Choosing forms of Local cooperation

from Imgflip Meme Generator

​Figuring Out How Local Governments Work Together. We often think of our municipalities as distinct, self-governing entities. We see the name on the welcome sign, pay our taxes to the municipal office, and maybe even harbor a friendly rivalry with the next town over. This image of fierce independence is a cornerstone of local identity. But behind the scenes, a more complex and cooperative reality is often at play.

This collaboration frequently takes the form of a Council of Governments, or COG. While the name might sound like just another layer of bureaucracy, COGs are a powerful and surprisingly nuanced tool for inter-municipal partnership. Let's explore some of the most impactful and counter-intuitive realities of how these organizations function, revealing the hidden trade-offs and unexpected benefits of local government cooperation.

COGs are Powerful Partners, Not a New Layer of Government. A common fear among local officials is that any form of regional cooperation is a slippery slope toward consolidation—a new, larger government that erodes local control. However, the fundamental structure of a COG is designed to prevent this very outcome. COGs are voluntary associations of municipalities; no community is ever required to join. Crucially, participating municipalities retain their local autonomy and independent identity. A COG is not a super-government. It has no taxing power of its own and cannot exercise any power that has not been specifically granted to it by its member communities. The entire framework reinforces local control; even the COG's internal organizational structure, including voting representation, is a matter of local choice. This structure ensures that decision-making authority remains firmly in the hands of the local elected officials accountable to their residents, directly addressing the public’s fear of a "loss of local autonomy" and making the entire model of cooperation politically feasible.

COG’s Greatest Strength is Also the Greatest Weakness. The voluntary nature that makes COGs acceptable to independent-minded communities is also the source of their greatest operational challenges. This central paradox defines the delicate balance they must strike. Because a COG is a voluntary association and lacks its own independent legal authority, it cannot compel municipal commitment to regional policies. If a town decides a specific program isn't in its best interest, it can simply decline to participate, which can lead to uneven participation and weaken the effectiveness of a regional initiative. This reliance on consensus is made even more difficult because COGs often manage a broad patchwork of interests, policy goals, and regional expectations among their diverse members. Progress can be fragile and easily derailed if not managed carefully. This paradox is important because it highlights the immense difficulty of achieving meaningful, region-wide results. COG leaders must constantly work to build and maintain trust among diverse members without the authority to mandate action.

A COG Can Lower Costs for Local Businesses as well as Government. COGs are well-known for creating government efficiencies, like saving taxpayer money by jointly bidding for refuse collection or sharing expensive public works equipment. What is less obvious is how these partnerships can deliver tangible benefits to the local private sector. One of the most powerful examples is the development of model ordinances. A COG can bring its members together to draft a single, uniform ordinance for complex issues like stormwater management or false alarm reduction. When member municipalities adopt this model ordinance, they create a consistent regulatory environment across the entire region. This has a direct and positive impact on local businesses by eliminating the confusion and expense of navigating conflicting municipal codes, making it simpler and cheaper for contractors and developers to operate across multiple jurisdictions. This is just one of many surprising roles; COGs also add value by coordinating shared GIS mapping services or even forming land banks to acquire and repurpose blighted properties.

COG Meetings are not an Extra Meeting for Elected Officials. It's easy to dismiss government meetings as bureaucratic formalities, but for a COG, the meeting itself is a core function. Beyond voting on joint purchasing contracts or service agreements, a COG’s primary value often lies in its role as a communication hub. A COG offers a neutral arena where elected officials and managers can build professional relationships, discuss mutual problems, and learn about regional, state, and national issues that affect them all. This regular, structured dialogue is invaluable. Over time, it allows municipalities to develop common positions on major issues and present a united front to county or state government. Sending this "clear and strong message" does more than just enhance the probability of a positive policy outcome; it is a strategic tool for avoiding legislative stalemate caused by conflicting recommendations from individual municipalities. The downside, however, is that this group deliberative process can be slow, sometimes frustrating officials who feel "it takes too long" to reach a decision.

COG Alternatives Have Hidden Costs. When municipalities need to cooperate on a single issue, like running a joint police force, they can use a simple Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA). This direct, contractual approach often seems faster and easier than forming or joining a multipurpose COG. However, choosing the simpler path comes with a significant opportunity cost. By opting for a series of single-purpose agreements instead of a broader COG, municipalities lose several key strategic advantages: an organizational framework for future shared programs, a neutral forum for ongoing dialogue, and a unified regional voice. Over time, this choice can lead to more than just missed opportunities; it can create tangible administrative problems. Relying on multiple, separate IGAs can result in administrative fragmentation where programs evolve in different directions, creating hidden costs and operational chaos such as unequal pay for similar positions or inconsistent and divergent features and practices across various joint ventures. The "simpler" choice in the short term may lead to greater fragmentation and less strategic coordination over the long term.

Intermunicipal  cooperation through Councils of Governments is a complex but powerful tool for modern governance. Far from being a simple administrative arrangement, it is a dynamic system full of non-obvious trade-offs. COGs must balance the need for voluntary participation with the goal of meaningful action, and their greatest strengths are often intertwined with their most significant weaknesses. They are not another layer of government, but a platform that preserves local autonomy while enabling regional strength.

Considering these hidden complexities and powerful benefits, how should your own community strike the right balance between fierce independence and strategic regional partnership?  Is it forming a Council of Government?  If so, how and when and for what purpose? Navigating the path among the various choices is our distinct honor when working with clients. Let us know how we can help.