Laserfiche WebLink
Iwhich was a surrogate for property tax revenues. This historical <br /> <br />I figure is then adjusted for inflation and population changes to <br /> arrive at an estimate of current fiscal requirements. <br />I Plaintiffs may argue that the local revenue base <br /> <br /> established by the statutory formula does not present an accurate <br />I picture of a city's fiscal need. They could argue that a relatively <br /> <br />Ihigher tax levy may reflect not greater need, but more expensive or <br /> <br /> extravagant tastes in public spending. They may contend that there <br />i are more accurate measures of fiscal need available. <br /> <br />i There is a simple and wholly sufficient answer to such <br /> criticism of the local revenue base as a measure of fiscal need. <br />II The fact that it is neither an infallible gauge of need nor the only <br /> alternative that could be used is of no constitutional significance. <br />I~ Plaintiffs can only succeed in their equal protection attack by <br />i· showing the local revenue base to be totally unrelated to any <br /> <br />conceivable concept of fiscal need. <br /> <br /> Plaintiffs may also charge that the use of <br /> <br />previously-received amounts of local goVernment aid as a component. <br /> <br />of the local revenue base perpetuates inequities found in earlier <br /> <br />'1 <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br />versions of the formula. Even assuming arguendo that there were <br />inequities in previous formulas and that they are perpetuated by the <br />current definition of local revenue base, plaintiffs cannot meet the <br />standard of total irrationality. Plaintiffs must agree that the <br />purpose for the distribution of local government aid is to provide <br />property tax relief. It is not unreasonable for the legislature to <br /> <br />-20- <br /> <br /> <br />