Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grand County officials warn House bill allowing differential mill levies could create costly, complex mandates
Summary
The county assessor and treasurer told commissioners that House Bill 261119—which would let local governments impose higher mill levies on certain vacant land—could impose heavy software and administrative costs, shift tax burdens and create unintended consequences for local businesses and property owners.
Assessor Larry Banman and Treasurer Marcy Wheatley told the Grand County Board of County Commissioners on Feb. 17 that House Bill 261119, which would allow counties, municipalities and many special districts to impose different mill levies on specified land or improvements, could create significant administrative burdens and unintended tax shifts.
Banman said the bill’s mechanics would force counties to change how property taxes are calculated and reported. “The bill is essentially to allow local governments and certain… special districts to impose property taxes… at different mill levy rates,” he said, outlining a flowchart that contrasts current single‑rate calculations with the multiple‑rate scenario the bill would permit.
Why it matters: Banman and Wheatley warned that county tax software vendors are already struggling with a recent change to two residential assessment rates and that a new mandate to support multiple mill levies could require upgrades costing “in the millions,” a cost the counties would have to absorb or pass on. They also said the bill could shift tax burdens in unpredictable ways—penalizing land‑intensive uses such as trailer parks, some dealerships or large vacant lots while creating winners and losers among neighboring properties.
Commissioners and staff pressed for clarity on whether the change would require voter approval where total tax revenue increases, and whether jurisdictions would only act after a local ballot. Banman said municipalities would place the measure on local ballots if they choose to pursue it; libraries, schools and certain exempt districts are barred from adopting the rates under the bill’s draft.
Several commissioners and attendees described the proposal as potentially an “unfunded mandate.” One commissioner asked whether the software upgrades would be likely to increase county costs by “$1,000,000” or more; staff said they could not yet quantify total costs but that vendors and county offices had reported high price estimates.
What’s next: Banman said the bill is scheduled for a House Finance Committee hearing in early March and urged coordination through the Colorado Counties, Inc. (CCI) and the assessors’ association. Commissioners asked staff to follow up with state and regional peers and to bring local impact analyses to upcoming meetings.
Provenance: County presentation and discussion on HB 261119 (Assessor and Treasurer) (topicintro SEG 250; topfinish SEG 736).
