Laserfiche WebLink
times when the market is low and <br />then they lease the water back to <br />agriculture. At $10.00 per acre <br />foot, that is underpriced water for <br />municipal purposes along the Front <br />Range. If one were to increase the <br />tax, you could lower the water <br />allotment charges. If one were to <br />increase the allotment charges, <br />potentially you could eliminate the <br />tax. <br /> <br />Mayer: <br /> <br />In terms of the mill levy as well as <br />the water charge, there is a heavy <br />subsidizing of agriculture. If <br />agriculture is paying $1.50 an acre <br />foot and cities are paying $10.00 an <br />acre foot, also, the way property <br />taxes work, generally agriculture <br />gets 5% of the assessed valuation <br />and residential is 14% ....... <br /> <br />Dreher: <br /> <br />Not all agriculture users pay the <br />$1.50, only those that were original <br />subscribers to the CBT project. If <br />they sell a tract of land off of <br />their farm, they are no longer <br />considered an original subscriber <br />and they pay $4.50 or $6.50 per acre <br />foot unit. It's low, because it was <br />the farmers who originally took the <br />risk and put their land up as <br />collateral to get this project <br />built. The cities didn't do that. <br />Our annual operating budget is on <br />the order of $10 million per year <br />and the tax raises about half of <br />that. <br /> <br />Mayer: <br /> <br />The Board sets the policy of what <br />the relative charges are? <br /> <br />Dreher: <br /> <br />The mill levies are prescribed in <br />the State Statutes. The Statutes <br />would allow the Conservancy District <br />to only charge up to 1/2 mill prior <br />to delivery of the water from the <br />project. At the time delivery of <br />water from the project ensued, then <br />under State law we were allowed to <br />charge the one mill. We're capped <br />at one mill, except if we were <br /> <br /> <br />