Agenda - Council - 12/16/1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

DisPARITY FACTOR NO. 7: The disparities in LGA distributions are increasing as a result of legislation passed in 1979. Based on past spending or "local effort", cities in 1980 are receiving increases of $1, $3 or $5 per capita. Because the across the board statewiae increase for LGA in 1980 is $5 Der capita, there is a shortfall to the extent a city receives ~1 or ~3 per capita. From the cities under 2500 in population, these shortfall amounts'($4 and $2, respectively) are taken and then re-distributed, BUT ONLY TO THOSE CITIES OVER 2500 IN POPULATION. This re-distri- bution or "second tier" increase can and does cause the overall increase for a number of cities to increase to over $10 per capita. To separate out the small cities of the State and further disad- vantage them is discriminatory, indefensible and unjustifiable.. POINTS TO PONDER: EFFORTL While so called "effort is pointed to as the basis for providing the distribution of Local Government Aid, one would expect there to be s . . le ran e of equitability in' the di~tributi~: %~.e ~verag~i _ gor "Amm" of a city is ~ultiplied-by its --sales ra~o , ~ ....... ~ the range of per newsletter. For cities having the same AEMR, however capita aid is surprising. The following table will show the extent of ~he spread· In one case,, for cities all having the same AEMR the spread xs actually $164 per capita. TABLE 0FllANGE OF LC~ RECEIVED IN 1980 FOR CITIES WITH SAME AEI~R o. $27- $9 1' 13-: 10 21- $190' $43 2 22 11 22 131 51 3 - 33 9 23 97 29 4 44 11 24 144 46 5 67 12 25 118 57 6 54 12 26 104 50 7 107 11 27 115 53 8 72 -13 28 211 47 9 64 13 29 105 61 10 100 21 30 125 63 11 101 19 31 123 77 12 61 22 32 170 71 13 85 25 33 110 79 14 86 24 34 105 79 15 , 134 30 35 107 91 16 122 28 36-40 118 79 17 127 36 41-60 168 77 18 111 45 61-71 159 77 19 98 30 20 129 55