Rebecca Auger, responsible growth coordinator at the Office of Policy and Management (OPM), presented the draft 2025–30 State Plan of Conservation and Development to the continuing committee on Connecticut’s Development and Future during a public hearing, describing a restructured, five-year planning framework and two proposed statutory changes embedded in the draft.

The plan, which Auger said will be referred to in the presentation as the “C and D plan draft,” lays out five vision areas — a thriving economy; housing for current and future residents; stewardship of resources; healthy people in places; and connected and inclusive communities — supported by seven broad policies and specific implementation measures. Auger told the committee the plan is intended as a “transitional plan” to guide agency decisions as federal pandemic-era funding eases and state resources take on greater importance.

The draft includes two legislative proposals: raising the statutory monetary threshold that requires agency projects to be consistent with the state plan from $200,000 to $1,000,000, and repealing the statutory mapping requirements for Priority Funding Areas. Auger said the threshold change would keep the same categories of actions covered — acquisition or development of real property and the purchase of public transportation equipment or facilities — while requiring agencies to “demonstrate how an agency is determining consistency with the C and D plan” for projects above the higher dollar threshold. The proposal to repeal Priority Funding Area mapping, she said, reflects difficulties in mapping those areas and a lack of clear evidence that the maps have been used effectively over the last decade.

Auger described the plan’s new locational guide map as descriptive rather than prescriptive: it maps “activity centers,” defined as clusters of employment, civic and transportation assets, cultural uses and institutional uses, and overlays those centers with conservation factors “to be protected, preserved, and restored.” She emphasized the guide is intended to show current conditions and be refined as new data arrive.

Testimony submitted at the hearing was largely supportive. Sam Gold, executive director of the Lower Connecticut River Valley Council of Governments (RiverCOG), told the committee: “I urge this committee and the general assembly as a whole to adopt this new state plan.” He said RiverCOG supports the plan’s themes-based approach, its use of activity centers to tailor policy to urban, suburban and rural contexts, and its emphasis on planning, due diligence and regional collaboration.

John Guskowski, a professional planner at Tyche Planning and Policy Group and co-chair of the Government Relations Committee for the Connecticut Chapter of the American Planning Association, said the draft “takes a new approach” that puts equity, resilience and housing needs at the center and favors regional coordination across agencies and levels of government.

Pete Harrison, Connecticut director for the Regional Plan Association, described climate change as central to the plan’s five visions and urged the legislature and future administrations to provide OPM’s Office of Responsible Growth with the resources and authority to produce and implement five-year C and D plans. Frank DeFelice, chair of the Regional Planning Commission for RiverCOG and chair of Durham’s Planning and Zoning Commission, urged alignment of plan timeframes across state, regional and municipal levels; he noted statutory differences that require municipal and regional plans to be updated every 10 years while the state plan is on a five-year cycle.

Several implementation tools described in the draft drew notice: an Appendix B compendium of ongoing agency plans and programs that OPM has converted into a database for ongoing use; a proposed ad hoc implementation committee of agencies to resolve priority conflicts and work out mechanics for consistency determinations; and a proposed GIS resource of agency activities. Auger said OPM conducted more than 50 stakeholder meetings over two-plus years and posted a draft in March 2024 that generated a mixture of supportive and critical comments, which the office used to refine the draft.

No formal committee votes were taken at the hearing. Auger reminded the committee of statutory timelines: the continuing committee must submit its recommendation to the full General Assembly within 45 days of completing the public hearing, and committee members noted the committee then has another 45 days to vote whether to move the plan forward. Public testimony may still be submitted by email to pdtestimonycga.ct.gov, the committee chair said.

The hearing record includes two legislative proposals embedded in the draft that would require action by the General Assembly to take effect: the threshold increase for project consistency and repeal of Priority Funding Area mapping. The committee did not take a formal vote on either at the hearing; next steps are committee consideration and any statutory drafting by legislators.