## Facts

- The City of Boulder, a home-rule municipality, enacted an admissions-tax ordinance imposing a tax on paid admission to any place or event open to the public.
- The ordinance required the venue’s owner or operator to collect the tax from patrons and remit it to the city.
- The University of Colorado held public events on its Boulder campus for an admission charge, including cultural and educational events and athletic events such as football games.
- The Regents of the University of Colorado refused to collect or remit the city’s admissions tax for these events.
- Boulder sued to compel the Regents to comply with the ordinance.
- The Colorado Constitution grants the Regents general supervision of the university and exclusive control and direction of all university funds and appropriations.
- The trial court upheld the admissions tax as valid in general but ruled Boulder could not compel the Regents (a state constitutional body) to collect and remit the tax; judgment entered for the Regents.
- Boulder appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a home-rule city may apply a generally applicable admissions tax to admissions charged for events held by a state university within city limits.
2. Whether a home-rule city may compel the Regents—who have constitutionally granted exclusive control over university funds—to act as the city’s collection agent and remit municipal admissions taxes from university receipts.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court held the admissions tax, as a tax on admissions paid by the public, was a valid exercise of Boulder’s municipal taxing power.
- The court held Boulder could not compel the Regents to collect and remit the tax because that requirement would interfere with the Regents’ constitutionally granted exclusive control over university funds.
- The judgment for the Regents was affirmed as modified (modification limited to a minor costs item).

## Legal Principles

- A home-rule municipality may enact generally applicable revenue measures, including admissions taxes, that reach transactions involving a state institution, absent a specific constitutional or statutory prohibition.
- When the constitution grants a state governing board exclusive control and direction over an institution’s funds, a municipality may not impose duties that subordinate that control, including compulsory tax-collection and remittance obligations imposed on the board.
- A distinction exists between (a) a tax imposed on patrons’ admissions and (b) requiring a constitutional state entity to administer, collect, and remit the tax in a manner that intrudes on its control of institutional finances.

## Conclusion

Colorado upheld Boulder’s authority to impose an admissions tax on paid admissions generally, but barred the city from enforcing the ordinance by conscripting the Regents to collect and remit the tax because doing so would conflict with the Regents’ exclusive constitutional control over university funds.


City of Boulder v. Regents of the Univ. of Colo., 179 Colo. 420, 501 P.2d 123 (Colo. 1972)