By Jen Schumann | Rocky Mountain Voice
Colorado counties say they’re done footing the bill for laws they didn’t fund. Citing a 1991 statute and more than $361 million in unfunded mandates, the Fix It or Fund It coalition is asserting that if the state won’t pay, local governments won’t comply.
Mesa County Commissioner Bobbie Daniel didn’t set out to launch a statewide revolt. Two years ago, she created a spreadsheet to track state mandates that came without funding. The goal was to help department heads navigate budgeting headaches. But that quiet act of accounting has since grown into something far louder—a bipartisan movement spanning more than 36 counties, with local governments now invoking state law to declare state mandates “optional.”
“We started this whole unfunded mandate tracker… trying to see how I could better serve my constituents,” Daniel explained during a Sept. 29 commission meeting. “But also my department heads, who are having to deal with the significant effects of an unfunded mandate yearly.”
Mesa County alone has estimated more than $10 million annually in costs related to unfunded mandates. If similar burdens are carried by Colorado’s other 63 counties, the statewide impact could exceed $361 million per year.
This isn’t just policy pushback. It’s a legal argument—and a growing number of counties are signaling they are ready to fight it out in court.
County leaders shared an update with residents on their position Sept. 29.
Not just political noise—the statute at the center
A little-known state law, C.R.S. § 29-1-304.5, is central to the counties’ position. Passed in 1991, the statute states that when the State of Colorado increases the level of service required by law, it must also provide adequate funding. If it fails to do so, counties may legally consider those mandates optional.
Daniel echoed that in a recent statement about the growing coalition. “Under C.R.S. § 29-1-304.5, if the State requires a service but doesn’t fund it, that mandate is considered optional for local governments.”
Pueblo County put it even more plainly in its formal letter: “If it does not [fund the mandate], such mandates are not binding—they are optional.”
Mesa County’s own letter, dated July 29, confirmed that staff had been instructed to begin treating several mandates as optional under the statute. That language has since appeared in letters and resolutions from counties across the political spectrum, including Delta, Archuleta, Teller, Grand and Crowley.
One spreadsheet. Thirty-six counties.
As of October, 36 counties had formally submitted letters to state leadership, with at least six more preparing to follow suit. Some modeled their letters after Mesa County’s. Others crafted versions that reflected their unique fiscal environments and infrastructure challenges.
Daniel told fellow commissioners, “We have over 30 counties that have sent letters… and each county is sending different concerns reflective of their unique situations. But the real exciting thing is counties are joining together to communicate that this is a real problem.”
Commissioner Cody Davis emphasized that the effort wasn’t partisan. “It’s not just a Republican-Democrat thing,” he said during the same meeting. “We’ve got everybody who recognizes what unfunded mandates do to counties. Because we have to take those from somewhere. They come from our sheriff department, health department, our roads. They come from somewhere.”
Mesa goes public with the cost of compliance
In early October, Mesa County published a department-by-department list of unfunded mandates and their associated costs. The total tab? More than $8.3 million.
The line-item breakdown lays bare how deeply unfunded mandates are embedded in core county operations.
The District Attorney’s Office is absorbing $3.5 million, including $2.9 million in felony prosecution staffing, $238,420 for crime victim notifications and thousands more for bond hearings, child fatality reviews and risk assessments.
The Sheriff’s Office faces more than $2 million in mandates ranging from bodycam costs and MAT (Medication Assisted Treatment) in county jails to weekend court services and document retention rules.
The IT department is absorbing $1.25 million to comply with cybersecurity and digital accessibility laws.
Facilities and Parks, Human Services, Public Works and the Clerk’s Office are each absorbing six-figure or high five-figure burdens as well.
A full breakdown is published at Mesa County’s Fix It or Fund It webpage:
https://www.mesacounty.us/resident-resources/fix-it-or-fund-it-unfunded-state-mandates
“It’s like the state going out for a lavish dinner, ordering everything on the menu, and then slipping out the back door,” Daniel told the Daily Sentinel.
Daniel also pointed to a proposed landfill regulation that could require Mesa County to spend $9 million up front and another $1 million per year—a cost that is not yet reflected in the current list.
La Plata County, facing similar pressures, estimated an $8 million deficit tied to unfunded mandates in its 2026 budget. In a letter to state leaders, commissioners called the situation “an untenable and unsustainable financial burden.”
What Senate Bill 3 would cost Mesa County
During the Sept. 29 meeting, Commissioner JJ Fletcher flagged Senate Bill 3 as an example of a single bill with outsized impact.
“Mesa County would be on the hook for about $300,000 a year just in training of our sheriff’s deputies and the implementation of the policies that go along with the new gun control laws,” Fletcher said.
Daniel confirmed the $300,000 estimate referenced by Fletcher. But that figure represents only a fraction of what Mesa County’s sheriff’s office is projecting in total unfunded mandates. According to the county’s Fix It or Fund It breakdown, the office faces more than $2 million in annual costs tied to state requirements—ranging from body-worn camera mandates and weekend court staffing to medication-assisted treatment in jails and mandatory in-service training.
A lawful refusal, not a protest
Mesa County’s letter, like many others, included a clear warning:
“This is not a symbolic gesture. It is a deliberate and lawful step rooted in the statute.”
That sentence appears nearly verbatim in letters from Archuleta, Saguache, Delta and Teller counties.
In its official resolution, Crowley County commissioners directed staff to evaluate new mandates and only implement them if sufficient state funding is available.
Grand County’s letter noted that their Sheriff’s Office would require $130,000 annually just to comply with one firearms regulation. The letter also pointed to the broader imbalance counties face, stating, “Rural counties simply do not have the same budget capacity as the larger metropolitan counties.”
Across all letters, counties are requesting similar changes: that all proposed mandates come with accurate fiscal notes, that funding is attached and that the state stop shifting costs downward while claiming progress from above.
A coalition preparing for legal clarity
Mesa County’s legal framework may be tested in the months ahead, particularly if lawmakers continue to advance bills without cost accommodations.
Commissioners Daniel, Davis and Fletcher have emphasized that Mesa County is committed to solving problems collaboratively but will defend its statutory interpretation if necessary.
“When the state hands down new rules without paying for them, local dollars get pulled away from services that you count on,” Daniel said. The statement appears in a video posted on Mesa County’s Fix It or Fund It page.
These letters were provided to Rocky Mountain Voice and will be updated as new ones are received.
![FD863768-0ACF-495E-9D21-2EF784DFFA6B[1]](https://rockymountainvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/FD863768-0ACF-495E-9D21-2EF784DFFA6B1-300x300.png)