Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget Legislative Update topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Elbert County lobbyists warn state budget shortfall could push costs onto counties
Summary
County lobbyists told commissioners on April 1 that a projected $1 billion–$1.5 billion state shortfall will dominate the legislative session, likely killing measures with fiscal notes and increasing pressure to shift costs to local governments; lobbyists also reviewed 35 bills the county is tracking, including utility, elections and wildfire-related measures.
ELBERT COUNTY, Colo. — Elbert County commissioners on April 1 heard from the county’s lobbyists that a large state revenue shortfall is likely to shape the remainder of the legislative session and could result in more responsibilities being shifted to counties.
"Today is day 78 of 120 days," lobbyist Tim Colman told the board, noting two conflicting March revenue forecasts: the Office of State Planning and Budget projecting about a $1 billion shortfall and Legislative Council staff projecting about $1.5 billion. "That nexus of about $500 million is really going to dictate how the rest of this legislative session goes," he said.
Why it matters: Lobbyists said the Joint Budget Committee’s choice of forecast will determine how much the state trims programs and whether lawmakers try to move costs onto local governments. With the budget likely to be introduced soon, Colman said bills that increase state general-fund obligations face an uphill fight.
Lobbyist Steve Balesierrovic told commissioners the county is "actively lobbying on 35 bills on Elbert County's behalf," and warned that proposals with state fiscal impacts are vulnerable. "Anything with a fiscal note will be on the chopping block," he said, adding that if a measure requires ongoing state general-fund dollars "anything more than $10,000, you're probably DOA." The lobbyists said they are watching for sponsors to strip state funding and leave mandates to local governments or to convert proposals to cash-funded approaches (for example, permit fees).
What lobbyists highlighted: The board received a bill-tracking packet and a brief review of legislation affecting county interests:
- Housing: A revived bill to allow nonprofits a use-by-right option for developing affordable housing (referred to in the packet as House Bill 261001) has moved forward and was signed by the governor despite opposition from municipal and county associations.
- Data centers: Two opposing measures — a data center/utility modernization bill and an anti-data-center siting bill (identified in the packet as House Bill 1030 and Senate Bill 102) — remained at an impasse; the governor convened principals to seek a negotiated path forward.
- Election procedures: House Bill 1080, proposing bipartisan panels for mail-ballot signature verification, has support from the county clerk (Rhonda) but was stalled after a Democratic co-sponsor withdrew and the county clerk association showed signs of division.
- Digital legal notices: The county supports a bill to permit required local-government notices to be published online for free (packet reference House Bill 261095); that bill had passed committee and the Senate and was likely to be considered in the House for adoption of Senate amendments.
- Utilities and PUC sunset: Lobbyists discussed a package tied to the Public Utilities Commission sunset bill (packet reference House Bill 261326) and said stakeholders including utility interests were seeking multiple amendments that could alter PUC authority over certain land-use disputes.
- Worker safety and other regulations: A bill to address extreme-temperature protections in the workplace (packet reference House Bill 1272) originally carried large fiscal notes (reported as roughly $400,000 the first year and $5 million ongoing) but was amended to narrow the scope and reduce the estimated fiscal impact to about $130,000; lobbyists said the bill could be further amended or postponed amid the tight budget.
- Rodenticides and other matters: The county maintained an opposed position on a narrower version of a rodenticide restriction bill (packet reference Senate Bill 62); the bill had been amended to require applicator licensing for some products and to allow newer rodenticides under certain conditions.
Board discussion and next steps: Commissioners asked questions about which measures might survive the session and whether the state would shift responsibilities to counties. One participant, who identified himself as Dallas, asked whether items carrying any fiscal note were effectively dead; lobbyists answered that cash-funded approaches could survive but general-fund costs would be targeted.
The lobbyists also noted timing uncertainties tied to the budget introduction and committee schedules, and they offered to coordinate testimony (they mentioned preparing fact sheets and helping register commissioners for hearings). Commissioners indicated they would follow up on specific items and that one commissioner planned to testify in person on a wildfire-resiliency related bill when it is scheduled.
No formal policy votes were taken by the board at the meeting. The session concluded after routine closing remarks and a motion to adjourn.
What’s next: Lobbyists said they will continue to track the bills and notify the board about hearings and potential amendments; several items may be amended, postponed, or reshaped once the Joint Budget Committee selects a revenue forecast and the budget is introduced.
