Whenever I hear Colorado politicians pitch a new fee, I think of Indigo Montoya’s line from, “The Princess Bride”: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

All too many fees assessed by our state government — dressed in all kinds of gimmickry — aren’t really fees at all. They’re taxes packaged as “fees.”

I’ve often warned about this. With a new lawsuit filed last week against a pair of false fees, it bears repeating.

Last year, a “grand bargain” was cut between Colorado’s oil and gas industry and overzealous state legislators bent on crippling an industry critical to the state’s economy. The resulting legislation, Senate Bill 24-230, manufactured two new “fees” imposed on energy producers — directed to public transit, passenger rail, wildlife and land remediation projects.

Those fees are collected by the Clean Transit Enterprise and the Division of Parks and Wildlife.

On paper, it sounds nice: Oil and gas chip in for some feel-good environmental projects, and it was seemingly negotiated as a fair trade. They pay the fees, and worse things won’t happen.

Not so fast. Call it what you want — the constitution still calls it something else.

State court precedent is clear that fees must provide a “specific service to the persons upon whom the fee is imposed,” with rates that are “reasonably calculated” based on the benefits. Moreover, the “primary purpose of the charge” must offset “reasonable direct and indirect costs” of a provided service or regulated activity.

Consider state park fees: You pay to use the park, but you don’t pay if you don’t use it — and the proceeds are meant to cover park costs, not other things.

The SB230 production fees aren’t fees at all. They have zero connection to the projects they fund.

Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights is clear, as well: Voters must approve any and all tax increases at the ballot box. Slapping the “fee” label on a tax to dodge TABOR doesn’t make it so, no matter how many times Democrats have attempted to redefine it.

And let’s be clear: They keep doing it.

In 2021, Democrats passed Senate Bill 260, overriding when voters rejected a transportation tax hike in 2018. They magically transformed those same taxes into “fees” — slapped on every Uber ride, DoorDash delivery and Amazon package, plus a $5.23-a-day rental car fee.

They even created a new gas “fee,” identical to the gas tax we already pay — and are supposed to vote on any potential increases.

Transportation-related fees had always been used to upgrade and maintain existing infrastructure, but SB260 changed that to support Gov. Jared Polis’ environmental agenda instead — funding things like electric vehicle charging stations, bike lanes and subsidies. Not a dime for roads, bridges and highways.

In order to pass constitutional muster, the legislature should at least pretend a fee pays for the service used by those who pay it. That isn’t the case with SB260. Here again, SB230 follows the same playbook.

Enter the conservative nonprofit Advance Colorado, which filed suit last week challenging the legality of SB230’s fees, which fly in the face of previous court rulings on fees.

“This is the most egregious, out-of-bounds ‘fee’ we’ve ever seen in Colorado. It’s clearly a tax — and that means it needed voter approval,” Advance’s President Michael Fields said. “(W)e filed this case to protect citizens’ right to not be charged illegitimate taxes that the legislature wants to call a ‘fee’ for their own convenience.”

He’s spot-on. SB230 doesn’t just violate TABOR itself — it also violates Proposition 117, which voters passed in 2020. It forbids lawmakers from imposing any new fee expected to collect $100 million or more for a state enterprise within its first five years without taking it to the ballot.

In other words, even if SB230 could somehow be lawfully considered fees rather than taxes, voters still had the right to vote on them.

And the problems don’t stop there. SB230 also skirted the state constitution’s requirements for passage.

Colorado’s single-subject rule requires both legislation and ballot measures to stick to one clear purpose. That’s why the state’s Title Board recently blocked two proposed 2026 ballot measures that would have scrapped Colorado’s flat tax and replaced it with a progressive income tax.

The same applies here, Advance argues: SB230 “imposed two separate fees that benefit at least two distinct and separate purposes that are not connected with each other.” That’s a textbook single-subject violation.

At what point does this just become a game for legislators? Sure, transit and environmental projects may be worthy causes. And yes, the oil and gas industry agreed to this “grand bargain.” But none of that alters the reality: simply labeling a tax a “fee” doesn’t make it any more legal or constitutional.

Colorado voters have been crystal clear, time and time again, through TABOR, Prop 117 and other initiatives. If politicians want to raise taxes or create massive new fees, they must ask first. No amount of wordplay or political dealmaking can change that — and it certainly doesn’t excuse lawmakers from following the rules voters set.

Jimmy Sengenberger is an investigative journalist, public speaker, and longtime local talk-radio host. Reach Jimmy online at Jimmysengenberger.com or on X (formerly Twitter) @SengCenter.