Gov. should embrace all partners on budget plan

From the pressure of Connecticut’s seemingly never-ending budget crunch, it’s possible that constructive change may be squeezed into existence.

Cities and towns, for instance, may be able to get out from under some of the state mandates that they’ve been complaining about for decades.

But they should also begin bracing for a future that will be considerably less padded with aid from a strapped state of Connecticut.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy met Friday with leadership of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM) and the Connecticut Council of Small Towns (COST) to discuss the impact of the ongoing state budget impasse on local communities.

State mandates reach into every conceivable facet of a municipality’s operation, from those governing transportation provided by school districts, what notices require certified mail, educational requirements for certain workers, loyalty oaths for certain workers, and so on.

Many of them involve a cost to the municipality, hence the phrase that municipal officials mutter, “unfunded mandate.”

Friday, municipal representatives asked Malloy to cut them some slack by reducing expensive administrative functions they have to perform and to ease other requirements that fall under the topic of “mandates.”

They asked for revisions to the municipal retirement system, and to the collective bargaining arbitration system that would be intended to foster more regional cooperation in areas like animal control and emergency response. They also lobbied to keep a higher percentage of land-transfer fees.

Malloy, a former Stamford mayor, appeared receptive to the suggestions.

“This is an area where we can work together and in so doing, I am hopeful that we can deliver on this in this biennial budget,” Malloy said after the neeting.

All parties in the mess of Connecticut’s financial situation should be working together.

Just as the governor should — and has been — listening to proposals from legislative Republicans, so should he be especially mindful to elected leaders in the state’s 169 municipalities, who have to work with residents where the rubber is closer to the road.

Whatever unfunded mandates are imposed on Connecticut’s cities and towns translate directly into increased taxes in those towns.

And the governor can use whatever partners he can enlist in his work as he brings his tenure to a close with determination to leave the state on the right track.

A gorilla in the room is the fundamental flaw of the state’s unworkable dependence on property taxes for its municipalities to operate.

The flaw is especially crippling to cities, like Bridgeport, which by virtue of their limited size have few opportunities to expand their tax base.

As Betsy Gara, executive director of COST, said, work at the local level to “...control municipal costs are often frustrated by state mandates that make it almost impossible to reduce budgets or negotiate savings in health care, pension and wage costs.

Working together the state’s leaders should be able to wrestle the problem down to workable size.

Cities and towns, for instance, may be able to get out from under some of the state mandates that they’ve been complaining about for decades.