Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />:1 <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> i <br /> i <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br /> (c) The change from the "county pot" distribution formula <br />in 1979 to the new distribution formula in 1980 had an insignificant <br />impact on the relative distribution of LGA to levy limit cities and <br />towns. The dependence upon the grandfather provisions prohibits LGA <br />formulas from significantly reflecting changes in population, mill <br />rate, and tax base. <br /> <br /> 5. <br /> <br />for all levy limit cities. <br />property tax relief occurs; <br />accidental. <br /> <br />LGA does not achieve the goal of property tax relief <br /> The LGA statute does not insure that <br /> any property tax relief that occurs is <br /> <br /> (b) The law does not provide for a control mechanism to <br /> <br />insure that the results of the formula achieve the legislative <br /> 3 <br />purpose of providing property tax relief. Thus, it becomes mere <br /> <br />speculation that LGA directly substitutes for reduced property <br />taxes. <br /> <br />3It is appr>priate to note that in the case of Minnesota school <br />districts, the State has typically included the local property tax <br />levies in ~-s state aid formulas ~n a manner which effectively <br />controls th~ level of such levies. Such an approach, however, has <br />no- been us~.~d for Minnesota cities. <br /> <br />- 6 - <br /> <br /> <br />