Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />! <br />I <br />! <br /> <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 /> (e) Including prior year LGA received in the revenue base <br />distorts the measurement of property tax revenue needs. Therefore, <br />the preliminary state aid factor is not a rational or accurate <br />measure of the amount of property tax relief due a city. <br /> <br /> (f) I am informed that the defendants maintain that the <br />minimum and maximum aid levels are a rational means of avoiding <br />sudden substantial shifts in a city's LGA; that these limits "~n <br />turn avert drastic changes in the amount of property taxes that <br />must be levied by a city from year to year." <br /> <br /> However, cities already at their levy limit could not <br />make up for lost LGA revenues through property taxes. Rather, such <br />cities would have to make up the revenue shortfall tbrough other <br />revenue sources or by cutting expenditures. Therefore, minimum <br />and maximum aid levels are not related to averting drastic changes <br />in the amount of property taxes a city subject to the levy limit <br />levies from year to year. Moreover, both the minimum aid level <br />and the maximum aid level include the prior year LGA received, <br />thereby grandfathering the LGA received rather tban using some <br />measurement of property tax relief needed. The minimum an~ <br />maximum aid levels therefore do not contribute to the stated <br />purpose of achieving property tax relief. <br /> <br />- 9 - <br /> <br /> <br />