Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> <br />What does appear to be the cnse is that municipal service provision is <br />left primarily to the towns. Delta County does not become overly involved <br />in providing municipal services, with the possible exception of the <br />Sheriff's Department. (Such a situation may need to be rethought because <br />of the growth in unincorporated arena - the county may need to enter into <br />the municipal services business. The other option is to seek growth <br />management plans to encourage new residents to live in serviced areas.) <br />In addition, each town with the exception of Delta appears to have <br />approximately the same level of total expenditures per capita. Internal <br />distributions are quite different and reflect different priorities in each <br />town and different nccaunting procedures. <br />The 1980 outlook for municipalities appears to be very optimistic. <br />Budgeted 1980 expenditures represent at least a 109 increase over 1979 <br />levels in all areas except Hotchkiss. The revenue for these increased <br />expenditures is primarily from sales tax monies (Paonia and Crawford) and <br />increased intergovernmental revenues (Crawford and Hotchkiss). <br />4. Summary <br />From an assessment of the fiscal base for municipalities and counties, the <br />study area can be described as having a relatively stnble tax base and <br />slowly increasing revenues to accommodate slow growth patterns. However, <br />if growth were to occur rapidly in this area, the fiscal system may be <br />strained. The potential does exist within the fiscal structure to help <br />alleviate some problems despite the 79 limitation on property tax <br />revenues. Same suggestions include: <br />• Apply strict zoning ordinances for municipal and county <br />governments to limit some of the physical problems of growth; <br />• Potentially increase the local sales tax option to provide more <br />revenue; <br /> <br />33 <br />