HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2026-03-24Informal discussion among Trustees and staff concerning agenda items or other Town
matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 2:45 p.m.
Town Board of Trustees Study Session
March 24, 2026, from 3:00 p.m. – 5:45 p.m.
Town Hall Board Room, 170 MacGregor Ave, Estes Park
Accessibility Statement
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services.
Contact us if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or
townclerk@estes.org.
Meeting Participation
This meeting will be streamed live and available on the Town YouTube page. Click on
the following link for more information on Digital Accessibility.
Public comment
Public comments are not typically heard at Study Sessions, but may be allowed by the
Mayor with agreement of a majority of the Board.
Agenda
3:00 p.m. Public Comment Policy
Presented by Town Clerk Williamson
3:30 p.m. Annexation of Enclaves
Presented by Senior Planner Hornbeck
4:15 p.m. Exemption of Certain Products from Sales Tax
Presented by Director Zimmerman
5:00 p.m. Vendor Fee Rate for Sales Tax Collection
Presented by Director Zimmerman
5:30 p.m. Trustee and Administrator Comments and Questions
5:40 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items
5:45 p.m. Adjourn for Dinner and the Town Board Meeting
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Report
To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Department: Town Clerk
Date: March 24, 2026
Subject: Public Comment Policy
Purpose of Study Session:
Staff will review a draft Public Comment policy that addresses both written and verbal
comments provided to the Town Board.
Town Board Direction Requested:
Staff requests further direction on the draft policy in order to bring it forward for Board
consideration.
Present Situation:
At the February 24, 2026 study session, staff reviewed the current practices and
procedures utilized by the Town Clerk’s office for written public comment received for
agenda items. It was noted a policy outlining key guidelines would ensure written public
comment was handled in a consistent manner.
At the study session, the Board provided staff with guidelines that included a hard
deadline of 4:00 pm the Monday before the Town Board meeting, address how written
public comment is handled when Monday is a holiday, comments received at the
deadline will not be included in the packet, and staff will not read public comment during
a meeting.
Proposal:
Staff has drafted a Public Comment policy that includes both written public comment for
Town Board agenda items and the public comment guidelines during Town Board
meetings currently included in Policy 103 Town Board Conduct Exhibit A. The new
proposed policy provides the public, staff and the Board one document to reference for
public comment.
Advantages:
• The new proposed policy provides the public, staff and the Board one document
to reference how to handle public comment.
• The policy would provide clear guidelines for public comment.
Disadvantages:
• The cut off time would limit last minute written public comment on Town Board
agenda items.
Financial/Resource Impact:
None
Level of Public Interest:
Medium.
Attachments:
1. Draft Public Comment Policy
Public Comment 03/24/2026
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Town Board Governance Policies Page 1 of 2
Effective Period: Until Superseded
Review Schedule: Biannually – Following Town Elections
Effective Date: ???
References: Governing Policy 1.2
TOWN BOARD POLICY
1XX
Public Comment
1.PURPOSE:
The Board of Trustees encourages public comment on any item on an agenda. The
policy will provide clear guidelines for public comment for both written and verbal
comments. Adherence to these standards will ensure consistent practices are
maintained.
2.RESPONSIBILITY:
It is the responsibility of the Town Clerk and other Town staff providing public comment
for specific agenda items to comply with this policy. It is further the responsibility of the
Board of Trustees, specifically the Mayor, to address public comments during Town Board
meetings and to address any perceived non-compliance with the specific items within this
policy.
3.PROCEDURES:
a.Rules and Procedures for Written Public Comment Prior to a Town Board Meeting
i.The purpose is to provide input to the Town Board on issues relevant to the Town
of Estes Park.
ii. Public comments and questions for inclusion in the Town Board packet shall be:
(1)Submitted using the Town Board Agenda Viewer at
www.estes.org/boardsandmeetings or by submitting comments to
townclerk@estes.org.
(2)Comments sent directly to the Board of Trustees utilizing their Town email
accounts will not be included as public comment.
(3)Comments must be received no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Monday prior
to the Town Board meeting. If Monday is a holiday, comments received
on Monday will be added to the packet the following morning and the
Board notified of any updates prior to the evening meeting.
(4)Comments received after the deadline as outlined in (3) above will not be
included in the Town Board packet for consideration by the Board of
Trustees.
(5)Staff will not read comments into the record at a meeting.
b.Rules and Procedures for Public Comment during a Town Board Meeting
i.The purpose is to provide input to the Town Board on issues relevant to the Town
Attachment 1
Public Comment 03/24/2026
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Town Board Governance Policies Page 2 of 2
of Estes Park. Public comment at meetings is not intended to be a general
soapbox opportunity.
ii. Public comments and questions shall be:
(1) Limited to three minutes.
(2) Directed to the Board as a whole and not to individual members.
(3) Presented in a courteous and professional demeanor and not in a
threatening, profane, vulgar, insulting or abusive manner.
(4) Limited to topics pertaining to Town of Estes Park government and about
which the Town Board has authority or responsibility.
(5) Speakers, when recognized by the chair, will provide their name and
address prior to addressing the Board.
(6) Individuals who engage in repetitive comments or questions or who
otherwise violate the provisions of #2 above will be asked to refrain and/or
yield the floor.
(7) Failure to abide by these requirements after a first warning may result in
the Board requiring that the speaker, in lieu of speaking, submit his/her
statements in writing during future public comment periods.
(8) The Mayor is responsible for administration and enforcement of these
rules in his/her sole discretion.
Approved:
___________________________________
Gary Hall, Mayor
_____________
Date
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Report
To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Paul Hornbeck, Senior Planner
Department: Community Development
Date: March 24, 2026
Subject: Annexation of County Enclaves
Purpose of Study Session Item:
Discuss potential annexation of County enclaves.
Town Board Direction Requested:
Staff requests Town Board provide direction regarding annexation of enclaves.
Present Situation:
The Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 allows a municipality to annex an enclave with or
without property owner consent when an area has been completely surrounded,
excluding right-of-way, by a municipality for a minimum of three years.
The Town’s annexation policy (Attachment 1) addresses enclave annexations as
follows:
When an unincorporated area has been completely surrounded by a
municipality for a minimum of three years, the municipality may annex the area
by ordinance, with or without the consent of the affected property owners.
Annexation of enclaves promotes the efficient delivery of government services
and coordinated land use planning. It also helps avoid a fragmented approach
that can occur when multiple jurisdictions govern a small area. A single
governing authority is typically more effective and responsive than a patchwork
of agencies. The Town will evaluate involuntary enclave annexations on a
case-by-case basis.
Staff has identified two potential enclaves eligible for annexation as illustrated in Figure
1. Further details on each property within the enclaves are provided in Tables 1 & 2,
including size, use, zoning, and future land use designation.
Figure 1 – County Enclaves
The Fawn Valley area will require further investigation to determine if it is truly an
enclave due to an apparent gap in the Town Boundary within Fall River (See Figure 2).
The area includes seven lots, all of which have existing single family homes. The six
properties north of Fall River are currently zoned Estes Valley ‘E’ Estate in Larimer
County. This zoning corresponds the Town’s ‘E’ Estate zone district. The one property
south of Fall River is zoned Estes Valley ‘A-1’ Accommodations, which corresponds to
the Town’s A-1 zone district.
Figure 2 – Fawn Valley Enclave
All seven lots have a future land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan of
Neighborhood Village. The Plan states the category:
…contains medium to higher density single family residential organized in a more
compact development pattern that is characterized by an interconnected street
network, available water and wastewater, increased walkability and connectivity
to other neighborhoods and commercial nodes. Limited neighborhood- serving
Potential gap in
Town Limits
civic, cultural, and commercial uses may be located near neighborhood
entrances and crossroads.
Table 1 – Fawn Valley Enclave
Number Designation Zoning
2864 Fall River Rd 3516400023 1.26 Single-Family Neighborhood Village E
2862 Fall River Rd 3516400019 0.44 Single-Family Neighborhood Village E
2858 Fall River Rd 3516400042 0.60 Single Family Neighborhood Village E
2852 Fall River Rd 3516400029 0.92 Single Family Neighborhood Village E
2848 Fall River Rd 3516400033 0.39 Single Family Neighborhood Village E
2850 Fall River Rd 3516400036 0.46 Single Family Neighborhood Village E
1615 Fish Hatchery Rd 3516400037 2.94 Single Family Neighborhood Village A-1
The Highway 7 Enclave includes 19 lots, which total 127 acres in size. Of those 19 lots,
15 have existing single-family homes. The lot at the northwest corner of South Saint
Vrain Avenue (HWY 7) and Mary’s Lake Road is currently zoned Estes Valley ‘A’
Accommodations in Larimer County, which corresponds to the Town’s ‘A’
Accommodations zone district. The property has a future land use designation of Mixed
Use Centers & Corridors. The Comprehensive Plans states the category:
…contains medium to higher-density vertical mixed residential and commercial
use developments located on or near major thoroughfares. This category is
characterized by an interconnected road network, available water and
wastewater, and a walkable environment and a greater emphasis on design of
upper stories for compatibility.
The other 18 lots are currently zoned Estes Valley ‘RE’ Rural Estate in Larimer County,
which corresponds with the Town’s ‘RE’ Rural Estate zone district. The properties have
a future land use designation of Mountains & Foothills. The Comprehensive Plan states
the category is:
…composed of private forestry, agricultural, and ranching lands, ecotourism,
undeveloped natural landscapes including steep slopes and watershed
protection. This category allows for limited development of very low-density
single family or residential conservation developments. Lands in this category
should not be targeted for expansion of public or private water and sewer
infrastructure. Some areas located within this category could ultimately transition
to Natural Resource Conservation & Parks through conservation easements or
expansion of public lands to further preservation of natural resources and wildlife
habitat.
Figure 3 – Highway 7 Enclave
Table 2 - Highway 7 Enclave
Number Designation Zoning
None 3402400008 18.13 None Mixed Use Centers &
Corridors
Total Acres 126.98
Proposal:
If the Board directs staff to annex either existing enclave, then staff would confirm
eligibility and initiate proceedings according to the Municipal Annexation Act. Such
proceedings are generally more streamlined compared to petition annexations, but still
must follow procedures set forth in the Act. Town zoning to be established on the
annexed properties would generally be that zoning most closely corresponding to the
County zoning. Alternatively, public outreach could occur first to gauge the interest of
property owners in annexation. Should property owners not be interested in annexation,
then staff would need direction on whether to proceed with involuntary annexation.
Advantages:
•Allow residents to vote in Town elections
•Allow more responsive/efficient delivery of government services
Disadvantages:
•Potential increase in burden on Town services and finances
•Potential increase in property taxes to property owners
•The Town may need to hire a surveyor to create legal descriptions and maps of
areas to be annexed
Finance/Resource Impact:
Given the residential nature of current uses in the enclave areas, with no commercial
taxes, there would likely be an increased burden on Town finances/resources. However,
a more detailed impact analysis would be conducted with consideration of any enclave
annexation. Also, as previously mentioned, costs for surveying and mapping of the
proposed annexation area would be the Town’s responsibility, which could be
significant.
Level of Public Interest:
Staff anticipates moderate to high public interest if the Board were to proceed with
annexation of enclaves.
Attachments:
1. Annexation Policy
Effective Period: Until superceded
Review Schedule: As Needed
Effective Date: 12/9/2025
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
403
Annexation
1. PURPOSE
This Annexation Policy establishes priorities for considering annexations to the Town of
Estes Park. It is designed to ensure that annexation decisions align with the Town's
Comprehensive Plan vision and themes for resiliency. This Policy provides high level
guidance to Town Board, staff, property owners, and community members regarding
factors to consider with prospective annexations. It shall serve as a guiding document
and not a regulatory framework. Individual annexations should be considered for
consistency with this Policy; however, annexation is at the discretion of Town Board and
is not governed by this policy.
2. POLICY
Decisions on annexation should be guided by the following:
a. Natural Environment
i. Goal
Use annexation as a tool to protect and enhance the Town's natural resources
and sensitive environmental areas.
ii. Policy Statements
1) Annexation should prioritize the protection of environmentally sensitive lands,
including watersheds, forests, wildlife habitats, and recreation areas.
2) Where appropriate, annexed lands should include dedication of parkland,
open space, or conservation easements to preserve natural features.
3) Annexation should consider and mitigate risks from natural hazards such as
flooding and wildfire.
b. Built Environment
i. Goal
Promote a built environment that enhances the Town's character, livability, and
long-term infrastructure sustainability.
Policy 403 - Annexation 12/9/25
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Community Development Page 1 of 4
Attachment 1
ii. Policy Statements
1) Annexation should align with the Town's Future Land Use Map and other
adopted planning documents.
2) Land uses proposed within annexed areas should contribute to a balanced,
diverse, and compatible mix of development in Town.
3) Annexation proposals should not place an undue burden on existing public
sen/ices or utilities. All necessary infrastructure upgrades or extensions
should be funded by the annexing property.
The Town may require infrastructure studies to evaluate service impacts
before approving an annexation.
c. Economy
Goal
Strengthen the Town's fiscal health and economic diversity through strategic
annexations.
ii. Policy Statements
1) Annexation should contribute to economic development by introducing or
supporting uses that diversify the local economy or fill unmet commercial or
service needs.
2) Proposals should demonstrate a clear benefit to Town finances, including
how anticipated tax revenues will cover the cost of providing services and
maintaining infrastructure.
3) Annexation should support job creation, tourism, or commercial development
consistent with the vision of balancing the needs of local residents, visitors,
and protecting the natural environment.
d. Housing
i. Goal
Expand the supply of workforce and attainable housing through annexation.
ii. Policy Statements
1) Where feasible, annexation should accommodate a variety of housing sizes,
types, densities, and prices.
2) Where appropriate, the Town should consider using annexation agreements
as a tool to require a certain percentage of new housing be deed restricted as
workforce or attainable housing.
3) Where appropriate, annexations generating new jobs should contribute to
housing solutions for employees, such as employee housing.
Policy 403 - Annexation 12/9/25
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Community Development Page 2 of 4
e. Transportation & Infrastructure
U08i
Ensure annexations support resilient infrastructure and efficient service delivery.
ii. Policy Statements
1) Annexed areas should facilitate improvements identified in the Transportation
Master Plan or required by the Development Code.
2) The Town should avoid annexing streets or infrastructure that are not up to
Town standards unless an improvement plan is provided and funded by the
annexing party.
3) Annexations that reduce enclaves or eliminate patchwork boundaries
between the Town and the County are preferred to improve service efficiency
(e.g., police and street maintenance).
4) When annexing land, adjacent right-of-way should generally be included with
the annexation so the Town can provide maintenance, law enforcement, and
services to serve adjacent residents, rather relying on County services.
f. Enclave Annexations
When an unincorporated area has been completely surrounded by a municipality for
a minimum of three years, the municipality may annex the area by ordinance, with or
without the consent of the affected property owners. Annexation of enclaves promotes
the efficient delivery of government services and coordinated land use planning. It also
helps avoid a fragmented approach that can occur when multiple jurisdictions govern
a small area. A single governing authority is typically more effective and responsive
than a patchwork of agencies. The Town will evaluate involuntary enclave annexations
on a case-by-case basis.
g. Annexation of Properties Subject to Pre-Annexation Agreements
Property owners may enter into pre-annexation agreements committing to annexation
once their property becomes eligible. These agreements may be a condition for
receiving Town water service outside the municipal boundaries (water tap agreement)
or for approval of development within the County. Although these agreements are
intended to run with the land, they may expire over time or go unnoticed by Town staff
or new property owners. To avoid such issues and ensure clarity, the Town should
pursue annexation promptly upon eligibility unless determined by Town Board or Town
Administrator to not be in the Town's best interest.
h. Joint Comprehensive Plan
The Town of Estes Park and Larimer County collaborated to develop the Estes
Forward Comprehensive Plan in 2022. The joint Plan allows for a cohesive vision,
adopts common goals, and provides a shared framework for decision making. The
Town should use the Plan as guidance in considering annexations. If either the Town
or County move away from the model of a joint comprehensive plan, the Town should
initiate discussions with the County on an intergovernmental agreement regarding
development and annexation to ensure continued cooperation.
Policy 403 - Annexation 12/9/25
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Community Development Page 3 of 4
Approved:
•\r-
Gary Hall, IVtayor^/
2be&j6»^2. °\f 3£>.3-^~
Date
Policy 403 - Annexation
Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Community Development
12/9/25
Page 4 of 4
Annexation of County Enclaves
Town Board Study Session
March 24, 2026
Presentation Provided at Meeting 2026-03-24
Present Situation
The Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 allows a municipality to annex an enclave with
when an area has been completely surrounded, excluding right-of-way, by a municipality
for a minimum of three years.
The Town’s annexation policy addresses enclave annexations as follows:
When an unincorporated area has been completely surrounded by a municipality for a
minimum of three years, the municipality may annex the area by ordinance, with or
without the consent of the affected property owners. Annexation of enclaves promotes the
efficient delivery of government services and coordinated land use planning. It also helps
avoid a fragmented approach that can occur when multiple jurisdictions govern a small
area. A single governing authority is typically more effective and responsive than a
patchwork of agencies. The Town will evaluate involuntary enclave annexations on a case-
by-case basis.
County Enclaves
Fawn Valley Enclave
Potential gap in
Town Limits
Highway 7 Enclave
Process
•Town or consultant prepares legal description and map
•Publish public notice for 4 successive weeks in newspaper and notify
County and taxing districts
•Town Board considers ordinance to complete annexation
Advantages/ Disadvantages
Advantages:
•Allow residents to vote in Town elections
•Allow more responsive/efficient delivery of government services
Disadvantages:
•Potential increase in burden on Town services and finances
•Potential increase in property taxes to property owners
•The Town may need to hire a surveyor to create legal descriptions and maps
of areas to be annexed
Finance/Resource Impact
Given the residential nature of current uses in the enclave areas, with no
commercial taxes, there would likely be an increased burden on Town
finances/resources. However, a more detailed impact analysis would be
conducted with consideration of any enclave annexation. Also, as previously
mentioned, costs for surveying and mapping of the proposed annexation area
would be the Town’s responsibility, which could be significant.
Level of Public Interest
Staff anticipates moderate to high public interest if the Board were to proceed
with annexation of enclaves.
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Report
To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Tammy Zimmerman, Finance Director
Department: Finance
Date: March 24, 2026
Subject: Exemption of Certain Products from Sales Tax
Purpose of Study Session Item:
Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of modifying the Town’s current sales tax
exemptions to include certain personal hygiene and incontinence products.
Town Board Direction Requested:
Provide direction on whether to adopt Exemption S (diapers and incontinence products)
and Exemption T (period products), and establish a preferred effective date.
Present Situation:
The Town of Estes Park currently does not adopt any of the State of Colorado’s sales
tax exemptions for which there are approximately 25 different exemptions allowed for its
state-collected jurisdictions.
While the Town does not track revenue by individual exemption category, staff estimate
that the Exemptions S and T together generate approximately $15,000 - $20,000
annually in General Fund sales tax revenue.
Projection used estimated annual retails sales for a large supermarket of:
• $100,000 - $150,000 for adult incontinence products
• $160,000 - $250,000 for baby diapers
• $70,000 - $120,000 for period products
The Town levies a 5% sales tax, of which 4% is allocated to the General Fund.
Proposal:
The Town may modify its list of adopted exemptions, with changes taking effect on
January 1 or July 1 of any year, provided that 45 days’ advance notice is given to the
Colorado Department of Revenue.
Exemptions S (diapers and incontinence products) and T (period products) are
increasingly viewed as addressing essential goods that disproportionately impact
women and families.
Adopting these exemptions would result in an estimated annual reduction of $15,000–
$20,000 in General Fund revenue (approximately $14,000 from Exemption S and
$4,000 from Exemption T based on conservative estimates).
Staff recommend adoption of both exemptions effective July 1. While this would reduce
revenue, the Town has met or exceeded revenue projections in the past two fiscal
years, and the impact is not expected to pose a significant financial risk. Adoption would
also align with the Town’s commitment to supporting a family-friendly community.
Advantages:
• Provides modest cost savings on essential items
• Reduces a tax burden often viewed as inequitable for women and families
• Aligns with broader policy trends addressing essential personal care products
Disadvantages:
• Reduces General Fund sales tax revenue available for Town services and
projects
Finance/Resource Impact:
Approximately 72% of the Town’s General Fund revenues are derived from sales tax.
The total sales tax rate within the Town of Estes Park is 8.95%, consisting of:
• 5.0% Town of Estes Park
• 2.9% State of Colorado
• 1.05% Larimer County
The Town’s General Fund retains 4% of the Town’s sales tax, and the 2026 budget
includes $18,284,538 in projected sales tax revenue.
Level of Public Interest:
Item was initiated by Finance Department in conjunction with other discussions
regarding sales tax. Public interest is currently unknown.
Attachments:
1. Colorado Department of Revenue Sales Tax Exemption Definitions
2. Presentation
Attachment 1
Exemption of Certain
Products from
Sales Tax Collection
Attachment 2
Estes Park does not include
exemptions for sales tax on
certain personal hygiene and
incontinence products.
The State has 25 different
exemptions that are allowed for
their state-collected jurisdictions.
Background
State Allowed Exemptions
Objective
Seeking Town Board input on:
1.Allowing Exemption S –diapers
and incontinence products
•Estimated Revenue loss $14,000
2.Allowing Exemption T –period
products
•Estimated Revenue loss $4,000
3.Effective Date changes are Jan
1 and July 1 with advance
notice to State
Advantages:
Provides modest cost savings on
essential items
Reduces a tax burden viewed as
inequitable for women and families
Aligns with policy trends on essential
personal care products
Disadvantages:
Reduces sales tax revenue for Town
services and projects
Advantages & Disadvantages
Discussion
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Report
To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Tammy Zimmerman, Finance Director
Department: Finance
Date: March 24, 2026
Subject: Vendor Fee Rate for Sales Tax Collection
Purpose of Study Session Item:
Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of modifying the Town’s current 3.33%
sales tax vendor fee in light of the State of Colorado and Larimer County eliminating
their vendor fees effective January 1, 2026, and determine whether the Town of Estes
Park should consider a similar change.
Town Board Direction Requested:
Provide direction on whether the Town should consider modifying its vendor fee and
whether staff should prepare an ordinance or resolution implementing a change.
Present Situation:
In order to compensate retailers for collecting and remitting sales tax in a timely
manner, the State of Colorado historically allowed qualifying retailers to retain a sales
tax vendor fee. Effective January 1, 2026, the State eliminated its 4% vendor fee
through HB25B-1005. The previous state fee had been capped at $1,000 per filing
period per retailer and was not available to retailers with more than $1 million in total
state net taxable sales. HB25B-1005 also gave local governments the ability to modify
or eliminate the vendor fee.
Following the State’s action, several jurisdictions, including Larimer County, also
eliminated their vendor fees. The State estimated that removing the vendor fee would
increase state sales tax revenue by more than $50 million in FY 2026–2027.
The Town of Estes Park currently allows retailers to retain a 3.33% vendor service fee
on Town sales tax collected. Based on our analysis, over the past three years Estes
Park businesses retained more than $700,000 annually with the 3.33% rate.
Proposal:
The Town may modify its 3.33% vendor fee, with changes taking effect on January 1 or
July 1 of any year. Implementation requires 45 days advance notice to the Colorado
Department of Revenue.
A review of state collected municipalities indicates that many communities continue to
maintain the 3.33% vendor fee, which is the most common rate. However, several
municipalities have eliminated their vendor fee to align with the State, including:
Aspen, Firestone, Georgetown, Idaho Springs, Gunnison, Lyons, Nederland, Silverton,
and Wellington.
Some municipalities have adopted reduced vendor fees, such as 2%, including
Alamosa, Blue River, Edgewater, Fleming, and Green Mountain Falls.
Financially, each 1% vendor fee retained by Estes Park retailers represents
approximately $215,000 per year in sales tax revenue that would otherwise be received
by the Town.
Staff do not recommend that the Board pursue elimination of the vendor service fee at
this time. While the additional revenue would be beneficial for funding general fund
capital projects, retaining the vendor service fee is a meaningful investment in creating
and sustaining a favorable business climate.
Advantages:
Reducing or eliminating the vendor fee would increase Town sales tax revenues, which
could support General Fund projects and potentially reduce the need to issue debt and
incur associated interest and issuance costs. It would also align the Town more closely
with actions taken by the State and Larimer County.
Disadvantages:
Reducing or eliminating the vendor fee could place an additional financial burden on
local businesses that collect and remit sales taxes on behalf of the Town.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Approximately 72% of the Town’s General Fund revenues are derived from sales tax.
The total sales tax rate within the Town of Estes Park is 8.95%, consisting of:
• 5.0% Town of Estes Park
• 2.9% State of Colorado
• 1.05% Larimer County
The Town’s General Fund retains 4% of the Town’s sales tax, and the 2026 budget
includes $18,284,538 in projected sales tax revenue.
Level of Public Interest:
Item was initiated by Finance Department upon passage of HB25B-1005. Public interest
at this time is unknown.
Attachments:
1. HB25B-1005
2. State-Collected City Sales Tax Rates Publication DR1002
3. Presentation
HOUSE BILL 25B-1005
BY REPRESENTATIVE(S) Woodrow and McCormick, Bacon, Brown,
Camacho, Froelich, Garcia, Lindsay, Mabrey, Sirota, Smith, Story,
Willford, Zokaie;
also SENATOR(S) Kipp and Winter F., Cutter, Gonzales J.,
Michaelson Jenet, Sullivan, Weissman, Coleman.
CONCERNING THE ELIMINATION OF THE SALES TAX VENDOR FEE THAT
RETAILERS ARE AUTHORIZED TO RETAIN IN CONNECTION WITH
COLLECTING AND REMITTING STATE SALES TAX, AND, IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH, MAKING AN APPROPRIATION.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado:
SECTION 1. Legislative declaration. (1) The general assembly
finds and declares that:
(a) The vendor fee in section 39-26-105, Colorado Revised Statutes,
was designed to reimburse retailers for a specific service performed on
behalf of the state: The collection and remittance of state-collected sales tax
revenue;
(b) Not all retailers are equally compensated for their services. Only
NOTE: This bill has been prepared for the signatures of the appropriate legislative
officers and the Governor. To determine whether the Governor has signed the bill
or taken other action on it, please consult the legislative status sheet, the legislative
history, or the Session Laws.
________
Capital letters or bold & italic numbers indicate new material added to existing law; dashes
through words or numbers indicate deletions from existing law and such material is not part of
the act.
Attachment 1
retailers that have total taxable sales of $1 million or less for the filing
period are able to collect the vendor fee, and most of Colorado's home rule
cities do not pay similar vendor fees for the collection and remittance of
local sales tax. In addition, not all state taxes have vendor fees.
(c) The vendor fee is being removed to promote fairness and
equality between all retailers by ending this benefit that some retailers
receive and others do not receive. Further, the vendor fee is being removed
to simplify the collection of state-collected sales tax, ease administrative
burden, and relieve retailer confusion. Any revenue gain caused by the
removal of the vendor fee is incidental to the primary purposes of
promoting fairness and equality, simplifying the collection of state-collected
sales tax, easing administrative burdens, and relieving retailer confusion.
(d) Any revenue gain caused by the removal of the vendor fee is de
minimis.
(2) The general assembly further finds and declares that:
(a) Removal of the vendor fee is not a tax policy change for
purposes of section 20 (4)(a) of article X of the Colorado constitution
because it does not in any way affect the amount of sales tax imposed on
and paid by taxpayers but instead only distributes a small portion of gross
sales tax revenue collected to vendors for their collection and remittance of
state-collected sales tax revenue;
(b) Further, even if removal of the vendor fee could be considered
a tax policy change, consistent with the Colorado Supreme Court's holding
in TABOR Found. v. Reg'l Transp. Dist., 2018 CO 29, that legislation that
causes only an incidental and de minimis tax revenue increase does not
amount to a new tax or a tax policy change that requires advance voter
approval under section 20 of article X of the Colorado constitution, the
removal of the vendor fee is neither a new tax nor a tax policy change that
requires voter approval; and
(c) The removal of the vendor fee does not create new
responsibilities or burdens on retailers. Instead, the removal of the fee
demonstrates the general assembly's intent that the collection of sales tax
revenue be fair and equal throughout the state, and that the burdens of doing
so are limited, fair, and equal throughout the state.
PAGE 2-HOUSE BILL 25B-1005
SECTION 2. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 39-26-105, amend
(1)(c), (1)(d)(I), and (5)(c); and add (1)(d)(V) as follows:
39-26-105. Vendor liable for tax - definitions - repeal.
(1) (c) (I) Every retailer shall remit, along with the return required in
subsection (1)(b) of this section, an amount equivalent to the percentage on
sales as specified in subsection (1)(a)(I) of this section to the executive
director of the department of revenue, less an amount as set forth in
subsection (1)(c)(II) or (1)(d) of this section to cover the retailer's expense
in the collection and remittance of said tax.
(II) For sales made prior to January 1, 2020, the amount retained by
a retailer to cover the retailer's expense in collecting and remitting tax
pursuant to this section is three and one-third percent of all sales tax
reported.
(III) If any retailer is delinquent in remitting said tax, other than in
unusual circumstances shown to the satisfaction of the executive director
of the department of revenue, the retailer shall not be allowed to retain any
amounts under this subsection (1)(c) or subsection (1)(d) of this section to
cover such retailer's expense in collecting and remitting said tax, and an
amount equivalent to the said percentage, plus the amount of any local
vendor expense that may be allowed by the local government to the vendor,
shall be remitted to the executive director by any such delinquent vendor.
Any local vendor expense remitted to the executive director shall be
deposited to the state general fund.
(d) (I) (A) For sales made on or after January 1, 2020, except as
provided in subsection (1)(d)(I)(B) of this section BUT BEFORE JANUARY 1,
2026, the amount retained by a retailer to cover the retailer's expense in
collecting and remitting tax in accordance with this section is four percent
of the tax reported; except that a retailer shall not retain more than one
thousand dollars in any filing period.
(B) For sales made on and after January 1, 2023, but before January
1, 2024, the amount retained by a retailer to cover the retailer's expense in
collecting and remitting tax in accordance with this section for any filing
period that the retailer's total taxable sales are less than or equal to one
hundred thousand dollars is five and three-tenths percent of the tax
reported; except that a retailer should not retain more than one thousand
PAGE 3-HOUSE BILL 25B-1005
dollars in any filing period. This subsection (1)(d)(I)(B) is repealed,
effective January 1, 2032.
(V) BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2026, A RETAILER IS NOT PERMITTED TO
RETAIN ANY MONEY TO COVER THE RETAILER'S EXPENSES IN COLLECTING
AND REMITTING STATE TAX IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION
REGARDLESS OF THE RETAILER'S TOTAL TAXABLE SALES FOR ANY FILING
PERIOD.
(5) (c) From the amount of the tax required to be remitted pursuant
to subsection (5)(a) of this section, a qualified purchaser shall be entitled to
retain the amount specified in subsection (1)(c)(II) or (1)(d) of this section
that a retailer would otherwise be entitled to retain to cover the retailer's
expense in collecting and remitting the tax imposed by this article 26 if the
qualified purchaser had not provided a direct payment permit number to the
retailer.
SECTION 3. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 24-46-303, amend (12)
as follows:
24-46-303. Definitions. As used in this part 3, unless the context
otherwise requires:
(12) "State sales tax increment revenue" means the portion of the
revenue derived from state sales taxes, including any revenue attributable
to the baseline growth rate, collected within a designated regional tourism
zone in excess of the amount of base year revenue. "State sales tax
increment revenue" does not include any additional revenue derived from
state sales taxes that are due to the changes set forth in section 39-26-105
(1)(d), enacted in 2019 AND AS AMENDED THEREAFTER, to the amount
retained by a vendor to cover the vendor's expenses in collecting and
remitting sales tax.
SECTION 4. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 39-26-123, amend
(3)(b)(I); and add (3)(b)(III) as follows:
39-26-123. Receipts - disposition - transfers of general fund
surplus - sales tax holding fund - creation - definitions. (3) For any state
fiscal year commencing on or after July 1, 2013, the state treasurer shall
credit eighty-five percent of all net revenue collected under this article 26
PAGE 4-HOUSE BILL 25B-1005
to the old age pension fund created in section 1 of article XXIV of the state
constitution. The state treasurer shall credit to the general fund the
remaining fifteen percent of the net revenue, less:
(b) (I) (A) Except as set forth in subsection (3)(b)(II) of this section,
PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 2026, an amount equal to the fiscal year increase in
sales and use tax revenue attributable to the vendor fee changes made by
House Bill 19-1245, enacted in 2019, which amount the state treasurer shall
credit to the housing development grant fund created in section 24-32-721
(1).
(B) EXCEPT AS SET FORTH IN SUBSECTION (3)(b)(II) OF THIS SECTION
AND SUBJECT TO SUBSECTION (3)(b)(III) OF THIS SECTION, BEGINNING
JANUARY 1, 2026, AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ONE AND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY-FIVE
THOUSANDTHS PERCENT OF NET REVENUE EXCLUDING NET REVENUE
COLLECTED UNDER PART 2 OF THIS ARTICLE 26, WHICH AMOUNT THE STATE
TREASURER SHALL CREDIT TO THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT GRANT FUND
CREATED IN SECTION 24-32-721 (1).
(III) (A) BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2026, THE TREASURER SHALL
CREDIT THE EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT SET FORTH IN SUBSECTION (3)(b)(I)(B)
OF THIS SECTION OVER ONE-TWELFTH OF THE AMOUNT SET FORTH IN
SUBSECTION (3)(b)(II)(D) OF THIS SECTION ON A MONTHLY BASIS. THE
TREASURER SHALL FIRST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY REDUCTION MADE
PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION (3)(b)(II) OF THIS SECTION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
TO DATE.
(B) BEGINNING WITH STATE FISCAL YEAR 2026-27, THE TREASURER
SHALL CREDIT THE EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT SET FORTH IN SUBSECTION
(3)(b)(I)(B) OF THIS SECTION OVER ONE-TWELFTH OF THE APPLICABLE
AMOUNT SET FORTH IN SUBSECTION (3)(b)(II) OF THIS SECTION ON A
MONTHLY BASIS.
SECTION 5. Appropriation. (1) For the 2025-26 state fiscal year,
$156,219 is appropriated to the department of revenue. This appropriation
is from the general fund. To implement this act, the department may use this
appropriation as follows:
(a) $5,576 for use by the executive director's office for personal
services related to administration and support;
PAGE 5-HOUSE BILL 25B-1005
(b) $79,616 for use by the taxation business group for personal
services related to taxation services, which amount is based on an
assumption that the division will require an additional 1.2 FTE;
(c) $24,876 for use by the taxation business group for operating
expenses related to taxation services;
(d) $9,768 for tax administration IT system (GenTax) support; and
(e) $36,383 for the purchase of document management services.
(2) For the 2025-26 state fiscal year, $36,383 is appropriated to the
department of personnel. This appropriation is from reappropriated funds
received from the department of revenue under subsection (1)(e) of this
section. To implement this act, the department of personnel may use this
appropriation to provide document management services for the department
of revenue.
SECTION 6. Safety clause. The general assembly finds,
determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health, or safety or for appropriations for
PAGE 6-HOUSE BILL 25B-1005
the support and maintenance of the departments of the state and state
institutions.
____________________________ ____________________________
Julie McCluskie James Rashad Coleman, Sr.
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE PRESIDENT OF
OF REPRESENTATIVES THE SENATE
____________________________ ____________________________
Connor Randall Esther van Mourik
ACTING CHIEF CLERK OF THE HOUSE SECRETARY OF
OF REPRESENTATIVES THE SENATE
APPROVED________________________________________
(Date and Time)
_________________________________________
Jared S. Polis
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
PAGE 7-HOUSE BILL 25B-1005
DR 1002 Colorado Sales_Use Tax Rates_State-Collected City Sales Tax_Table
City County in which City
is Located
Exemptions City Sales Tax
Rate
Service Fee
Allowed
Use Tax Rate Use Tax (paid to
city or county)
Notes
Aguilar Las Animas -3%1.50%3%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Akron Washington B, C, K 2.50%3.33%2.50%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Alamosa Alamosa E 2.50%2%2.50%General -
Alma Park -3%3.33%---
Antonito Conejos -4%3.33%---
Arriba Lincoln -2%3.33%---
Aspen Pitkin -*2.70%-2.10%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Ault Weld -3%-3%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Basalt Eagle, Pitkin -3%3.33%---
Bayfield La Plata -3%3.33%---
Bennett Adams, Arapahoe -4%3.33%2%Building Materials -
Berthoud Larimer, Weld -4%3.33%4%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Blanca Costilla B, C, K 3%3.33%---
Blue River Summit -2.50%2%---
Brush Morgan -4%3.33%4%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Buena Vista Chaffee -2.50%3.33%---
Burlington Kit Carson A, B, C, E, K 3%3.33%3%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Calhan El Paso A, B, C, K, S, T 3%3.33%3%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Carbondale Garfield E, G, H,3.50%-3.50%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Cañon City Fremont D, G, M, R, S, T 3.30%3.33%3.30%General -
Cedaredge Delta C, D, S, T 2%3.33%2%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Center Rio Grande, Saguache C 4%3.33%---
Cheyenne Wells Cheyenne A, B, C, D, K 2%3.33%2%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Cokedale Las Animas A, B, D 1%----
Collbran Mesa A, B, C, K 2%3.33%---
Columbine Valley Arapahoe A, B, C, K 3%3.33%3%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Crawford Delta -2%3.33%---
Creede Mineral D, M 4%3.33%---
Crestone Saguache -3.50%----
Cripple Creek Teller A 3.30%----
Crook Logan -2.50%-2.50%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
De Beque Mesa A, B, C, K 2%3.33%2%Building Materials -
Attachment 2
DR 1002 Colorado Sales_Use Tax Rates_State-Collected City Sales Tax_Table
Deer Trail Arapahoe D, M 1.75% - 1.75%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Del Norte Rio Grande - 2% 3.33% - - -
Dillon Summit - 2.50% - - - -
Dinosaur Moffat C, D 2.10% 3.33% - - -
Dolores Montezuma - 4% - - - -
Dove Creek Dolores C 3.10% 3.33% 1% Motor Vehicles -
Eads Kiowa - 2% 3.33% 2%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Eagle Eagle - 4.50% 3.33% 4% Building Materials -
Eaton Weld - 4% 3.33% 4% Building Materials -
Eckley Yuma
A, B, C, D, E, G, H,
K, M, O, P 2.10% - 2.10% Motor Vehicles -
Edgewater Jefferson D, M, R 3.50% 2% 3.50% General -
Elizabeth Elbert - 4% 3.33% 3%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Empire Clear Creek - 5% - 3%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Erie Boulder, Weld C, D, M 3.50% 3.33% 3.50%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Estes Park Larimer - 5% 3.33% 2% Motor Vehicles -
Fairplay Park A, B, C, K, S, T 4% 3.33% - - -
Firestone Weld A, B, K 3.60% - 2.60%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials
Reduced collection
of sales tax from
certain businesses
in the area subject
to a Public
Improvement Fee.
Flagler Kit Carson B, C, K 2% 3.33% - - -
Fleming Logan
B, C, D, E, G, H, K,
M 2% 2.22% 2%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Florence Fremont - 2.50% 3.33% 2.50%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Fort Lupton Weld - 4% 3.33% 4%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Fort Morgan Morgan - *5% 3.33% *5%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Fountain El Paso A, B, C, K 3.40% - 2%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Fowler Otero B, C, K 3% 3.33% 2% Motor Vehicles -
Foxfield Arapahoe A, B, C, K 3.75% - 3% Building Materials -
Fraser Grand - 5% - 4%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Frederick Weld A, B, C, K 3.50% 3.33% 3.50%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Fruita Mesa A, E 3% 3.33% 3%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Garden City Weld - 4% 3.33% - - -
Georgetown Clear Creek - 4.50% - 3.50% Motor Vehicles -
DR 1002 Colorado Sales_Use Tax Rates_State-Collected City Sales Tax_Table
Gilcrest Weld - 4% 4% 4%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Granada Prowers - 2% 3.33% 2%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Granby Grand - 4% 3.33% 4%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Grand Lake Grand - 5% 3.33% 5%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Green Mountain
Falls El Paso, Teller - 3% 2% 3%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Grover Weld
A, B, C, D, E, G, H,
K, L, M, O, P, Q, R 1% - 1% Motor Vehicles -
Gunnison* Gunnison D, M 4% - 4% General -
Haxtun Phillips - 3.50% 3.33% 3.50%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Hayden Routt - 5% 3.33% 2% Building Materials -
Holly Prowers - 4% 3.33% - - -
Holyoke Phillips - 1.50% 3.33% 1.50%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Hooper Alamosa C 2% - - - -
Hot Sulphur Springs Grand A, B, C, K 4% 3.33% - - -
Hotchkiss Delta - 2% 3.33% - - -
Hudson Weld A 4% 3.33% 4% Building Materials -
Hugo Lincoln B, K 2% 3.33% 2%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Idaho Springs Clear Creek S, T 5% - 3%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Ignacio La Plata - 3% 3.33% - - -
Johnstown Larimer, Weld - 3.50% 3.33% 3.50%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials
Reduced collection
of sales tax from
certain businesses
in the area subject
to a Public
Improvement Fee.
Julesburg Sedgwick - 2.30% 3.33% 1%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Keenesburg Weld A 3% 3.33% 3% Building Materials -
Kersey Weld - 3.60% 3.33% 3.60% Building Materials -
Kiowa Elbert - 1.50% 3.33% 1.50% Building Materials -
Kit Carson Cheyenne - 2% 3.33% 2%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Kremmling Grand - 4% 3.33% - - -
La Jara Conejos - 3% 3.33% 3%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
La Junta Otero D, E, M 4% 3% 3% General -
La Salle Weld - 3.50% 3.33% 2%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
DR 1002 Colorado Sales_Use Tax Rates_State-Collected City Sales Tax_Table
La Veta Huerfano - 3.50% 3.33% - - -
Lakeside Jefferson - 2.80% - - -
Reduced collection
of sales tax from
certain businesses
in the area subject
to a Public
Improvement Fee.
Larkspur Douglas
A, B, C, D, E, G, H,
K, L, M, O, P, Q, R 4% - - - -
Las Animas Bent - 4% 3.33% 4%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Leadville Lake - 0.50% - - - -
Limon Lincoln D, E, M 2.75% 3.33% 2.75%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Lochbuie Adams, Weld S, T 4% - 2%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Log Lane Village Morgan - 3% - 3%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Lyons Boulder - 4% - 3%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Manassa Conejos - 1% 3.33% - - -
Mancos Montezuma - 4% - - - -
Manitou Springs El Paso - 3.90% - 3.80%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Manzanola Otero A, B, C, K 2% 3.33% 2% Motor Vehicles -
Marble Gunnison - 4% 3.33% - - -
Mead Weld A, B, C, D, K, M 3% - 3%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Merino* Logan - 2% - 2%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Milliken Weld - 2.50% 3.33% 2.50%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Minturn Eagle - 4% - 4% Building Materials -
Moffat Saguache C, D, E, G, H 2% 3.33% - - -
Monte Vista Rio Grande - 3% 3.33% - - -
Montezuma Summit - 2% 3% - - -
Morrison Jefferson - 3.75% 3.33% 3.75%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Mountain View Jefferson - 4% - 3%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Naturita Montrose - 4% 3.33% 3%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Nederland Boulder - 4.25% - 3%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
New Castle Garfield - 3.50% 3.33% 2% Building Materials -
Norwood San Miguel C 3% 3.33% - - -
Nucla Montrose - 4% 3.33% 2% Motor Vehicles -
DR 1002 Colorado Sales_Use Tax Rates_State-Collected City Sales Tax_Table
Nunn Weld - 2% - 2%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Oak Creek Routt - 3% 3.33% - - -
Olathe Montrose - 4% 3.33% 1%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Ophir San Miguel
A, B, C, D, E, G, H,
K, M, O, P, R 2% - - - -
Ordway Crowley - 2% 3.33% 2%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Otis Washington - 2% 3.33% 2%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Ouray Ouray - 4% 3.33% - - -
Ovid Sedgwick - 1% 3.33% 1%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Pagosa Springs* Archuleta - 1% - - - -
Palisade Mesa A, B, C, K 2% 3.33% - - -
Palmer Lake El Paso A 3% 3.33% 3%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Paonia Delta - 3% 3.33% - - -
Parachute Garfield - 3.75% - 3.75% Building Materials -
Pierce Weld B, K 2% 3.33% 2%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Pitkin Gunnison - 3% - - - -
Platteville Weld - 3% 3.33% 2% Building Materials -
Poncha Springs Chaffee - 2% 3.33% 2% Building Materials -
Ramah El Paso A, B, C, K 2% - 2% Motor Vehicles -
Red Cliff Eagle - 3% 3.33% 3% Building Materials -
Rico Dolores - 5% - - - -
Rocky Ford Otero E 4% 3.33% 3%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Romeo Conejos - 3.90% 3.33% - - -
Saguache Saguache - 4% 3.33% - - -
Salida Chaffee - 3% - - - -
San Luis Costilla A 3% 3.33% - - -
Sawpit San Miguel - 3% - 3% Building Materials -
Sedgwick Sedgwick B, C, K 1% - - - -
Seibert Kit Carson B, C, D, K 2% 3.33% 2%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Severance Weld C 3% 3.33% 3% Building Materials -
Silt Garfield
D, E, H, K, L, M, O,
Q, R 3% 3.33% 3%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Silver Cliff Custer - 3% 3.33% 3%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Silver Plume Clear Creek - 3% 3.33% - - -
Silverton San Juan
A, B, C, D, E, G, H,
K, M 1% - - - -
Simla Elbert A, B, C, K 4% 3.33% - - -
South Fork Rio Grande C 4% 3.33% - - -
Springfield Baca - 2% 3.33% - - -
DR 1002 Colorado Sales_Use Tax Rates_State-Collected City Sales Tax_Table
Stratton Kit Carson A, B, C, D, K 2% 3.33% - - -
Superior Boulder, Jefferson - 3.775% 3.33% 3.775%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Trinidad Las Animas - 4% 3.33% 4%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Victor Teller A, B, C, K 3% - - - -
Walden Jackson - 1% 3.33% - - -
Walsenburg Huerfano - 3% 3.33% 3%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Walsh Baca - 3% 3.33% - - -
Ward Boulder - 2% 3.33% - - -
Wellington Larimer C 3% *- 3%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Westcliffe Custer - 3% 3.33% - - -
Wiggins Morgan - 3% 3.33% 2% Building Materials -
Wiley Prowers A 2% 3.33% 2% Motor Vehicles -
Wray Yuma - 2.50% 3.33% 2.50%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Yampa Routt A, D, E, H 4% 3.33% 4%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Yuma Yuma - *3.75% 3.33% *3.75%
Motor Vehicles, Building
Materials -
Vendor Fee Rate for
Sales Tax Collection
Attachment 3
Estes Park allows retailers to retain
3.33% vendor service fee on sales
tax collected.
The State eliminated their vendor
fee with HB25B-1005 effective
January 1, 2026, and Larimer
County and other cities followed
suit.
Background
Objective
Seeking Town Board input on:
1.Eliminating or modifying vendor
service fee
2.Each 1% of vendor fee retained
by Estes Park retailers = est
$215,000 revenue to Town
3.Current 3.33% service fee
retained = est $700K per year
Advantages:
Additional revenue could support
projects and reduce need for debt
issuance
Align Town with State and County
Disadvantages:
Additional financial burden on local
businesses
Seen as less supportive of business
community
Advantages & Disadvantages
Discussion
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Future Study Session Items
April 14, 2026
• Murals and Sign Code
• Growth Management Areas Overview
April 28, 2026
• No Study Session
May 12, 2026
• Governance Orientation
May 26, 2026
• CIRSA Liability and Risk as an Elected Official
• Policy 102 (Town Committees) Liaison Review
• Policy 102 (Town Committees) Focus Groups Draft
June 9, 2026
• Code Amendment to Allow Small Visitor-Serving Autocycle Operations with
Special Review
• Development Code Neighborhood Meeting Requirement
June 23, 2026
• Water Rate Study
• Business Support
• Downtown Plan Approach
Items Approved - Unscheduled
• Structure of Potential Development Agreement with Whimsadoodle and the
Estes Park Housing Authority for Cleave Street Development
• Police Department Facility Financing
• Administrative Regulations Enforcement Process
• Liquor License Process
Items for Town Board Consideration
• Paid Parking Dynamic Pricing Pilot