Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />I <br /> <br /> The United States District Court concluded that the <br />purpose for the imposition of the challenged minimum aid limitation <br />was substantial and rational. Accordingly, even though the <br />allocation of Title I funds resulting from the imposition of the 90 <br />percent minimum level was not proportional to the actual number of <br />disadvantaged children in each school district, it did not deny <br />plaintiffs the equal protection of the law because the deviation <br />from that general statutory purpose was rationally related to a <br />legitimate government objective of avoiding drastic changes in aid <br />amounts. <br /> <br /> Similar legal reasoning was used by the Minnesota Supreme <br /> .. <br /> <br />Court in Matter of McCannel, 301N.W.2d 910 (Minn. 1980). In that <br />case the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Minn. Stat. <br /> <br />§ 273.11. That law, enacted in 1973, created a "limited market <br />value" for property tax purposes as an exception to the general rule <br />that property was to be taxed at its actual market value. <br /> <br />Section 273.11 provided that an increase in a parcel's taxable value <br />from one year to the next could not exceed five percent. Any <br />increase in actual value over five percent would be carried to the <br />next year, again subject to the five percent limitation. The <br />five percent limitation did not, however, apply to nonresidential <br />property or to property that had no previous valuation, such as new <br />construction. In the several years after the enactment of <br />section 273.11, amendments were made in the percentage increases <br />allowable, but until the concept of limited market value was totally <br /> <br />-28- <br /> <br /> <br />