Estes Valley voters will make critical taxing decisions on the upcoming Nov. 3 ballot, with proposals impacting services from local fire protection to statewide health care and public schools. These choices will determine how much government collects and allocates, affecting daily life and visitor experiences in the region.
Closer to home, residents face two specific sales tax questions. Estes Valley Fire Protection District Ballot Issue 6D asks voters to approve a 0.5% sales tax, which equates to 50 cents on a $100 taxable purchase. This revenue, estimated at $3.5 million annually, is designated to support fire protection and emergency services, including wildland firefighting efforts, firefighter support, and the replacement of aging equipment.
Additionally, Larimer County Ballot Issue 1A seeks voter approval for a 0.3% county sales tax, representing 30 cents on a $100 taxable purchase. While these local measures are distinct from state budget considerations, they pose similar questions about balancing public services with tax revenue.
Voters will also weigh three statewide tax measures that could alter how Colorado collects and spends tax revenue. To help residents understand the broader implications of these decisions, an interactive online tool called Colorado Tradeoffs is available. This free simulation allows voters to experience the challenges faced by lawmakers in balancing the state’s budget, which currently has a $1.6 billion gap.
The Colorado Tradeoffs simulation takes approximately seven minutes. Participants step into lawmakers' shoes, making choices on taxes and spending across various priorities such as K-12 and higher education, early childhood programs, health care, prisons, affordable housing, and state reserves. Historically, only about one in 13 of the more than 8,000 Coloradans who have engaged with the budget simulation managed to close the budget gap, illustrating the complexity of the task. If more funds are allocated to one area, voters must decide where to raise revenue or cut spending elsewhere, as every choice influences the financial bottom line.
Chris Adams, founder and CEO of Weigh In and a senior fellow at CU Denver’s School of Public Affairs, designed Colorado Tradeoffs. The tool is part of a statewide collaboration led by the Colorado News Collaborative (COLab), the University of Colorado Denver School of Public Affairs, and Weigh In. Its goal is to help voters grasp not only what the ballot measures entail but also how their decisions affect the state's capacity to fund public services.
Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR), approved in 1992, mandates voter approval for tax increases, granting citizens significant control over government revenue. This responsibility extends from the state Capitol to local entities like the Estes Valley Fire Protection District and Larimer County. The simulation directly confronts these competing responsibilities and encourages participants to reconsider their priorities.
Insights from the simulation reveal that about 14% of participants in an earlier review changed their minds about one or more ballot measures after completing the exercise. Participant spending priorities also varied, with approximately one-third favoring reduced state reserves and 44% supporting increased funding for early childhood education. While the state’s budget for the 2026-27 fiscal year totals roughly $46.8 billion, balancing it involves far more than simply deciding which programs receive more or less money. The Legislature’s six-member Joint Budget Committee, for instance, spends nearly seven months preparing the annual budget, which then requires passage by both chambers before reaching the governor for potential vetoes.
Beyond just numbers, Colorado Tradeoffs offers a platform for participants to compare their decisions with those of other Coloradans. Following the simulation, users can opt to join online conversations with individuals from across the state to discuss their choices and the reasoning behind them. Adams told Sandra Fish of the Colorado News Collaborative that "A simulation tells you what people chose; a conversation tells you why." Research from Stanford University’s Deliberative Democracy Lab suggests that structured discussions among people with differing political perspectives can reduce polarization and even change opinions.
The simulation itself is non-partisan, does not endorse or oppose any ballot measures, is not a scientific poll, and its results do not influence the election. Individual responses remain private, with only aggregated results reported. An optional online discussion is scheduled for Tuesday, Oct. 27, at 6:30 p.m. to further explore these choices. Ultimately, whether decisions are made at the state Capitol, the Larimer County courthouse, or within the local fire district, voters will play a crucial role in determining the funding of public services when they cast their ballots on Nov. 3.
