Municipal aid questioned

I wrote a story that appeared in Sunday's Record-Journal about prison towns and the governor's budget proposal. Cheshire's town manager says he notices a pattern. He thinks the state's prison towns are being treated differently. He says they are losing more money under Gov. Rell's propsal.

And when I look at the numbers, I see what he's talking about.

Cheshire, home to three prisons, is slated to lose $1.24 million under Rell's proposal, and it already doesn't get as much state aid as other towns. Enfield, which also houses three prisons, is in a similar position.

But a town like Southington gets more, but stands to lose less. Southington would only lose $154,973 with Rell's budget.

The state Office of Policy Management says the governor is flat funding state aid by giving cities and towns the amount of money they enjoyed in fiscal year 2006-2007 -- before a one-time surplus bumped up aid. Everyone knew that bump in state aid should not be expected in the future, said the office's spokesman.

And the problem with saying you will give cities and towns the same amount they had in a previous year? What happens when you don't keep that promise?

Cheshire's town manager said the governor's numbers will actually give his town less money.

Interesting statistics. Do you think cities and towns should question less given the state's fiscal problems, or should municipalities that sense injustice fight for whatever few dollars they can?

Also, everyone says the governor used old numbers when building her budget. This means that Rell's proposal leaves Connecticut still in the red. When more cuts are forced, will cities and towns suffer more than they already have? Should towns like Cheshire and Enfield be lucky to even have state aid that comes close to fiscal year 2006-2007 levels?

Tell me your thoughts, and if you missed my Sunday story, check it out here.

http://www.zwire.com/site/tab1.cfm?newsid=20262516&BRD=2755&PAG=461&dept_id=592709&rfi=6