Laserfiche WebLink
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 /> <br /> Dissatisfied with its share of the local government aid <br />pie but unable to convince the legislature of the wisdom of its <br />proposals, the City of Ramsey and its Mayor have now brought their <br />objections to this Court. They do not challenge either the overall <br />purpose of the /aw or the Department of Revenue's application of it. <br />Rather, they contend that the statutory formula itself is <br />unconstitutional because: a) current aid allocations are based <br />primarily on aid received in previous years, thereby perpetuating <br />inequities they perceived in earlier formulas; b) increases in aid <br />from one year to the next are governed by maximum and minimum <br />limitations that also perpetuate disproportionate allocations; and <br />c) current aid distribution levels bear no relationship to a city's <br />fiscal capacity. Complaint, Counts I, II, and III, respectively. <br /> <br /> There are no material facts genuinely in dispute <br />concerning plaintiffs' challenge. The case is ripe for the Court to <br />determine whether the defendants are entitled to judgment as a <br />matter of law. Although the formula attacked is complex, the legal <br />issue presented by this equal protection challenge is simple and <br /> <br />straight forwa rd: <br /> <br />Is there any rational relationship between the way <br /> <br />funds are distributed among cities by the local government aid <br /> <br />formula and a legitimate governmental purpose?. Unless plaintiffs <br />can demonstrate beyond a reasonab__le doubt that the formula is <br />totally arbitrary and provides for hostile and oppressive <br />discrimination against them, their challenge must be rejected. <br />Because plaintiffs cannot satisfy that standard, defendants' motion <br /> <br />for summary judgment should be granted. <br /> <br />-3- <br /> <br /> <br />