Laserfiche WebLink
Section 4 <br />Delineating and Prioritizing Colorado's Environmental and Recreational Resources and Needs <br />Table 4-8 applies the evaluation criteria to trust <br />funds as a funding source. <br />Table 4-8 Evaluation of Trust Funds as a Fundin Source <br /> •. <br /> <br />Sources of Funds State or Federal Government, water <br /> developers, local government, or other <br /> entities <br />Administration of Create a fund, spend earnings, operate as <br />Mechanism revolving fund <br />Basis of Set minimum goals, seek maximum funds, <br />Quantification set priorities <br />Positives Responds to broad benefits, singular effort to <br /> establish <br />Negatives Limited public funds, case for urgency, <br /> LOCO or others already doing this? <br />Source: Harvey Economics, 2006 <br />Other Funding Sources <br />Other potential sources of funding for environment <br />and recreation flows include increased <br />transportation fees, such as landing fees and rental <br />car fees; increased overnight fees, such as those for <br />hotels and campsites; and taxes on special products, <br />including sporting goods, beer, and cigarettes. In <br />each instance, these would be add-ons to existing <br />taxes, fees, or levies. There would likely be resistance <br />to such increases, though it may vary depending on <br />the commodity taxed. One source of resistance <br />would be that some of those paying the fees through <br />taxes do not benefit from the spending purpose. <br />4.4.3 Summary of Findings <br />Each of the funding sources or programs has its own <br />advantages and disadvantages. Existing federal and <br />state funding programs already exist ostensibly to <br />fund environment and recreation water <br />development, but there may be a considerable <br />amount of competition for those funds. <br />Federal funding programs are particularly <br />problematic and uncertain. Although environment <br />and recreation water development is eligible for <br />funding through a number of State of Colorado <br />programs, the larger programs still require loan <br />repayment and the source of loan repayment <br />presents special challenges. In particular, <br />environment and recreation water beneficiaries are <br />Nevertheless, potential new funding mechanisms <br />have been identified and evaluated in this report. <br />Each mechanism offers certain promise although the <br />challenges will be considerable. In pursuing any of <br />these new funding alternatives, Taxpayer Bill of <br />Rights (TABOR) limitations may be overcome <br />through the creation of new enterprise funds to <br />receive and disperse the monies. The creation of <br />such enterprise funds is a common technique in the <br />State of Colorado. Regardless of which new funding <br />technique is adopted, it will be important for the <br />organizing entity to convince taxpayers of the <br />overall merit of the recreation or environment water <br />development. It is suggested that the following <br />issues be addressed by such organizers: <br />~ Nature of benefits: Provide a clear and exact <br />description of the benefits of the program. <br />Beneficiaries: What groups of people or what <br />agencies will benefit from the program? What <br />geographic area will benefit? Which political <br />jurisdictions will benefit from the program? <br />~ Magnitude of the benefits: Expected number of <br />visitor days and expenditures; local versus non- <br />local benefits; attraction to the region and effects <br />on quality of life; preservation of future <br />opportunities. <br />State and local support will be crucial to <br />successfully enacting new types of funding <br />programs. <br />4-34 FINAL DRAFT <br />