My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE114868
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
200000
>
PERMFILE114868
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:10:58 PM
Creation date
11/25/2007 12:12:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981016
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Doc Name
violations socioeconomics PAR review
Section_Exhibit Name
APPENDIX XXIX Section XXIX.3 to Appendix XXXII
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
156
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• sales tax compensates the city/county where employees live and shop, even <br />though they may work in a different county. <br />Concerning revenue per capita, Paonia and Hotchkiss are relatively close <br />to each other in terms of total revenue per capita; however, the internal <br />make-up of the revenue sources is different. In Paonia in 1980, 688 of <br />the revenue is expected to come from sales and property taxes. In <br />Hotchkiss, only 578 is expected from the same source. An additional 108 <br />is expected from severance tax remits in Hotchkiss. <br />Crawford operates on the lowest revenue per capita, while Delta runs on <br />the highest. However, over 208 of the revenue in the General Fund for <br />Delta is transferred from the Municipal Power and Light Fund. <br />in general, the municipalities in this area are tied to very traditional <br />sources of revenue. Few user fees and service charges are in use. The <br />property tax revenue appears to be very stable and only increasing <br />slowly. Sales tax revenue, on the other hand, has increased significantly <br />and does have the flexibility to be increased if the need arises. <br />However, if rapid growth occurs, serious consideration should be given to <br />non-traditional sources (such as varied user fees) in order to have growth <br />help pay for itself. <br />3. General Fund Expenditures <br />Table II-12 displays the trend of General Fund expenditures on a per <br />capita base. Caution should be used in examining these figures since <br />categories in one town may not be c®parable to those of another town. <br />Only if towns offer comparable services to their residents can straight <br />comparisons be made. For example, the totals per capita should be <br />somewhat comparable between Paonia and Hotchkiss since approximately the <br />same level of services are offered. As noted, historically Paonia appears <br />to have spent less on its residents than Hotchkiss. However, this is not <br />• necessarily the case, since Hotchkiss includes some interfund transfers in <br />their miscellaneous category. Thus, caution should be used in making <br />direct comparisons. <br />31 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.