Laserfiche WebLink
Therefore, the Board decided against taking a position concerning one or <br />another alternative. However, the Board did refer the issue to the LMC <br />Revenue Sources Committee to consider whether the League should take a policy <br />position on this issue for the 1985 distribution and thereafter. <br /> <br />The League Board thanks all the cities which took the time to express an <br />interest in or opinion about this matter. The membership will be informed of <br />any action the Revenue Sources Committee may take on this or other LGA issues. <br /> <br />*A clarification of the 3uly 26 memo is in order. "Alternative Two" is not <br />precisely the traditional method used for LGA reduction. <br /> <br />Traditionally, each city's "final aid factor" was proportionately reduced, <br />based on cities' relative shares of the final aid amounts. "Alternative Two" <br />would also reduce each city's "final aid factor" - but based on cities' <br />relative shares of preliminary aid. <br /> <br />"Alternative Two" would spread the actual reduction among almost all cities** <br />so the losses would be less concentrated. The reduction would not be an <br />across-the-board reduction of final aid amounts, however. The larger a city's <br />.share of preliminary aid, the larger its share of the reduction. <br /> <br />(**Cities who would be entitled to zero preliminary aid would not experience a <br />reduction of their final aid - since any share of zero is zero.) <br /> <br />pF:~mm <br /> <br /> <br />