|
|
Meeting Minutes:
Consolidation and Resource Sharing
Alec described the challenges to reorganization of Summit County into a single governmental entity. As a “constitutional” county and not a “home rule” county, it does not have the authority to re-organize. In addition, the tax structure is an obstacle to consolidation, since the towns are dependent on sales tax for 80% of their revenue, while the county’s revenue derives from sales tax (1/3), property tax (1/3) and grants (1/3). Also, because of the large number of 2nd homeowners owners with property in Summit County but only occasional residency, it is valid to raise the question about whether or not they should have a vote over any re-organization.
Special districts have been created for various purposes (utilities, public services, schools) and they would have to be taken into consideration. Currently, the tax structure in the towns creates competition for sales tax revenue, something that detracts from eagerness to consolidate.
Gary Lindstrom:
Our problem is not about county consolidation, but the major concern
is about town dependence on sales tax revenue.
Jack Benson (Town Mgr. Dillon)
Local control is critically important and true throughout the
history of Summit County. It must be protected. Urbanization is a
problem, but how do we decide who is the last person allowed in the
county? Careful expansion is necessary; the business of government is
complicated. Our challenge is to balance what the public wants and what
government needs to continue to provide services. Currently, most eggs
are in the sales tax basket, meaning that tourists subsidize county and
town services. Consolidation is an example of “Don’t fix if it ain’t
broke.”
Bill Wallace (County
Commissioner)
We should be concerned about urbanization. As it stands, decisions
are driven by the need for revenues, sales tax driven. We need more of a
balance with property tax. Town events are competing. Annexation limits
influence and local control for residents living outside town limits. We
have many examples of county jurisdictions working together:
communication center; animal control; transportation. Development should
be driven by what people want not by need for additional tax revenues.
An example of possible consolidation where we could go astray is in
police. How many police do we need for 26,000 full time residents and up
to 125,000 weekend visitors? This is not a good place to look for
efficiency. Don’t cut law enforcement.
Gary:
Towns have statutory authority and responsibility to create 3-mile
plans.
Jack:
We should recognize that sometimes centralization is preferable,
sometimes decentralization. Consolidation can cause problems and the
“devil’s in the details.” One of our challenges is to increase citizen
involvement. How can we get information out to constituents. People
don’t show up unless they’re against something.
General discussion based on audience questions:
Doesn’t annexation just shift control from on government entity to another?
Up-zoning through annexation is always driven by desire to profit from investment. We live in a capitalist (free market) society. The value of land is determined by zoning. Note that the Constitution prohibits the taking of property through down-zoning. Beware creating a community where property is affordable only by the wealthy by restricting access through land use regulation.
What has driven consolidation in the past
Primarily considerations of efficiency.
What has blocked consolidation?
Loss of town identity and no obvious efficiency, e.g., formation of a recreation district is deterred by the capital investment a town has made. Water and sewer might be opportunities for consolidation.
Shouldn’t we expend energy on changing state property tax laws?
Consider as an alternative a county-wide sales tax revenue sharing based on a formula established by historical patterns—perhaps a 3 year pilot (Bill Wallace).
Towns would advise against such a scheme (Benson).
Other officials:
Barbara Davis – Mayor Dillon
Caution re: consolidation
Lou del Piccolo – Mayor
Silverthorne
There is an axis of evil: annexation, development, big-box, and an
axis of good: revenue sharing, controlled growth, efficiency. Voting on
controversial issues may create more strife. Be cautious about letting
things get out of control. People don’t come to Council meetings.
Pressure to grow is inexorable. We are a resort economy with substantial
population fluxes—this requires a level of inefficiency. “Efficiency”
would require serious down-sizing.
Bernie Zubriggen—Mayor of Frisco
Our 4 unique towns make this a special resort area. Therefore we
should exercise caution about consolidation. Purchasing is a possible
area of consolidation. B. recommends we all read The World is Flat
by Thomas Friedman. In a global economy, less government may be more
useful.
Bob French—County Commissioner
Consolidation has to be incremental. Consider a federal model for
some services.
Howard Hallman—straw poll
Does some degree of collaboration make some sense? (most indicate
assent), suggestions such as joint planning or joint facility
maintenance.
Why not balance sales and property tax and get more revenue from 2nd
homeowners?
Keep our autonomy—let’s not fight.