Adams County studies new state tax-rebate tool for childcare, food access and behavioral health

Adams County staff on Thursday briefed the Board of County Commissioners on a new state law that lets counties create a countywide program to rebate real property taxes for targeted land uses, and asked for direction on which uses to study first.

The board heard that Senate Bill 24-002, enacted in 2024, allows local governments “to establish and administer an economic incentive program that is a direct rebate of real property taxes,” and that any program adopted by the county must apply countywide and be readopted annually following public hearings. Staff asked the board whether to begin studies of childcare, food access and behavioral-health services under the new authority.

Why it matters: The tool lets the county offer a form of property-tax rebate not previously available to local governments. Because the rebate would reduce property-tax receipts, adopting a program has direct budget implications and requires careful design, municipal coordination and public outreach. It also provides a new lever the county can use to encourage uses it finds “diminishing or unavailable,” such as childcare in some parts of the county.

Staff member Alicia, of the county’s economic development team, briefed the board on how the program works and the likely process. “The legislation defines [an area of specific local concern] as any use of real property in a county that is determined by the board of county commissioners to be diminishing or unavailable based on verifiable data in which the board … declares to be necessary for the preservation of health, safety, or welfare of the residents,” Alicia said. She noted the statute lists four broad categories: attainable and affordable housing; childcare or early childcare education; economic development purposes; and investment in behavioral or mental health.

Staff presented a childcare example the county had prepared to show how a program might operate. County licensing data show 202 licensed childcare facilities across Adams County: 138 are licensed home-based providers, 26 operate in exempt locations such as churches or schools, and 38 are at commercial locations that pay commercial property taxes. In the unincorporated county, staff reported 28 licensed facilities: 19 home-based, 4 exempt and 5 commercial.

Using two sample property assessments, staff illustrated how a rebate could work. One unincorporated example with an assessed value the county cited at $572,000 had an annual property-tax bill staff listed as $15,890; under a hypothetical program the tax liability was shown reduced to about $12,000 (roughly a $3,500 reduction). A municipal example with an assessed value the presentation listed at $820,000 showed a typical tax bill near $27,000 and a potential layered rebate of roughly $7,500. Alicia said these examples are illustrative: the rebate would be a receipt-and-rebate process rather than an immediate deduction from the tax bill.

Commissioners asked practical questions. They raised whether home-based licensed providers could be eligible (staff said licensed home-based providers would appear on the county map and could be studied), how the county would avoid creating loopholes for landlords who host a single qualifying tenant, and whether municipal participation would be required for a full rebate. Staff said the county could start by rebating the county portion of taxes and noted municipalities would need to adopt their own programs to rebate their portions; statutory notice to cities is required before counties hold adoption hearings.

Several commissioners endorsed starting with childcare as a first study topic. Commissioners also suggested the study include food-access gaps (food deserts), behavioral-health and mental-health services, and affordable-housing conversions as possible uses to evaluate. Commissioners asked staff to include fiscal-impact modeling showing the scale of potential rebates for each land-use category before any adoption.

Next steps and process: staff asked the board whether to direct additional study of specific uses and to provide additional feedback via a board survey that staff will collect and use to draft a formal program framework. Staff said any program adopted by the board would require public engagement, annual reevaluation and readoption, and could be modified in subsequent years.

The board directed staff to pursue municipal outreach, to prioritize childcare for an initial study, and to return with fiscal analyses and proposed program language for future review.

Ending: County staff said they will gather municipal feedback, perform detailed fiscal modeling for each land-use option the board prioritizes, and return with a draft program for the board’s consideration later this year.