Laserfiche WebLink
Section 4 <br />Delineating and Prioritizing Colorado's Environmental and Recreational Resources and Needs <br />Recreation Service Fees <br />Recreation service fees are fees paid by those people <br />that actively engage in recreational activities. <br />Recreation service fees could be charged for the use <br />of water based recreation, specifically related to new <br />water development, or more broadly applied to other <br />recreational activities in the region or even <br />throughout Colorado. Table 4-6 applies the <br />evaluation criteria discussed above to programs <br />funded through recreation service fees. <br />this alternative is promising in conjunction with <br />other funding alternatives. <br />Sales Taxes <br />A specific portion of state or local sales taxes <br />collected could be earmarked specifically for funding <br />environment and recreation needs programs. This <br />tax would most likely be an additional new sales <br />tax, although, in theory it could be a percentage of <br />the existing tax rate. Table 4-7 applies the <br />evaluation criteria to the sales tax funding approach. <br />Table 4-6 Evaluation of Recreation Districts as a Funding <br />Source <br />Sources of Funds Levies on property value in areas of <br /> benefit. <br />Administration of Collected by local governments. <br />Mechanism <br />Basis of Project dollar needs, tie to beneficiaries <br />Quantification and property assessments. <br />Positives Properly values benefit from recreation/ <br /> environment. <br />Negatives Election required; tax payer resistance; <br /> leaves out visitors. <br />Source: Harvey Economics, 2006 <br />There are a host of ways recreational users could pay <br />this fee, but existing permit systems or the Internet <br />would lower administrative costs. Quantification of <br />the fee is also relatively straight forward: project <br />funding needs would be compared with <br />participation levels and competitive recreational fees <br />elsewhere. The recreational service fee alternative is <br />likely to have more support than other programs <br />since Colorado residents are very familiar with user <br />fees, i.e., seat tax, national park fees, fishing licenses, <br />etc. <br />The main drawback for this alternative is the limit of <br />service fees due to competing recreational <br />alternatives. Unless recreational fees are applied <br />broadly, recreationists and tourists will be unwilling <br />to pay very much for most water based recreational <br />activities. A broader based recreational service fee is <br />likely to incur resistance from existing programs <br />that have their own service fees and have been able <br />to establish their own funding programs. Even so, <br />Table 4-7 Evaluation of Sales Tax as a Funding Source <br /> •. - <br /> <br />Sources of Funds Percentage of state or county retail sales <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 />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 />Trust Funds <br />Like special districts, trust funds are a common form <br />of legal entity that could easily be designated to fund <br />environmental and recreational projects. Monies <br />could be accepted from almost any source and <br />expenditures could be limited such that the trust <br />expended only the earnings off the principal or <br />corpus of the trust for any purposes designated by <br />the trustees. One advantage of this mechanism <br />would be its flexibility in terms of both receiving <br />funds and expending funds in an opportunistic <br />manner. The chief disadvantage of this mechanism is <br />that there are already a number of related trust funds <br />and entities that might create confusion and limit <br />support for the new entity. However, if a trust fund <br />was carefully defined such that it was distinct from <br />and worked cooperatively with other trust funds <br />and agencies, such as TNC, GOCO, or various land <br />trusts, then this mechanism might be favorable. In <br />order to be successful, specific and significant <br />funding sources must be found to launch the trust. <br />FINAL DRAFT 4-33 <br />