08/16/82 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I '1 I I i I I I I I I I I I ThE u~e of the mill rate in the formula was to provide relatively ~o~e 'id to communities with high mill rates, and less to those wl~h ow mi 1 rates. The population factor until 1978 was the 1990 ~ensus figure. After 1978 in the metropolitan area, it was the a~erage of the 1970 census and the most recent population estimate, if it was larger than the 1970 census figure. Fr~m Ramsey's perspective, the way the formula works has kept its l~qal ~id relatively low. First, the initial amounts of the various f~ms ~f aid that were consolidated into local aid were relatively sm~ll ~ack in 1971 when the program started~ since it was a small and basically rural community. Second, throughout the program the pNevio~s year's aid always was the minimum amount that a community could ~eceive, so communities that started out high maintained a relatively high level of local aid. R~sey~s mill rate has been relatively low compared to other commu- ni~ies~ so that local aid factor is also not in its favor. Since it iS ia three year average, the mill rate would have to increase sub- st ~.~nr ti~lly over a three-year period before any benefit would be re- ceivedi Furthermore, use of the mill rate alone does not totally re~iec~ the total local governmental burden borne by the residents, because special assessments are not included. In a qommunity such a~ ~a~ey, where all of its bond payments or capital'improvements have b~en made through special assessment, the mill rate is substan- tiaity!lower than if it used a general tax levy to make the payments. Finally, the use of the 1970 census figures for the population factor gre~tl~ affected Ramsey's allocation because the City grew by over 4~0~ f~om 1970 to 1980, but no allowance for growing communities was p~°~id~d until 1978, when the average of the current and 1970 popula- tio~ w~s used. For communities that were losing population, the 1970 cenZus !figure continued to be used, however. F°r!i1980 and 1981, the local aid formula was changed. Many of the sa~ f~ctors remain that tend to perpetuate past trends. ~irst, corn? mun!ti~s are assured of receiving no less than the previous year, plus a~d~ti~nal aid was distributed based on its population and its mill ra~e. IAsa result, Ramsey's relative share changed very little. Due to ~he !State's financial problems, the local aid amount each community waM~to ~eceive in 1981 was reduced by 8.3%. For~.19~2,~ the local aid amounts will be the amounts communities should have r~ceived in 1981, less an 11.8% cutback. For 1983, the amount appropriated for local aid. was increased by $23 million, which will be~a 7.13% increase. The formula to allocate the funds is basically thelsa~e as in the past. However, it is possible that the 1982 legis= lature ~ou/d change it before it goes into effect. /