Mt. Crested Butte will lower BOLT tax

“It was supposed to be temporary”

Business owners in Mt. Crested Butte may be breathing a sigh of relief, or eagerly watching for a check in the mail, as the Town Council agreed on Tuesday night to lower the business tax to its previous level. Although the town will not have an official ordinance to read until the council‘s next meeting, the town will be providing refunds to those businesses that have already paid the fee.

Earlier this winter the Mt. Crested Butte town staff realized that an ordinance passed in 2003 that lowered the Business and Occupational License Tax (BOLT) was supposed to be effective for only one year. The town has charged $100 per business since 2004, but after the mistake was found, the fee was scheduled to increase to its original sliding scale, which varied between $100 and $1,500 depending on the number of employees in the business.
Avalanche Bar and Grill co-owner Pete Schewe came before the Town Council on Tuesday, January 20 to voice his concerns about the sudden increase in the BOLT, and to request the council to lower the fee again.
“Obviously we’re all in some difficult, uncertain times… From people I’ve talked to it’s gone from ‘It’s okay’ to ‘We’re just hanging in there,’” Schewe said.
Schewe said the Avalanche had already made significant budget cuts this year. “That’s why when I get a bill [for $1,500] for my business license that’s previously been $100 a year, it’s a little bit discouraging. We’re already doing everything we can,” he said.
Town manager Joe Fitzpatrick said the majority of BOLT funds came from the associated “pillow tax,” charged on the potential occupancy of buildings. “There are 756 properties we send bills to,” he said of the pillow tax. On average the town has been receiving about $50,000 from the BOLT since 2004. At least $40,000 of that came from the pillow tax, Fitzpatrick said.
“There are currently 356 businesses listed in Mt. Crested Butte, but not all are based in Mt. Crested Butte,” Fitzpatrick said. He said that regardless of the town’s fee, a business operating in both Mt. Crested Butte and Crested Butte could obtain a business license from the latter municipality first, and then only $25 could be charged by Mt. Crested Butte.
Town attorney Rod Landwehr said that the 2003 ordinance used a temporary reduction to protect the BOLT from the state’s TABOR amendment, which puts restrictions on tax revenue streams. Landwehr said if the council decided to repeal the fee entirely, they would be unable to bring it back up. “That’s why the [original] ordinance sunset itself. It was supposed to be temporary so we would not lose the BOLT,” he said.
Crested Butte/Mt. Crested Butte Chamber of Commerce president Christi Matthews told the council the best thing they could do for local businesses would be to keep the lower business license fee. The Chamber’s board of directors had discussed the issue at its meeting earlier in the day, she said.
“In light of the current economic conditions, and the fact that a lot of these businesses did not know the [BOLT] was going to change dramatically, it’s the request of the Chamber board to have the council consider reducing that to $100,” Matthews said.
Matthews also encouraged the town to consider yearly temporary reductions similar to what the town of Crested Butte does. She said if the council did ever consider raising the business license fee it would be appropriate to inform business owners beforehand and allow time for the Chamber to determine how the funds should be used. She said the Chamber is budgeting 2009 based on the lower BOLT fee.
Councilman Gary Keiser said, “It seems to me this was really an oversight. There was no intention of removing the suspension [that reduced the fee]. I think we ought to suspend it again for 2009, and consider it again in 2010 if things change.”
Fitzpatrick said if the town did choose to lower the BOLT for 2009, the town would need to provide refunds to any businesses that had already paid a higher amount for their license.
Town staff did not have an ordinance prepared for the council’s consideration, but after the discussion the council directed staff to prepare such an ordinance and present it during their next meeting on February 3.