Arapahoe County staff told the Board of Commissioners on June 30 they plan to implement a locally run oil and gas inspection program that county leaders say will supplement, not replace, state inspections and that is intended to be funded by fees charged to operators.

Brian Weimer, Public Works and Development director, said the program is intended to improve inspection service levels in the county and to focus on public health, public safety and environmental stewardship. “This program is an enhancement to the state's inspection program,” Weimer said. He said the county’s goal is to inspect every completing, producing and shut‑in well twice per year.

Jason Reynolds and Martin Lohman (Arapahoe County energy program manager) described the proposed fee schedule: $3,000 per pad annually and $1,500 per well annually. Reynolds told the board his modeling shows the proposed fees cover program costs, including equipment and staff, under a multi‑year projection. “The modeling does show that the fees as proposed do cover the program costs,” Reynolds said.

Staff reiterated major start‑up costs: an infrared (FLIR) methane camera that costs more than $100,000, vehicles for fieldwork, and software and personnel to run inspections and data reporting. The county’s budget includes one full‑time equivalent (FTE) inspector that was due to start in the weeks after the meeting; staff proposed adding a second inspector and an energy planner/case reviewer in 2026 if development and workload require it. Staff also modeled vehicle replacements on a five‑year schedule and FLIR camera replacement on a 10‑year schedule.

Reynolds told the board staff intend inspections to begin in July and said the tracking system (Exela) is ready to record inspections immediately. He said billing infrastructure work remains and that the county expects billing to be processed in October but that fees would be effective beginning in July to match the start of inspection activity. Staff said they will monitor revenue and expenditures annually and return to the board if fee adjustments are needed.

Commissioners and staff noted public comments received during outreach, including concerns that fees could be a precursor to fines and that the public needs clarity on what inspections entail. Staff said the program’s stated goal is compliance, not fines, and that fines established in county regulations would only apply if violations are found. County attorney’s office staff said the fee analysis follows state statute governing local fees and is structured to show the fees are reasonably related to direct costs (transcript reference: “38 5, dot 5 dash 01/2007,” as read in the meeting).

Commissioner Jessica Campbell asked whether the proposed fees align with neighboring jurisdictions; staff said the amounts are identical to Aurora’s fee schedule and differ from Adams County’s per‑inspection model. Commissioners recorded five thumbs‑up to move the fee schedule forward to a July adoption hearing; staff said the item will be placed on the consent agenda for formal adoption if legal review and routing are complete.