House committee declines proposed four-payment property-tax option; bill postponed indefinitely

Representative Katherine Espinosa introduced House Bill 11 99, a proposal to allow certain taxpayers a four-installment property-tax payment option (payments due February, April, July and September) for qualifying properties. The sponsor said the measure is intended to help homeowners and small business owners on limited or seasonal incomes who pay property taxes outside mortgage escrow.

The committee heard more than two hours of testimony from county treasurers, state fiscal staff, local officials and supporters. County treasurers representing El Paso, Larimer, Garfield, Mesa, Routt and other counties strongly opposed the bill, calling it an unfunded mandate that would require software changes, additional staff and cash-flow adjustments for school districts and other taxing authorities.

El Paso County Treasurer Chuck Rorman told the committee implementing the change "would cost us nearly $400,000 to implement in the first year and additional $300,000 each year thereafter" and said delayed revenue would strain school and public-safety budgets. Larimer County Treasurer Irene Josie and others provided similar cost estimates and said several large counties and the Colorado Association of School Boards opposed the measure. The state treasurer's office testified in an amend position, noting concerns about protecting school payments that are due on fiscal-year schedules and saying the office anticipated at least a half-time staff need depending on final scope.

Supporters included AARP Colorado, small-business groups and local chambers; witnesses said spreading payments would help older adults and small businesses manage cash flow and could reduce delinquency. Some witnesses pointed to temporary county pilot programs and COVID-era changes that allowed more flexible payment timing.

Sponsor Espinosa offered and the committee considered a series of amendments (L001-L004) that would: delay implementation by one year to allow treasurers time to adapt; limit eligibility to "allowed taxpayers" who have paid off their mortgages; and confine the program initially to counties with populations above 500,000. Sponsors said those changes aimed to reduce administrative burden on smaller counties and give time to negotiate state-level mechanisms to advance school payments if counties needed to front funds. County treasurers urged a broader change or alternative approaches such as voluntary prepayment portals, reduced late-penalty rates, or third-party escrow options.

After debate the committee failed to advance the bill by a motion to the Committee of the Whole (the motion failed on a roll call). Vice Chair Tatone then moved to postpone House Bill 11 99 indefinitely; the motion to postpone was made on the floor of the committee and carried without objection, so the bill is postponed indefinitely.

The record shows extensive concerns from county treasurers about implementation costs, software heterogeneity across 64 counties, potential school-district cashflow impacts and questions about whether the state would need to front money to districts; supporters emphasized the program's potential to reduce delinquency and help low- and fixed-income households and small businesses.

Outcome: House Bill 11 99 was postponed indefinitely.