Laserfiche WebLink
Members , Colorado Water Conservation Board <br /> and Colorado Water Congress Executive Committee <br /> November 29, 1979 <br /> Page three <br /> I/ such projects do not generate revenues . I think the <br /> principle of beneficiaries paying (subparagraph B) <br /> should prevail. <br /> (2) According to information provided by sponsoring entities. <br /> for proposed flood control projects, cities usually <br /> cannot, by charter, assume an indebtedness on non-revenue <br /> generating projects without a general vote of the electors <br /> in the municipality. In turn, special purpose flood con- <br /> trol districts cannot be created except by vote. The <br /> concern is that such election requirements will effec- <br /> tively prec1 de local units of government from financing <br /> flood control projects. <br /> (3) In the past, grants to cover proposed flood control <br /> projects were requested as a line item in the Board's <br /> annual budget submission. Since fiscal year 1977, how- <br /> ever, we have been unable to obtain general fund appro- <br /> priations for these projects because of the annual 7 <br /> percent limitation on increased expenditures of general <br /> fund revenues. This situation will most likely prevail <br /> so long as the 7 percent limitation is in effect. This <br /> being the case, there would no longer be a source of <br /> state grants for local flood control projects . <br /> (4) There is a real need in slime communities , primarily those <br /> with small populations in which land use patterns in the <br /> floodplain have already been established, for a source <br /> of grant funds . This is because the tax base in such <br /> communities often precludes them from assuming additional <br /> financial obligations . <br /> D. Items C. (3) and C. (4) above suggest that there is indeed a <br /> need for a source of state funds for flood control projects <br /> which would, at least in part, be non-reimbursable. Potential <br /> changes in federal law may also add weight to this argument. <br /> However, I feel that it is more important to retain the integ- <br /> rity of the revolving fund concept at this time . <br /> (1) I would, nonetheless , ask whether the Board would like <br />