Laserfiche WebLink
limit cities and towns are divided on the basis of the rate of population <br />growth. The explanations are also similar to those expressed in (8). <br />10) The shifts in percentage distribution of aid between the various groups <br />mentioned in (5) to (9), as projected from 1979 to 1990, are rather modest. <br />This is further evidence of the very high consistency in the relative <br />distribution of Local Government Aid under the new formula and the very <br />high correlation of the 1980 to 1990 distributions under the new formula with <br />the 1979 distribution under the old formula. <br />11) The greatest shift in the percentage distribution of Local Government Aid in <br />any of the projections appear to be between Minneapolis and St. Paul <br />combined and the surburban metropolitan area. Increases in the funding level <br />and decreases in inflation both favor the suburban metropolitan area, mainly <br />at the expense of Minneapolis and St. Paul. In the projection assuming a <br />higher funding level, lower inflation and upward adjustments in the minimum <br />and maximum state aid factor increase schedules and brackets, the <br />percentage share for the suburban metro area increases from 23.6% in 1979 <br />to 33.6% in 1990. <br />Most of this increase was provided at the expense of the percentage share for <br />Minneapolis and St. Paul, who went from 40.9% in 1979 to 32.1% in 1990. <br />The remainder was provided by a slight reduction in the percentage share for <br />the non - metropolitan area. The suburban metropolitan area actually <br />increased its percentage share in all eight projections. The non - metropolitan <br />area incurred a slight decrease in percentage share in all eight projections. <br />Minneapolis and St. Paul increased their combined percentage share slightly <br />• <br />0 <br />9 <br />