Laserfiche WebLink
assume that property tax relief was afforded by the local government <br /> <br />aid distributed in the past. It follows that the legislature could <br />rationally conclude that, had a city received less local government <br /> <br />aid in the past, it would have made up the difference by increasing <br />its property tax levy. Thus, the local revenue base, whether <br />containing a greater amount of state aid or, instead, a greater <br />amount of property tax receipts, would be the same as that computed <br />under the formula. Accordingly, there is nothing irrational in the <br />legislature's assumption that the combination of past tax levy and <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />i <br /> <br /> local government aid received is a fair representation of the amount <br />~of revehue the city needed to operate. <br /> <br /> In summary, the basis on which cities are classified by <br /> the local government aid formula in the area of fiscal need is <br /> rat.ionally related to the purpose of the statute and does not <br /> <br />I <br />i <br /> <br />i <br />! <br /> <br />violate plaintiffs' equal protection rights. <br /> <br /> B0 Ten Mills Minus Adjusted Assessed Value Is A Reasonable <br /> Way To Measure Fiscal Capaci{y. <br /> <br /> The second major element of the local government aid <br />formula is the measurement of a city's fiscal capacity. This is the <br />amount that the city can reasonably be expected to raise from <br />property taxes. Under the formula, fiscal capacity is measured by <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />multiplying a uniform tax rate of 10 mills times the adjusted <br />assessed valuation of the property within the city. Although <br />alternative measures of fiscal capacity could perhaps be suggested, <br />it is difficult to conceive how the measurement prescribed by th~ <br />local government aid formula could be characterized as totally <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />irrational. <br /> <br /> <br />