HomeMy WebLinkAbout993061.tiff From: jmfolsom <jmfolsom@ecentral.com>
To: <charding@co.weld.co.us>
Date: 12/21/99 10:31 pm
Subject: Proposed county sales tax
7050 Loma Linda Ct.
Longmont CO 80504
303 833 2992
December 18,1999
Weld Board of County Commissioners
P O Box 758
Greeley CO 80632
Subject: Land preservation sales tax
Dear Commissioners:
It was pleasing to read a report in the Daily Times Call about
discussions for a countywide sales tax for the purpose of preserving
farm land in developing areas of Weld County.
If County government is serious about having such a measure passed, it
must be structured to have appeal to a majority of the voters in the
County. As a matter of principle and political reality, it somehow
should be structured to be beneficial to all parts of the county
including those not under growth pressures.
Demographics should be researched to give such a measure its best chance
of being approved by the electorate.
Since most sales tax is generated in municipalities, they might consider
themselves better off to have their own tax from which they would have
control of all the revenue.
Approval by the large population of Greeley will be critical to passage.
Encouragingly, the defeat of the open space tax bill two years ago by
Greeley voters was by a very narrow margin. Yet, under the proposed
sales tax revenue distribution, even though Greeley might generate 50%
of the sales tax in the County, it would receive only 15% [1/2 of the
municipality share] money generated.
Which brings us to the necessity of clarifying the concept of*keeping*
the revenue. Don Sandoval was attributed to have said that the county
would keep 70% of the funds generated and that towns would get 30%, with
small towns receiving a minimum of$5000. However, in apparent
contradiction, it is stated that an advisory board and ultimately the
County commissioners would decide how, and I assume where, the funds
would be spent.
Just to keep things in perspective, how far will $3.2 million go?
Typically, farm land in developing areas will bring $10,000 or more per
acre for development. It might bring $2,000 per acre as prime farmland.
Based on these very rough, unresearched estimates $3.2 million would
bring 400 acres per year into conservation easements. That*s 2/3 of a
section out of, perhaps, 500 sections under some development pressure!
In addition, if the the easement were for a period of years rather than
perpetuity, the landowner, in effect, would be paid twice, even if the
' f�q 993061
L,
easemnt *lease*would cost less than an easement *deed*.
It is apparent that it is imperative that the proposal be structured to
attract a majority of voters. It must be structured with strict criteria
so that the limited funds are used for conservation easements on land
most at risk of and inappropriate for development.
I am certain that many of these subjects have been discussed in greater
depth, more information and wisdom than here, but now is the crucial
time to plan and anticipate how this proposal will work in reality
rather than theory so that it may achieve its goals.
Very truly yours,
John S. Folsom salestax.doc
Hello