Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> 6. The formula adopted in 1979 for aid years 1980 through <br />1983, and the 1984 formula bave, on the whole: <br /> <br />a. failed to eliminate reliance on outdated population estimates, <br />b. failed to relate state aid distrlbotion more strongly to a <br /> <br /> community's "fiscal capacity", as measured by tax base wealth, <br /> <br />c. failed to eliminate inequities due to the county by county <br /> distribution system, <br /> failed to relate state aid allocations to a community's need <br /> for local revenue, <br /> <br />e. failed to relate future growth in state aid to changes in <br /> <br /> population, inflation, and tax base capacity, and <br /> <br />f. failed to provide an incentive for replacement of aging <br /> capital facilities. <br /> <br /> 7. (a) For 1984 the starting point for the local revenue <br />base for cities subject to the levy limit in 1980 is tied to the <br />1981 revenue base. The 1981 local revenue base was initially <br />determined based on the 1980 local revenue base. The 1980 revenue <br />base was a city's levy limit for 1978 plus tbe 1979 LGA received. <br />Thus, a direct relationship is establisbed (for those cities having <br />a 1981 local revenue base) between the initial determination of the <br />1984 local revenue base and the amount of LGA a city received under <br />the "county pot" distribution formula prior to 1980. <br /> <br />- 7 - <br /> <br /> <br />