Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.' <br /> <br />$3 of property taxes pledged, about $1 to $1.25 of capital can be <br />borrowed. In contrast, it might take a pledge of $4 or $5, or <br />more, of some other tax which is a less stable source of revenues <br />to raise $1 of capital. <br /> <br />As a consequence of this situation,one must look not only <br />at the amount of revenues which various taxes could raise, but <br />also at the amount of capital which can be raised based upon a <br />pledge of future revenues. Since property taxes are the most <br />desirable source of pledged revenues, consideration should be <br />given to reinstituting the state property tax now provided for <br />in the State Constitution. <br /> <br />summary and Conclusions <br /> <br />A larqeportion of Colorado's needed water conservation and <br />rehabilitation projects cannot generate enough revenues to pay <br />for themselves. Thus, if these needs are to be met and ' <br />Colorado's compact entitlements protected over the next two <br />decades, substantial sums of tax revenues must be devoted to this <br />purpose. <br /> <br />Such tax revenues could be accumulated OI1er time to "pay as <br />you go" for project construction and rehabilitation. However, <br />the need is so great for both water development and other capital <br />investments that such a policy may not permit a timely and <br />effective response to the investment needs which Colorado <br />confronts. <br /> <br />Under these circumstances, careful consideration needs to be <br />given to the desirability of embarking on a general obligation <br />financing p-eogram in Colorado. This in turn will necessitate <br />examining the need for a constitutional amendment and <br />implementation of the state property tax now provided for in the <br />state Constitution. <br /> <br />-8- <br />