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

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page -11- 3. "Since the relative distribution of Local Government Aid under the new formula compared to the old formula changes very little, several o! the 'inequities' of the old formula are perpetuated under the new formula." 4. "An inadequate relationship between 'fiscal capacity' and state aid under the old formula, . . . is perpetuated under the new formula . . ." Report at 1-3. In Defendants' Answers to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories, Answer No. 7, defendants admit that they do not disagree with any finding and conclusion set forth on pages one through ten of the Report. Without detailing further evidence :[rom the Report itself or Gardner's deposition it is apparent a serious question is raised by plaintiff as to whether the state aid statute achieves its intended purposes. In fact, by virtue of the defendants' own study, it appears that the question should be answered in the negative. F. Speculation on a Separate .Basis For Each Portion of the Formula is Invalid. Defendants attempt to validate the statutory scheme by conjuring up a separate basis for individual elements of the statute. The source for each basis is apparently defense counsel's own imagination as no other source or authority is cited. Defendants argue that the local revenue base is a rational measurement of fiscal need; that ten mills minus adjusted assessed value is a reasonable way to measure fiscal capacity; that the preliminary state aid factor represents a logical determination of cities relative aid requirements; and that maximum and minimum aid level adjustments are rational means of distributing a limited appropriation while avoiding sudden substantial shifts in a city's aid. Defendants approach, which involves speculating on a separate basis for various portions of the statute, was specifically repudiated by Board of Education, Levittown v. Nyquist, #08 N.Y.S.2d 606, 640 (Sup. Ct. 1979) where the court observed: