Board Meeting 12/05/1979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Members , Colorado eater Conservation Board and Colorado Water Congress Executive Committee November 26, 157 Page three I/ 6. Discussion. A. Alternative procedure 4.A. is deemed inappropriate in that it would provide no explicit safeguards against dissimilar treat- ment of identical or nearly indentical projects (i.e. , projects for which the factors cited in paragraph 2 are very similar) . B. At first blush, alternative 4.B. seemed most attractive since it would entail an explicit effort to make comparisons between projects and would, presumably, be flexible enough to take into account the particular circumstances of each individual project. The drawback to this approach is that it would entail consider- able staff effort--in an amount which struck us as being dis- proportionate to the advantages gained by being able to make, at most, one or two percentage point distinctions in the service charges assessed to different projects . C. As a matter of administrative convenience, therefore , the staff has come to the conclusion that fixed service charges should be assessed. However, we have recommended that the service charge be varied as a function of project purpose in order to reflect the relative ability, generally speaking, of the sponsors of the different kinds of projects to pay for them. (1) It is recommended that flood control and recreation projects be assessed the smallest service charge in recognition of the fact that such projects usually do not generate revenues . Rather, they are usually financed through ad valorem property taxes . (See also agenda item 4) . (2) It is recommended that the service charge for irrigation projects be one percentage point lower than that for all I/ other kinds of projects (exclusive of flood control and recreation projects) in recognition of the state 's long standing policy of supporting irrigation developments with various financial incentives and subsidies . JWMcD•mm