Killington Option Tax

ncholcomb · Post by **ncholcomb** » Mar 3rd, '08, 20:59

VOTE YES ON AN AMENDED ARTICLE 8

I would like to summarize some recent developments and report on the attempts by the Selectboard to negotiate a reasonable compromise that would be palatable to John Cumming.

You should be aware that Mr. Cumming is the only Powdr/Killington employee making decisions on this matter. ANY OFFERS OR DISCUSSIONS OF OFFERS THAT DID NOT PREVIOUSLY HAVE HIS BLESSING WERE ONLY DISCUSSION, not to be considered binding. You may quibble about this discussion or that discussion and what's in the minutes of this meeting or that meeting, but none of that means anything, so don't get yourselves in a huff over that. None of those discussions meant anything unless they were in writing from Mr. Cumming.

First, the only offer made by Killington Powdr is the offer on the table. These were presented for the first time to the Selectboard about a week ago, during our public hearing about the options tax. The Selectboard had another public hearing two weeks earlier, lightly attended, and only heard rumors of a potential offer. After that meeting I personally called Chris Nyberg and asked him if they were planning to make an offer. He said "NO, we are planning to let the Town get through its visioning process and have not been discussing and are not planning to make any offers." I was surprised, based on the rumors, and reiterated my question, while pointing out that once the vote occurred at the Town meeting , we would not be able to discuss any other alternatives. He repeated himself and said that although they were opposed to the options tax, they were not planning to make any offers.

Just a few days later I had occasion to be in Chris Nyberg's office and with him for over an hour. Although we were discussing other matters, he did not say anything about an offer oir that they might be reconsidering what he had said a few days earlier.

In the meantime Killington conducted an unethical "push survey" to sway and divide opinion.

Since last weeks Selectboard meeting I have had numerous telephone conversations with representatives of Killington. I hosted a meeting here in my home on Thursday afternoon, last week, with members of the Chamber of Commerce and a representative of Killington to talk over an alternative proposal. Note that apparently the Chamber was dissatisfied with Powdr's original proposal, even though they considered it "worthy of consideration". That proposal was rejected Saturday by Mr. Cumming.

The last discussion was today, in which I talked with representatives of the Chamber and Killington to see if they would agree to an options tax ONLY ON ROOMS MEALS AND BEVERAGES. Mr. Cumming rejected that proposal as well.

I believe the Powdr proposal is divisive to our community. Their actions are continually hardnosed and divisive.

By presenting their plan to the Chamber they have already divided the community, ignoring the hard work that many non Chamber members have done as part of the Grow Killington group.

Businesses who choose not to participate in the optional tax, for whatever their reasons, will find themselves at odds with those who do participate. That division will potentially worsen if the "goal" is not met and the funds already collected from guests are not turned over to the Chamber. The people hired will suddenly be faced with lack of funding and unless the other businesses make up the difference, the programs may have to be abandoned. That has the potential to create significant internal division.

PLEASE do not align yourselves with this very negative proposal!!

My recommendation:

AMEND the article, to collect an options tax only on ROOMS, MEALS and BEVERAGES . That will generate $370,000 annually net to the Town, a great start. If the resort does not give the Chamber the $250,000 seed money, we can always go back and reconsider a sales tax in the future.

Give our Town a chance to succeed with a sustainable economic development fund.

Norm Holcomb, Selectman

VOTE YES ON AN AMENDED ARTICLE 8

TheLurker · Post by **TheLurker** » Mar 3rd, '08, 21:06

Gee, just what this country needs more taxes. These guys have got to be kidding.

pcgrantham · Post by **pcgrantham** » Mar 3rd, '08, 21:31

more taxes means less money I'll be spending at K.

Post by **Bubba** » Mar 3rd, '08, 21:40

pcgrantham wrote:more taxes means less money I'll be spending at K.

Let's see now....if you spend $1000 at Killington you'll pay...hmmmmm.....$10 extra, with the bulk of the money going toward economic development activities that will increase the reasons to come to Killington year round. I'm not a fan of new taxes but I think that's a reasonable price to pay.

Dr. NO · Post by **Dr. NO** » Mar 3rd, '08, 22:46

Bubba wrote:
pcgrantham wrote:more taxes means less money I'll be spending at K.
Let's see now....if you spend $1000 at Killington you'll pay...hmmmmm.....$10 extra, with the bulk of the money going toward economic development activities that will increase the reasons to come to Killington year round. I'm not a fan of new taxes but I think that's a reasonable price to pay.

today $10, tomorrow $100. You think the school tax is bad? give them more.

Post by **Bubba** » Mar 3rd, '08, 22:48

Dr. NO wrote:
Bubba wrote:
pcgrantham wrote:more taxes means less money I'll be spending at K.
Let's see now....if you spend $1000 at Killington you'll pay...hmmmmm.....$10 extra, with the bulk of the money going toward economic development activities that will increase the reasons to come to Killington year round. I'm not a fan of new taxes but I think that's a reasonable price to pay.
today $10, tomorrow $100. You think the school tax is bad? give them more.

It's called a 1% Local Option Tax for a reason. It's limited to 1%.

Dr. NO · Post by **Dr. NO** » Mar 3rd, '08, 22:52

Bubba wrote:
Dr. NO wrote:
Bubba wrote:
pcgrantham wrote:more taxes means less money I'll be spending at K.
Let's see now....if you spend $1000 at Killington you'll pay...hmmmmm.....$10 extra, with the bulk of the money going toward economic development activities that will increase the reasons to come to Killington year round. I'm not a fan of new taxes but I think that's a reasonable price to pay.
today $10, tomorrow $100. You think the school tax is bad? give them more.
It's called a 1% Local Option Tax for a reason. It's limited to 1%.

Now Bubba, since when have you ever seen government hold a limit.

Oh yeah, we only want a 4% capped ikncome tax today. Uh Oh, we need more so it is 6%.
Sales tax is only 3%. Oops, we need more, make that 6%. Uh oh, another local 1%. Yep, it was capped.

Mister Moose · Post by **Mister Moose** » Mar 3rd, '08, 22:57

Hmmmm. So the customers invest 1% in developing a more year round resort to add to the financial perfomance of the business community, and they then get how much of the increased revenue later on? Thought so.

Aren't they called shareholders for a reason? The revenue collection doesn't match the use here.

TheLurker · Post by **TheLurker** » Mar 3rd, '08, 23:03

Bubba wrote:
Dr. NO wrote:
Bubba wrote:
pcgrantham wrote:more taxes means less money I'll be spending at K.
Let's see now....if you spend $1000 at Killington you'll pay...hmmmmm.....$10 extra, with the bulk of the money going toward economic development activities that will increase the reasons to come to Killington year round. I'm not a fan of new taxes but I think that's a reasonable price to pay.
today $10, tomorrow $100. You think the school tax is bad? give them more.
It's called a 1% Local Option Tax for a reason. It's limited to 1%.

If it's only 1% and it will do so much good, let the local merchants take it out of their profit and reinvest it in their futures.

Post by **Bubba** » Mar 3rd, '08, 23:14

TheLurker wrote:
Bubba wrote:
Dr. NO wrote:
Bubba wrote:
pcgrantham wrote:more taxes means less money I'll be spending at K.
Let's see now....if you spend $1000 at Killington you'll pay...hmmmmm.....$10 extra, with the bulk of the money going toward economic development activities that will increase the reasons to come to Killington year round. I'm not a fan of new taxes but I think that's a reasonable price to pay.
today $10, tomorrow $100. You think the school tax is bad? give them more.
It's called a 1% Local Option Tax for a reason. It's limited to 1%.
If it's only 1% and it will do so much good, let the local merchants take it out of their profit and reinvest it in their futures.

That has, until recently, been my opinion as well but, when I looked at the real cost to me, I thought it would be a worth the risk of actually voting in favor of the tax - as long as I hear tomorrow how it will be spent and what controls will be in place to ensure it is spent as intended both in the short and long term. My opinion is also, at least in part, a gut reaction to the incredibly stupid, underhanded and unethical way that the resort has gone about opposing the tax.

MarkinNY · Post by **MarkinNY** » Mar 3rd, '08, 23:45

TheLurker wrote:
Bubba wrote:
Dr. NO wrote:
Bubba wrote:
pcgrantham wrote:more taxes means less money I'll be spending at K.
Let's see now....if you spend $1000 at Killington you'll pay...hmmmmm.....$10 extra, with the bulk of the money going toward economic development activities that will increase the reasons to come to Killington year round. I'm not a fan of new taxes but I think that's a reasonable price to pay.
today $10, tomorrow $100. You think the school tax is bad? give them more.
It's called a 1% Local Option Tax for a reason. It's limited to 1%.
If it's only 1% and it will do so much good, let the local merchants take it out of their profit and reinvest it in their futures.

The "only" 1% is added to the existing tax bringing the rooms tax to "only" 10% total, bringing the meals tax to "only" 10% total and the alcohol tax to "only" 11% total.

Coydog · Post by **Coydog** » Mar 4th, '08, 05:46

Agreed, the meal & rooms tax is already significantly burdensome. And once a tax is implemented, it is far too tempting for government at any level to resist - the crank to increase rates is inevitably turned.

Post by **SkiDork** » Mar 4th, '08, 07:08

nholcomb wrote:In the meantime Killington conducted an unethical "push survey" to sway and divide opinion

what is a push survey?

icedtea · Post by **icedtea** » Mar 4th, '08, 07:10

is a biased survey, can be from many things including the order of questions or questioners tone etc....

all surveys are inherently biased in some way though. IMO

Geoff · Post by **Geoff** » Mar 4th, '08, 07:23

It's Vermont. They're in the process of taxing themselves into Arkansas status. If they want to continue to force costs up to make the resort uncompetitive, so be it. You already don't see many Massacusetts plates in the parking lot. This should be a nice shot in the arm for the New York ski resorts.

Other than my season pass and my utilities, I buy almost everything in tax-free New Hampshire which is only 33 miles away. It at least keeps my property values down so I don't get crushed as badly by the Act 68 school tax.