Senate committee advances bill letting counties ask voters to raise lodging tax cap

House Bill 12-47, a measure that would let Colorado counties ask voters to raise the county lodging tax above the current 2% cap, advanced out of the Senate Local Government and Housing Committee after roughly four hours of testimony and one adopted amendment.

The bill, presented by Senator Chris Simpson, would authorize counties—subject to voter approval—to increase the lodging tax rate and expand allowable uses for revenue, including housing, childcare, public infrastructure maintenance and certain public safety expenses. “This is really dependent on county commissioners’ submittal and voter approval of ballot measures,” Simpson said during opening remarks.

Why it matters: Counties that host tourists say the current 2% limit constrains their ability to fund the local services that tourism strains, including roads, emergency response and workforce housing. Supporters said the proposal is permissive—counties must decide whether to put any rate increase before voters—and is intended to preserve local control. Opponents, chiefly lodging and resort groups, warned higher lodging taxes could reduce competitiveness, shift visitor behavior and place a disproportionate share of public funding responsibility on visitors and the lodging industry.

What the bill would change: Sponsors told the committee the bill restores parity with many municipalities by allowing counties to ask voters for a higher lodging tax and by broadening permitted spending to include housing and childcare, visitor-experience investments, road and bridge maintenance and certain public-safety expenditures. Senator Roberts, a co-sponsor, said the bill “gives county commissioners in that community the ability to have the conversation to increase their county lodging tax to a higher level than 2%,” and emphasized that any increase still requires voter approval and a specific ballot measure.

Testimony for and against: More than two dozen county commissioners from mountain, rural and Front Range counties testified in favor, saying additional local revenue could support child-care stipends, affordable housing projects, road repairs and emergency services in places with high visitor volumes. Scott Weaver, Yuma County commissioner and then-president of Colorado Counties, Inc. (CCI), urged passage and said the bill “increases the maximum lodging tax rate that counties can ask voters to approve.” Several commissioners said they would prefer restoring the originally introduced 6% cap; the House had amended the bill to allow 5%, which was the version considered in committee.

Opponents included the Beaver Creek Resort Company and Colorado Ski Country USA. Jim Clancy, executive director of Beaver Creek Resort Company, said raising county lodging taxes risks “creating unintended consequences that could hinder our region and Beaver Creek’s economic vitality,” arguing higher rates could push some visitors to competing destinations and harm small businesses. Pete Van Heuven of Colorado Ski Country USA asked the committee to limit increases to 4% or adopt a step-up plan, citing competitiveness concerns for resort operators in unincorporated county areas.

Short-term rentals and logistics: Committee members asked whether the lodging tax applies to short-term rentals. Sponsors and other senators affirmed that, under current practice, lodging taxes already apply to short-term rentals as a transaction-based tax and that the bill would not change property tax assessments.

Amendment and procedural outcome: The committee adopted amendment L006, a technical change clarifying that allowable public-safety spending includes fire protection districts or special districts that provide fire protection services, and clarifying the timing for when a county must refer a proposed increase to the ballot. After discussion and final remarks by sponsors and supporters, Vice Chair Gonzales moved the bill to the Committee of the Whole. The committee recorded a roll-call vote of 5 to 1 to report the bill as amended: Bazely (Aye), Liston (Aye), Snyder (Aye), Winter (Aye), Gonzales (No), and Chair Exum (Aye); Senator Rich was excused.

Votes at a glance: - Motion to adopt amendment L006 — Adopted (voice/consensus on no objection indicated in hearing). Amendment clarified fire protection districts and ballot timing. - Motion to report HB 12-47 as amended to Committee of the Whole — Passed, 5–1 (Bazely, Liston, Snyder, Winter, Exum: yes; Gonzales: no; Rich: excused).

Context and next steps: Sponsors and multiple county officials urged the committee to restore the originally introduced 6% cap eventually, saying 5% will not fully meet infrastructure and housing deficits in some counties. Opponents asked for lower limits or phased increases to avoid pricing visitors and meeting business out of the market. If reported by the Committee of the Whole and passed by the Senate, the bill would still require county commissioners to adopt measures and put specific rate and use proposals before local voters for approval. The committee hearing record contains detailed testimony from county commissioners, lodging industry representatives and local tourism organizations.

Ending note: Committee members emphasized that the bill is permissive and that any tax increase would be decided locally by county voters; supporters framed the bill as a tool for counties to address tourism-driven demands, while opponents cautioned about competitiveness, transparency and the distribution of tax burdens.