled to outline a regional fire company. Regardless of the team's composition, each member should be encouraged to openly express his recommendations and concerns. Consultive or participatory staff relations do not mean the COG director relinquishes the authority and responsibility for making the final decision. With both approaches, the COG director continues to be the organization's chief appointed officer and retains the power to accept or reject the team's proposal. In cases where the director chooses an alternative to the team's proposal, it is essential that the reasons for this decision be openly explained to the team members in a manner that provides the opportunity to express opposition. Most issues considered by the COG relate to public services and are, therefore, acceptable subjects for team problem solving; however, some confidential issues such as personnel problems or litigation are not appropriate for open discussion. The shared responsibility for problem solving should be reflected in the proposal that is presented to the COG legislative body. This means the individual who presents the proposal to the elected officials is not necessarily the COG director. Instead, the report could be made by another COG employee or another member of the team. Providing other employees the opportunity to make public presentations reinforces their position as partners in the operation of the COG. Employees who are publicly acknowledged for their participation in the development of a proposal are committed to its successful implementation should the concept be approved by the COG legislative body. Another dimension of staff relations is leadership. The director ensures that a clear and compelling -even inspiring- shared vision is articulated clearly, stating where the COG is going and why. Thus, a crucial element of leadership for the director is communication with the staff. The intent of this communication is to provide each employee with a clear understanding of the COG's mission, organization and funding. The one consistent pattern true for all leaders is the ability to behave in ways that demonstrate integrity. Integrity is demonstrated by COG directors in their contact with officials, employees and the public, when based upon the following characteristics:
4

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

= = = =

Truth telling Promise keeping Fairness/justice Respect for the individual

In dealing with employees, it is essential that the director walk the walk. The director's behavior should be consistent with the actions necessary for consultive or participatory problem solving.

Professional Development
One of a COG's best investments is the professional development of its staff. Traditionally, training programs teach competencies that improve the quality and quantity of the work product. Most training programs are oriented around a particular job or set of duties, for instance word processing courses for a secretary or plan review procedures for a building inspector. In addition to these direct organizational benefits there are important but less tangible reasons for a COG to encourage its employees to pursue professional development. Through attendance at training programs, employees have the opportunity to learn how other regions deal with problems that are similar to the ones they confront. This informal communication enhances the employees' knowledge of which solutions to a regional problem work and which do not. It also provides a valuable information network for the COG as a source for sample ordinances, special reports and estimates for program expenses and revenues. Professional development for the director is essential and should be financed and actively supported by the participating municipalities. There are three areas of training needs for COG directors: management, program activity and community problem solving. As administrators of their organizations, COG directors should attend management training programs to improve their skills in organizational leadership, budgeting and finance, personnel management, grant preparation and communications. Program training involves instruction on specific topics which affect the services, such as recreation or code administration programs, produced by the COG. Community problem solving is an emerging responsibility of COG directors and will necessitate the development of special facilitation and mediation skills. As intergovernmental cooperation increases in its scope and responsibility, COG directors will become a resource to facilitate the resolution of regional problems. In this role COG directors are agents of change for their regions. Change in a variety of forms -economic, demographic, social- is inevitable. It not a matter of whether or not municipalities desire change, rather the issue is how to control it in a rational and advantageous manner. The COG director's position in the region affords certain strengths that are conducive to an active role in facilitating community discussion. Often COG directors are perceived by municipal officials to have knowledge of the region, familiarity with the main decision makers and neutrality on issues. It is likely that future regional discussions will occur in a complex environment involving multiple local governments, elected and appointed officials, special interests such as developer or environmental groups and active public participation. To manage this process the COG director must possess a nontraditional set of managerial skills for community problem solving. These community problem solving skills include negotiation, consensus-building, intergroup problem solving, organizational behavior and the effective use of legitimate authority. Mastering these skills involves a significant commitment of the COG director's time and organizational funding. However, the return to the region on this investment can be very advantageous. The first litigation avoided or new regional program implemented because of the COG director's involvement will pay for
5

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

the training many times over. Possible sources of training for COG directors and their staff can be obtained through: Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development Center For Local Government Services 325 Forum Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 1-888-2CENTER Association Pennsylvania Municipal Managers (APMM)* 414 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 236-9469 (800) 352-2766 Pennsylvania Association of Councils of Governments 2941 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 236-9526 Senior Executive Institute (SEI)** University of Virginia Center for Public Service P.O. Box 5627 Charlottesville, VA 22905 (804) 924-3396

*The APMM offers a municipal manager certification program and annual conferences which offer COG directors the opportunity to personally interact with managers to become familiar with issues confronting municipal managers. **SEI offers one- or two-week Executive Development Programs.

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

3. Meetings

The majority of the COG director's time is spent preparing for, attending and implementing action taken at meetings with municipal officials. This commitment of staff time is natural, given the consensual nature of the COG's decision-making process. Although meetings are a necessity for the COG, they should only be held when it is important to do so. Meetings with weak agendas are often viewed as a waste of time by the municipal officials and undermine the officials' willingness to attend future sessions. Weak agendas are comprised of agenda items that are incomplete (missing a piece of crucial information), unnecessary (the issue could be resolved by staff) or untimely (consideration of the item could be postponed until a later meeting). In those cases, the meeting should either be canceled or the agenda expanded to include discussion of more significant items to justify the time commitment made by the volunteer elected and appointed officials. When meetings are convened, they should be organized in a manner that allows all participants an opportunity to express their thoughts, while at the same time moving the discussion to closure. The intent of this section is to provide the COG director with guidelines for advertising, organizing and structuring meetings.

Notice
Under the Sunshine Law, all deliberations of elected officials must be done at a public meeting and at a time and place advertised in advance. Public notice must be given by publishing the meeting announcement at least once in a newspaper of general circulation within the region and by posting a copy where the meeting is to be held. Public notice of the first regular meeting of each calendar year must be given not less than three days in advance of the meeting and must include a schedule of the remaining regular meetings for the calendar year. The meeting notice should also comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act by offering to make special meeting arrangements for individuals who may require them. COG legislative bodies may hold executive sessions, but only under certain circumstances. These exceptions to the open meeting requirements include consideration of the following: = = = = = Personnel matters Collective bargaining issues Real estate issues Litigation matters

Other business protected by the confidentiality provisions of various laws and court decisions The chair must announce the reason for holding an executive session at the public meeting held immediately prior to or subsequent to the executive session. No vote may be taken on any motion, proposal, resolution, rule, regulation or order during an executive session.

Physical Arrangements
The physical arrangements for a meeting set the tone and can contribute or detract from the discussions. These are items to keep in mind when arranging a meeting: = Agreeable meeting site. The location of the meeting site should be agreeable to all
1

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

the participating municipalities and should not offer one community an advantage over another. Some COGs use municipal buildings, while other COGs opt for neutral sites such as hotel meeting rooms, schools, colleges or churches. The room should also comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act to assure that all municipal officials and residents have access to the meeting and can participate in the discussions. The site selected should be centrally located; however, a few COGs rotate meeting locations among the member municipalities. Although this approach achieves meeting neutrality, it requires the COG director to provide the COG officials with maps to various meeting sites and a clear announcement of the change. Attaching a special notice to the first page of the agenda is an effective way of calling attention to the new meeting site. = A properly sized room, with adequate heating and air conditioning equipment. Rooms that are too large or small or are equipped with noisy air conditioners or inadequate heating do not foster an atmosphere conducive to effective communications, and often are very distracting. Avoid scheduling conflicts. Establish an annual meeting schedule approved by all the participating officials. Use name plates. Most of the officials invited to the meeting may already know each other, but often there are people who do not know everyone or are not known by everyone attending the meeting. Name plates help each person recognize others they may not have met. Distributing a list of officials scheduled to attend the COG meeting is also a helpful device to make people feel comfortable. Adding office addresses and telephone numbers to this list encourages informal contact among elected officials and contributes to establishing an atmosphere of trust. Arrange seating in a circle or square formation. Sitting around tables arranged in a square or circle large enough to accommodate all those attending will greatly enhance the officials' sense of full participation in the meeting. Symbolically, the table formation sends a message about the equality among the municipalities. Circular or square configurations emphasize that all jurisdictions are equal regardless of population or wealth.

= =

Agendas
The COG director's most powerful tool in making the meeting effective is the agenda, the written plan of order for conducting the meeting. Agendas determine the issues to be considered by the COG legislative body and, just as important, those that will not. Agendas also set the context for discussion of an issue. A poorly worded agenda item can initiate hostility and opposition, while a positively written text can evoke openness and willingness to cooperate. A sample agenda is included as Appendix C. Preparing the agenda for upcoming meetings is usually the responsibility of the COG director. The procedure for determining the actual contents of the agenda and the order of business should be established by the COG's legislative body. A typical process is for the COG director to prepare a draft agenda and refer it to the chair of the COG`s legislative body for review and comment. Nothing on the final agenda should be a surprise to the chair. After the preliminary agenda is revised to reflect the chair's recommendations, the final version of the document should be distributed to the elected officials and a copy posted in the COG office. The format of the agenda should clearly indicate the location, date and time of the meeting.
2

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

Time should be provided at the beginning of the meeting to receive comments from the public. Amendments to the Sunshine Law require that time be provided at each advertised and special meeting of a municipal public body for taxpayers and residents to offer comments. It is suggested that the COG's legislative body adopt written policies for providing comment periods at meetings. Agenda items should provide the following information: = A summary background of the issue, including a definition of the problem, an historical context and an indication of the groups or individuals that have previously discussed the item. More detailed information should be provided in a separate report or correspondence included in the agenda package. All such enclosures should be referenced on the agenda. A recommendation for action when appropriate. This recommendation should not be considered as cast in stone, but as a starting point for further deliberations. If the agenda item does not require action by the elected officials, then that should be indicated. It is important that each agenda item indicate what the COG legislative body needs to do (such as make a decision, refer information, take no action).

All agendas should include a section entitled Other Business to offer the opportunity for individual members of the legislative body to bring concerns or issues not on the agenda to the floor. This flexibility to hear other issues provides a vent to release concerns that may be building up. Agendas should be mailed to the legislative body in advance of the meeting to give each individual several days to read through the material. It is unfair to expect elected officials who have full-time jobs and are volunteering their services to the COG to thoroughly review and understand an agenda package received one day prior to a meeting.

Rules of Order
Following parliamentary procedure is essential for an effective meeting. Without ground rules, the meeting has the potential to degenerate into undirected competing discussions which will leave the municipal officials unsatisfied and unwilling to return. A copy of Robert's Rules of Order or some other guide on parliamentary procedure is an important item in the COG director's library. Robert's is not necessarily the only or best answer; it is important to have established rules, approved by the body. To conduct an organized meeting, any chair needs to have a clear understanding of their role as the facilitator of the meeting. During the meeting the chair acts as a traffic copdirecting the discussion in a manner that gives all participants an opportunity to express their views. Should the chair not encourage discussion or unduly limit comments from others, municipal officials will feel frustrated and lose interest in attending future meetings. While discussion should be encouraged, the chair needs to avoid needless repetition of the same argument. Keeping the meeting moving toward a conclusion sometimes means placing reasonable time limits on the debate. COG directors should recognize that some officials have extensive knowledge of parliamentary procedures while others do not. To foster a minimum level of understanding among all members of COG's legislative body, the COG director should consider distributing information regarding the procedures for moving, amending or tabling motions to the COG's legislative body when it is reorganized after each municipal election. Outside the formal meeting context, it is important to recognize that personal relationships among the municipal officials can be developed during the informal discussions occurring prior to convening the meeting and following adjournment. The COG director should encourage these
3

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

discussions and not hurry to move the individuals out the door in an effort to get home. These informal exchanges among the elected officials are excellent tools in creating understanding and trust among the elected officials, the essential element in intergovernmental cooperation.

Minutes
In most COGs the director is responsible either for personally preparing meeting minutes or for assuring that minutes are produced by another employe. The Sunshine Act requires written minutes to be taken at all public meetings. The minutes are open to public inspection. There is no legal requirement for minutes to be taken in executive sessions. The reason for holding any executive session must be announced at the public meeting held immediately before or immediately after the executive session. This announcement should be included in the minutes of the relevant public meeting. Sometimes notes are made of discussions in executive sessions, but often there is no written record of any kind. Use of formal written minutes is restricted to public meetings. The Sunshine Act requires a minimum of four items to be included in the minutes for each meeting. These are the mandated items: = = = = Date, time and place of meeting. Names of persons present. Substance of all official actions and a record by individual member of the roll call votes taken. Names of all citizens who appeared officially and the subject of their testimony.

The municipal codes provide little real guidance to the COG director in determining what information should be included in the minutes. Requirements for inclusion of material in the minutes can be outlined in the procedural rules or bylaws of the COG's legislative body, although few COGs have actually done this. COG directors should understand the role of the minutes as legal evidence and should consider their historical value. One criterion to use in determining the contents of meeting minutes is the extent to which they provide direction for regional programs. It is always better to err on the side of including too much rather than leaving out essential elements. When in doubt about the level of detail, the director should ask the elected officials for guidance. Some of the basic elements of minutes are listed below. = Legal Verification. The minutes should show conformance to legal requirements by establishing the date, hour and place of the meeting and whether it is a regular or special meeting or a public hearing. Attendance. The minutes should record the attendance of members and officials and the time for appearance or departure of any member not present throughout the entire meeting. Approval of previous minutes. The minutes should record official approval of the minutes of the preceding meeting, together with any additions or corrections made by members. Communications. Minutes should note the identity of persons appearing to make oral presentations to the legislative body and their subject matter. Petitions and other written communications should be noted by source, subject, date and disposition. Reports. Reports to the legislative body should be identified by the presenter, subject, date and manner of disposition. The full text of oral or written reports is

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

not included in the minutes. = Approval to pay bills. In some COGs, bills are presented to the legislative body for approval before payment. These are most often presented in a bills payable list, including the name of the creditor, the object of expenditure and the amount. Including the entire list in the minutes is not necessary. Resolutions. Resolutions should be identified by number and title. Unless specifically required by the COG solicitor, it is unnecessary to enter the full text of the resolution in the minutes. Contracts. Minute entries on awarding contracts should include the subject of the purchase, identification of all bidders and amounts and statements establishing the fulfillment of legal requirements. Oral statements. Minutes should accurately reflect what occurs at a meeting, but unless the legislative body desires a verbatim record, oral expressions of opinions, remarks or statements should not be included on a word-for-word basis. The COG director should prepare or have prepared a summary of the discussion in sufficient detail to provide the reader with a general understanding of the various points of view and their major proponents. Motions. Actions of the legislative body should be made by motion. The minutes should state the motion and who moved and seconded it. Because many motions are incomplete, the COG director should not hesitate to read the proposed motion to the legislative body before a vote is taken.

Since minutes of COG meetings have been used by courts as evidence when a lawsuit arises COG directors should take minutes carefully, retain them in a minute book, and ensure that they accurately reflect the actions taken at the meeting.

Role of the COG Director

During meetings of the COG's legislative body, the overall role of the COG director is to encourage elected officials' participation in the decision-making process and to offer recommendations on issues affecting the COG or the region. The form of this encouragement varies with the type of meeting and agenda item under discussion. Often at meetings of subcommittees of the COG's legislative body, the COG director has a more active role. In these informal settings, the COG director may be more free to express recommendations and demonstrate leadership in articulating potential regional goals. Formal meetings of the COG legislative body provide the opportunity for elected officials to interact with each other. Thus, the role of the COG director should be more circumspect. Often at these legislative meetings, the ideas expressed by the COG director during the subcommittee meetings will surface either by a municipal official's reference to them or through a direct question to the COG director to provide a report to the entire body. When the COG legislative body discusses policy issues such as voting representation, funding formulas or general governance, the COG director should not be a main participant, but should be an active listener who may offer to conduct research, generate alternatives for resolving the issue or perform other tasks requested by the officials. When specific programming issues are discussed, the COG director should actively participate but not dominate the debate. Again, the goal is to encourage, not stifle, the consensual decision-making process; however, in some cases the role of the COG director may be one of advocacy for a proposal. It is appropriate when program issues are being discussed, for the director to express a professional opinion on the
5

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

matter under consideration. Often this assessment will be in opposition to the position of some members of the legislative body; however, a COG director's willingness to voice an opinion establishes a leadership role and earns respect from the municipal officials, whether or not they agree with the assessment. In these situations, the director's comments should be presented in a manner that is never insulting or demeaning to the municipal officials. Questions from the officials or the public should be answered in a clear, courteous and prompt manner. If the question requires research after the meeting adjourns, the answer should be prepared in a timely manner and distributed to all interested parties. A secondary but important function of the COG director is to confirm meeting logistics. Confirming attendance and determining whether the regular municipal representative is able to attend, or an alternate municipal representative is needed, are often functions of the COG director. Arranging for alternates could be the difference between obtaining a quorum or canceling the session because of lack of attendance. If an alternate representative is needed, the director should assure that the individual is provided with a complete agenda package, preferably in advance of the meeting. When alternates attend a meeting, the COG director should clearly understand that individual's voting privilege and refer that information to the chair. To avoid confusion on the alternate's voting status some COG's ask each municipality for a written policy on this issue at the beginning of every year. On a periodic basis, it is beneficial for the director to survey the members of the COG's legislative body to assess how the membership views the manner in which meetings are structured and to determine whether they feel their information needs as elected officials are being met.

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

4. Communication and Information

A major role of the COG director is to serve as a point of contact for information and communication on regional issues. Communication occurs between the COG and municipal officials, the public and other agencies, such as county, state and federal agencies, authorities and school districts. The quality of this communication, in large measure, determines the success of the COG and the number of programs and services it provides to its members. For instance, the failure to inform the community that the COG is not another layer of government, but a voluntary association of existing municipalities that have joined together to provide improved and less expensive public services, is a major reason why many COGs fail. Without this community understanding of why the COG was created, what the limits of its power are and what benefits it can offer, elected officials will be suspicious of its activities and reluctant to commit significant financial resources. Whether the COG is large or small, a crucial role of the COG director is to communicate this information in a clear and understandable way. This knowledge strengthens community support for the COG and fosters the community's willingness to use intergovernmental cooperation as a method of producing public services and coordinating planning activities. Positive relations between the COG director and municipal officials are not a matter of luck. They are a result of a calculated strategy and a consistent professional approach.

Orientation Sessions
Communication between the elected officials and the COG director should begin immediately after the election. A congratulatory letter should be mailed acknowledging newly elected officials' achievement, and advising them of the new responsibilities of their positions as both municipal and COG officials. The COG director should coordinate this notification with the secretary or manager of each member municipality. The time period between the November election and the municipalities' reorganization meetings (the first Monday in January) provides the opportunity for relaying information to new officials. During these two months, elected officials are not yet inundated with information from their municipalities and may have more time and fewer distractions. These factors provide a suitable atmosphere for learning about the COG. In addition to providing written information, another mechanism for informing newly elected officials about the COG is to invite them to an orientation session. The purpose of this informal session is to meet COG staff and learn about the organization. Invitations to the orientation session are more effective when offered in person or over the telephone, especially when this is the COG director's first contact with a newly elected official. If it is not possible for all the newly elected officials to attend a single orientation session, it may be necessary to schedule additional sessions. The orientation session should stress the importance of elected official involvement in the COG's decision-making process and identify specific examples of how intergovernmental cooperation does and could benefit the municipality. Topics covered during an orientation session should include at least the following: = = = = = History of the COG. COG organization and structure. Decision-making process. COG finances. Role of elected officials.
1

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

= = = = = =

Committee assignments. Time commitment for COG meetings. How to suggest items for agendas. Benefits of municipal participation in the COG. Future issues and challenges before the COG. Issues of special concern to the newly elected officials.

Orientation sessions should begin with a brief introduction of each elected official. At the meeting's conclusion, each elected official should be provided with an information package including the COG budget, meeting calendar, organizational chart, articles of agreement and general background about COGs and intergovernmental cooperation such as DCEDs Intergovernmental Cooperation Handbook. Orientation sessions for new municipal managers/secretaries should be scheduled when it is convenient for those individuals. When new appointments in these offices occur, the COG director should consider personally visiting the municipal building to be introduced to the individual and to schedule an orientation session at a time convenient to the new manager/secretary.

Reports to Governing Bodies

Board/council members must be kept informed to govern well. Elected officials who are kept current on a problem as it develops are more likely to positively respond to a staff proposal for resolving the situation. Surprises often produce negative results and could leave the impression that staff is inept or reluctant about sharing information. There are a variety of methods for keeping municipal officials informed. The COG director's choice is limited by factors such as available time, personnel and budget. A common approach is to provide monthly reports to all the elected officials and municipal managers/secretaries who participate in the COG. These reports could include information relating to program activities such as number of building permits issued, joint purchases made or recreation program participation, future concerns and items of regional interest. Regular monthly communication with all the municipal officials develops a role for the COG as an important source for local government information. Mailing and duplicating costs for the monthly reports may require increased COG expenditures; however, the benefits of having knowledgeable and supportive municipal officials is worth the investment. Another approach for encouraging communication to assure that each municipality participating in the COG has an item on its regular meeting agenda entitled COG Reports. Under this item, the municipal representative to the COG or its committees can provide the entire governing board/council with an update of current COG activities. The COG director can assist the representatives by providing a written summary report or a set of the COG meeting minutes with important items highlighted. Other options for communicating with the participating municipalities include the following: = = =
2

Preparing articles relating to COG programs for publication in municipal newsletters. Expanding the COG budget format to be an annual report detailing program activity. Attending municipal meetings on a periodic basis to report on current activities.

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

Communications with Municipal Managers/Secretaries

Municipal managers/secretaries are valuable resources for the COG director. These individuals are excellent sources of ideas for regional programs and are reliable barometers of elected officials' concerns and attitudes. Often they are instrumental in shaping the elected officials' attitudes and trust in the COG. Cultivating positive working relationships with the municipal managers/secretaries should be a high priority for the COG director. The basis for this relationship is trust built upon honest, open and regular communication. There are a variety of options for providing communication between municipal and COG staffs. In some regions, the COG director coordinates monthly meetings of the municipal managers/secretaries. Arrangements vary, but one successful approach is to schedule early morning breakfast or midday lunch meetings, with the cost and location rotating among the participating organizations. These meetings offer a regular forum to discuss and sometimes defuse intermunicipal concerns. Once strong communication links are established, the municipal managers/secretaries should be encouraged to be formally and informally involved in developing and implementing COG programs. Formal involvement includes participating on COG committees, reviewing reports and proposals and providing comments on COG staff and program performance. Informal involvement includes personal contacts to solicit guidance and support.

Relations with the Media

Media coverage of COG activities is essential for the public to be knowledgeable of regional programs. The primary factor in shaping the public's perception of the COG is media reporting. Typically when the media ignores the COG, there is a corresponding lack of public knowledge about the organization which translates into ambivalent support from elected officials. Conversely, when the media actively reports on COG activities, the level of community knowledge and municipal interest increases. COG directors can utilize the media as an effective tool to inform the community about the COG and its activities; however, before this can occur, the media must understand how the COG works and what it does. Media representatives (newspaper, television, radio) should be provided with an agenda for each regular meeting of the COG's legislative body. Media support can be a powerful ally in informing the public about the COG. Copies of reports should be made available to the media after distribution to the elected officials. The practice of providing source documents promotes more accurate and comprehensive reporting. Some COGs have taken advantage of government/education access channels on cable television networks to broadcast their meetings. A COG public information program can be greatly enhanced by local media support. To cultivate such a program, newspapers, radio and television stations should be included on mailing lists for agendas. COG directors should personally advise the media of pending important issues that will be considered by the COG legislative body. To strengthen coverage the COG director should be willing to provide background information to the media and, as appropriate, supply them with the resource documents they need including reports and copies of budgets. When arranging interviews with the media, it is important that COG directors assure that the reporter has contacted the appropriate elected official(s) for comment. High profile interviews are best done by elected officials.

Relations with Other Public Agencies

3

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

Meetings of the COG legislative body offer an excellent forum for important public or private agencies like authorities, school boards, county commissioners and environmental groups to discuss issues of shared concern with municipal officials. For the public agency, a COG meeting provides the opportunity to convey the same information to all the elected officials at the same time. This reduces the need to attend multiple municipal meetings and reduces the possibility for misunderstanding. For the municipalities, the COG meeting provides the chance to discuss an issue with the public agency and exchange views with colleagues about regional concerns. Often these forums serve an educational function by encouraging the exchange of information and elevating municipal officials' understanding of an issue. When these forums are reported by the media, the benefits expand to the region. The ability of the COG to function as a forum for discussing regional issues of shared concern is often overlooked. Members of county or authority boards appreciate the opportunity to address all the elected officials at one time during a COG meeting rather than attend many individual municipal meetings.

Relations with the Public

Positive communication with the public is important for building community support for regional programs. A major problem for many COGs is a lack of public understanding of how the organization works and why it benefits the municipalities to participate. Public understanding provides the foundation for the support of the elected officials. COG directors need to develop and strengthen this foundation by enhancing public awareness of the COG. To help inform the public, some COGs have developed well-planned and well-executed public relations programs. Common elements usually include annual financial and service reports, leaflets and brochures explaining how the COG works and what services it provides, use of radio and television to announce and cover meetings, open houses and appearances before community groups and at schools. Conflicts with some citizens are unavoidable. Conflicts can have positive results, however, if they are managed correctly. The way the elected officials or the COG director respond to a situation can affect how the public reacts. Following are some techniques to help assure positive public contacts: = = = = Acknowledge suggestions with thanks. Negotiate reasonable times for information exchanges. Solicit input early and often in order to avoid the inevitable surprise and continuous comment later on. People appreciate being asked their opinion, even if you don't follow up on it. Don't wait for suggestions, ask for them. Good ideas can come from the public. Acknowledge them when you get them.

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

5. Getting Started

Opportunities for new COG programs appear and disappear constantly. Changes in state laws or regulations, federal, state or county funding patterns and public need offer opportunities for new programs. COG directors should be receptive to these possibilities. Sources for ideas for intergovernmental programs include municipal officials, COG staff, other COGs, the Department of Community Affairs and the public. Identification of a program opportunity is only the beginning of a long process for planning, organizing and implementing a new intergovernmental program. Along the way difficult decisions will need to be made regarding how the service will be produced (by the COG, a private company or a member municipality), how costs will be allocated and how the program will be governed. These are not quick and easy decisions. They are matters of local choice and often a product of long, divisive and difficult discussions among municipal officials. Such debate is not unusual nor unexpected, rather it is inherent in the intergovernmental decision-making process. It is the responsibility of the COG director to facilitate this process to achieve a proposal acceptable to all the participating municipalities. This section is intended to offer guidance for the presentation of new COG program proposals.

Rules of the Road

When a recommendation for a new program idea arises, there are a few simple rules of the road, which will increase the probability of the concept being approved by the elected officials. These are the guidelines. = Go slow. = Be flexible and patient = Monitor results These rules are consistent with the creation of an environment for the decision-making process that provides sufficient opportunities for the exchange of information among municipal officials and permits each individual to fully express their views and concerns regarding a proposed COG program. It is only after this open dialogue that municipalities will assume ownership of the proposal and commit the necessary public resources to implement it. Go Slow. Municipal officials approach new intergovernmental program concepts cautiously, especially in regions where the municipalities have not traditionally cooperated. COG directors should acknowledge this caution by introducing new program concepts at a pace that allows the municipal officials to feel comfortable with the proposal. This infers an incremental and iterative decision-making process. The first step is for the COG director to introduce a general concept for a new program, as opposed to a complete program proposal. Reaching too far in the initial presentation may bury the proposal in a debate over detail instead of vision. The initial concept document should be provided in a brief one- or two-page report to the elected officials. These are the general issues to be addressed in a concept document: = = = Definition of the problem. Background of the problem. Alternative solutions.

= Staff recommendation. In presenting the concept document, the COG director should assure the municipal officials
1

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

that they may select an alternative solution other than the staff recommendation, or they may refine the staff recommendation or discontinue further consideration of the proposal. Once there is consensus on the concept, there are three general approaches for developing a detailed preliminary proposal for the elected officials to consider. These approaches are as follows: = Authorize the COG director to prepare the proposal. This approach is contingent on the COG director having the knowledge, time and staff support necessary to bring the concept document to complete fruition as a detailed proposal. If these factors are not present, then the director has the obligation to inform the municipal officials of that situation. Appoint a Project Management Team (PMT), consisting of municipal/COG officials and other knowledgeable individuals, to consider specifics of the proposal. Retain a paid consultant if the municipalities or COG do not have available or trained staff or if the issue is politically charged and will require an outsider's assistance.

The COG's legislative body should select the approach to be utilized. If a PMT is established, the COG legislative body should choose the membership. It is important that these decisions be made by the municipal officials, because if they are not, the process for preparing the draft proposal may become the focus of attention rather than the recommendation that should be considered. Be Patient. Once the COG legislative body endorses the concept document and selects a process for preparing a detailed proposal, the next step is to prepare the document for initial review by the COG officials. In developing a proposal for a new COG program, there is and should be significant give and take among the groups and individuals who are interested in the issue or have a stake in it. During this iterative process, the patience of the COG director is an invaluable attribute in guiding the project to completion. The first detailed draft of the new program proposal should be clearly marked DRAFT #1. This prevents the document being mistakenly considered as the final proposal instead of a working draft to be reviewed and as subject to further revision. This working draft should be screened by a smaller committee of the municipal officials prior to its referral to the COG's legislative body. This review group could be a committee of elected officials, municipal managers, knowledgeable members of the community or a mixture. This initial review stage is important because it identifies problems and it cultivates allies that will be helpful in presenting the final proposal. Once the draft document is acceptable to the reviewing body, consideration should be given as to how the proposed program will be presented. The question of who makes the presentation is important. In some situations, it makes sense to have a person other than the COG director present the program proposal. Unfortunately, regardless of the source of the idea and the method for preparing the draft proposal, the COG director may be viewed as having a self-serving interest in promoting new programs. Arranging for another presenter minimizes this perception. Options for presenters include a member of the PMT or consulting group that prepared the proposal or a member of the committee that reviewed it. When the final draft is presented to the COG legislative body, a vote should not be requested. The document should be referred to the participating municipalities for comments, with responses forwarded to the COG director to relay to the PMT or the project consultant. This comment period could take several months, and may require several rounds of review as the program document is reviewed, revised and recirculated among the interested groups. In referring the program document to the elected officials, the COG director should include an accompanying
2

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

transmittal letter that explains the review and adoption process and asks for municipal comments by a set date. Flexibility is critical at this stage in order to allow input from as many people who will be involved in the program as possible. This should ultimately result in each group or individual developing an ownership in the program, increasing its chances of success. Ideally, the COG director should offer to meet with each board/council to discuss the program proposal. Often these proposal presentations involve attendance at evening meetings. This missionary work within the municipalities is difficult and time consuming, but it is often rewarding. Providing elected officials with the opportunity for face-to-face communication with the COG director may be the difference between a new program that is accepted and one that is not. Monitor Results. Few programs are implemented without flaws. After a new regional program is implemented, the COG director should carefully monitor the results and periodically refer that information to the COG legislative body. The purpose of this evaluation is to assess what aspects are working well, need improvement or should be added or deleted. In conducting this monitoring, the elected officials, municipal managers/secretaries and the users of the program should be consulted. Written questionnaires could be distributed to the elected and appointed officials or, if more appropriate, a monitoring session could be included as an agenda item at a meeting of the COG legislative body. Surveying the individuals who use a regional program or service is important to assure that the program was implemented in a manner meeting the expectations of the community. The type and target of the survey depend on the particular program. For instance, a regional code program could survey builders or property owners to determine if the inspections are being conducted in a professional way that addresses their needs. Conducting resident surveys and tabulating and analyzing the results can be expensive. Colleges or business schools within the COG's region are a potential source of assistance. Public surveys make excellent class or intern projects. Having this educational partnership can significantly reduce costs. It is recommended that surveys be conducted in a scientific manner to assure that the responses are representative of the region and not just of the self-selecting individual who returned them. By randomizing the way the sample population is selected, the credibility of the survey results are significantly enhanced and they provide more accurate information for evaluating policy options.

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

6. Consensus Building

Decision-making within the COG is consensually based. Given their voluntary nature, their inability to tax and the absence of specific statutory recognition, COGs do not have the capacity to impose decisions that are not acceptable to the member municipalities. An autocratic decision-making process, controlled by a single municipality or by paid staff, undermines the viability of the COG and will not produce the desired result. Given that regional decisions are based on voluntary agreement of the affected municipalities, the COG director should seek to resolve conflict through building consensus among the participants in a decision. Thus an important job skill for a successful COG director is the ability to plan, organize and guide discussions directed at attainment of mutually agreeable solutions to regional problems. Consensus has been reached when all members of the group involved in the issue reach these points: = = = = They feel they have been heard. They have been frank and honest. They feel they have identified and thoroughly discussed all important views and information. They feel they own the decision as if they had made it alone and can actively support the decision.

The Director as Consensus Builder

Given the consensual nature of the COG decision-making process the director is often a facilitator of regional discussion. Bringing diverse and sometimes competing municipal interests together to reach a shared solution to a common concern is a difficult professional challenge. As a facilitator, the COG director encourages the participating individuals to become an effective group in these ways: = = = = = = = = Develop a mission statement describing the goal the group is attempting to accomplish. Improve the way the group identifies and solves problems and makes decisions in order to increase the group's effectiveness. Prepare and follow the agenda and record major issues and areas of agreement. Develop and follow ground rules for conducting the meeting. Identify and test assumptions about the problem and alternate solutions for resolving it. Develop win-win solutions to the problem. Develop consensus among the participants regarding the appropriate way of proceeding. Take responsibility for the group's actions in presenting and advocating the consensus decision to individuals and organizations who have an interest in the issue.

Crucial to the group's success is its acceptance of a mission statement. The mission statement is a general description of the group's goal. Often individuals come to a meeting with
1

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

different expectations. These need to be expressed and forged into a coherent mission statement that is acceptable to each group member. This mission statement should be clearly understood by each group member. Writing it down and distributing it with each meeting agenda is a good idea. Also recommended is posting it in the group's meeting room. The continued emphasis on the mission statement serves to keep the group focused on the problem. As a result, they do not become distracted by secondary issues or past history. The mission statement reminds the group why they are meeting and what they are attempting to accomplish.

Ground Rules for Effective Groups

At the group's first meeting, ground rules should be established for conducting the meeting. Because consensus-building is not hierarchical and occurs in an informal meeting setting, Robert's Rules of Order are not appropriate ground rules. The COG director can help at this stage by offering potential ground rules for the group to consider. Some commonly accepted ground rules include the following: = = = = = = = = = = = = = Assumptions and inferences about the problem should be discussed and tested. Relevant information should be shared among the entire group. Interests -not positions- should be the focus of discussion. Be specific-use examples. Agree on what important words mean. Be aware that the same word or concept may have different meanings to group members. Group members should explain the reasons behind their statements, questions and comments. Ways of testing disagreements and solutions should be designed by the group. The group should feel free to discuss undiscussable issues. Hidden conflicts should be brought into the open. Cheap shots or personal insults are not appropriate. All group members are expected to participate in all phases of the process. Group members are encouraged to exchange relevant information with nongroup members. The group should make decisions by consensus. At the end of each meeting, the group should do a self-critique.

Participants, including the COG director, should recognize that conflict is natural and should not be avoided. Differences in opinion need to be expressed if the problem is to be resolved. Treat conflict as an opportunity to examine issues in depth in order to learn more about the assumptions underlying the problem. Each member of the group should be encouraged to discuss their interests and ideas. This involvement brings a shared commitment to the recommendation made by the group

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

7. Budgeting and Finance

The format for the COG budget and the method of administering it are matters of local choice. Although state law does not prescribe specific procedures or reporting requirements to govern the COG's financial activities, the expenditure of municipal tax monies is involved and the COG's fiscal practices should be consistent with municipal codes. Often this means complying with the most restrictive municipal code of the participating jurisdictions.

Revenues
There are three sources of revenue for COGs: municipal contributions, user fees and grants-in-aid. Municipal contributions are the main source of income for many COGs. These are the assessments on the municipalities for the services received from the COG. Each community shares in the cost of operating the COG. In some COGs these shares are considered dues and entitle each municipality to participate in all COG programs. In other COGs all the municipalities share in administrative costs, but fund only those COG programs in which they participate. These COGs offer a menu of services from which municipalities are free to choose. In those cases, the shares vary significantly depending on the package of programs the municipality decides to purchase. User fees represent income paid to the COG from individuals who receive service from the COG. In some COGs, user fees account for more than 30% of the operating revenues. These payments come in many forms including building permits fees, pool memberships and property owner assessments for gypsy moth spraying. The COG's legislative body decides whether user fees should be implemented and if so, at what level. The role of the director is to offer alternatives and to provide information on the economic and social implications of those choices. To implement a user fee, the following conditions must be present: = = It must be possible to identify the specific individual benefitting from the service. The implementation of a fee must be legally authorized. For instance, the state Library Code prohibits a COG-sponsored library from charging fees to use basic library services. The costs of collecting the fee should not be excessive. The COG director should provide the legislative body with data on the total cost of the service, so they can make an informed decision on the appropriate fee level. The fee should reflect the public values of the community. For some programs, the municipal elected officials may want to charge residents only a portion of the cost of the service with the balance paid by municipal contributions. Assigning all the costs of a recreation program to the individual participant may cause that service to be unavailable to some citizens.

The imposition of user fees provides COGs with an alternative to relying exclusively on municipal contributions. This diversity of revenue sources strengthens the COG's financial status and permits it to absorb some fluctuations in the level of municipal support. Some COG programs benefit from county, state and federal grant assistance. Many grants are for special projects and must be expended within the fiscal year that they are approved. While grants are an excellent revenue source to start a new program or fund a one-time special project,
1

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

reliance on grants to finance operating expenses can be dangerous to COGs and is not recommended. All grants are for specific time periods and require legislative action for appropriations beyond that term. Should that appropriation not occur, the COG would be confronted with a serious financial deficit which could affect the municipalities' willingness to participate in regional programs in the future. Failure to develop local funding sources is a reflection of the lack of municipal commitment to the COG and intergovernmental cooperation. In order for the COG to be financially stable over the long term, most funding must come from local sources -either user fees or municipal contributions. It is also important to understand the level of local commitment required under the grant program. Some programs require matching funds in cash only while others allow the grantee to use in-kind services for all or part of the local match. Certain programs require multiyear funding and/or ongoing maintenance responsibilities. Before applying for any grant, it is important to confirm with the funding agency that COGs are eligible applicants. The regulations for some grant programs do not permit COG applications. In those instances the COG municipalities may need to designate a member community to act as the COG's agent in applying for, receiving and administering the grant. In contrast other grant programs offer extra credit for intergovernmental programs. Still other grant programs are intended specifically for intergovernmental organizations like the COG. In addition to revenues, COGs can benefit from in-kind contributions from member municipalities, community organizations and the public. In-kind contributions are nonmonetary and usually consist of goods and services donated to the COG to replace or supplement the resources committed to a regional program. The following are examples of in-kind contributions: = = = Municipal - office space, secretarial assistance, use of office equipment like photocopiers, fax machines or computers. Community Groups - park equipment for regional parks or books for regional libraries. Residents - volunteers for regional fire companies, park maintenance, recreational programs, libraries and senior centers, donations of commemorative trees, books, recognition awards.

Funding Formulas
For most COGs, a major funding source is contributions from the participating municipalities. In some cases, deciding how these contributions are distributed among the participating municipalities is the most divisive aspect of a regional program. The method for determining the distribution of municipal costs is not within the purview of the COG director and is best determined by the elected officials. The COG director may facilitate the elected officials' discussion of alternatives by offering assistance in generating options and estimating resulting municipal shares of a program cost. There are almost limitless ways to allocate costs for regional programs. All may be equally good. The key characteristic of a good funding formula is acceptability to the elected officials. In suggesting options, COG directors have three general alternatives: formula, usage or percentage shares. = Formula shares allocate costs among the municipalities according to a mathematically prescribed method with more than one component. The most common formula components are population, real estate assessment and gross taxable income. These components can be weighed equally or differently. It must be noted that over time, as the demographic and economic trends of the municipalities change, the components change correspondingly. Thus the contributions paid by a jurisdiction that is losing

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

population may decline, while the contributions paid by a community that is gaining residents may increase. The COG director should regularly (preferably annually) update the formula calculation to assure that it is current with regional trends. Over time, the elected officials may want to add, delete or revise the components of the funding formula. Again, the role of the COG director is not to be judgmental, but to assist in identifying options and implications. = Usage shares allocate costs among the municipalities according to the level of benefit accruing to each community participating in the regional program. This benefit could be measured in terms of number of residents served, hours of service or transactions per municipality. For instance, costs for a regional library could be assessed according to the number of items checked out to residents from each municipality participating in the program. Assigning costs according to use can be expensive, because it requires the collection and maintenance of many statistics. Additionally, use may vary significantly from year to year, causing large changes in municipal contributions. One method of minimizing these fluctuations is to use multiyear rolling averages to produce more stable cost allocations. Percentage shares assess costs according to a predetermined proportion of total costs. For some programs, each municipality may contribute the same percentage share regardless of its population or wealth. This approach may be viewed as regressive by smaller or less affluent communities that lack adequate funding resources.

Budget
A budget is a yearly plan outlining the revenues a COG expects to receive and the ways it will spend them. A budget is more than a financial document. It is a vital element in policymaking. It determines which programs will be produced during the fiscal year and in what quantity. Budgets also permit the COG director to exercise administrative and operational control. The process for preparing the budget should be open and provide sufficient time for a thorough review by the member municipalities. Providing the municipal officials with ample opportunity for comment increases their knowledge and sense of ownership of the budget, and enhances the likelihood they will support the proposed document when it is presented for a vote. In Pennsylvania, the municipal fiscal year corresponds with the calendar year. Since appropriations for the COG must be included as an expenditure item in the municipalities' own budgets, the COG budget must be prepared before the member municipalities complete their budget process. A potential time schedule for preparing and presenting the COG budget for municipal review is shown below. August COG staff prepares preliminary budget. September Preliminary budget reviewed by COG finance committee or other subgroup of the Cogs legislative body. October The COGs legislative body adopts a tentative budget: all municipalities are requested to review and comment on the tentative budget proposal. November The COGs legislative body adopts a final budget which has been revised to reflect municipal comments. December Member municipalities adopt final budget document.

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

The statistical pages of the budget document should be accompanied by a narrative text which explains the proposed revenue and expenditure items and indicates whether they are increasing, decreasing or remaining constant. In preparing the budget, it is important for the COG director to be aware that some municipal officials may not be experienced in reviewing financial documents, so the budget should be prepared in a concise and understandable manner. Some COGs expand the budget narrative so that the document acts as an annual report, presenting the organization's accomplishments and outlining future opportunities for intergovernmental cooperation. COG directors should be open to invitations to attend budget meetings of municipal governing bodies when there seems to be concern. It is best for the COG director to respond to invitations to these meetings. An invitation sends the message that the COG director is attending to assist the municipal governing body in its deliberations and not to pressure it for an affirmative vote on the COG budget proposal. Appendix E provides a sample budget for a hypothetical COG program.

Accounting Systems
Accounting systems for COGs vary. Some are simple cash transaction based, while others involve complex double entry accounting. The accounting system should be reflective of the type and magnitude of the COG's recordkeeping responsibilities. In establishing a COG accounting system, the three most important values are accountability, accuracy and ease of administration. The type of accounting system most municipalities practice is modified accrual. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenue is recorded when it becomes measurable and available to pay liabilities of the current period. Revenue not considered available is recorded as deferred revenue. Expenditures are recorded when the liability is incurred, except for interest on general long-term obligations, which is recorded when due and the noncurrent portion of accrued vacation and sick leave, which is recorded in the general long-term debt account group. It is convenient if the line item numbers assigned to the various revenue and expenditure accounts are consistent with the Chart of Accounts published by the Department of Community and Economic Development. This promotes consistency with municipal practice and enhances the clarity to local officials.

Internal Controls
A system of internal controls to provide checks and balances for the various financial activities is an important part of the COG's financial management system. Financial responsibilities should be segregated to the greatest degree possible between various COG employees. Even in a small COG with only one employee, checks and balance can still be provided. The treasurer could be a member of the legislative body and can review all invoices prior to payment and cosign checks. A system of numbered vouchers and receipts should be used to provide evidence of payments made by and to the COG. A monthly financial report reflecting revenues, expenditures and fund balances for the period should be provided to the legislative body.

Annual Audits
The COG's financial records should be audited annually. Smaller COGs tend to use committees comprised of municipal officials to conduct the audit. In larger COGs the audit is
4

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

performed by an independent certified accounting company. In cases where a member municipality solicits bids for auditing services there is a potential for the COG to lower its auditing costs by being included in the municipality's request for proposal. Costs could be distributed between the COG and the municipality according to a preset formula. Copies of the audit should be distributed to the members of the COG's legislative body (or a designated committee) and to the managers and secretaries of the participating municipalities. This distribution assures the member municipalities that the funds they contribute to the COG are being spent in the manner intended. This awareness promotes trust and confidence in the COG's ability to act in a fiscally responsible manner. When financial concerns arise in the audit's management letter, those issues should be immediately addressed and the municipalities advised of the disposition. More information on financial management can be found in the Department of Community and Economic Development publication Fiscal Management Handbook.

Risk Management
The question of liability for COGs is an area of unsettled law. COG employees have been sued for their actions as employees of the COG and not of the participating municipalities. A safe approach is to assume that COGs are considered a political subdivision covered by Chapter 85 of the Judicial Code, also known as the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, and that there is shared liability between the COG and its member municipalities. As a political subdivision, a COG can have the same liabilities as a local government. Thus a COG would not be liable for any damages on account of any injury to a person or property caused by any act or omission of the COG or its employees except in the eight categories defined in the Act. Damages from these cases for a single event are limited to $500,000. The Act also requires political subdivisions to defend employees who may be defendants in tort ligation. To protect the COG and its employees, officials and volunteers against potential claims, the COG should secure general liability insurance. In addition to suits brought in state courts, COGs are also subject to legal actions under federal law. Any lawsuits against a COG involving a federal jurisdiction can exceed the state liability limit of $500,000. Therefore, in order to be adequately protected for amounts greater that $500,000, a COG can either buy higher coverage or purchase an umbrella policy to be used only when the claims against the liability policy are exceeded. Potential federal actions usually involve civil rights violations which can be very broadly defined to include employee dismissals or recommendations of regional commissions. Some COGs have public official and employee liability insurance (errors and omissions). This insurance coverage applies to nonproperty or nonbodily type damage or injury. Claims brought under this coverage usually arise from decisions made by elected officials or COG employees causing the loss of revenue or some other type of nonphysical injury to an individual or business. It is important for errors and omission policies to specifically include civil rights coverage for both defense costs and settlements. State law requires COGs to provide worker's compensation insurance for their paid employees. Volunteers, except firefighters, are not covered under worker's compensation policies and may have to sue the COG for a recovery. In regions where the COG operates a volunteer fire or ambulance company, the host municipality in which the fire or ambulance station is located is responsible for providing worker's compensation to the volunteers. Depending on the potential exposures of the regional program, surety bonds or other types of insurance policies should be considered. For instance, a performance or dishonesty bond should be considered for regional programs where money is handled.
5

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

To assure that insurance policies are coordinated between the COG and its member municipalities, it is recommended that the COGs be named as an additional insured on the municipal insurance policies. Equally important is for the COG's insurance policies to list the participating municipalities as additional named insureds. It is recommended that COG directors consult with their solicitors and insurance agents to determine the appropriate types of insurance coverage and applicable limits. To lower insurance costs, some COGs piggyback on the insurance policies of a member municipality, which may be able to secure a lower combined rate for the COG and the municipality than either could individually secure. A publication by the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development entitled Insurance Primer for Municipal Officials provides a general description of the Tort Claim Act and the types of insurance policies available to local governments, including COGs.

Purchasing
COG purchasing policies should be consistent with the municipal codes of the participating jurisdictions and the purchasing requirements of Act 180. These require at least three written or telephone quotations for all contracts between $4,000 and $10,000. A written record of telephone price quotes must be made, including vendor's name, the purpose of the contract and the price. Records of informal bids and written or telephone price quotes must be retained for three years. With some exceptions, all contracts of over $10,000 must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder on the basis of a publicly advertised and competitive bidding process. Contracts falling within the following categories may be awarded either on a competitive or negotiated basis. = = = = = Personal or professional services. Insurance policies and surety bonds. Purchases, leases or loans from other political subdivisions, municipal authorities or state and federal agencies. Public utility services under tariffs on file with the Public Utility Commission. Maintenance, repairs or replacements for water, electric light or other public works, provided they are not new additions, extensions or enlargements of existing facilities or equipment.

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

8. New Partnerships

With over 2,600 municipal governments, Pennsylvania has great potential for intergovernmental cooperation. However the vast majority of local governments and especially small rural communities do not participate in one of the state's multipurpose intermunicipal organizations. In many regions the possibility of using COGs and other cooperative organizations to reduce costs, expand services, promote coordinated planning and develop consensus on important issues is largely unrealized. As more municipalities recognize the benefits of cooperative programs, new partnerships are being forged. These partnerships are based on a shared community need to accomplish some public objective. In order for these partnerships to be successful, the objective should be attainable by a regional solution. When shared needs combine with common solutions, there is an opportunity for intergovernmental cooperation. Since many of the problems municipalities confront do have regional solutions, the possibilities for cooperative programs are limited only by the willingness of municipal officials to join with neighboring communities to establish programs that extend beyond municipal boundaries. Municipal partnerships take many forms and are not limited to COGs. Options range from an informal handshake agreement involving the joint purchase of public works equipment to a municipal league's operation of a comprehensive joint purchasing program. Following are successful examples of how COGs enable participating municipalities to provide more effective and efficient public services. These regional programs exemplify the innovative ways that municipal elected officials are enhancing current resources by using COGs to form partnerships among local governments and other agencies to solve local problems.

Refuse Collection
Act 101 of 1988 assigns the responsibility for the collection, transport, and storage of municipal solid waste to local governments. Elected officials have three options for meeting this responsibility: establish a public refuse collection department, administer a licensing program for multiple private haulers or award a contract to a single hauler selected on a competitive basis. Few Pennsylvania municipalities are sufficiently large enough to operate a cost effective refuse department. Instead, many communities rely on licensing programs which give property owners the responsibility for contracting for refuse collection service with a private company licensed by the municipality. The number of refuse haulers licensed by a single municipality varies significantly. Some jurisdictions license over 35 different companies. While licensing programs offer residents the most choice in terms of selecting a collection company, they have two major flaws. Licensing programs can be characterized by high rates of illegal disposal attributable to the difficulty in assuring that all property owners have arranged for a legal and environmentally safe disposal method, and duplicated collection routes, facilities and personnel producing higher costs to the resident. To avoid these problems, municipalities are increasingly choosing to provide for refuse collection through contracts awarded to a single private refuse hauler selected on the basis of a public competitive bidding process. To achieve lower collection costs for the property owner and to promote proper disposal of refuse within a larger geographic area, some municipalities have joined neighboring communities to establish a regional refuse collection program administered by a COG. In these cases, the municipalities designate the COG as their agent in preparing bid documents, soliciting and
1

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

reviewing proposals and administering the program if a contract is awarded. Using a regional approach to refuse collection can produce significant savings for residents. For example, one COG acting on behalf of four member municipalities reduced residents' collection costs by 25%, and expanded service to include semiannual bulk waste collection. This regional approach can also eliminate the need for the municipality to commit personnel resources to resolve complaints between the contractor and resident or to prepare state reports in cases where the municipality is required to provide recycling service. As the administrator of the program, the COG may be designated to receive resident concerns like missed pick-ups, litter or damaged refuse containers, and to prepare all state reports and other documents relating to the service. To fund these administrative services, the bidding document may require the contractor to pay the COG a small percentage (1% to 2%) of the collection fee. This payment method avoids the need to spend any municipal funds for the program. Contractors benefit from this arrangement by having consistent administrative procedures and by having a single point of contact with the COG instead of multiple municipal offices. In order for regional refuse programs to be successful, the COG and the participating municipalities must accept the following obligations. COG Obligations = = = The COG must actively involve representatives of each municipality in every step of the bidding process, beginning with development of the Request for Proposals (RFP). The COG must follow all municipal regulations and case law regarding the bidding process and award of the bid. The bidding process should not become the issue. There must be regular and complete communication between the COG and the municipalities, ideally the entire elected body and municipal managers/secretaries, regarding the status of the bidding process and any unexpected developments. The municipal officials should have sufficient information about the program to answer inquiries from their residents.

Municipal Obligations = = = Each municipality must be committed to the concept of a single contractor and must be willing to award a contract if it meets the community's cost and service criteria. Each municipality must designate the COG as its agent in contacts with bidders and not negotiate separate agreements with other haulers once the bids are received. Each municipality must adopt an ordinance requiring each developed residential property to have refuse service. To eliminate illegal refuse disposal and to secure the lowest possible rates for the residents, it is essential that each property participate in the program. Refuse from commercial properties and farms may be collected by licensed companies other than the contractor, providing there is system for confirming they have arranged for regular service. There must be regular and complete communication between the municipality and the COG regarding the status of the bidding process and unexpected developments. At meetings of the COG's legislative body the membership should not be surprised by information from a participating municipality.

If these obligations are accepted, a regional refuse collection program administered by the COG has the potential to benefit the resident, the municipalities and the contractor, in addition to protecting the region's environment from illegal refuse disposal.
2

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

Regional Code Administration

Many Pennsylvania municipalities have adopted building codes to assure that buildings are constructed according to minimum design standards. Building codes are intended to protect the occupants and their property. These standards are designed to protect life and property from a variety of threats to a building's integrity, such as tornadoes, snow loads and fire. Because of the complexity of building techniques and materials, some municipalities have decided not to develop their own codes, but to adopt nationally recognized codes such as those of the Building Officials Conference of America (BOCA) whose standards have been confirmed by national testing laboratories. These codes are highly technical and cover many thousands of requirements, including separate manuals for building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical and existing structures. These codes are not static, but change over time to reflect advances in technology and construction techniques. For instance, BOCA reviews its codes every three years. Thus, staying current with codes is an ongoing endeavor. To promote knowledge of the codes, the national code agencies provide a testing process through which inspectors can become certified in the enforcement of the various code manuals or in major code competencies such as plan review and office administration. Operating a comprehensive building code program based on national standards enforced by certified inspectors is difficult for most small municipalities. Depending on the level of building activity, many municipalities cannot justify or fund the appointment of a full-time inspection staff. Consequently, a single municipality may rely on a part-time inspector or a full-time employe who has other assigned job priorities. Often there are problems with these limited programs. The inspector must be an expert in all aspects of code administration and the various inspection manuals. It is difficult for residents and builders to schedule inspections because of limited office hours. And in the event of employee turnover, the municipality's ability to conduct timely inspections is disrupted until a new employee is brought up to speed. To address these concerns, some municipalities have joined with neighboring communities to establish regional code enforcement programs administered by a COG. Typically these programs require the municipalities to adopt, by ordinance, similar building codes and an intergovernmental agreement authorizing the COG to conduct inspections, enforce the codes and collect the fees. Regional code administration programs tend to be totally funded through building permit fees after an initial start-up period of several years. They also tend to be supported by local builders because the uniform standards and procedures streamline the construction process. Policies for regional code administration agencies are typically made by the COG's legislative body or a committee comprised of representatives from that group. Types of policy recommendations may include amendments to the codes, rates for calculating building permits, annual budgets and personnel practices. Recommendations involving changes to the codes or the building permit fees need to be adopted by an ordinance approved by each of the participating municipalities. Fees may be set by resolution if the program's intergovernmental agreement provides for that process. The national codes are periodically updated to assure they are current with changes in technology. Some regional programs have structured regular reviews of their codes to correspond with this schedule. During these review periods, local builders, architects and engineers are invited to provide comments on the proposed amendments and to submit recommendations of their own. This process involves the building community with the code program and enhances support for the program. COGs that are considering a regional code program should discuss the following pros and cons.
3

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

Pros: = = = Possibility of staffing a full-time codes program with extended hours of operation for the convenience of residents and builders. A larger inspection staff can assure operations are continued when there is employee turnover. Professional training programs for the inspection staff are more feasible since a regional department usually has a larger pool of inspectors to provide backup coverage when an inspector is sent to training sessions. The inspection staff is better able to pursue professional certification in the codes they are enforcing. Professional certification of the inspection staff may protect the municipalities in liability cases where the inspector's judgement is an issue. Enhanced career opportunities for the inspection staff include the chance to specialize in a particular aspect of the code such as new construction, electrical inspection or plan review. Uniform regional code requirements benefit builders who need only become familiar with one regional standard instead of multiple and sometimes conflicting municipal codes. The inspection staff can acquire a complete technical reference library for researching code questions. A regional agency may have the capacity to purchase and maintain the books, manuals and periodicals necessary for the staff to make informed decisions and to stay current with changes in technology. It becomes more cost effective to utilize technology such as telefax, microfilm and computer hardware, software and networks. Acquiring advanced office equipment for communicating, storing and manipulating information may be justified by the regional agency's larger workload and budget. More adequate administrative support for the inspectors is possible including a professional, trained codes supervisor to oversee staff and assist in resolving complex issues as well as secretarial staff to schedule inspections, issue permits and generally reduce the noninspection duties of the inspectors. The potential to secure appropriate appointments to appeals board is enhanced. Many municipalities have appeals boards to consider variances from the code or judgments of the code officials. Within a single municipality, it may be difficult to find residents with the expertise and willingness to serve on this board. A regional program offers a larger population to recruit from. Expanding the code program to a larger geographic region stabilizes program revenues. When construction is down in one municipality it could be up in another community. Often the fluctuations in building permit fees may be reduced in a regional program. Increased predictability reduces reliance on municipal revenues to support the program and promotes more accurate planning for staffing and equipment purchasing.

Cons: = = =
4

Possible conflicts among existing municipal codes may require significant discussion to resolve. Potential problems with using currently employed code officials when existing departments are merged. Resolving issues of how to fund initial start-up costs like office space, additional

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

personnel or vehicles. These will need to be funded with contributions from participating municipalities. Possibly some of these expenses could be reimbursed to the member jurisdictions should the program become self-supporting. = The potential for conflicts among municipalities regarding representation on the policy-making board. One successful program assigns each municipality one vote regardless of size or level of building activity. That approach may not always be acceptable. Possible loss of other services now being performed by existing staff, such as zoning administration, issuance of nonbuilding-related licenses and permits and delivering messages to municipal officials. Staff of a regional department will not be available for these services.

Lack of citizen understanding about building codes generally and a regional codes program in particular can be a negative. When a municipality with no codes program or a weak program considers joining a more comprehensive regional program, significant public debate may occur. In these instances it is important for the municipal officials and the COG director to inform residents about the need for codes and the advantages of a regional program. Informational activities may include conducting public meetings, writing municipal newsletter articles or letters to the editor in the local newspaper or arranging for radio and television interviews. Regional code offices have been successfully operated by COG's for over twenty-five years. Some of the major characteristics of these programs include the following: = = = = = = By ordinance, each municipality adopted an intergovernmental agreement establishing the program. By ordinance, each municipality adopted the same standard code, like BOCA or the National Electrical Code. While variation is possible, it should be discouraged. Each municipality set uniform permit fees. Permit fees generated sufficient revenues to make the program self-supporting within several years of operation. A professional code official was selected to head the agency on the basis of training, education and experience. Elected officials from each of the participating municipalities remained actively involved in setting policy for the agency.

COG officials contemplating a regional code program should organize an open discussion of the concept among the interested municipalities. Identifying and evaluating the barriers to a regional program can generate potential solutions to these obstacles. To resolve these problems, municipal officials need a common understanding of the issues. COG directors can create this understanding by preparing background information and facilitating meetings to give each municipal official an opportunity to express positions and concerns. Once the concept is approved, the director's role expands to include assisting with planning, organizing, implementing and evaluating the program.

Regional Fire Protection

There are approximately 2,500 volunteer fire companies in Pennsylvania. These companies are a tremendous asset to the municipalities they serve by protecting persons and property from fire. Many companies have difficulty attracting and retaining qualified volunteers
5

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

and raising the funds to purchase vehicles and equipment. Increasingly, they are turning to local governments for assistance. As a solution some municipalities are encouraging their fire and ambulance services to reorganize into regional districts, consistent with the fire load. Reorganization assumes that fire companies located within a mile or two of each other will find it more practical to merge or consolidate their volunteers and vehicles into a single regional department. The regionalization of local fire companies by cooperation, mergers or consolidations is a national trend that is still relatively new to Pennsylvania. Cooperation between companies involves sharing facilities, apparatus or volunteers. The separate corporate charters and officers are maintained, but resources are combined. Two separate fire companies may even share the same station. Mergers occur when one company goes out of existence and is absorbed by another, usually larger company. Consolidations occur when the corporate lives of two or more companies terminate upon their combination to create a new and different company. All three forms of regionalization are feasible when the proposed regional fire company is able to provide fire protection to the community at lower cost, using fewer volunteers and fire stations than numerous smaller independent companies covering the same geographic area. Despite the potential advantages, proposing the regionalization of local fire companies can be very divisive for the affected municipalities. Changing or eliminating the fire company's response area is a sensitive issue in many municipalities where there are deep-rooted rivalries among community fire companies and local identity and pride is strongly linked to the volunteer organizations. Pennsylvania's municipal codes give the elected officials the power to make regulations relative to the cause, management and prevention of fires. Elected officials may also enter into contracts with neighboring municipalities for mutual aid or assistance in fire protection or for furnishing fire protection to the entire municipality. Several Commonwealth Court cases have established the municipality's authority and responsibility to organize an effective fire protection service for the jurisdiction. These cases have allowed municipalities to assign territories to fire companies or to exclude a fire company from firefighting activities within its boundaries. Municipal responsibility for the fire service is also established in other state laws. Local governments are required to purchase worker's compensation for the volunteers and to provide them liability protection. These laws grant further regulatory powers to the local governments as well. Some Pennsylvania municipalities have explored the concept of regional fire service through the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development, the Pennsylvania Economy League, private consultants or their COGs. In the past, several COGs have coordinated studies of the implications of regionalizing the fire companies of their member municipalities. And one COG has successfully operated a regional fire company since 1972. This regional company protects four jurisdictions within a geographic area exceeding 100 square miles with a mixed urban, suburban and rural population exceeding 68,000. It operates from a single fire station, and is funded by all the municipalities according to an established formula. Municipal contributions are paid to the COG, which oversees their expenditure in accordance with a budget approved by each of the participating municipalities. Company budget requests are initially reviewed by a subcommittee or the finance committee of the COG legislative's body and then by the entire legislative body. This group prepares a recommendation for a total budget appropriation. This recommendation is considered by each of the individual governing bodies. If the municipalities disagree on the proposed budget, the issue is referred to the COG for a cooperative resolution. The fire company's elected president and chief participate in each step of the budget process. The process is completed when each municipality commits to the recommended funding determined by the region to be necessary for the company's operation. This regional partnership, coordinated through the COG, reduces the cost of fire protection. Each

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

of the participating municipalities spends less than 2% of their general fund budget for fire protection. All new trucks are purchased using monies from a regional capital fund linked to the company's equipment replacement schedule. In this way the municipalities do not need to borrow funds for truck replacement and interest costs are avoided. The relationship among this regional fire company, the COG and the participating municipalities has become more collaborative over time. As trust and confidence grew, the company requested the COG's assistance in preparing a plan to meet future personnel, facility and operational needs. A Project Management Team (PMT) appointed by the COG and the company included representatives from the fire company, the municipalities and the community. Its objective was to assist the consulting firm chosen to prepare the plan. The consultant was selected by the PMT from solicited competitive proposals. Consulting fees were paid by the COG from municipal contributions. One of the plan's recommendations was for the COG to appoint a fire administrator who would assist the fire company with its management, recruitment, training and information-gathering activities. The new arrangement did not change the principal duties of the fire chief and president elected by the company membership. For instance, the chief retained full control of all company operations at emergency incidents. The proposed administrator position was approved by the municipalities and a vote of the company membership. Subsequently, a fire administrator was appointed by the COG executive director, in consultation with the fire company and municipal officials. In addition to assisting the fire company, the fire administrator functions as a liaison between the fire company and the COG municipalities, improving communications and reducing areas of potential conflict. For the first three years following establishment of the position, the COG received partial funding for the employee's compensation and benefits through a Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development Circuit Rider Grant. Thus, the partnership created by this COG program extended from the local volunteer fire company to the state. This regional approach to fire protection offers advantages to the municipalities, the fire company and the residents. Local governments receive high quality fire service at low cost. Fire companies secure a stable funding base and the opportunity to acquire vehicles and equipment from a capital fund supported by the region's municipalities. Additionally, the volunteers are able to focus on training and responding to incidents instead of fund-raising activities. Residents benefit from low taxes and the potential for quicker responses to emergency incidents. COGs that are considering facilitating a discussion of the potential implications of a regional fire service should look at the following pros and cons. Pros: = = Response time can be reduced as the closest available unit responds to the emergency. Response time is not limited by municipal boundary lines. Truck replacement costs can be lower as larger departments need fewer pieces of reserve apparatus for an equal number of front-line vehicles. Consolidation also reduces the duplication of expensive specialized apparatus like aerials and hazmat units. Interest costs incurred for truck replacement can be reduced or eliminated with a unified capital reserve fund. Volunteer firefighters can specialize in areas such as hazmat response, fire prevention and plan review. Training opportunities for volunteers can be expanded, and resources pooled for fire training (burn) facilities.

= = =

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

= = = = =

Public information and education programs can be regionalized to correspond to existing media coverage areas. Equipment and supply redundancy can be eliminated, resulting in cost saving. For instance, fewer vehicles require less hose. Costs for supplies, equipment and safety gear can be reduced through volume purchasing. Company recommendations to agencies involved with the fire service, such as code departments and water companies, can be more successfully advocated. The need to conduct fund-raising activities can be reduced or eliminated. This reduces the overall time commitment of the volunteers to the company and prevents rapid burnout of volunteer enthusiasm. The volunteers' time commitment is narrowed to training and emergency responses. Regional fire relief associations can be created with a larger pool of funds and the ability to purchase more comprehensive insurance protection for the volunteers. There is a long range potential for fewer fire stations because of larger scale planning.

= =

Cons: = = = = = The community may be redivided among service areas of rival fire companies. There may be problems in resolving the status of two or more fire chiefs and various assistants. Initial start-up costs may be significant if existing facilities and equipment are not adequate for a regional department. Conflicts could arise among fire company members regarding the appropriate level of insurance protection for members. The municipalities may have different perceptions on the appropriate level of involvement with the fire company. For example, should municipal/regional oversight be limited to budget review. Other community services performed by existing fire companies, such as filling swimming pools, conducting community fairs, games or parades, may be eliminated. Some may perceive a loss of local identity which they link to pride in the local fire company.

= =

The regionalization of volunteer fire companies is a major challenge for local governments. A unilateral municipal mandate to change a fire company's service area may not be viable in dealing with volunteers who could resign because of the imposition. Thus, reorganization of fire services needs to be a consensus decision of the municipalities, the fire companies and the public. If complete regionalization is not possible, intermediate steps to enhance the level of cooperation among fire companies may be an option. Such opportunities include regional fire prevention activities, training programs and joint purchasing proposals. Should the municipalities and fire companies decide to discuss options for their region, the COG may be the appropriate agency to facilitate this dialogue.

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

Appendix A

Intergovernmental Cooperation Law

1972, P.L. 762, No. 180; 53 P.S. 481 (as amended through November 1, 1995)

AN ACT
Relating to intergovernmental cooperation. The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby enacts as follows: Section 1. As used in this act, municipality means a county, city of the second class, second class A and third class, borough, incorporated town, township, school district or any other similar general purpose unit of government which shall hereafter be created by the General Assembly. Section 2. This act shall not apply to any agreement entered into by a city of the first class nor to any agreement entered into between a municipality and a city of the first class. Section 3. Two or more municipalities in this Commonwealth may jointly cooperate, or any municipality or municipalities may jointly cooperate with any municipality or municipalities located in any other state, in the exercise or in the performance of their respective governmental functions, powers or responsibilities. For the purpose of carrying the provisions of this act into effect the municipalities cooperating shall enter into such joint agreements as may be deemed appropriate for such purposes. Section 4. A municipality by act of its governing body may, or upon being required by initiative and referendum in the area affected shall, cooperate or agree in the exercise of any function, power or responsibility with, or delegate or transfer any function, power or responsibility to one or more other governmental units including other municipalities or districts, the Federal Government, any other state or its governmental units, or any newly created governmental unit. Section 5. A municipality may enter into intergovernmental cooperation with or delegate any functions, powers or responsibilities to another governmental unit or political subdivision upon the passage of an ordinance by its governing body. If mandated by initiative and referendum in the area affected, it shall adopt such an ordinance. Section 6. Initiative means the filing with the appropriate election officials at least ninety days prior to the next primary or general election, of a petition containing a proposal for referendum signed by electors comprising five per cent of the number of electors voting for the office of Governor in the last gubernatorial general election in each municipality or area affected. The applicable election officials shall place the proposal on the ballot in a manner fairly representing the content of the petition for decision by referendum at said election. Initiative on a similar question shall not be submitted more often than once in five years. Referendum means approval of a question placed on the ballot by initiative by a majority vote of the electors voting thereon. Section 7. The ordinance adopted by the governing body of a municipality entering into intergovernmental cooperation or delegating or transferring any functions, powers or responsibilities to another municipality or to a council of governments, consortium or any other
1

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

similar entity shall specify: (1) The conditions of agreement in the case of cooperation with or delegation to other municipalities, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, other states, or the Federal Government; (2) The duration of the term of the agreement; (3) The purpose and objectives of the agreement, including the powers and scope of authority delegated in the agreement; (4) The manner and extent of financing the agreement; (5) The organizational structure necessary to implement the agreement; (6) The manner in which property, real or personal, shall be acquired, managed, licensed or disposed of; (7) That the entity created under this section shall be empowered to enter into contracts for policies of group insurance and employee benefits, including social security, for its employees. (Amended 1986 P.L. 1439, No. 137). Section 7.1. All joint purchases involving an expenditure of more than $10,000 shall be made by contract, in writing, only after notice for bids once a week for two weeks in at least one and not more than two newspapers of general circulation circulating generally in the joining municipalities. All contracts shall be let to the lowest responsible bidder. Every contract for the construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair, improvement or maintenance of public works shall comply with the provisions of the act of March 3, 1978 (P.L. 6, No. 3), known as the Steel Procurement Act. (Added 1978 P.L. 1044, No. 238 and amended 1981 P.L. 534, No. 153 and 1990 P.L. 400, No. 96). Section 7.2. In addition to joint purchases authorized by section 7.1, municipalities are further authorized to make direct purchase from vendors or suppliers of goods, materials or equipment without compliance with existing and otherwise applicable statutory requirements governing competitive bidding and execution of contracts, as follows: (1) Any county may by appropriate resolution, and subject to such reasonable regulations as it may prescribe, permit any municipality within the county to participate in or purchase off contracts for goods, materials or equipment entered into by the county. (2) Any municipality desiring to participate in such purchase contracts shall file with the county purchasing agency and with the county solicitor a certified copy of an ordinance or resolution of its governing body requesting that it be authorized to participate in purchase contracts of the county and agreeing that it will be bound by such terms and conditions as the county may, and as hereafter provided shall, prescribe and that it will be responsible for payment directly to the vendor under each purchase contract. (3) The county may permit such participation by municipalities only where the solicitation for bids and specifications for such county contracts, and such contracts themselves, expressly provide for and inform prospective and successful bidders that the contract to be let is intended to be subject to this act and to regulations adopted by the county hereunder. (4) Among such terms and conditions as the county may specify, it shall prescribe that all prices shall be F.O.B. destination. (Added 1986 P.L. 1472, No. 148)

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

Section 7.3. Any county or municipality may, by ordinance, authorize joint purchases of materials, supplies and equipment with any private school, parochial school, private college or university or nonprofit human services agency within the county or municipality as the case may be. Any such ordinance shall require that the school, college or agency shall be bound by the terms and conditions of purchasing agreements as the county or municipality shall prescribe and that the school, college or agency shall be responsible for payment directly to the vendor under each purchase contract. Schools, colleges and agencies shall be exempt from any existing statutory requirements governing competitive bidding and execution of contracts with respect to purchases under this section. (Added 1986 P.L. 1472, No. 148). Section 7.4. Written or telephonic price quotations from at least three qualified and responsible contractors shall be requested for all contracts that exceed $4,000 but are less than the amount requiring advertisement and competitive bidding or, in lieu of price quotations, a memorandum shall be kept on file showing that fewer than three qualified contractors exist in the market area within which it is practicable to obtain quotations. A written record of telephonic price quotations shall be made and shall contain at least the date of the quotation, the name of the contractor and the contractor's representative, the construction, reconstruction, repair, maintenance or work which was the subject of the quotation and the price. Written price quotations, written records of telephonic quotations and memoranda shall be retained for a period of three years. (Added 1990 P.L. 400, No. 96). Section 7.5. No municipality shall evade the provisions of Section 7.1 as to advertising for bids or purchasing materials or contracting for services piecemeal for the purpose of obtaining prices under $10,000 upon transactions which should, in the exercise of reasonable discretion and prudence, be conducted as one transaction amounting to more than $10,000. This provision is intended to make unlawful the practice of evading advertising requirements by making a series of purchases or contracts each for less than the advertising requirement price or by making several simultaneous purchases or contracts each below said price, when in either case the transaction involved should have been made as one transaction for one price. (Added 1990 P.L. 400, No. 96). Section 7.6. Any member of a governing body of a municipality who votes to unlawfully evade the provisions of section 7. 1 and who knows that the transaction upon which he so votes is or ought to be a part of a larger transaction and that it is being divided in order to evade the requirements as to advertising for bids commits a misdemeanor of the third degree for each contract entered into as a direct result of that vote. (Added 1990 P.L. 400, No. 96). Section 8. Every agreement between a municipality and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, any other state, municipality of another state or the Federal Government under the provisions of this act shall, prior to and as a condition precedent to enactment of an ordinance be submitted to the Local Government Commission for review and recommendation. The Local Government Commission shall within sixty days of receipt of said agreement determine whether it is in proper form and compatible with the laws of this Commonwealth. Failure of the Local Government Commission to make recommendations within sixty days of receipt of the agreement shall constitute a recommendation in favor of the agreement. Section 9. Any joint cooperation agreement shall be deemed in force as to any municipality, when the same has been adopted by ordinance by all cooperating municipalities. After adoption by all cooperating municipalities, any such agreement shall be binding upon the municipality, and the covenants thereof may be enforced by appropriate remedy by any one or
3

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

more of the municipalities against any other municipality party thereto. Section 10. The act of May 21, 1943 (P.L. 340), entitled, as amended, An act empowering municipality authorities, cities of the third class, boroughs, incorporated towns and townships, and counties other than counties of the first and second class, to co-operate with each other and with local governmental units in other states through joint agreements in the exercise of their governmental powers, duties and functions, is repealed absolutely. Section 11. This act shall take effect immediately.

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

Appendix B

Joint Services
Act 537 Sewage Facilities Planning CDBG Program Administration Code Administration Emergency Management Planning Fire Protection Gypsy Moth Suppression Joint Public Works Joint Purchasing Library Model Ordinances False Alarms Stormwater Management Wellhead Protection Refuse, Recycling, Bulk Waste Collection Regional Comprehensive Planning Regional Policing Service Bureau Responsibilities = Budget/Accounting Utility Billing/Collection

Tax Billing/Collection Training for Volunteer Fire Companies Transportation Planning Forum Activities Review Annual Transit Budget Meeting with County Commissioners Meeting with Authorities Meeting with Legislators Meeting with School District Officials

Zoning Park Maintenance Recreation Program

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

Appendix C

Sample Resolution Establishing COG Director Position

RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS AND PROVIDING FOR THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE OFFICE BE IT RESOLVED AND ENACTED, AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AND ENACTED by the Council of Governments:

SECTION 1. CREATION OF THE OFFICE The office of Executive Director is hereby created. SECTION 2. APPOINTMENT OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR The executive director shall be appointed for an indefinite term by majority vote of the municipalities participating in the General Forum. The executive director shall be chosen by the General Forum solely on the basis of executive and administrative qualifications with special reference to actual experience in or knowledge of accepted practice in respect to the duties of the office hereinafter set forth. At the time of the appointment, the appointee need not be a resident of the Region or the Commonwealth, but during the executive directors tenure of office, shall reside within the Region. No member of the General Forum shall receive such appointment during the term for which the member is serving nor within one (1) year after the expiration of the members term. The General Forum shall have the authority to enter into an agreement with the executive director, which may stipulate terms and conditions of employment. SECTION 3. REMOVAL OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR The General Forum may remove the executive director at any time by a majority vote of its participating municipalities or as provided by an employment agreement, if in effect. A public hearing, if requested, shall be granted by the General Forum within 30 days following notice of removal. During the interim, the General Forum may suspend the executive director from duty, but shall continue the executive directors salary and, if the removal becomes final, shall pay said salary for three calendar months following final removal date or in accordance with the terms and conditions of an employment agreement if in effect. In the case where the executive director commits an act constituting a crime, fraud, actual malice, or willful misconduct, said salary shall terminate immediately upon removal.

SECTION 4. POWERS AND DUTIES The executive director shall be the chief administrative officer of the Council of Governments, may head one or more agencies or programs, and shall be responsible for the
1

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

management and administration of COG agencies and programs. The powers and duties of the executive director shall include the following: 4.1 Direct, supervise, and administer the agencies and programs of COG in accordance with policies established by the General Forum, except as otherwise provided for by ordinance, or statute, including the Pennsylvania Library Code. 4.2 Appoint and, when necessary for the good of the service, suspend or remove subordinates under his/her jurisdiction, except that appointment and removal of agency directors shall be subject to the concurrence of the General Forum. Agency Directors shall appoint and, when necessary for the good of the service, suspend or remove subordinates under their jurisdiction subject to the concurrence of the executive director. 4.3 Prepare the budget annually and submit it to the General Forum, together with a message describing the important features. The proposed budget shall comply with the policy guidelines established by the General Forum, and the recommendations submitted by the agency directors and executive director shall be identified in the budget document. The executive director, solely, is responsible for the administration of the budget after adoption by the General Forum. 4.4 Prepare and submit to the General Forum as of the end of the fiscal year a complete report on the finances and administrative activities of COG for the preceding year. 4.5 Keep the General Forum advised of the financial condition and future needs of COG and make such recommendations as shall be deemed desirable. 4.6 Recommend to the General Forum a standard schedule of pay for appointive office and position in COG service, including minimum, intermediate, and maximum rates. 4.7 Recommend to the General Forum adoption of such measures, as may be deemed necessary or expedient, for the health, safety, or welfare of the regional community or for the improvement of administrative services. 4.8 Establish, consolidate, or eliminate agencies, offices, positions, departments or units with the approval of the General Forum. 4.9 Be responsible for public relations and community information. 4.10 Attend all meetings of the General Forum, and take part in the discussion of matters coming before the Forum. The executive director shall receive notice of regular and special meetings of the General Forum. Special circumstances may warrant non-attendance at regular meetings. 4.11 Attend or assign another to attend COG committee and agency board meetings, and take part in the discussion of matters coming before those groups. The executive director and/or designee shall receive notice of all regular and special meetings of the COG committees and agency board meetings. Special circumstances may warrant non-attendance at regular meetings. 4.12 Investigate all complaints in relation to matters concerning the administration of COG agencies and programs. 4.13 Be responsible for the control of the expenditures of funds, through a purchasing system, for the procurement of all materials, supplies and equipment, for all COG agencies for which funds have been provided in the budget. 4.14 Perform such other duties as may be required by the General Forum not
2

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

inconsistent with COG Agreements, contracts, or resolutions. SECTION 5. NON-INTERFERENCE Neither the General Forum nor any of its members shall direct or request the appointment of any person to, or removal from, office by the executive director or any of the executive directors subordinates, or in any manner take part in the appointment or removal of officers and employees in the administrative services of COG, except as provided above in the appointment of agency directors. Except for the purpose of inquiry, the General Forum and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the executive director and neither the General Forum nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinates of the executive director, either publicly or privately.

SECTION 6. COMPENSATION The executive director shall receive such compensation as the General Forum shall fix from time to time. SECTION 7. VACANCY Any vacancy in the office of executive director shall be filled expeditiously. A qualified individual shall be appointed acting executive director during the vacancy by the General Forum.

RESOLVED, this day of regular session. Attest:

, by the General Forum, meeting in

By:

__________________________________

____________________________
Chair, Centre Region COG

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

Appendix D

Sample Agenda
KEYSTONE COG BUCHANAN TOWNSHIP BUILDING FEBRUARY 1, 1996 7:30 PM

AGENDA

I.

CALL TO ORDER The meeting will be convened by Chair Bigler, who will lead the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A copy of the minutes from the January 3, 1966 Keystone COG meeting is enclosed. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public are invited to comment on any items not already on the agenda (five minutes per person time limit, please). Comments relating to specific items on the agenda should be deferred until that point in the meeting. REPORTS AND ACTIONS A. Regional Refuse Contract During its December 9, 1995 meeting, the Public Services Committee of the Keystone COG opened the Regional Refuse/Recycling/Bulk Waste Collection Contract bids, and referred them to the participating municipal secretaries/managers for evaluation. The Committee requested that the secretary/managers evaluation include a recommendation regarding the lowest qualified bidder. The Committee considered the secretaries/managers evaluation during its January 14, 1966 meeting, and agreed with the conclusion that ACME Refuse is the lowest qualified bidder. To obtain municipal agreement on the award of the contract, the Committee requests the Keystone COG approve the following motion: That the Keystone COG receive the municipal secretaries/managers evaluation of the Regional Refuse/Recycling/Bulk Waste Collection bids, and recommend that the contract be awarded to ACME Refuse; and further, request that the participating municipalities decide whether to authorize the COG Chair to execute the contract documents for service to begin May 1, 1966. Enclosed is a copy of the municipal secretaries/managers evaluation.

II.

III.

IV.

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

B.

Solid Waste Management Plan The director of the County Planning Commission will present proposed amendments to the Countys Solid Waste Management Plan. The enactment of these amendments requires the approval of at least 60% of the Countys municipalities. To proceed with the review of the proposed amendments, the COG Executive Committee recommends the approval of the following motion: That the Keystone COG refer the proposed amendments to the County Solid Waste Management Plan to the municipalities for comment; and further, that the municipal responses be forwarded to the COG director by May 1, 1996, for referral to the Executive Committee, which will prepare a recommendation for proceeding.

V.

COG DIRECTORS REPORT The COG director will review current activities (see enclosed January Activity Report). COMMITTEE REPORTS Finance Committee -- The Chair will report on the Committees January meeting, which included discussion regarding funding alternatives for a regional gypsy moth suppression program. A report outlining these options will be presented at the March 1, 1966 COG meeting. Executive Committee -- The Chair will report on the Committees January meeting, which included inviting the County Board of Commissioners to the April COG meeting to discuss funding of regional libraries. OTHER BUSINESS A. Matter of Record -- The next meeting of the Keystone COG is scheduled for March 1, 1966 at the Ritner Borough Building. Tentative agenda items include: consideration of a regional contract for refuse collection, an evaluation of funding options for the gypsy moth suppression program, and the presentation of a model sign ordinance. B. Matter of Record -- Enclosed is correspondence from the Regions three State Representatives, in response to the Keystone COGs support of increased funding for state grant programs. ADJOURNMENT

VI.

VII.

VIII.

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

Appendix E

Keystone COG Code Administration Budget

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

42.362

FUND BALANCE Capital $10,000.00 Reserve 36.616.00 Subtotal 46,616.00 39,800.00 42,200.00 43,200.00 43,200.00 32,800.00 34,200.00 34,200.00 34,200.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 9,000.00

DEPARTMENT REVENUE: 42.362.00 .100 Building Permits: Pinchot Township $100,000.00 .200 Bigler Township 25,000.00 .300 Buchanan Borough 30,000.00 Subtotal $155,000.00 $138,000.00 $148,650.00 $140,000.00 $154,000.00 10,000.00 30,650.00 40,000.00 24,000.00 30,000.00 38,000.00 20,000.00 30,000.00 $ 98,000.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 80,000.00 $100,000.00

42.363.00 .100 5,000.00 .200

Fire Permits: Pinchot Township $ 4,800.00 $ 4,950.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $

Bigler Township 1,000.00

980.00

1,000.00

1,000.00

1,000.00

.300

Buchanan Borough 4,000.00 Subtotal

3,900.00

3,950.00

4,000.00

4,000.00

$ 9,680.00

$ 9,900.00

$10,000.00

$10,000.00

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

$10,000.00

42.380.000 Miscellaneous:

.110

Interest Earnings $1,500.00

$ 1,614.00

$ 1,689.00

$ 1,600.00

$ 1,500.00

.200

Blasting Permits 500.00

400.00

450.00

500.00

500.00

.300

Other Revenue 4,000.00 Subtotal $5000.00

1,600.00

2,000.00

2,900.00

3,000.00

$ 3,614.00

$ 4,139.00

$ 5,000.00

$ 5,000.00

GRAND TOTAL $216,616.00

$191,094.00 $204,889.00 $198,200.00 $212,200.00

EXPENDITURES

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

42.412.000 PERSONNEL: .135 Full-Time Employees $113,000.00 .190 Employee Benefits 25,499.00 Subtotal $138,499.00 $124,994.00 $129,334.00 $133,910.00 $133,834.00 21,862.00 23,012.00 24,300.00 24,224.00 $103,132.00 $106,322.00 $109,610.00 $133,834.00

43.413.000 OPERATING: .210 2,000.00 .311 Audit 600.00 400.00 450.00 500.00 500.00 Office Supplies $ 1,950.00 $ 1,925.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 1,800.00 $

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

.314

Legal Services 1,000.00

500.00

1,000.00

1,000.00

0.00

.320 1,500.00 .342 4,200.00 .350 8,100.00 .375 1,200.00 .380 12,000.00 .460 4,200.00 .463 500.00

Telephone

1,300.00

1,350.00

1,500.00

1,400.00

Photocopying & Mailing

3,500.00

3,800.00

4,000.00

3,900.00

Insurance

9,000.00

8,000.00

8,000.00

7,800.00

Vehicle Maintenance

500.00

600.00

1,000.00

1,100.00

Office Rent

12,000.00

12,000.00

12,000.00

12,000.00

Employee Development

2,700.00

3,750.00

4,000.00

3,800.00

Publications & Subscriptions

450.00

480.00

500.00

450.00

Subtotal $35,300.00

$32,300.00

$33,355.00

$34,500.00

$32,750.00

CAPITAL ACCOUNT Capital $10,000.00 Operating Balance 32,817.00 Subtotal $42,817.00 $39,800.00 $42,200.00 $29,790.00 $45,616.00 32,800.00 34,200.00 20,790.00 36,616.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 8000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 9,000.00

GRAND TOTAL $216,616.00

$197,094.00 $204,889.00 $198,200.00 $212,200.00

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

PERSONNEL COSTS: SALARIES

1995 Code Official Building Inspector Building Inspector Secretary Subtotal $ 36,860.00 28,130.00 25,220.00 19,400.00 $ 109,610.00

1996 $ 38,000.00 29,000.00 26,000.00 20,000.00 $ 113,000.00

Total Benefits

$ 24,224.00

$ 25,499.00

Total Personnel

$ 133,834.00

$ 138,499.00

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

LINE ITEM JUSTIFICATION

I. REVENUE FOR 1996

A. Fund Balance Reserve Account - The projected balance in the reserve account as of January 1, 1996 is $36,616, an increase of $2,416 or 6.5$ from 1995. This account represents the cash-over from previous years, and is retailed to fund agency operations during times of low building activity, such as occurs during the winter months.
Capital Account - The projected balance in the capital account as of January 1, 1996 is $10,000, an increase of $1,000.00 or 10% from 1995. It is the policy of the Keystone COG to annually appropriate $1,000 to the capital account to fund potential vehicle and equipment purchases.

B.

Department Revenue Building Permit Revenue (42.362.100 to 42.362.300) - Revenues from building permits are projected at $155,000, a $15,000 or 10.7% increase from 1995. No change in the current charge for building permits is proposed.
Fire Permit Revenues (42.363.100 ro 42.363.300) - Revenues from fire safety permits are estimated to total $10,000, no change from 1995. This projection assumes that the Building Inspector will perform 400 inspections at $25 per inspection.

C. Miscellaneous Revenue
Interest Earnings (42.380.100) - Revenues from interest earnings are projected at $1,500, a $100 or 6.25% increase from the amount budgeted in 1995. This decline is attributed to lower interest rates paid on agency funds. Blasting Permits (42.380.100) - Revenues from blasting permits are estimated at $500, no change from 1995, The BOCA National Fire Prevention Code requires that persons in the participating municipalities who use blasting agents secure a fire permit. A fire permit fee of $25 per day is charged. Other Revenues (42,380.300) - Revenues from other sources are anticipated to total $3,000, a $100 or 3.4% increase from 1995. Funds entered into this account represent revenues from the sale of books and copy/microfilm charges paid by persons requesting duplication of code materials.

II.
A. Personnel

EXPENDITURES FOR 1966

Salaries (42.412.135) - Employee compensation for 1996 is proposed at $113,000, a 3% increase from 1995. The percentage adjustment is a recommendation from the Code Administration Committee of the Keystone COG, which is comprised of one elected official from each of the participating municipalities. Employee Benefits (42.412.190) - Employee benefits are expected to total $25,499, a $199 or 1%
5

County Officials
Home

City Officials

Township Officials

Borough Officials

Council of Governments
Index Help

increase from 1995. Benefits include social security, medical and workers compensation insurance, retirement, life insurance, and unemployment insurance.

B. Operating
Office Supplies (42.413.210) - The office supply account is estimated at $2,000, no change from the amount budgeted in 1995. This account funds the purchase of office materials such as paper, recording tapes for meetings, forms, envelopes and pens. Audit (42.413.311) - Auditing expenses are expected to total $600, a $100 or 20% increase from the amount budgeted in 1995. The audit is performed by a public accounting firm selected on the basis of a competitive bidding process. Legal Services (42.413.314) - Legal services are anticipated to cost $1,000, no change from 1995. The main purpose of this account is to provide legal service to the Board of Appeals and the Code Officials on laws affecting the codes agency. Telephone (42.413.320) - Telephone expenses are projected to total $1,500, no change from 1995. Included in this account is the rental of four telephone lines to the Code Agency. Photocopying and Mailing (42.413.342) - Photocopying and mailing expenses are estimated at $4,200, a $200 or 5% increase from 1995. The increase is attributable to higher rates charged by the Postal Service. Insurance (42.413.350) - Insurance costs are expected to total $8,100, a $100 or 1% increase from 1995. Included in this account are premiums for the following insurance policies: vehicle, general liability, property, fidelity bond and errors and omissions. Vehicle Maintenance (42.413.375) - Maintenance for the three Code Agency vehicles is estimated at $1,200, a $200 or 20% increase from 1995. The increase is attributable to the aging of the fleet which is requiring a higher level of maintenance. Office Rent (42.413.380) - Office rent is anticipated to total $12,000, no change from 1995. The rental rate is fixed for a five-year period, ending in 1997. Employee Development (42.413.460) - Professional training for the code staff is expected to cost $4,200, an $200 or 20% increase from 1995. This line item covers attendance at various training programs sponsored by BOCA. National Fire Academy, NFPA, IAEI (International Association of Electrical Inspectors), including registration, meals, transportation and other expenses as defined by the Code Agencys travel policy. Publications and Subscriptions (42.413.463) - Publications and Subscription are projected to total $500, no change from 1995. A majority of this expense is reimbursed under Other Revenues through the sale of code standards to the public.