Colorado Noise Bill Dies on Property Rights Vote

The obvious take is that Colorado’s mountain towns are fighting for their economic survival, and a stalled noise bill is the latest casualty in a battle between local business vitality and resident peace. But look closer at the voting record in the House, and you’ll see the real story isn’t about economics — it’s about property rights.

The bipartisan State & Local Noise Abatement Authority bill (SB26-098) died in committee on Tuesday, defeated by a single vote. It had already cleared the Senate. It was designed to codify local governments’ authority to issue noise permits for events that exceed the state’s 1971 Noise Abatement Act. The trigger was a Colorado Supreme Court ruling last fall that found Salida had overreached when it allowed a downtown bar to play louder than state law permitted.

Proponents argued that without this bill, cities can’t support the special events that drive tourism. Opponents argued that the court’s ruling was correct: if you live in your house, you shouldn’t have to deal with a private business’s concert bleeding into your living room.

“The question is whether we want statewide standards to protect the individual homeowner, or local control to protect the business model,” said Rep. Chris Richardson, an Elbert County Republican. “I’m generally a very strong proponent of local control, but there’s nothing more local than your own private property. So I think this is a place where it is appropriate to have statewide standards.”

Richardson’s vote was the 7th "no" that killed the bill in the House Transportation, Housing & Local Government committee.

For folks in Vail and Avon, the stakes feel abstract. The bill was widely seen as a fix for the Ford Amphitheater in Colorado Springs, which opened in 2024 and has already sparked lawsuits from neighbors claiming unhealthy noise levels and disrupted sleep. But Vail Town Manager Russ Forrest says the issue is bigger than one venue.

“The town has been grappling with policies to make Vail more vibrant for local businesses, including how to incorporate more special events in ways that don’t antagonize local residents,” Forrest said. “We’ve toured places like Whistler Village — a competing ski town that does a good job of blending live music with private property rights.”

He didn’t track the legislation closely, but he supports local control.

Avon Town Manager Eric Heil offered a different perspective. He thinks the bill misses the mark for his town.

“It doesn’t apply to Avon because everything we do in Avon’s is on a town-owned stage and there’s a town event,” Heil said. “So it’s really the Ford down by Colorado Springs … and venues like that that are private, where that’s an issue. I don’t think that law applies to Red Rocks because that’s the City of Denver.”

But Beverly Stables, legislative advocacy manager for the Colorado Municipal League, says Heil is overlooking the ambiguity. The Supreme Court’s ruling created a gray area for venues owned by the city but operated by private promoters.

“Still creates ambiguity for local government-owned property where the local government, like Red Rocks is an easy example; owns the venue, but they also contract with a third party to actually put the event on,” Stables said. “In such a case, it’s unclear if the private concert promoter would be covered by the city’s noise permit.”

The bill was an attempt to clarify that the city’s permit covers the promoter, too.

The debate in the House room wasn’t just about legal theory. It was about the visceral experience of living next to a bass drop. Rep. Jamie Jackson of Aurora, who voted no, acknowledged the economic argument but prioritized the resident’s right to quiet.

“I want to acknowledge the residents who shared that they haven’t been able to live peacefully in their homes. That matters. Everyone deserves rest, safety and stability where they live,” Jackson said.

Rep. Amy Paschal, also a Colorado Springs Democrat, put it in terms that hit home for anyone who’s tried to sleep through a construction site.

“People should be able to be in their home and not have their house vibrating while they’re trying to enjoy their life,” Paschal said. “And I’m hard pressed to believe this is not a solvable problem.”

The bill failed 7-6.

Now, local governments are left with the court’s ruling as their only guide. They can issue permits, but if a private business challenges them in court, they might lose. The economic engine of mountain towns - festivals, concerts, brewery patios. still runs on noise. But the legal shield protecting that noise is gone.

As Stables noted, the ambiguity remains. And until the General Assembly tries again, or the Supreme Court clarifies further, local officials are left guessing.

“We’re still figuring out if we’re running the show or if the promoter is,” Stables said. “And right now, the homeowner has the upper hand.”