Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />their maximum state aid factors. With increased funding, there is more <br />excess aid among the slow growth cities and towns to redistribute Wine <br />"fast growth" cities and towns. Reduced inflation appears to also benefit <br />"fast growth" cities and towns. Since a smaller proportion of the cities and <br />towns in this group have their aids based on their preliminary or maximum <br />state aid factors, their aid is less adversely affected by reductions in the rate <br />of inflation. However, a higher proportion of "slow growth" cities and towns <br />experience reduced final state aid factors (and reduced aid increases) as the <br />result of lower inflation. Increases in the minimum and maximum state aid <br />factor increase schedules and brackets tend to benefit the "fast growth" <br />cities and towns. Since a higher percentage of this group has its Local <br />Government Aids based on the minimum state aid factor rather than the <br />preliminary or maximum state aid factor, and since population increases <br />expand the minimum state aid factors, "fast growth" cities and towns benefit <br />the most from increases in the minimum and maximum state aid factor <br />increase schedules and brackets. <br />The new formula does appear to "reward" population increases. However, <br />while the new formula relates Local Government Aid increases more strongly <br />to current population data, this study does not answer the question of which <br />Local Government Aid formula, the new or the old, provides the greatest <br />"reward" for population increases. <br />9) When the levy limit cities and towns are identified as either "fast growth" or <br />"slow growth" cities and towns on the basis of the rate of increase in their <br />adjusted assessed values, there is a slight shift in the percentage distribution <br />of aid between the two groups which is similar to that observed when the levy <br />i <br />8 <br />