Municipal Leaders Call On Governor Rowland To Reject Certain State Budget-Cutting Options

NEW HAVEN — In a November 15 letter to Governor John Rowland, the President of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities called on the Governor to reject any proposed cutbacks in the state budget that would hurt cities and towns and their property taxpayers by causing higher local property taxes and reduced local services.

In October, state agencies were to submit budget reduction options to the state’s Office of Policy and Management (OPM). Most agencies, but not all, complied by November 1. OPM requested the 10 percent reduction option because, “while revenue levels may be sufficient, the challenge of remaining within the statutory expenditure cap on state spending remains.”

There is the possibility that some of the reduction options submitted by state agencies will be included in the Governor’s proposed budget revisions next February. Some of the items on the chopping block include programs that directly or indirectly benefit municipalities. These include state aid for education, Town Aid Road, PILOTs for subsidized housing, and reimbursements for local tax relief programs benefiting veterans, the disabled, the elderly, and manufacturing firms.

“I write on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities to thank you for publicly assuring that you will oppose any reductions in state funding for local public education,” said CCM President Donald Francis, Selectman of Brooklyn. “Your leadership and support are key to ensuring that such funding is not only maintained but is increased.”

“As you prepare your proposed budget adjustments for next fiscal year,” Francis wrote, “CCM urges you to include the needed upward adjustments in aid for education, and also to refrain from proposing any other downward adjustments that would adversely affect cities and towns and their residential and business property taxpayers.”

“Cutbacks in state assistance to cities and towns are false economies,” Francis emphasized. “They may save state dollars; but only at the expense of higher local property taxes and reduced local services. Municipalities and their residents and businesses are forced to bear greater burdens when the state backs away from its commitments.”