Englewood council amends sales-tax enforcement rules, adopts code update 5–1

The Englewood City Council on Monday, June 2 adopted changes to the city’s sales-tax and licensing code (agenda item 9B4) following a detailed staff briefing about penalties, protest rights and administrative hearing processes. The ordinance passed on the first reading (or adopted as the council’s procedural vote) by a roll-call vote of 5–1 (Mayor Pro Tem Tim Anderson, Member Noonan Camp, Member Ward, Member Wright and Mayor Sierra voted Aye; Member Russell voted Nay).

Staff described how the code’s enforcement tools are used: a $500‑per‑day administrative penalty can be applied as an inducement to resolve outstanding license or tax issues and is used “several times per month,” according to finance staff. Finance staff explained that the department administers and imposes such penalties, and the code provides a 30‑day pay‑or‑protest window for taxpayers. The code also incorporates a protest and appeal path that can proceed to the Colorado Department of Revenue or to district court if taxpayers exhaust local administrative remedies.

Council debate focused on who should preside over local administrative hearings and how to ensure impartiality. Several members urged codifying or otherwise formalizing the city’s current practice of using independent hearing officers rather than finance staff for disputes; staff and the city attorney said the city already uses hearing officers designated by City Council (Resolution No. 38, 2024) for tax matters and that it could formalize the practice in code if council desired. Member Russell expressed discomfort with leaving appointment discretion unspecified in the ordinance and voted against adoption; other members said they were satisfied that current practice (a neutral third‑party hearing officer, and the statutory protest/appeal routes) provides adequate due process. Member Wright and others asked staff to consider a follow‑up ordinance that would identify a roster or list of qualified hearing officers for administrative matters.

The vote record shown in the meeting minutes and roll call was: Anderson (Aye); Noonan Camp (Aye); Russell (Nay); Ward (Aye); Wright (Aye); Mayor Sierra (Aye). Council members recorded no additional actions on the item at the meeting. Staff indicated that if council wants codified hearing‑officer language, it could return with a second ordinance focused on that procedural element, and pointed to the city’s existing Resolution 38 (2024) that designates hearing officers for tax matters.

Because the ordinance modifies enforcement procedures, taxpayers affected by assessed penalties retain the protest and appeal rights described in the code and state statute referenced in the briefing. Councilmember Russell said he would not support the ordinance because he wanted stricter language requiring vetted external hearing officers; other members said they regarded the current practice and the appeal routes as sufficient.

This action was taken on the regular council agenda; staff said no hearings were outstanding at the time and that an informal protest process remains available to taxpayers.