My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 12/20/1983
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
1983
>
Agenda - Council - 12/20/1983
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/15/2025 12:04:50 PM
Creation date
3/22/2004 9:28:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
12/20/1983
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
390
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
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 />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> The initial local government aid law was enacted in 1971. <br />Minn. Stat. ch. 477A (1971). The concept of the program is quite <br />simple. General state revenues are distributed to local government <br />units -- counties, cities, and towns -- for use as general operating <br />revenues or for capital improvements. The purpose is to reduce the <br />reliance on locally-imposed property taxes. Act of June 14, 1983, <br />ch. 342, art. 5, § 14, 1983 Minn. Laws 2263. <br /> The central issue of this lawsuit -- how to allocate the <br />state funds among the cities -- has been hotly contested since the <br />inception of the program.~/ Indeed, the distribution formula has <br />been amended legislatively each biennium since 1971. Under each <br />version of the formula some cities inevitably fared better than <br />others. Just as inevitably, some cities that received less aid have <br />charged that the formula treated them inequitably. The normal <br />avenue for expression of this dissatisfaction has been the <br />legislative process. Many cities have appeared before the <br />legislature, either through their elected officials or through <br />lobbying groups, to advocate changes in the formula. <br /> <br />l/ <br /> <br />Defendants do not understand plaintiffs to be challenging the <br />method by which county governments are allocated their share of <br />local government aid. Furthermore, the method for <br />apportionment of aid to towns would only be relevant to the <br />extent that it coincided with the formula applicable to cities. <br />Accordingly, defendants discuss the local government aid <br />formula only in the context of its application to cities. <br /> <br />-2- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.