The Glenwood Springs Fire Department serves about 16,000 residents across 72 square miles, covering both the city and the unincorporated rural district around it. The department is paid for through two separate property tax levies, one set by the city and one by the Glenwood Springs Rural Fire Protection District. On Nov. 3, voters on each side of the city line were asked to raise their own levy, and the two groups voted opposite ways.
According to the Garfield County clerk's unofficial results, voters in the rural district approved their increase and city voters rejected theirs. Starting in January, a home just outside town will pay a fire levy roughly twice the size of the levy on a home inside city limits. Both homes get the same trucks from the same department. Meanwhile, the department's yearly shortfall remains in the city's General Fund, which means the city side of the line still has a question to answer.
Where the line runs and how each side voted
The rural district takes in Four Mile and runs west to Canyon Creek, east to Bair Ranch and south to Buffalo Valley. Issue 2B applied only to property within Glenwood Springs city limits. Issue 6A applied to property outside city limits but inside the fire district.
| Inside city limits | Rural fire district | |
|---|---|---|
| Ballot question | Issue 2B | Issue 6A |
| Proposed increase | 7.9 mills | 5.9 mills |
| Levy before the vote | 8.603 mills | 12.339 mills |
| Levy from January 2027 | 8.603 mills, unchanged | 18.239 mills |
| Estimated cost of the increase per $1 million of home value | About $493 a year, not adopted | About $369 a year |
| Estimated new annual revenue | About $2.85 million, not adopted | About $767,207 |
| Unofficial result, Nov. 4 count | 1,719 yes, 2,217 no; 43.67% yes | 969 yes, 673 no; 59.01% yes |
Both measures carried a 20-year sunset, and the commercial rate for each was set at 3.7 times the residential rate. The counts above are unofficial. Aspen Public Radio reported that certification was expected within a few weeks of the election.
The gap between the two fire levies widens in January
The rural district already had the higher rate before the election, at 12.339 mills against the city's 8.603. If both measures had passed, the gap would have narrowed. The city's rate would have nearly doubled to 16.503 mills, and the district's would have reached 18.239. Because only the district's increase passed, the two rates moved further apart. From January 2027, a district property carries 18.239 mills toward fire and EMS, while a city property stays at 8.603.
This changes a common way of comparing homes in and around Glenwood. A house in Four Mile or out toward Canyon Creek is usually judged on land, privacy and the drive into town. Under the new levy, its fire line item is also about $369 a year higher per $1 million of home value than it was before the vote, for the next 20 years. These are fire levies only, one piece of a bill that has several taxing entities on it. They are not a full comparison of property taxes between the two sides of the line.
The shortfall stays in the city budget
The city's fire funding fact sheet lays out the department's finances. The city's levy brings in about $3.1 million a year and the district's about $1.6 million. Running the department, answering more calls, maintaining equipment and stations, and keeping wages competitive costs about $1.7 million a year more than property tax and fire fees bring in. The city has filled that gap from its General Fund along with tobacco and marijuana tax revenue, and the fact sheet says the General Fund has run a deficit for two years in a row, largely because of that transfer.
The Post Independent reported in August that the subsidy came to roughly $1 million a year from the General Fund plus about $700,000 from tobacco and marijuana taxes. A city staff report described the tobacco and marijuana revenue as declining and unreliable over the long term. When council placed the measure on the ballot, City Manager Steve Boyd told the paper:
"We need to build a reserve in our fire department that doesn't have one now. Without a reserve, we can't plan very well in fire because every year it has to compete with all the other priorities that our city has."
Most of the new money was supposed to come from the city. Of the roughly $3.6 million the package would have raised each year, about $2.85 million depended on 2B. With 2B defeated, the part of the plan that would have ended the yearly competition Boyd described did not pass. City owners kept their 8.603-mill rate. The shortfall that rate leaves still has to be covered from the General Fund each year.
Not everyone saw a gap that called for a new tax. Letters to the Post Independent before the election argued that the city's existing capital and equipment replacement funds could cover equipment needs, and that the cost of living in the valley made an increase a burden. Another letter objected that the 2B wording did not limit the new revenue to fire and EMS. Those arguments carried inside the city by a margin of about 500 votes.
What the rural levy covers by itself
The two questions went to separate taxing authorities, so 6A takes effect whatever happened to 2B. The city's fact sheet scheduled 6A revenue to begin in January 2027. At about $767,207 a year, it brings in roughly a fifth of what the full package was meant to raise.
The package was built to pay for three things:
- Higher pay for current firefighters and EMS staff.
- More firefighters and emergency medical personnel. Boyd told council the department needed four new hires right away to reach three people per shift, up from two and still one short of the recommended four.
- Land and construction for a new Station 71 in West Glenwood, the station the Post Independent described as structurally deficient.
That list was written for the combined $3.6 million. Starting in January, district owners will pay the higher rate toward a package that is only partly funded, and the larger share was meant to come from inside the city.
Why the city question is still open
Council and its advisers backed this plan with unusual agreement. City Council voted 6-0 to send the measure to the ballot. The rural fire district's board and the city's Financial Advisory Board both supported the chosen version, Plan B, unanimously. Council considered other versions first. Plan C would have kept the same rural increase and cut the city increase to 6.5 mills, about $406 a year per $1 million home, and would have ended the General Fund subsidy.
Those alternatives show how the city has framed the decision. In each plan council looked at, a city increase paid for most of the fix. The fact sheet also notes that surrounding fire districts in the region have all passed tax increases, including for wages. The vote settled the rate for 2027. The underlying problem, a department that costs more than its dedicated revenue brings in, remains a line in the city budget.
For a buyer, that puts the two sides of the line in different positions. Outside city limits, the fire levy is set for the next two decades at 18.239 mills. Inside city limits, the rate is lower, and how the department will be paid for is still undecided. The first thing to confirm about any Glenwood Springs listing is whether the parcel is inside city limits or in the rural district, and then which levies appear on its tax bill.
Every property is different, so this is general information and not tax, legal or financial advice. Please confirm the levies and figures for any specific property with the county assessor and treasurer or a qualified tax professional.
If you're weighing a Glenwood Springs home on either side of the city line and want to see how the new fire levy changes your carrying costs, Mary Kate Farrell can model the numbers with you before you make an offer. Let's Connect.
