Site search
sponsored by
Home
News
RIFLE - Northwestern Colorado governments fear that a change in state policy could mean the loss of millions of dollars of federal mineral lease funding for the region.
The change could mean a loss of about $500,000 in funding to natural-gas-rich Garfield County and its local municipalities alone next year, and $1 million apiece to Moffat and Rio Blanco counties and their local governments, said Jim Evans, director of Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado. Evans and AGNC members discussed the concern at a meeting in Rifle Tuesday.
The change stems from a legal opinion provided by Colorado Attorney General John Suthers to the state Department of Local Affairs, in response to questions about how to deal with San Miguel County under the mineral lease fund distribution formula.
The Federal Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 returns half of rentals and royalties from federal lands to the states of origin, and establishes a funding priority for local governments impacted by mineral leasing activities.
Colorado distributes the funds to a variety of recipients under a complicated formula, with some going to the counties where the mineral revenues originate.
An initial distribution gives a quarter of the revenues to schools and half to those counties, but limits each of the counties to $200,000. The first $10.7 million in any "spillover" above the counties' $200,000 cap goes to schools. But if more spillover remains, counties affected by the $200,000 limit are eligible for additional money bringing them up to a total cap of $1.2 million.
Those counties affected by that limit also are eligible for a portion of a third round, or tier, of distributions. Only eight counties, with the most mineral lease revenues, reach the $1.2 million cap. A county's third-tier distributions are shared with municipalities within it.
The third-tier distribution takes into account whether counties have employees in mining, oil or gas activities. Suthers found that because there are no such employees living in San Miguel County, it isn't eligible for third-tier funds, even though it has mine facilities.
Evans said he agrees with that conclusion. However, the state also understands Suthers' opinion to mean that the distribution of the third-tier funds shouldn't be limited to counties where the mineral lease revenues originate.
That reportedly could open up the distribution to as many as 48 counties that have at least one mining or oil and gas employee living in them.
Worse yet, Evans fears the new policy may be extended to the first and second levels of the revenue distributions as well, opening up those distributions to much of the state.
From 1995-2004, total mineral revenue distributions in Colorado totaled $88 million, including more than $8 million to Garfield County and its municipalities.
Northwest Colorado governments plan to ask Gov. Bill Owens to intervene on the issue. They also may press for legislative action to clarify matters, although it may be hard to pass a bill favorable to western Colorado because of the money at stake for the Front Range.
"We're going to run across the problem that they've got more votes (in the legislature) than we do," state Sen. Jack Taylor, R-Steamboat Springs, said at Tuesday's meeting in Rifle.
Evans said he's worried that formulas for distributing revenues from grazing, logging and leasing of federal lands by ski areas could be similarly changed, further hurting rural counties where these activities are based.
The change could mean a loss of about $500,000 in funding to natural-gas-rich Garfield County and its local municipalities alone next year, and $1 million apiece to Moffat and Rio Blanco counties and their local governments, said Jim Evans, director of Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado. Evans and AGNC members discussed the concern at a meeting in Rifle Tuesday.
The change stems from a legal opinion provided by Colorado Attorney General John Suthers to the state Department of Local Affairs, in response to questions about how to deal with San Miguel County under the mineral lease fund distribution formula.
The Federal Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 returns half of rentals and royalties from federal lands to the states of origin, and establishes a funding priority for local governments impacted by mineral leasing activities.
Colorado distributes the funds to a variety of recipients under a complicated formula, with some going to the counties where the mineral revenues originate.
An initial distribution gives a quarter of the revenues to schools and half to those counties, but limits each of the counties to $200,000. The first $10.7 million in any "spillover" above the counties' $200,000 cap goes to schools. But if more spillover remains, counties affected by the $200,000 limit are eligible for additional money bringing them up to a total cap of $1.2 million.
Those counties affected by that limit also are eligible for a portion of a third round, or tier, of distributions. Only eight counties, with the most mineral lease revenues, reach the $1.2 million cap. A county's third-tier distributions are shared with municipalities within it.
The third-tier distribution takes into account whether counties have employees in mining, oil or gas activities. Suthers found that because there are no such employees living in San Miguel County, it isn't eligible for third-tier funds, even though it has mine facilities.
Evans said he agrees with that conclusion. However, the state also understands Suthers' opinion to mean that the distribution of the third-tier funds shouldn't be limited to counties where the mineral lease revenues originate.
That reportedly could open up the distribution to as many as 48 counties that have at least one mining or oil and gas employee living in them.
Worse yet, Evans fears the new policy may be extended to the first and second levels of the revenue distributions as well, opening up those distributions to much of the state.
From 1995-2004, total mineral revenue distributions in Colorado totaled $88 million, including more than $8 million to Garfield County and its municipalities.
Northwest Colorado governments plan to ask Gov. Bill Owens to intervene on the issue. They also may press for legislative action to clarify matters, although it may be hard to pass a bill favorable to western Colorado because of the money at stake for the Front Range.
"We're going to run across the problem that they've got more votes (in the legislature) than we do," state Sen. Jack Taylor, R-Steamboat Springs, said at Tuesday's meeting in Rifle.
Evans said he's worried that formulas for distributing revenues from grazing, logging and leasing of federal lands by ski areas could be similarly changed, further hurting rural counties where these activities are based.
