Laserfiche WebLink
The accompanying memorandum shows what the effect of these proposed formula <br />changes would be if funding were to continue at current levels. As you will <br />note, the changes would result in substantial redistributions of funds in <br />some cases. The redistributions appear largely to result from proposals 4 <br />and 5, above. Of course, the proposed $500 million added funding could <br />offset some of the losses to those cities whose allocations would be reduced <br />by the proposed formula changes. <br /> <br />Both'the League of Minnesota Cities and the National League of Cities <br />officially support increased funding for revenue sharing. Funding for <br />revenue sharing has not increased since 1976, and inflation since that <br />time has severely eroded the value of revenue sharing. The budget reso- <br />lution currently before Congress does not include increased funding for <br />revenue sharing. City officials are urged to contact the Minnesota <br />Congressional delegation, and in particular, Senator Boschwitz, who serves <br />on the budget subcommittee, to request their support for increased funding <br />for revenue sharing. You may-also wish to take this opportunity to comment <br />on the administration,s proposals for amending the distribution formula. <br /> <br />If you have any q~estions or con~nents concerning these revehue sharing <br />proposals, please contact Pete Tritz at the League office. <br /> <br />DS:rmm <br /> <br /> <br />