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

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page -12- "A rational basis for discriminatory treatment is not established, as the defendants have sought to do, by isolating components of the state aid scheme and urging that individually they bear a substantial relation to the statutory purposes. It is the totality of the formula and its operative effect that have been challenged rather than the rationality of any discreet element. Similarly it is the totality to the state aid formula which is challenged in this litigation. Nevertheless, plaintEffs also take issue with the assumptions made by defendants as to portions of the statute. Robinson's affidavit disputes three key defendants contentions made by defendants and based on his study Robinson affirmatively concludes that: Local revenue base is not an accurate measurement of fiscal need. (Paragraph 7(d)) The preliminary state aid factor is not a rational or accurate measure of the amount of property tax relief due a city (Paragraph 7(e)). The minimum and maximum aid levels are not related to averting drastic changes in the amount of property taxes a city levies. (Paragraph 7(f)). Therefore even these questions as to a rational basis for separate portions of the statutory scheme are in dispute and prevent the granting of summary judgment. CONCLUSION Summary judgment is totally inappropriate in this case. Defendants argue as if this suit is a challenge to the statute on its face and that all the court need do is read the statute and decide if there is any rational purpose for it, What defendants have missed however is that this litigation attacks the statute as applied. Only by analyzing the application of the statute will the court be in a position to determine if the legislation achieves its purpose. And before determining that the court must I