Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />! <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> (b) Including the pr]or year LGA in the initial <br />determination of the revenue base bears no rational relationship to <br />fiscal need (i.e., property tax relief). Prior year's LGA is not <br />a surrogate for prior year property taxes since cities levying at <br />their levy limit cannot by law replace lost LGA revenue through <br />increased property tax levies. As advised by the Office of the <br />State Auditor, over 90% of levy limit cities have been taxing at <br />their levy limits in recent years. <br /> <br /> (c) Thus it is not possible to conclude that had a city <br />received less LGA in the past, it would have made up the difference <br />by increasing its property tax levy. Rather, including the prior <br />year LGA in the revenue base further perpetuates the grandfathering <br />of LGA received and distorts the fiscal need of a city by producing <br />a revenue base amount in excess of the amount a levy limit city can <br />legally levy. <br /> <br /> (d) Our study has led us to conclude that the local <br />revenue base as determined under tbe various LGA formulas is not an <br />accurate measurement of fiscal need. This is implied by the strong <br />positive relationship that exists between the amount of LGA a city <br />received in each year from 1980 through that estimated for 1984, <br />and the amount of LGA received in tbe immediate prior year, as <br />indicated by our correlation analyses. <br /> <br />- 8 - <br /> <br /> <br />