Agenda - Council - 12/20/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I Page -g- To relate Iuture growth in state aid to changes in population, inflation, and tax base capacity. 9. To provide an incentive for replacement ot aging capital facilities. 10. To resolve "special" fiscal problems, i.e. local pensions. See Plaintiffs' Answers to De~endants' Interrogatories, Answer No. 3. The purposes recited above were contained in a proposal by the League of Minnesota Cities who drafted the legislation which was adopted by the legislature in 1979. (Gardner Deposition, at 23-25 and Gardner Deposition Exhibit No. 2.) De~endants, as evidenced by their memorandum, re~use to accept that the statute has a purpose other than reducing reliance on locaI property taxes. As a determination o~ purpose is essential to resolving the constitutional question of equal protection, the resolution ol legislative purpose must be deemed a material fact which is in dispute. E. Local Government Aid Does Not Achieve Its LeRislative Purposes. Once the issue ol the statutory "purposes" has been resolved, the central factual issue still remains: how does the effect of the statute on government units correspond to the purposes of the legislation. See, e.g., Price v. Amdal, 256 NW2d, 565 (Minn. 1977). Defendants have correctly stated that a law will survive an equal protection challenge only il it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. De~endants cl~,im, without any proo~ by affidavit or otherwise, that the aid ~ormula provides a rational approach to the effectuation o~ its purpose. Defendants would have the Court resolve this issue on the "assumption" stated by defendants counsel. The test o~ whether this or any statute provides a rational approach to the ef~ectuation o~ its purpose is to determine whether the statute 'hchieves" its purpose. De~[e~dants' themselves cite the court to McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S.