AG 2002 08 19 (Regular) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOYCE & ISLEY ?LLC N0,589 P, 5 replaced with a loose promise of so-called ~'rein%bursements." It thus became an item of legislative appropriation and, therefore, it is arguably available for redistribution in the State's budget to re-balance it in an ~fiscal emergency". There are other laws that provide various other legal methods to meet a fiscal emergency but state leaders seem not to have chosen to give them consideration. What has happened to local gover~aent is wrong. It is unfair to local governments and their people. It is contrary to what the law says. What is threatened for the current fiscal year is also wrong and against the law. A lawsuit will· soon be filed to determine whether many m~mbers of the Legislature are correct in interpreting the laws~ favoring local goverD_ment or, on the other hand, whether the Executive Branch can rightfully use local tax revenue to bring its b~dget into balance. Without a binding decision several hundred million dollars intended for the needs of local taxpayers and citizens is gone forever. In addition, future needs of local goverr~nents will be hard to meet because they can tax only what the legislature authorizes. The lawsuit will not be a Class Action by the local governments who thus far. have authorized us to proceed. While the ntunerousity requirement of Rule 23 governin~ class action procedures may be met, all potential plaintiffs, the 641 counties,' cities and towns, are readily identifiable. Thus, the local gOverranents that participate in achieving a successful court judg~nent should recover and those that choose not become parties will have made on behalf of their local constituents a substantial contribution to the state treasury. A draft of a proposed Resolution that each local government may wish to consider is attached.