Summary#

HCR 26-1003, titled “Nonmortgage Property Tax Exemption,” proposed an amendment to the Colorado Constitution. Its goal was to let a county exempt certain mortgage-free, owner-occupied homes from that county’s property tax. The bill status provided says it failed, so the proposed amendment did not take effect.

• If approved by voters, the exemption would apply only in counties whose boards of county commissioners adopted a resolution allowing it.
• In those counties, an eligible single-family home used as its owner-occupier’s primary residence would be exempt from county property tax revenue otherwise retained by the county, starting with tax years beginning January 1, 2027.
• To qualify, the owner-occupier would have to own the home outright, without a mortgage, and occupy it as their primary residence on the assessment date.
• The resolution proposed putting the amendment to voters on November 3, 2026. It required at least 55% of voters voting on it to approve it.

What it means for you#

• Homeowners: Because the resolution failed, it does not create a property-tax exemption. Under the proposal, a qualifying homeowner would have received an exemption only from county property tax in a county that chose to allow it. It would not exempt the home from taxes imposed by other taxing authorities.
• Homeowners with a mortgage: The proposal would not have covered homes with a mortgage, even if they were owner-occupied primary residences.
• County commissioners: If the amendment had passed, a county board could have adopted a resolution to allow the exemption. The proposal did not require counties to do so.
• Other taxpayers: The proposal did not state whether or how a county would replace revenue lost through exemptions.

Money#

No publicly available information on estimated revenue losses or administrative costs.

• If adopted by a county, the exemption would reduce county property-tax revenue from qualifying homes.
• The resolution provides no estimate of how many homes would qualify, the revenue counties might lose, or any administrative costs.
• It does not provide replacement funding for counties.

What is unclear#

• “Residential real property” is to be defined by law, but that definition is not included in the supplied materials.
• The proposal does not explain how a county would administer the exemption, verify eligibility, or handle changes in ownership or occupancy.
• The supplied materials do not include current property-tax law, so I cannot verify how the proposal would interact with existing exemptions or other rules.
• The text does not set income or age limits; it makes owning the property outright and occupying it as a primary residence key eligibility conditions.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the proposal is that it would reduce county property taxes for people who own and live in a mortgage-free single-family home.
• Letting each county choose whether to allow the exemption would give counties local control over whether to reduce this tax revenue.
• The exemption’s conditions are stated in the proposed constitutional text, including the primary-residence and no-mortgage requirements.

Case against#

• One concern is that the proposal would reduce county revenue without stating how counties could replace it or what services might be affected.
• The mortgage-free requirement would exclude homeowners with mortgages, even if their homes were otherwise similar.
• The proposal does not set an income limit, so it does not target the exemption by household income.
• It leaves key details—such as the definition of residential real property and how eligibility would be checked—to other law or county administration.