The Estes Park municipal code does not prohibit nonresidents from proposing or lobbying for a new Town ordinance that directly impacts Town residents and Town policy.
This situation came to the forefront during the November election, when Ballot Issues 300 and 301 were proposed. Both measures were sponsored and supported by individuals living outside the Town’s boundaries in unincorporated Larimer County.
Ballot Question 300 was approved by voters, passing with 1,107 votes in favor and 946 against. This ordinance now requires written approval from both the property owner(s) applying for rezoning or planned unit developments and two-thirds of the property owners within 500 feet of the affected site.
Ballot Question 301 was defeated, with 1,222 votes against and 837 in favor. This measure sought to repeal Section 11.4 of the Estes Park Development Code, which provides density bonuses for attainable and workforce housing in RM Multi-Family zones, as well as related building height limits in residential zones.
While there are no legal barriers preventing anyone from proposing or advocating for a ballot question, the responsibility to vote on these measures ultimately falls to Town residents who are eligible to participate in municipal elections.
However, the involvement of non-residents in shaping public policy raises an important question: if individuals outside Estes Park wish to influence Town policy, why do they not seek voluntary annexation into the Town?
The complexity of Estes Park’s boundaries is primarily a result of the local topography. It can be challenging to determine which properties are within or outside Town limits without consulting a map, as there are no signs marking the jurisdictional boundaries.
In some cases, properties on opposite sides of a road may fall under different jurisdictions because the Town contains pockets, peninsulas, and islands, known as enclaves, of County property. One example of a property pocket is the Estes Park Aerial Tram, which is located in unincorporated Larimer County but surrounded by Town properties.
According to Travis Malchek, Estes Park’s administrator, “The Tram is an interesting property. The most accurate characterization is that it operates on and above multiple properties.”
An enclave is a property surrounded on all sides by the Town. An enclave can be annexed without the consent of property owners. In contrast, other properties that could be considered for annexation require the consent of the property owner or voter approval of property owners and registered electors in the area to be annexed. Click here to explore a map of the Town of Estes Park’s GIS data to see what properties are incorporated in the Town and which properties are not.
Adding to the confusion, everyone in the Estes Valley shares the same postal zip code, leaving many residents uncertain about whether they live within Town limits.
The unusual configuration of Town boundaries is the result of development patterns in the Estes Valley. Estes Park has seen few large developments that typically prompt annexation; instead, growth has occurred through smaller, patchwork developments and single-family housing.
And since the Town provides water to much of the Estes Valley, including areas outside Town limits, developers lack motivation to seek annexation, as access to city water is generally the main incentive.
Many residents of the Estes Valley who live outside Town limits prefer to remain under County jurisdiction for various reasons. Some seek less restrictive land-use regulations, which they believe are more easily obtained in the County.
Others desire to keep animals—such as hogs, sheep, goats, and cattle—that are not permitted within the Town limits. And for the record, Section 7.08 of the municipal code allows up to four horses on lots that are 2.5 acres or more.
However, the primary reason for avoiding annexation is to escape payment of the Town sales tax, which would apply to online and vehicle purchases if the property were annexed. In essence, this reflects a desire to avoid taxes that would support services currently received without charge.
Although municipal code proposals from non-residents may not always align with the Town’s best interests, every individual living in the Estes Valley is part of the broader community.
The ballot questions underscore the need for a thoughtful community-wide conversation about whether it is time to reconsider and modernize the Town’s boundaries.
Here we go again, and why not? It is an election year and Socialists are rallying. Let’s begin with exactly (include address) who wrote this article. The Estes Park Tax & Spend policies that have driven living expenses to astronomical levels are well known. The “avoid taxes, but receive services” hoax is categorically false and purposefully misleading. I pay 100% of the infrastructure costs for Estes but cannot vote or run for local Office. For two-thirds of the population living in 80517, we get zero say and 100% pay. Estes Park is run by oligarchs and governed by patronage principles. How come the people who run the zoning department aren’t required to live in city limits? Citizens should be first, not third, on this town’s list of stakeholders.
This is an Estes Valley Voice editorial. As editors of the EVV, Suzy Blackhurst and I believe that it is important to have community conversations about the pros and cons of issues such as annexation and to do so in a civil and constructive manner.
“avoid taxes but receive services” is a cheap shot, a straw man. For most Estes Valley residents, the primary barrier to annexation is Town policies that discourage residential annexations. The Town is very clear that it is a financial loss for them to annex residential properties- the cost of providing services is more than the marginal gain in additional sales tax. So the Town throws up dis-incentives for residential annexations: like an arbitrary requirement for upgrading roads, which is entirely at the discretion of the Trustees. Or the animal ordinance, which is also entirely at the discretion of the Trustees.
Our subdivision, which borders Town on two sides, has been told that we would need to bring our private road up to Town standards at our own expense before we could be annexed.That would be tens millions of dollars, so completely out of reach for our 12 residents.
Let’s be honest here and follow the money. The Town doesn’t want residential annexations. It has no incentive to re-infranchise the thousands of Estes Valley residents who live outside Town limits.
Before the IGA was dissolved there were some official avenues for EV residents to have a voice in the many Town decisions and policies that profoundly affect us. Now we are left with no recourse except Ballot initiatives that we can’t even vote on.
Instead of playing a blame game, let’s elevate the conversation and look for fair solutions to this conundrum.
In your rant against “Estes”, do you mean The Town of Estes Park?
When you write “I pay 100% of the infrastructure costs for Estes”, are you are referring to the school district (PARK R-3), the Park Hospital District, the Estes Valley Recreation and Park District, the Estes Park Library District, the Estes Valley Fire Protection District, the Northern Colorado Water Conservation District, your sewer district?
Because none – NONE – of these are managed by or run by the Town of Estes Park. If you live within an area covered by one of these districts, you DO and HAVE had chances to vote on their mill levy proposals and whatever else they bring to the ballot, including the election of the board members running these districts.
(Consider this a free Civics 101 lesson – you’re welcome!)
As for your demand to know the addresses and names of the authors of the opinion piece, I did a bit of research of my own, and in searching the latest Larimer County Assessor’s database, there is not a single ‘Brookes-Steele’ listed as a property owner in the entire Estes Valley, or down the canyons, or in the Glen Haven/Retreat area, or all the way south thru the Tahosa Valley. Care to come clean, ‘dox’ yourself and tell us where you live?
Ron Thomas, what I won’t support is turning your frustration into doxxing and personal harassment. Demanding addresses and “outing” someone is not accountability — it’s bullying!
“Policy disagreements are fair game. Personal information is not.”
Christy Jacobs – Resident of E.P.
It was the original poster ‘Brookes-Steele’ who demanded the authors supply names and addresses. I merely suggested that the original poster was not forthcoming about their own real name or location. How that’s considered ‘bullying’ is beyond me ….
Estes Valley Voice is media. Brookes-Steele is and individual and should have her identity protected. Your tone was bullying!
Yes, we need a new intergovernmental agreement. The last one died because 2 corrupt Trustees wanted to be able to appeal to the County, in which they had more influence. Many of the people promoting the ballot initiatives lived on the border of the Town and were affected by the Town, but have no right to vote for the Town.
EstesFirst, a
Accusing (2) Trustees as corrupt without any proof is defamation.
This is not your first time being out of line.
cj-Resident
by Christy Jacobs – Estes Park – January 5, 2025
Estes Valley Voice’s January 5 commentary uses Ballot Issues 300 and 301 to advance an annexation argument, but it does so by casting suspicion on civic participation and assigning motives to neighbors without evidence.
The repeated emphasis that both ballot measures were sponsored by individuals outside town limits is presented as if it undermines legitimacy. It does not. Sponsorship is not the same as community support, and these issues were supported—and opposed—by individuals both inside and outside municipal boundaries. Estes Park is part of a connected valley community. People living just outside town limits still work in town, own businesses, volunteer, attend events, and are directly affected by policies on housing, land use, and development. Treating their involvement as inherently problematic ignores the reality of how this community actually functions.
The commentary then asks: if individuals outside town limits want to influence town policy, why don’t they seek voluntary annexation? That framing is exclusionary. Civic engagement should not be treated as something that must be “earned” through annexation. Annexation is not a simple opt-in decision; it carries financial, regulatory, and governance consequences that vary from property to property. Suggesting that those who are not annexed should have less standing to speak on public issues is undemocratic and divisive.
The most troubling statement comes in the claim that “the primary reason for avoiding annexation is to escape payment of the Town sales tax,” followed by the accusation that residents want services “without charge.” That is a serious allegation stated as fact without any evidence. It is not analysis—it is an assumption of bad faith. Residents may have many legitimate reasons to oppose annexation, including concerns about representation, land-use restrictions, service equivalency, long-term cost impacts, and property rights. Reducing those considerations to “tax avoidance” unfairly characterizes neighbors and discourages constructive dialogue.
If annexation deserves discussion, it should happen through a neutral, fact-based community process—focused on services, costs, and governance—not through insinuations about who belongs or why they live where they do.
Agreed. The previous intergovernmental agreement, while not perfect did give people living in the Estes Valley a voice in Town Government. Something worthwhile to revisit as those of us living in the “non-town” Estes Valley are unquestionably affected by town legislation even though we are ineligible to vote in town elections.
Jeff Robbins