Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Legislation Fiscal Impact topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rio Blanco commissioners discuss asking CCI to press for clearer county fiscal notes, and to track fee increases
Summary
At a July 8 Rio Blanco County work session commissioners asked staff to pursue Colorado Counties, Inc. involvement to ensure legislative fiscal notes and fee changes account for county impacts; they discussed TABOR, recent recording fee changes and a fast CCI deadline for proposed legislative priorities.
Rio Blanco County commissioners on July 8 discussed asking Colorado Counties, Inc. (CCI) to press for clearer fiscal analyses of proposed state legislation and to track fee increases that affect county budgets.
Commissioners said they want CCI to push for fiscal notes that explicitly account for costs to counties and other local subdivisions, and to clarify how some state-level fee changes are implemented. “CCI is interested in that conversation and would be a good voice to pressure them into paying more attention to that,” one commissioner said during the work session.
The discussion centered on two linked concerns. First, commissioners said some fiscal notes attached to bills or ballot initiatives appear inaccurate or inconsistently applied. One commissioner cited a program whose projected cost rose from an initial estimate of “$300,000” to “$3,000,000 a year” once implemented, and said lobbyists have questioned how those numbers were derived. Second, the commissioners raised a separate concern about state agencies or officials increasing fees outside the regular legislative process and effectively circumventing TABOR (the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights).
A county staff member noted that Colorado’s Legislative Council Staff prepares fiscal notes for bills, and commissioners discussed whether CCI should request that those fiscal analyses explicitly include county-level impacts. One commissioner said the CCI legislative agenda proposals are due in roughly two weeks and noted CCI’s priorities meeting is scheduled for July 25; members asked staff to draft possible language to submit to CCI.
Commissioners also referenced a specific statute change they said modified recording fees earlier this year. During the discussion a staff member cited “24 12 69” as the bill that modified recording fees for the secretary of state and county clerks’ offices; commissioners asked staff to confirm exact citation language for inclusion in any CCI request.
On fees more broadly, commissioners described recent fee additions and adjustments — including examples that appeared as small-fee add-ons to vehicle purchases — and expressed concern about the cumulative fiscal effects on county finances and on residents. One commissioner said such fees “just keep going up and up” and expressed interest in pursuing legislation or CCI advocacy to address the problem.
Commissioners also reviewed the list of informal CCI working groups (housing/land use, renewable energy, human services/behavioral health, early childhood, agriculture, wildfire, revenue and road maintenance) and discussed whether to divide representation so Rio Blanco retains a voice across topic areas. One commissioner volunteered to continue with agricultural and wildfire groups; others agreed to take renewable energy, housing and revenue as available.
Next steps recorded at the work session: county staff agreed to draft language for CCI on requesting more explicit county fiscal impacts in legislative fiscal notes, to confirm the precise statutory citation for recent recording fee changes, and to follow up about CCI subcommittee participation and which commissioners will represent the county.
The conversation took place during a work session (no formal decisions were made), and commissioners acknowledged the schedule constraints for CCI submissions.
