DOCSLIB.ORG

Consolidated Cities/Counties

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Consolidated Cities/Counties Consolidated Cities/Counties A consolidated city-county is a city and county that have been merged into one unified jurisdiction. It is simultaneously a city, which is a municipal corporation, and a county, which is an administrative division of a state. Service Delivery Consolidated city-counties have mostly eliminated duplication of service delivery efforts which has increased efficiency, effectiveness, and either lowered service delivery costs or reduced rate of the service delivery cost increases. Legislative structures All consolidated city-counties elect mayors and include a mix of representatives elected by district or at large. Tax system Typically, consolidated city-counties are divided into a general service district (GSD) and an urban service district (USD). • GSD - a uniform base-level tax rate paid throughout the county pays for basic countywide services. • USD, additional municipal services are provided within the old city limits and are paid for by a correspondingly higher tax rate imposed within the USD territory. (Ex: The USD might have waste disposal services plus recycling and special collections; but the GSD would have only waste disposal services). Many city-county consolidations have used their two-tier service/tax districts to segregate debit and other obligations to the taxpayers of the jurisdictions that originally incurred the costs. Voter approval Many communities have formed citizen task forces to study consolidation and alternatives to the existing regional governance system and those task forces have provided recommendations to the governing bodies. Most city-county consolidations have required local voter approval. Most have required a simple, single-majority of all residents countywide for approval. Some have required dual-approval; separate approval by both voters within city limits and voters in county limits. Federal assistance Consolidation has generally not resulted in the consolidated city-county government receiving less federal transfer money than the two governments had previously received separately. However, regulations for CDBG specifically prohibit changing funding allotments because of the consolidation of a city and a county. “Balance” cities Several consolidated city-county governments where the formerly independent incorporated places still maintain some governmental powers-“balances”. • Milford, CT • Jacksonville-Duval County, FL • Athens-Clarke County, GA • Augusta-Richmond County, GA • Indianapolis, IN • Louisville-Jefferson County, KY • Butte-Silver Bow, MT • Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC • Nashville-Davidson, TN Jacksonville/Duval County, FL Name: Consolidated City of Jacksonville Consolidation: 1968 Statutory ability: Consolidation charter required the approval of the FL legislature before going to referendum Citizen voter approval: Single majority approval threshold Structure: Strong mayor, 14 district seats + 5 at-large seats Taxing: GSD and USD Population: 735,000 Major operating functions: Public safety, health, recreation, public works, waste management, housing and streets. Individual outlying counties provide sheriff and electric authority. Budget: • FY 2009 - $1.62 billion • General Fund – 56.61% • Capital Project Fund – 7.14% • Enterprise Fund – 10.04% • Special Revenue Fund – 17.28% • Other Funds – 8.93% Indianapolis/Marion County, IN Name: Consolidated City of Indianapolis and Marion County, aka “Unigov” Consolidation: 1970 Statutory ability: IN General Assembly Citizen voter approval: n/a Structure: 25 district seats + 4 at-large; strong mayor form of government Taxing: GSD and USD Population: 791,250 Major operating functions: City provides functions countywide: streets, public housing, sewers, solid waste, public health, mass transit, and airport. City and county each have public safety (Police & Sheriff Departments) Budget: $1.12 billion Louisville/Jefferson County, KY Name: Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government Consolidation: 2003 Statutory ability: KY General Assembly created a 56-member task force of local elected officials to study consolidation. The task force endorsed to the General Assembly and they passed a consolidation bill and set a consolidation referendum. Citizen voter approval: Single majority approval Structure: 26 district seats, strong mayor form of government Taxing: GSD and USD Major Operating Functions: Public safety, public works, codes and regulations, parks and recreation, economic development, housing, health and neighborhoods. Budget: • FY 2009 - $828 million • General Fund – 95.3% (includes fees and fines) • Capital Fund – 0.3% • Other Funds – 4.4% Charlotte/Mecklenburg, NC Name: Charmeck Consolidation: Statutory ability: Citizen voter approval: n/a Structure: Council/Commission/City and County Managers Taxing: Two tax rates levied by governing bodies Major Operating Functions: Charlotte and Mecklenburg have divided responsibility for various public services between them. Charlotte provides mass transit, airport, land use, customer service, economic development, public works and police service to the entire county. Mecklenburg County is responsible for parks and recreation, courts, environmental services, water, social services and tax assessment. Budget: City of Charlotte - $1.85 billion; Mecklenburg County - $1.4 Billion Nashville/Davidson County, TN Name: The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County Consolidation: 1963 Statutory ability: TN General Assembly authorized the consolidation charter commission. The mayor and county judge each appointed five members. Citizen voter approval: Dual majority approval Structure: 35 district seats + 5 at large, additional 3-member urban council to levies USD tax rate; strong mayor form of government Taxing: GSD and USD Major operating functions: Public safety, courts, jails, health, libraries, mass transit, parks and recreation, water and sanitation, public works. Budget: • FY 2009 • Property Taxes: 50% • Local Option Sales Tax: 18% • Grants and Contributions: 18% • Fund Balance: 2% • Other: 12% • GSD General Fund 43% • GSD Debt Service 6% • GSD Schools 44% • USD General Fund 7% • USD Debt Fund 1% • Interfund Transfers -2% Consolidated city and counties – operating as cities or counties • City and Borough of Anchorage, AK • City and Borough of Juneau, AK • City and Borough of Sitka, AK • City and Borough of Yakutat, AK • City and County of San Francisco, CA • City and County of Broomfield, CO • City and County of Denver, CO • City of Miami and Dade County, FL (operating as county) • City and County of Honolulu, HI • Kansas City/Wyandotte County, KS • City of New Orleans and Orleans Parish, LA • Town and County of Nantucket, MA • Portland Portland/Clackamas/Multnomah, WA • City of Washington and District of Columbia Miami/Dade County Name: Miami-Dade County Consolidated: ? Statutory ability: ? Citizen voter approval: ? Structure: 13-member County Commissioners; Executive Mayor; County Manager Taxing: GSD and USD Major operating functions: Development and land use, public safety, public works, water systems, auto licensing, courts, county clerk, mass transit and others. Budget: • FY 2008-09 - $7.5 billion • Operating – 66% • Capital – 34% • GSD – 49.7% • GSD Debt – 2.9% • USD – 20.6% • Fire – 22.9% • Library – 3.9% Kansas City/Wyandotte County, KS Name: The Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas Consolidation: 1997 Statutory ability: Kansas State Legislature created a five-member commission of residents. The commission recommended consolidation to the governor and drafted a charter. Legislature approved and question went to ballot for the residents in the region. Citizen voter approval: Single majority approval threshold Structure: 8 district seats, 2 at-large; county-administrator form of government Taxing: GSD and USD Major operating functions: Development and land use, public safety, public works, water systems, auto licensing, courts, county clerk, mass transit and others. Budget: • FY 2007 - $296,180,997 • Tax – 59% • Service Fees – 18% • Intergovernmental – 20% • Other – 3% • Operating – 80% • Debt – 7% • Capital – 10% • Reserve – 3% Portland/Clackamas/Multnomah/Washington Name: Oregon Metro Consolidation: 1979 Statutory ability: Oregon legislature has assigned additional responsibilities to Metro with concurrence of the jurisdictions within Metro’s boundaries. Citizen voter approval: single majority approval Taxing: General service district property tax, excise tax, and capital projects ax Structure: • Seven-member council (President at large, 6 districts); Elected auditor-at large; Chief Operating Officer Major operating functions: • Metro Exposition Recreation Commission • Oregon Zoo • Planning • Regional Parks and Green spaces • Solid Waste and Recycling • Finance and Administrative Services • Human Resources • Public Affairs and Government Relations Budget: • FY2008-09 $208,717,449 • 54% - revenues from enterprise activities • 18% property tax revenues • Excise tax paid by users of Metro facilities and services (limited by Charter) o Tax supports costs of general government activities (Council Office, elections expense, lobbyist functions and various department activities) • “Double Triple” bond rating Merged Counties – Independent from Municipalities • Anaconda and Deer Lodge County, MT • Butte and Silver Bow County, MT • Columbus and Muscogee County, GA • Cusseta and Chattahoochee County, GA • Georgetown and Quitman County GA • Hartsville and Trousdale County, TN • Houma and Terrebonne Parish, LA • Lexington and Fayette County, KY •
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hunterdon County Communications System Emergency Services Operations & Standards Manual
    HUNTERDON COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM EMERGENCY SERVICES OPERATIONS & STANDARDS MANUAL NEW JERSEY’S FIRST COUNTY WIDE POLICE, FIRE, AND RESCUE 9-1-1 SYSTEM HUNTERDON COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS George D. Muller Director Eric C. Peterson Deputy Director Ronal M. Sworen George B. Melick Matthew Holt Freeholders COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Cynthia Yard CLERK OF THE BOARD Denise B. Doolan 908-788-1104 HUNTERDON COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM Police, Fire & Medical Emergency, Dial 9-1-1 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Telephone # Fax Machine # Dispatchers - 24 hours a day 908-788-1202……………….908-806-8184 Fire & EMS 908-806-5804 Police North 908-806-5801 Police Central 908-806-5802 Police South 908-806-5803 Shift Supervisor 908-806-5806 Administration Mon.- Fri. 0830-1630 908-788-1205………………908-782-0057 Written & Compiled by: James S. Reasoner Senior Public Safety Telecommunicator #46 Hunterdon County Communications May 2007 1 MUNICIPALITY IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: Alexandria Township 41 High Bridge Boro. 14 Bethlehem Township 42 Holland Township 15 Bloomsbury Borough 43 Kingwood Township 16 Califon Borough 44 Lambertville City 17 Clinton Town 45 Lebanon Borough 18 Clinton Township 46 Lebanon Township 19 Delaware Township 47 Milford Borough 92 East Amwell Twp. 48 Raritan Township 21 Flemington Borough 49 Readington Twp. 22 Franklin Township 91 Stockton Borough 23 Frenchtown Borough 11 Tewksbury Township 24 Glen Gardner Boro 12 Union Township 25 Hampton Borough 13 West Amwell Twp. 26 COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT PREFIXES Public Safety Dept 83 Freeholder Board 84 Communications 85 Emergency Mgmt. 86 Fire Marshal 87 Health Department 88 Prosecutors Office 89 Parks/Recreations 29 Sheriffs Office 99 HAZMAT-1,2,3 Hunterdon County Health Department Hazardous Materials Response Unit’s COMMAND 86 Hunterdon County Office of Emergency Management Mobile Command Post N.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
    HUNTERDON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY Hunterdon County, New Jersey December 2014 Disclaimer The work that provided the basis for this publication was supported by funding under an award with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development with additional funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation. The substance and findings of the work are dedicated to the public. The author and publisher are solely responsible for the accuracy of the statements and interpretations contained in the publication. Such interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Government. [ProjectHunterdon Name] County Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy JanuaryDecember 22, 20152014 Acknowledgements This CEDS document is a product of the collective efforts of numerous individuals and organizations, acknowledged below. Hunterdon County Board of Chosen Freeholders Edward Kurowicki, Bedard, Kurowicki & Co. J. Matthew Holt, Director Matt McPhearson, Union Hotel John King, Deputy Director, Planning Liaison Catherine McVicker, Economic Development Consultant Suzanne Lagay, Planning Liaison Kimberly Metz, Hunterdon County Polytech John E. Lanza Joel Moore, The Ridge at Back Brook Robert G. Walton Paul Muir, Mayor, Bethlehem Township Craig O’Brien, Mayor, Raritan Township CEDS Governing Committee Chris Phelan, Hunterdon County Chamber John Anderson, JCP&L Craig Proctor, Coldwell Banker Commercial Jacki Bellin, Raritan Valley Community College Jim Robinson, CenturyLink Robert Benjamin, Flemington Furs Tara Shepherd, HART Commuter Information Services Susan Blew, Hunterdon County Agriculture Development Board Jen Shore, Director, Hunterdon County Department of Human Services Liam Burns, Union Hotel Robert P. Wise, President and CEO, Hunterdon Healthcare System Michael Camerino, Mauro, Savo, Camerino, Grant & Schalk, PA Joseph Colalillo, President, ShopRite of Hunterdon County Hunterdon County Planning Board Staff Carol Cronheim, Assistant Secretary of State G.
    [Show full text]
  • Tribal Element
    Tribal Element Three federally-recognized Indian Tribes, the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe, the Stillaguamish Tribe, and the Tulalip Tribes, occupy areas of present-day Snohomish County. These Tribes and their ancestors are a land and water based people, part of a larger group of aboriginal Tribes and First Nations known as the Coast Salish peoples, who live around the Salish Sea in what is now Washington State and the Canadian Province of British Columbia. The Coast Salish Tribes and First Nations have lived here since time immemorial, enjoying a landscape rich in natural resources. Coast Salish lifeways are tied to the natural environment of the Pacific Northwest, especially the Salish Sea. Today the Sauk-Suiattle, Stillaguamish, and the Tulalip Tribes are sovereign nations recognized by the United States government. Each Tribe has its own government with its own governing charter or constitution and set of general laws. These Tribes reserved lands in what is now Snohomish County as Indian reservation homelands. The Tribes have important historic and cultural sites both on and off their reservations. Each Tribe continues to exercise off-reservation rights reserved under treaty with the United States, including the right to fish in usual and accustomed fishing grounds and the right to hunt and gather on open and unclaimed lands. Snohomish County acknowledges the historic and present-day connection between tribal people and the land base, and recognizes each Tribe’s sovereignty. Snohomish County is committed to partnering with the Tribes to protect and preserve Tribal cultural and treaty resources, the natural environment, and sacred cultural areas. The relationship between these Tribes and Snohomish County is especially important when activities of county government, particularly land use regulation, have implications for one or more Tribes.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Government Primer
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PRIMER Alaska Municipal League Alaskan Local Government Primer Alaska Municipal League The Alaska Municipal League (AML) is a voluntary, Table of Contents nonprofit, nonpartisan, statewide organization of 163 cities, boroughs, and unified municipalities, Purpose of Primer............ Page 3 representing over 97 percent of Alaska's residents. Originally organized in 1950, the League of Alaska Cities............................Pages 4-5 Cities became the Alaska Municipal League in 1962 when boroughs joined the League. Boroughs......................Pages 6-9 The mission of the Alaska Municipal League is to: Senior Tax Exemption......Page 10 1. Represent the unified voice of Alaska's local Revenue Sharing.............Page 11 governments to successfully influence state and federal decision making. 2. Build consensus and partnerships to address Alaska's Challenges, and Important Local Government Facts: 3. Provide training and joint services to strengthen ♦ Mill rates are calculated by directing the Alaska's local governments. governing body to determine the budget requirements and identifying all revenue sources. Alaska Conference of Mayors After the budget amount is reduced by subtracting revenue sources, the residual is the amount ACoM is the parent organization of the Alaska Mu- required to be raised by the property tax.That nicipal League. The ACoM and AML work together amount is divided by the total assessed value and to form a municipal consensus on statewide and the result is identified as a “mill rate”. A “mill” is federal issues facing Alaskan local governments. 1/1000 of a dollar, so the mill rate simply states the amount of tax to be charged per $1,000 of The purpose of the Alaska Conference of Mayors assessed value.
    [Show full text]
  • A Technical Note on Spatial Aggregation for Independent Cities and Counties in Virginia Jing Chen West Virginia University, [email protected]
    Regional Research Institute Technical Documents Regional Research Institute 8-8-2017 A Technical Note on Spatial Aggregation for Independent Cities and Counties in Virginia Jing Chen West Virginia University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/rri_tech_docs Part of the Regional Economics Commons Digital Commons Citation Chen, Jing, "A Technical Note on Spatial Aggregation for Independent Cities and Counties in Virginia" (2017). Regional Research Institute Technical Documents. 1. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/rri_tech_docs/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Regional Research Institute at The Research Repository @ WVU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Regional Research Institute Technical Documents by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Regional Research Institute West Virginia University Technical Document Series A Technical Note on Spatial Aggregation for Independent Cities and Counties in Virginia Jing Chen, Graduate Research Assistant, Regional Research Institute and Department of Geology and Geography, West Virginia University RRI TechDoc 2017-03 Date submitted: August 8, 2017 Key words/Codes: Spatial Aggregation, Virginia, Independent Cities, Python; R00, Y10 A Technical Note on Spatial Aggregation for Independent Cities and Counties in Virginia Jing Chen∗ August 8, 2017 Abstract This document provides an overview of two approaches to treat Virginia's independent cites in county-level data sets. Then, issues of spatial aggregation and geographical division change are introdu- ced respectively. A Python function for spatial aggregation is also provided. Although this document focuses on independent cities and counties in Virginia, it can be extended into other regions for spatial aggregation.
    [Show full text]
  • Official Republican Ballot Montgomery Borough Lycoming County, Pennsylvania May 18, 2021 Municipal Primary
    Official Republican Ballot Montgomery Borough Lycoming County, Pennsylvania May 18, 2021 Municipal Primary Instructions: To vote your ballot, completely fill the oval beside a choice using black or blue pen. To cast a write-in vote, fill the oval beside Write-in and write a name in the space provided. The use of a sticker or label to mark a ballot is prohibited by state law. A vote cast by means of a sticker or label shall be void and shall not be counted. Do not select more choices than permitted in each contest. If you make a mistake while voting your ballot, do not attempt to erase or cross out the mistake; instead, request a new ballot. Notice to Absentee Voters and Mail-in Voters: A voter who receives an absentee ballot or mail-in ballot and appears at a polling place to vote in person on Election Day may only vote by provisional ballot, unless the voter surrenders the official ballot and official ballot return envelope to the Judge of Elections at the polling place to be spoiled. Justice of the Supreme Court Sheriff Borough Council (Vote for ONE) 4 Year Term 4 Year Term (Vote for ONE) (Vote for not more than FOUR) Paula Patrick Philadelphia County Mark Lusk Joshua Geiger Jersey Shore Borough Kevin Brobson Dauphin County Daniel Strailey Jeffrey L. Frey, Jr. Montoursville Borough Patricia A. McCullough Allegheny County C. Roger McRae Write-In Write-In Montgomery Area Region 1 Write-In Judge of the Superior Court School Director (Vote for ONE) 4 Year Term (Vote for not more than TWO) Write-In Megan Sullivan Chester County Jonathan DeSantis Write-In Write-In Write-In Write-In Judge of the Commonwealth Tax Collector Court 4 Year Term (Vote for not more than TWO) Write-In (Vote for ONE) Drew Crompton Mayor Cumberland County 4 Year Term (Vote for ONE) Write-In Stacy Marie Wallace McKean County Edward E.
    [Show full text]
  • Borough of Stonington, Connecticut
    HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ANNEX FOR BOROUGH OF STONINGTON, CONNECTICUT An Annex of the Southeastern Connecticut Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan PREPARED FOR: Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments DATE: June 2005 COMMUNITY CONTACTS Andrew M. Maynard Warden Robert Scala Burgess Judy DuPont Burgess Jeff Hoagley Fire Chief William Teixeira Assistant Fire Chief SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS STAFF James S. Butler, AICP Executive Director Lin da Parquette Senior Planner Colleen Bezanson GIS Specialist Thomas Seidel Senior Planner CONSULTANTS DELTA Environmental Services, Inc., Branford, CT. Wilbur Smith Associates, New Haven, CT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE NUMBER I. INTRODUCTION ................................................ 1 A. Setting........................................................ 1 B. Purpose of Annex .............................................. 1 C. Plan Development and Public Involvement . 2 II. HAZARD RISK ASSESSMENT..................................... 3 A. Residential .................................................... 4 B. Commercial / Industrial .......................................... 5 C. Critical Facilities ............................................... 5 D. Transportation Corridors ........................................ 5 III. HAZARD MITIGATION MEASURES................................. 7 A. Prevention .................................................... 7 B. Property Protection ............................................. 9 C. Emergency Services ...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • BOROUGH COUNCIL HANDBOOK Twelfth Edition | August 2019
    BOROUGH COUNCIL HANDBOOK Twelfth Edition | August 2019 Harrisburg, PA Commonwealth of Pennsylvania PA Department of Community & Economic Development | dced.pa.gov Comments or inquiries on the subject matter of this publication should be addressed to: Governor’s Center for Local Government Services Department of Community and Economic Development Commonwealth Keystone Building 400 North Street, 4th Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120-0225 (717) 787-8158 1-888-223-6837 E-mail: [email protected] dced.pa.gov No liability is assumed with respect to the use of information contained in this publication. Laws may be amended or court rulings issued that could affect a particular procedure, issue or interpretation. The Department of Community and 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 advice. Preparation of this publication was financed from appropriations of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Copyright © 2019, Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development, all rights reserved. Table of Contents I. Office of Borough Council Member . .1 Ward Redistricting . .1 Redistricting by Ordinance . .1 II. Legislative Powers . .7 General Powers . .7 The Legislative Role . .7 Quasi-Judicial Role . .8 Conduct of Meetings . .8 Parliamentary Procedure . .10 Sunshine Act . .11 Minutes and Records . .11 Intergovernmental Cooperation . .12 III. Administrative and Appointive Powers . .14 Appointed Administrator . .14 Personnel Management . .16 Appointment Powers . .17 Boards and Commissions . .18 Municipal Authorities . .19 IV. Fiscal Powers . .22 Taxes . .22 Act 50 . .23 The Budget . .24 The Budget Calendar . .25 Capital Improvements Planning and Budgeting .
    [Show full text]
  • Current Estimates of New York City's Population for July 2019
    CURRENT ESTIMATES OF NEW YORK CITY'S POPULATION FOR JULY 2019 Summary The U.S. Census Bureau has estimated New York City’s population at 8,336,817, as of July 1, 2019. This represented an increase of 161,684 residents (or 2.0 percent) over the April 1, 2010 decennial census count of 8,175,133. Post-2010 growth translates into an average annual gain of about 17,500 persons, or 0.2 percent compounded annually. Population growth has been fueled by the continued surplus of births over deaths, which has been partially offset by net outflows from the city. While the city grew by roughly 161,700 persons since 2010, New York State grew only by 75,500 people due to a decline of 86,200 persons in counties outside the city. Of the State’s 62 counties, 48 lost population since 2010. In contrast, each of the city’s five boroughs registered gains in population. Manhattan saw the largest increase, up 2.7 percent, followed by the Bronx (2.4 percent), Brooklyn (2.2 percent), and Staten Island (1.6 percent); Queens showed the smallest gain (1.0 percent) over the 111- month period. While the city’s population has shown an overall increase since 2010, these estimates also reveal a pattern of population losses in each of the last three years. It is important to remember that New York does not always have an upward growth trajectory. In some years, the city has experienced high population growth – In the first years of this decade, growth averaged around 1 percent, which the city had not seen for nearly a century, and was unsustainable in the long term.
    [Show full text]
  • Borough of Naugatuck
    BOROUGH OF NAUGATUCK BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Mayor and Burgesses, in a meeting duly assembled on September 2, 2014 that Ordinance #49 Chapter 15 – Planning, Article VII – Regional Council of Elected Officials, Sections 15-134 – 15-136 of the Code of Ordinances of the Borough of Naugatuck, Connecticut is hereby repealed and Ordinance #127 is hereby adopted, to read as follows: Ordinance #127 Chapter 15 – Planning, Article VII – Ordinance Regarding Adoption of Connecticut General Statute §§4-124i – 4-124p Pertaining to Creating and Joining the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments, Sections 15-134 – 15- 140. WHEREAS, the Borough of Naugatuck has heretofore been a designated municipality within the Central Naugatuck Valley Planning Region; and, WHEREAS, as an eligible member the borough adopted Ordinance #49, entitled, “Regional Council of Elected Officials”, voted and adopted on July 8, 1970 by the Board of Mayor and Burgesses, joining the Council of Governments for the Central Naugatuck Valley (“COGCNV”) as a regional council of elected officials and remains a member at the present time; and, WHEREAS, the State of Connecticut has determined that a reorganization and redesignation of planning districts shall be completed on or before January 1, 2015; and, WHEREAS, said reorganization recommended the consolidation of the Central Naugatuck Valley Planning Region (comprised of the following municipalities: Beacon Falls, Bethlehem, Cheshire, Middlebury, Naugatuck, Oxford, Prospect, Southbury, Thomaston, Waterbury, Watertown, Wolcott
    [Show full text]
  • Borough-Based Jails Program, Design Principles and Guidelines
    DRAFT JUNE 2021 Design Principles & Guidelines Queens Facility QN NYC BOROUGH-BASED JAILS PROGRAM A DESIGN-BUILD PROGRAM PIN: 8502020CR0058P-60P 2 NYC BBJ PROGRAM [INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE] DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES DRAFT NYC BBJ PROGRAM TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ...................................................................................... 6 1.1 Borough-Based Jails Program Background ..................................................... 6 1.2 Project Overview and Goals ......................................................................... 7 2. Design Principles and Guidelines ............................................................... 12 2.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 12 2.2 Design Principles ...................................................................................... 13 2.3 Design Guidelines ..................................................................................... 17 DRAFT DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES 4 NYC BBJ PROGRAM [INTENTIONALLY BLANK PAGE] DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES DRAFT NYC BBJ PROGRAM 2. DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES 5 1. Executive Summary 1 DRAFT DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES 6 2. DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES NYC BBJ PROGRAM 1. Executive Summary 1.1 Borough-Based Jails Program Background The people of New York City (the City) and the world have experienced enormous, ongoing upheaval since 2019. The City is facing both an unprecedented health crisis and
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Borough Government
    The Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs Junior Council Person Program: Guide to Borough Government Thank you for committing to serve your borough through the Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs Junior Council Person (JCP) Program. From its inception, the JCP program has aimed to provide high school juniors and seniors across the Commonwealth an opportunity to learn about and actively participate in borough government. By becoming a junior council person you have taken a step to strengthen your community and become a leader for future generations of public service minded individuals. The following pages are designed to assist you during your term on borough council. This guide will explain, as simply as possible, the structure and nature of local government in Pennsylvania. It will give you details on the qualifications to become a borough councilperson and the powers granted once a citizen is elected to the position. It will explain to you how meetings are conducted, why it is important to be accountable and transparent in your actions, and the various responsibilities placed on borough councils throughout the state. It will give you information on the fiscal powers of borough council and will explain to you the importance of providing municipal services to the residents of your community. We encourage you to ask your borough officials questions throughout the year and to dig deeper into important community issues. We have also included “Questions to Consider” and “Challenges” at the end of each section. These questions and challenges are designed to stimulate your thinking and encourage you to delve deeper into the topic areas.
    [Show full text]