TABOR sometimes challenges municipal attorneys to define the difference between a “tax” and a “fee” and explain when the adoption or increase of either may require voter approval.  A decision rendered by the Colorado Supreme Court on September 23, 2019 sheds new light on changes to fee regimes that actually pre-date the adoption of TABOR.

Earlier this month, the Colorado Supreme Court blocked an attempt to expand the Open Meetings Law (OML) to include meetings of two or more persons in the staff of a public agency. A group of doctors, who had been referred to the State Medical Board due to suspicious patterns of behavior in recommending medical marijuana, sued alleging the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) violated the Colorado Open Meetings Law (OML) by having staff create and enforce a policy for medical marijuana referrals. The doctors argued the definition of state public body within OML—which mirrors the definition of local public body—includes staff members when making internal agency policies. The Colorado Supreme Court disagreed with the doctors, articulating the “absurd result” of having all state agency staff—and potentially local government staff—follow the involved OML requirements for routine conversations. Surely, the legislature did not intend such a result.

The Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) and Open Meetings Law (OML) require all public bodies in the state to announce the “finalists” when filling an “executive position.”  These laws typically apply to municipal governing bodies when hiring a city manager or town administrator.  A recent case arising out of the University of Colorado may affect how municipalities understand and apply these laws.