Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Elbert County lobbyists say competing data‑center bills face long odds as state budget tightens
Summary
Elbert County lobbyists told commissioners that House Bill 26‑1030 (a proposed 100% sales‑tax exemption for data‑center equipment) and Senate Bill 102 (environmental restrictions) are in tension, carry sizeable fiscal impacts, and may stall as lawmakers confront a $1.5 billion shortfall.
Steve Belsky and Tim Coleman, Elbert County’s lobbyists, briefed the Board on two competing data‑center measures and warned that the bills face an uphill path as the legislature grapples with a large budget shortfall.
The lobbyists said HB 26‑1030, introduced on the first day of session, originally would grant a 100% state sales and use tax exemption for qualified data‑center purchases. They also described SB 102 as effectively the opposite proposal — a bill from environmental proponents that would require renewable energy and other siting restrictions and carry no incentives. “Those two bills are certainly being played off of each other,” the lobbyists told the Board.
Why it matters: the lobbyists said the bills present a fiscal and political tradeoff. They cited a fiscal‑note estimate of about $4.4 million in reduced revenue next year that could grow into the tens of millions in later years, which they said makes a broad tax exemption politically difficult while the state is cutting programs.
Details from the briefing: the lobbyists said HB 26‑1030 would create an approval board and eligibility hoops — including potential application fees — that supporters argue would offset some cost by producing construction jobs and later property tax revenues. The briefing also noted pushback from environmental groups and labor organizations and referenced Microsoft’s public stance that it does not seek incentives for new Colorado data centers. The lobbyists predicted that, absent significant revisions, both bills risk being postponed or failing to reach final approval.
Board context: commissioners pressed the lobbyists on why a 100% sales‑tax exemption would be offered while the state faces a large budget gap. The lobbyists answered that proponents argue job creation and local property tax benefits would offset revenue loss, but they expressed skepticism that long‑term employment numbers would meet those projections.
What’s next: lobbyists said they expected continued negotiations and potential strike‑below amendments; they urged commissioners to monitor any amendments closely. No formal county action or vote on either bill occurred during the briefing.
