Adams County discusses AI liability as Colorado special session advances competing bills

Adams County commissioners met for a briefing on the Colorado special legislative session and focused on how competing artificial-intelligence liability bills could affect county exposure, and on the state'level budget gap and potential cuts.

Jillian Allen, Adams County staff, told commissioners that four AI bills had been introduced and that county attorneys were reviewing the fiscal notes and bill text to assess which drafts posed the greatest risk to the county. "There were 4 pieces of legislation introduced, about AI," Allen said, and staff had forwarded material to the county attorney team for analysis.

Alan, Adams County staff, gave the budget overview, saying the state must close an estimated $700 million to $900 million gap in the current fiscal year. "They're hoping to get about $300,000,000 from... tax corporate local loophole bills," Alan said. He said the administration plans to use a three-part approach: roughly $300 million from tax changes, about $300 million by dipping into the state's reserve (reducing it 2 to 2.5 percentage points from 15%), and about $300 million in cuts to spending. Alan added that the governor likely will use executive authority, with consultation from the Joint Budget Committee, to implement cuts after session wraps and that one likely rollback would be Medicaid provider rate increases from the prior session.

The AI discussion centered on how liability would be allocated if AI-driven systems produced discriminatory outcomes. Jennifer, identified in the meeting as part of the county attorney team, summarized a provision in one draft: "as the county uses AI... if that AI then results in discrimination against a protected class, we cannot use the fact that it was AI as a defense." That formulation would shift legal exposure to the county as the user rather than to the developer.

County staff and commissioners discussed two primary drafts. Commissioners were told that a bill sponsored by Sen. Robert Rodriguez would split liability between the developer and the county, while another draft (referred to in the packet as the Lindset/Linstev draft) would require developers to indemnify the county but still would not allow the county to assert AI use as a defense. "Both of them say that if the systems that we use result in actual discrimination against a human, that we cannot use the fact that we were using a AI as a defense," Jennifer said.

Commissioners pressed staff on practical implications. Commissioner Julie asked whether indemnification clauses would be required or optional in contracts and worried about the cost of obtaining indemnity. Commissioner Emma and others pointed out that indemnification may be expensive and that indemnity may not fully protect the county if, for example, an elected office or an autonomous department adopted AI without county operational control. "If we can't use it as a defense in either case, it's whether we wanna split the damages 50-50 or we wanna pay to indemnify ourselves," one commissioner said.

County staff described internal safeguards already under development. Heidi, part of the county's policy work, and other staff said a draft AI policy is expected to be presented in September that would include principles such as using AI to complement but not replace human decision-making, oversight to prevent discrimination, and human final decision authority. As described in the meeting, the guiding principles include "complementing decision making but not replacing any human decision making," and ensuring "humans are making the final decision."

Direction from the briefing: staff will continue to monitor committee action and amendments, keep the county attorney team involved, and alert commissioners if there is an "inflection point" where one bill clearly worsens local government exposure. Allen said she had prepared a comparison chart for the four bills and would keep commissioners updated; she noted the Rodriguez draft had left committee and was awaiting appropriations while the other draft remained in committee and might be amended.

No formal motions or votes were taken during the briefing. The discussion closed with commissioners asking staff to return analyses and to notify them quickly if lobbying or committee changes made one outcome materially worse for the county.

Ending: Staff said they would keep commissioners informed while the special session progressed and would provide a written comparison of the four AI bills and any significant amendments, and commissioners reiterated they would engage if staff identified a clear point at which local government exposure materially increased.