Western Slope counties weigh treating some Colorado laws as ‘unfunded mandates’

Colorado counties on the Western Slope wrote to state leaders expressing their intention to treat enforcement of certain state laws optional under a provision in Colorado statutes that says the state must provide adequate funding if it mandates an increase in services. 

County commissioners in Mesa and Garfield counties said the Colorado Legislature needs to reconsider the volume and scope of “unfunded mandates,” as they require county governments to dedicate more time and resources without the financial support to do so. They also said Colorado Gov. Jared Polis should veto such policies. 

“These unfunded mandates, issued without the financial support required to implement them, place an unsustainable burden on local governments and the citizens we serve and undermining both fiscal responsibility and the principle of local control,” both counties said in their letters, addressed to Polis, Senate President James Coleman and House Speaker Julie McCluskie, all Democrats.

Both county letters referenced a provision in Colorado statute that says when the state increases the level of service required by law, it must provide adequate funding to do so, or the mandates are considered optional. Mesa County’s letter said it instructed county staff to begin considering certain laws that don’t include state funding as optional and that county attorneys are “prepared to defend our exercise of statutory remedies,” though commissioners hope “this does not lead to unnecessary litigation.”

“As elected officials representing communities of diverse political perspectives, we are united in our commitment to uphold this statutory protection and exercise it with discretion,” both letters said. 

Mesa County Commissioner Bobbie Daniel told Newsline that counties “across Colorado” plan to send similar letters, which they are reviewing “with their respective boards, legal, risk, and finance teams.”

While Garfield County’s letter did not address any specific laws of concern, Mesa County highlighted five laws commissioners said will lead to “substantial, uncompensated costs.” That includes a 2023 law that establishes a wildfire resiliency code board and a 2024 law that prohibits local governments from using certain forms of turf. Three other laws highlighted in the letter, all passed in 2021, concern energy benchmarking and performance standards, law enforcement accountability and information technology. 

Mesa County estimated the laws could each cost the county hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.

Republican support for the laws

The 2024 turf restriction law and the 2021 information technology law both passed the Legislature with bipartisan support in a House and Senate with Democratic majorities. Republican state Sen. Janice Rich of Grand Junction in Mesa County voted in favor of both of those policies, but said she supports her county commissioners and their letter “100%.” 

“Over the last seven years that I’ve been in the Legislature, time and time again it’s been unfunded mandates that have come down and burdened the local government,” Rich said. “I worked in local government for 16 years, I was the elected county clerk for eight years and the elected treasurer, and I know and I understand what those burdens are when the state puts that burden on local government.” 

Other Mesa County Republicans in the Legislature, Rep. Rick Taggart of Grand Junction and Rep. Matt Soper of Delta, voted in support of some of the laws, too.  

Rich said the standard language to describe how a bill will affect local government spending is “minimal impact,” and that any attempts to debate that on the floor “just falls on deaf ears.” She said she likely “took their word for it at the time” when she voted in support of those policies.

“If the majority party comes right out and admits that it’s an unfunded mandate, they know full well it’s probably not going to pass,” Rich said. 

In a statement emailed to Newsline, McCluskie said the laws Mesa County wrote about “are important for public safety, water conservation and wildfire protection.” 

“I deeply value our partnership with local governments, and I am always willing to collaborate and engage in productive discussions with them about the issues they are raising,” McCluskie said in a statement. “Additionally, we expect counties will soon face a flood of new inquiries due to the devastating impacts of H.R. 1, especially regarding Medicaid and SNAP. It is crucial now more than ever to work together so we can better serve the people of Colorado.” 

H.R.1, also known as President Donald Trump’s “big beautiful bill,” is the tax break and spending cut bill recently passed by Congress.

Eric Maruyama, spokesperson for Polis, said in a statement that bills are funded based on fiscal analysis from nonpartisan staff at the Legislature in accordance with state law, though the governor is “open to suggestions about how to reduce costs.”

“Major items like reducing fire risk and protecting our water are truly statewide concerns,” Maruyama said. “The Governor is on the Western Slope regularly meeting with businesses and hardworking Coloradans, and appreciates hearing from any county commissioners and understands the importance of ensuring local tax dollars are used to maximize the quality of life for Coloradans.”

Editor’s note: This story first appeared on Colorado Newsline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Colorado Newsline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Quentin Young for questions: info@coloradonewsline.com.