This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
03/07/2018 11:01 PMRegionalism is the magic word that state government wants to use to fix what ails us. Regionalize, the state says, and you can save enough money to make up for lost state funding.
Here’s the problem: Killingworth is already regionalized in almost all ways that make sense: regional school district, regional probate court, regional transit district, regional emergency dispatch center, regional waste management, regional emergency management district, regional council of governments, regional economic revitalization commission, and a few others. We also participate in the Resident State Trooper program, so we have regional policing. Our building official and our zoning official work part time for Killingworth and part time for other towns, so, in effect, those positions are “regional.”
We’re not stupid. When regionalizing gives us services we could not otherwise provide and saves us money, we regionalize.
But sometimes regionalizing does not make sense.
For instance, the state would like us to join a regional health district. Health districts charge towns based on their population. Killingworth has a very small number of commercial food service establishments, no sewers or public water supply, no shoreline property, and a relatively well-off and well-educated population. In other words, our public health needs are low. We have, however, more or less the same population as Westbrook, with its mall, its waterfront, its seasonal residents, large commercial base, and its multitude of restaurants. Were we to join a health district with Westbrook, our public health costs would be far higher than what they are now.
Or take the Killingworth Volunteer Fire Company. We are fortunate to have a dedicated, well-trained volunteer fire company. The courageous members save the town millions of dollars each year. Would they be willing to give their service to a regional volunteer fire company? Would such an arrangement be more effective?
Now, no one would design a state with 169 municipalities, and there is plenty of irrationality and inefficiency in the systems that have evolved. John Filchak, executive director of the Northeastern Connecticut Council of Governments, found more than 25 different kinds of districts in the state—and none of the district boundaries coincide. Nor do they coincide with state legislative districts.
But if we want to improve things, we cannot ignore the situation that has developed from the particular history of each town. We can’t pretend that we can start with a clean slate.
No doubt there are new regional efficiencies to be found. Property assessment, for example, might be a function suited to regionalization, but such initiatives require investment to make the transition, and, far from making those investments, the state is divesting from the regional entities that already exist.
If the state tries to impose a one-size-fits-all solution on the towns, and if it undercuts regional efforts by eliminating funding, we might as well say “abracadabra” instead of “regionalize.”