Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> I <br /> I <br />,I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> i <br /> I <br />'1 <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> This memorandum is divided into three parts. The first <br />section briefly summarizes the legislative history of the local <br />government aid formula. The second section outlines the general <br />structure of the present local government aid formula. The third <br />section sets forth the legal arguments for disposing of this <br />constitutional challenge. <br /> <br /> LEGISLATIVE HISTORY <br /> <br /> As noted, the formula for the distribution of local <br />government aid has been amended each biennium since the program's <br />inception in 1971. The legislature has made a continuing effort to <br />balance the competing interests of the communities that must share <br />the available funds.2/ Some of the amendments have been <br />substantial, others have made minor adjustments. The changes most <br />important to this case occurred in 19B3. However, an understanding <br />of the plaintiffs' arguments and the operation of the law also <br />require examination of the formula as it generally existed during <br />two prior periods -- the years between 1971 and 1979 and those <br />between 1979 and 1983. <br /> <br /> There are several important features that remained <br /> constant through all of the versions that were used from 1971 to <br /> 1979. First, the aid was distributed pursuant to a "county pot <br /> system." The total available funds were allocated among the S7 <br /> Minnesota counties, each county's share determined by multiplying <br /> <br />2/ <br /> <br />For the 1984 aid year, 855 cities compete~ for a share of the <br />appropriation · <br /> <br />-4- <br /> <br /> <br />