"Congress in March authorized $19.5 billion in aid for cities and towns with fewer than 50,000 residents ... Lawmakers wanted to help every town cover the cost of fighting a pandemic and recovering from last year’s recession," Sophie Quinton reports for Stateline. "But in some small, rural or conservative towns, local leaders are refusing the cash.

They say they don’t need it, and in some cases, don’t feel comfortable accepting it.  "Stateline highlights Bingham Township, Pennsylvania, as an example. The quiet community has mostly dirt-and-gravel roads, and many of its residents are Amish. Local leaders turned down about $69,000 in federal aid because they couldn't think of a way to spend it. "That’s the main reason why we opted not to do it,” Cheryl Young, the township's secretary, told Quinton. "There’s no sense having [the money] sit here for two years, then turn around and send it back, because you can’t spend it."

Most places take the money. "Across 14 states where data is available, just 171 communities out of 7,975 that have fewer than 50,000 residents rejected the funds, according to the National League of Cities, a Washington, D.C.-based group that advocates for cities and towns," Quinton reports. "The average community that rejected the money has 540 residents, according to the group."

Another reason some communities may not take the money: they may need to work with states, municipal associations and/or local accountants to manage the grants, but such communities may not have enough staffing to handle that, Quinton reports.

Read the full article about refusing pandemic aid by Heather Chapman at The Rural Blog.