Laserfiche WebLink
Section 4 <br />Prioritize and Quantify Environment and Recreation Needs Technical Roundtable <br />~ Source of Funds: Where would the funding come <br />from or how would funding be generated for the <br />program? Potential funding sources could include <br />public or private water developers, governmental <br />entities, out-of-state visitors, or other Colorado <br />beneficiaries. <br />Table 4-5 Evaluation of Impact Fees as a Potential Funding <br />from in-state and out-of-state purchasers <br />Administration of Colorado Department of Revenue collects <br />Mechanism and distributes; need public agency to <br />receive dollars <br />Sources of Funds Percentage of state or county retail sales <br />Basis of Project and justify dollar requirements; <br />Quantification estimate percentage required from total <br />sales <br />Positives Includes visitors; small percentage; easier to <br />justify than property tax <br />Negatives Competition for sales tax dollars; precedent <br />Source: Harvey Economics, 2006. <br />~ Administration of Mechanism: How would <br />funds be collected? Distributed? What agency or <br />group would be in charge of overseeing the <br />administration of the program? How easy or <br />difficult would it be to implement the program? <br />~ Basis of Quantification: How are program fees or <br />rates set? What is the justification for the <br />projected financial requirements? <br />~ Positives: What is the justification for <br />recommending the program? What are the strong <br />points of the program? What are the advantages <br />over other types of funding programs? <br />~ Negatives: What are the expected objections to <br />the program from opponents? What aspects of <br />the program might be arguable or contentious <br />and why? <br />Impact Fees <br />Impact fees are monies collected from new <br />development, typically for each new single family <br />dwelling equivalent, to offset costs that local <br />government incurs as a result of that new <br />development. Table 4-5 applies the evaluation <br />criteria discussed above to a program funded by <br />impact fees. <br />The use of impact fees for funding recreation or <br />environment water development is likely to be <br />limited. Impact fees could be justified in <br />circumstances where development specifically <br />threatened resources or where past development <br />had curtailed recreation or environment values. The <br />administration of such impact fees would need to <br />take place through public jurisdictions, such as <br />municipalities, which are responsible for planning <br />zoning and approving land developments. Those <br />entities must be convinced that impact fees are <br />justified before any consideration of this mechanism <br />would occur. The advantages of this mechanism <br />would be the direct tie of environment and <br />recreation to new development. There is an <br />opportunity for wider application than simply <br />partnering with traditional water development <br />through the permitting process. Difficulties <br />associated with the use of impact fees include <br />developing an acceptable means to quantify what <br />the fee should be and convincing local planning <br />agencies and developers that the recommended fee is <br />appropriate. This is an extremely difficult <br />proposition in most circumstances. <br />4-32 FINAL DRAFT <br />