Elbert County commissioners back online legal notices, support open‑records changes and move to executive session

Elbert County commissioners met Feb. 18 and, after a legislative briefing from county legislative staff, voted to adopt a support position for a bill to allow local governments to publish legally required notices online and for a bill that would modify Colorado's open‑records law. The board then voted to move into an executive session to discuss legal and legislative strategy.

The briefing, delivered by county legislative staff, outlined a bill that would permit counties and municipalities to publish required legal notices on a newspaper’s website in place of a hard‑copy publication. A presenter described the change as “permissive,” telling the board it is intended to give local governments the option to publish notices online and could save time and money for jurisdictions that lack local newspapers.

Commissioners discussed the proposal and indicated support for the measure. Commissioner Schroeder moved to place the county in a support position for both the digital‑publication bill and the open‑records bill; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote.

County presenters also reviewed a range of other bills: a draft to shift state primacy over certain underground injection control wells from EPA to the state (staff cautioned the bill’s language is broad and needs guardrails); a proposal to temporarily lower the property‑tax revenue cap formula for several years beginning in 2027; a Colorado Counties, Inc. initiative addressing methane emission requirements for smaller county landfills (which would grant two years to come into compliance and identify funding avenues); and a proposal imposing significant requirements on large‑load data centers (emissions neutrality, closed‑loop water systems and expanded reporting) that staff said is likely to carry a substantial fiscal note.

On open records, staff said the bill being tracked would modify the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) to expand timeframes for local governments to respond to requests and to provide additional extension authority; staff warned that some provisions (including a business‑solicitations response period) have drawn concern from the governor’s office and might be removed to ensure passage. Presenters said municipalities, counties and special districts generally favor expanded timeframes because they reduce operational pressure on small local governments.

After the briefing the board approved a motion to enter an executive session to discuss legal and legislative strategies and documents protected under CORA’s deliberative‑process privileges. The commissioners voted in favor of entering executive session; staff directed non‑authorized attendees to leave and said the meeting would reopen when the executive session concluded.

The actions recorded at the meeting were procedural positions and an executive‑session vote; no binding county ordinance or budgetary decision was adopted during the public portion of the session. Staff said they will continue to track the listed bills and provide updates to the board as the legislative session progresses.