Serving Colorado's Counties
In an era of rising costs, workforce shortages, and increased service demands, counties must make strategic decisions about staffing and benefits within tight budget constraints. Recent SHRM research found that nearly seven in 10 employers continue to experience difficulty recruiting for full-time positions, reflecting ongoing workforce challenges that also affect county governments. While reducing staffing levels or cutting benefits may seem cost-effective, doing so without a comprehensive analysis can create long-term financial and service-delivery risks.
Below are key questions and considerations that county administrators and department heads should weigh when evaluating staffing structures and benefit allocations as part of the annual budget process.
Which departments are statutorily required, and which services are optional? Are optional services disproportionately consuming county general fund dollars without offsetting revenue or are they only partially funded through outside sources, increasing pressure on county budgets? Counties should consider the return on investment of optional programs, especially those that reduce long-term costs, generate local benefits, or bring in external funding. When possible, track how recovered or reimbursed funds are used and whether they can be reinvested to strengthen internal capacity or reduce future expenses.
Does your department have a legally sound cost allocation system? Are materials, supplies, and staff time correctly billed to outside agencies or programs? Are reimbursable services being fully claimed and are those funds tracked for their impact or reinvested in county operations? Cost recovery systems can generate significant revenue if regularly reviewed and updated, especially when counties maintain a clear financial trail showing how those funds contribute to long-term sustainability or are used locally to support other priorities.
Have you factored in the real cost of time off, including vacation, sick leave, FMLA, and coverage during absences? Can benefits be structured to reduce cost exposure while maintaining employee well-being? Consider modeling both best- and worst-case leave scenarios to understand their budget impact.
Effective benefit design can help recruit and retain reliable, high-performing employees. On the flip side, poorly aligned policies may inadvertently encourage turnover, absenteeism, or retention of underperforming staff. Use workforce data to assess productivity, attendance, and turnover trends.
Which positions are most essential and least flexible during economic downturns? Could any roles be replaced or supplemented with automation, software, or contracted services? Evaluate both short- and long-term costs and risks associated with reducing institutional knowledge.
Before reducing personnel, assess the downstream impact. Will staffing cuts increase demand for emergency aid programs, such as food assistance or senior services? Will reductions in one department shift service burdens and costs to another?
Restructuring staffing and benefit costs can be a powerful part of a sustainable budget strategy, but it requires more than across-the-board cuts or stopgap measures. It calls for a holistic, informed approach that integrates legal mandates, operational priorities, workforce trends, and fiscal responsibility.
CTSI encourages counties to approach personnel and benefit budgeting as an ongoing, strategic process, one that supports both fiscal health and service excellence. For support in analyzing personnel budgets or cost allocation systems, contact CTSI at 303.861.0507.
Boilers and pressure vessels are critical to many county facilities, but they also present significant safety risks if not properly maintained and inspected. Because these systems operate under pressure, routine inspections help identify issues before they result in equipment failure, property damage, injury, or service interruptions.
The Colorado Boiler Inspection Section, part of the Division of Oil and Public Safety, enforces nationally adopted standards for the installation, operation, maintenance, and repair of boilers and pressure vessels. Depending on the equipment's BTU input, inspections are typically required annually or every two to three years.
Initial inspections after installation must be completed by a Colorado Boiler Section Inspector and are subject to applicable state inspection and certificate fees. Subsequent inspections may be performed by a commissioned special inspector, including those employed by an authorized insurance carrier such as Liberty Mutual.
A boiler or pressure vessel inspection evaluates key components that help ensure safe operation, including:
A little preparation can help inspections proceed safely and efficiently. Before the inspector arrives, counties should:
Preparing equipment in advance not only supports a smoother inspection but can also reduce delays if additional follow-up inspections are needed.
CAPP Members may schedule jurisdictional boiler and pressure vessel inspections through Liberty Mutual as part of the Equipment Breakdown coverage included with the program. While equipment owners remain responsible for ensuring inspections are completed, Liberty Mutual provides these inspection services at no additional cost to eligible Members.
To schedule an inspection, contact Liberty Mutual at 877.526.0020 or email
LMEBInspections@LibertyMutual.com. Be prepared to provide:
CAPP Members do not pay an additional fee for jurisdictional boiler and pressure vessel inspections through Liberty Mutual's Equipment Breakdown Program. Counties should schedule required inspections promptly and prepare equipment in advance to support a safe, efficient inspection and identify potential issues before they become costly repairs or equipment failures. For assistance scheduling an inspection or questions regarding equipment breakdown coverage, please contact CTSI at 303.861.0507.
Properly classifying workers as employees or independent contractors is essential for counties. Recent guidance from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and Colorado law reinforces the importance of carefully evaluating each working relationship and applying the stricter of the federal or state standards.
Misclassifying a worker can result in unpaid overtime, back taxes, workers' compensation premiums, unemployment insurance liabilities, and other penalties. Recent enforcement actions illustrate the risk, including a $532,000 back-wage recovery and a $7.2 million judgment against employers that improperly classified workers as independent contractors. Although the federal rule remains under review, Colorado's requirements will generally govern for counties.
Under Colorado law, workers are presumed to be employees unless the county demonstrates both of the following:
An independent contractor designation alone is not enough. The day-to-day working relationship must also support the classification.
Before hiring an independent contractor, counties should ensure the relationship meets legal requirements. Generally, the more control a county has over how work is performed, the more likely the worker is an employee.
Best practices include:
A written agreement is an important first step, but it must accurately reflect how the relationship operates in practice.
Independent contractor agreements should clearly:
A compliant written agreement may help shift the burden of proof under Colorado law, but it does not guarantee that a worker will ultimately be classified as an independent contractor if the day-to-day relationship reflects otherwise.
Worker classification should be reviewed before services begin—not after a concern or claim arises. Counties should regularly evaluate independent contractor relationships, review contract language, and ensure work practices align with Colorado and federal requirements. Proper classification helps reduce wage claims, tax penalties, workers' compensation costs, unemployment liability, and claim exposure. For CWCP Members, it also supports workers' compensation compliance. CTSI will continue monitoring federal developments and provide updates as regulations evolve. For questions, please contact CTSI at 303.861.0507.
When creating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Congress did not want to discourage people from volunteering for civic, charitable, or humanitarian causes. Instead, it wanted to prevent the abuse of minimum wage or overtime requirements through coercion or undue pressure upon individuals to “volunteer” their services.
The FLSA defines a volunteer as an individual who performs hours of service for a public agency for civic, charitable, or humanitarian reasons, without promise, expectation, or receipt of compensation for services rendered.
Volunteers are individuals who offer their services freely and without pressure or coercion from an employer. Private individuals are not restricted from volunteering for any type of service for public agencies.
Individuals are not considered volunteers if they are employed by the same public agency to perform the same type of services as those for which they propose to volunteer. For example, a county nurse cannot volunteer nursing services for that same county.
According to the FLSA (29 CFR 553.106), volunteers may be paid expenses, reasonable benefits, and/or a nominal fee for their services without losing their status as volunteers.
A volunteer may receive:
To determine if an individual will lose their volunteer status under the FLSA, the total amount of payments (expenses, fees, benefits) must be examined in the context of the particular situation's economic realities.
Colorado counties rely on volunteers to perform a range of tasks. Counties should know the rules for when a volunteer can be compensated so that a volunteer’s status does not cross over to an employee under Federal and State law. For more information, contact CTSI at (303) 861-0507.
The IRS has announced the 2027 Health Savings Account (HSA) contribution limits. The self-only limit increased by $100 from 2026, while the family limit increased by $250. The IRS also provided the minimum deductible and maximum out-of-pocket expenses for high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) that function with HSAs. The rates consider inflation, cost-of-living adjustments, and rounding rules under Internal Revenue Code Section 223.
| For 2026 | For 2027 | Change | |
| HSA Contribution Limit (employer & employee) | Self-Only $4,400 Family $8,750 | Self-Only $4,500 Family $9,000 | Self-Only +$100 Family +$250 |
| HSA catch-up contribution (age 55 or older)* | $1,000 | $1,000 | No change (set by statute) |
| HDHP minimum deductibles | Self-Only $1,700 Family $3,400 | Self-Only $1,750 Family $3,500 | Self-Only +$50 Family +$100 |
| HDHP maximum out-of-pocket amounts (deductibles, copays, and other amounts, but not premiums) | Self-Only $8,500 Family $17,000 | Self-Only $8,700 Family $17,400 | Self-Only +$200 Family +$400 |
HSAs are always set up under an individual’s name and are never held jointly. When the HSA is linked to a family or an employee-plus-one HDHP, it is subject to the higher family coverage contribution limit. The IRS has not established an “employee plus one” category for contribution limits.
Individuals enrolled in employee-plus-one coverage will continue to be subject to the family contribution limit. As healthcare costs continue to rise, counties can help employees understand how HSAs may be used to manage current medical expenses and support long-term savings. Reviewing updated IRS limits during open enrollment can help employees make informed decisions about their contributions. The County Health Pool (CHP) will provide updates regarding IRS contribution limits for upcoming years. For any questions or more information, please contact CTSI at 303.861.0507.
Cybersecurity threats continue to evolve, and attackers are increasingly targeting counties through the vendors, software providers, and third-party systems they rely on every day. These incidents, often called supply chain attacks, occur when cybercriminals compromise a trusted outside partner to gain access to county systems or information.
For counties, third-party relationships are essential for daily operations. Outside vendors may support payroll, benefits administration, financial systems, public records, cloud storage, software platforms, and other critical services. While these partnerships create efficiencies, they can also introduce cybersecurity risks if proper safeguards are not in place.
Third-party cybersecurity incidents can happen in several ways. A vendor may experience a data breach, a software provider may have a vulnerability exploited, or an attacker may use compromised vendor credentials to access connected systems.
Common risks include:
Because counties manage sensitive information, including PII, financial records, and employee data, understanding vendor security practices is important to reducing risk.
Cybersecurity should be considered throughout the vendor relationship, from selection and contracting to ongoing monitoring.
Counties should consider:
Vendor agreements should clearly define expectations for protecting information, reporting incidents, and managing access.
Even when an outside provider manages information, counties still have a responsibility to understand how data is protected. Employees also play an important role by following cybersecurity best practices when interacting with vendor platforms.
Employees should:
Cybercriminals often exploit trusted relationships, making awareness and communication essential.
Third-party vendors are valuable partners, but cybersecurity risks do not stop at county systems. As cyber threats become more sophisticated, counties should regularly evaluate vendor relationships, access permissions, and data protection practices. Strengthening vendor oversight can help reduce data breaches, service interruptions, financial impacts, and potential claims affecting counties and CAPP. By treating cybersecurity as a shared responsibility between counties, employees, and trusted partners, counties can better protect information, control costs, and maintain essential services. For questions or additional cybersecurity resources, please contact CTSI at 303.861.0507.
The 2026 legislative session introduced several updates to Colorado’s workers’ compensation system focused on modernization, compliance, workplace protections, and administrative processes. While these changes vary in scope, counties should understand how new requirements may affect claims management, safety practices, and overall workers’ compensation operations.
SB26-093 focuses on ensuring compliance with workers’ compensation insurance coverage requirements. The legislation strengthens oversight of employer responsibilities and supports efforts to confirm appropriate coverage is maintained. Maintaining proper workers’ compensation coverage is essential to protect employees and reduce potential liability exposure. Counties should continue reviewing employee classifications, documentation, and contract requirements, including verifying workers’ compensation coverage limits of approximately $1 million as a best practice.
SB26-175 addresses adjustments to an employer’s experience modification factor, which is used in determining workers’ compensation premium calculations. The bill updates how certain information may impact an employer’s experience modification factor. Counties should understand how claims experience and program changes may affect future workers’ compensation costs.
SB26-186 updates the Workers’ Compensation Act of Colorado to reflect current technology needs and practices. These updates help modernize processes and improve efficiency within the workers’ compensation system.
Key areas include:
HB26-1272 establishes worker protections related to changing climate conditions and workplace risks. As weather events and environmental conditions evolve, employers should evaluate potential impacts on employee safety, particularly for employees working outdoors or in changing environments.
Considerations may include:
HB26-1017 prohibits an insurer from receiving restitution through the criminal restitution process. While this change primarily affects insurance recovery processes, counties should understand that claim-related financial recovery options may be impacted when criminal proceedings are involved.
HB26-1405 authorizes transfers from certain cash funds to the state General Fund. Although not specific to individual workers’ compensation claims, changes involving state funds may impact program administration and future funding structures.
The 2026 legislative updates reinforce the importance of maintaining strong workers’ compensation practices, accurate documentation, and proactive safety programs. Counties should review internal policies, employee communications, and claims management procedures to ensure alignment with updated requirements. Continued focus on workplace safety, timely reporting, and compliance helps protect employees, manage claim costs, and reduce risk. CWCP will continue monitoring regulatory updates and, if a member of CWCP, know that CWCP will remain compliant with legislative changes. For questions or support related to workers’ compensation changes, please contact CTSI at 303.861.0507.
County vehicles are essential tools for delivering services and supporting community programs. In some cases, counties may consider allowing vehicles to transport participants, volunteers, or individuals involved in county-supported activities, including programs coordinated with outside organizations.
While these arrangements may support valuable community services, counties should carefully evaluate the potential risks before allowing county-owned vehicles to be used. Establishing clear expectations for vehicle use, authorized drivers, passengers, and travel limitations can help reduce liability exposure and protect county resources.
If a county chooses to allow a county vehicle to be used for community programs or activities, members of the Colorado Counties Casualty and Property Pool (CAPP) have coverage for this practice. However, counties should understand the potential impact of an accident.
When a county vehicle is involved in an accident, and the county driver is determined to be at fault, the loss may be charged against the county’s loss experience. Increased losses can impact a county’s loss ratio and may affect future CAPP contributions.
The Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA) provides certain protections and limitations for public entities. Effective January 1, 2026, CGIA claim limitations are:
However, counties should understand that these limitations may not fully address all financial impacts associated with a vehicle accident. For example, medical expenses, claim costs, and other impacts may create challenges when multiple individuals are involved.
Additionally, when a county vehicle is taken outside Colorado, CGIA protections and claim limitations may not apply. This could result in increased exposure for the county. Counties should carefully evaluate the use of out-of-state vehicles and establish guidelines to manage potential risks.
To help reduce risk, counties should develop and consistently follow policies outlining appropriate county vehicle use.
Consider the following practices:
Counties should also consider requiring appropriate waivers or agreements when transporting non-employees. Any waiver or transfer-of-risk document should be reviewed by the county attorney before implementation.
Allowing county vehicles to be used for community programs can provide important support and services, but counties should understand the associated responsibilities and potential risks. While CAPP provides coverage for approved county vehicle use, strong policies and consistent procedures are important tools for reducing claims and protecting county resources. Reviewing who is permitted to drive, where vehicles may travel, and how passengers are approved can help counties better manage risk. For questions regarding county vehicle use, coverage considerations, or risk management practices, please contact CTSI at 303.861.0507.
More than three decades after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), accessibility remains an important responsibility for county governments. The ADA is a civil rights law designed to ensure individuals with disabilities have equal access to employment, public services, programs, activities, and facilities. For counties, compliance extends beyond physical accessibility and requires an ongoing commitment to removing barriers and providing reasonable accommodations.
The need for accessible government services remains significant. According to recent Colorado data, approximately 11% of Coloradans—more than 625,000 people—live with a disability, while roughly 335,000 working-age Coloradans report being unable to work because of a disability. Nationally, more than one in four adults has some form of disability.
Under Title II of the ADA, state and local governments must provide qualified individuals with disabilities equal access to public programs, services, and activities, including making reasonable modifications when necessary. Disabilities may be physical, mental, cognitive, sensory, or emotional, and while some are visible, others—such as anxiety, depression, diabetes, learning disabilities, or chronic illnesses—may not be immediately apparent.
Counties should regularly review the following areas:
A key component of ADA compliance is engaging in an interactive process when an accommodation request is received. Requests may be made verbally or in writing and do not require specific legal language. Once a need is identified, counties should work with the individual to determine a reasonable accommodation. When necessary, additional documentation may be requested to evaluate options. The goal is to engage in good-faith discussions and identify an effective solution that does not create an undue hardship on county operations.
ADA compliance is an ongoing process rather than a one-time project. Counties should regularly evaluate facilities, communications, websites, and service delivery methods to identify barriers and improve accessibility. Equally important is fostering a culture that recognizes disability rights as civil rights and seeks practical solutions through flexibility and collaboration. By proactively addressing accessibility concerns, maintaining required policies and procedures, and engaging in meaningful dialogue with employees, counties can reduce the risk of complaints and claims, improve service delivery, and ensure all community members have equal access to county programs and services. For more information, please contact CTSI at 303.861.0507.
As pets become increasingly common in public spaces, many counties are exploring whether to allow animals in the workplace. A pet-friendly office may improve morale and serve as a recruitment tool, but it can also create operational and safety concerns that counties should carefully evaluate. At the same time, counties must understand the legal distinction between pets and service animals, particularly under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Colorado law.
A service animal is not considered a pet. Under the ADA, service animals are limited to trained dogs or miniature horses that are individually trained to perform tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability. These animals are considered an extension of the individual and are protected under both federal and Colorado law. Colorado law requires employers to allow an employee with a disability to keep a service animal in the workplace unless doing so would create an undue hardship. This requirement applies even if a county otherwise prohibits pets in the workplace.
Service animals must remain under the handler’s control at all times and should be harnessed, leashed, or tethered unless the handler’s disability prevents the use of those devices. Employers may require the removal of a service animal if it becomes aggressive, disruptive, or unhousebroken.
While service animals are legally protected, employers generally have discretion regarding whether ordinary pets are permitted in the workplace. Colorado does not currently have a state law governing pets in the workplace. Counties that choose to allow pets should establish clear policies outlining acceptable behavior, supervision requirements, designated pet areas, and expectations for owners. Employers should also consider employee health and comfort, including allergies, asthma, or fears related to animals. In some situations, accommodations may be needed for both employees with disabilities who use service animals and employees with animal-related medical conditions under the ADA.
Liability is another major concern. Even well-behaved animals can behave unpredictably in unfamiliar or stressful situations. Bites, scratches, trips, and property damage can expose counties to claims and workplace disruptions. Before allowing pets into county facilities, employers may want to require employees to verify homeowner’s or renter’s insurance coverage for incidents involving their animals and establish agreements addressing responsibility for any property damage caused by pets.
Safety risks increase significantly around equipment, vehicles, and maintenance operations. Animals can become distractions or create sudden obstructions in areas where heavy equipment is being operated. Pets should never be permitted in hazardous work zones or around machinery. Clearly defined pet-free areas and consistent enforcement of workplace safety policies are critical to reducing risk.
Additional practical considerations may include cleanliness, vaccination requirements, parasite prevention, noise, visitor interactions, and employee break requests to care for pets during the workday. Counties should evaluate whether allowing pets aligns with operational needs, public interactions, and workplace culture before implementing any pet-friendly policy.
Colorado has no state laws specifically addressing pets in the workplace, giving counties discretion to establish their own policies. However, counties should understand the important distinction between discretionary pet policies and legally protected service animals, which are generally required to be accommodated under state and federal law. Because pets in the workplace can create safety, operational, and liability concerns, CTSI does not recommend allowing them without clear written policies and consistent enforcement. Poorly behaved pets can create distractions, cause property damage, or pose safety risks to employees and the public. For more information, please contact CTSI at 303.861.0507.
