Polling results indicate CB voters support new tax

Council to have discussion over poll on July 20

by Mark Reaman

The poll results are in for the questions of whether to place a potential tax on second homes in Crested Butte or reallocate some of the Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) funds being collected on the November ballot, and based on results of the poll, both would apparently win in an electoral landslide.

The subject line from the polling firm to the town sums it up: “Crested Butte voters strongly support a tax on non-primary homes to fund town services.”

Of the 103 “likely voters” that participated in the polling, 66% said they would support a $3,400 annual tax on non-primary homes with the money being “dedicated to maintaining existing town services and infrastructure.” FYI, there were 1,536 registered voters in 2024 with 636 people voting in the last town election in 2025.

As for reallocating some of the RETT money that currently goes to open space, 58% said they would vote for a measure that shifts half of the money currently going to open space to a fund dedicated to affordable housing.

The poll asked several questions of participants with the vacant home tax polling extremely strong through a variety of demgraphics in Crested Butte.

According to the report the exact question used was: “Shall Town of Crested Butte taxes be increased $1,500,000 annually, and by whatever amounts are raised annually thereafter, by imposing a tax of $3,400 per year on non-primary homes that are occupied less than half of each year, with the revenue dedicated to maintaining existing town services and infrastructure.”

The report states that, “Support for the tax on non-primary homes is intense: 50% say they will definitely vote yes, and after voters hear arguments for and against the measure, support grows to 68% while opposition falls to 27%.

“The reason why Town of Crested Butte voters support the tax on non-primary homes is clear from their own words,” the report continues. “When voters who would vote yes are asked the main reasons why, the top responses are that the measure prioritizes and benefits the long-term community (19%), that there are too many empty or vacant homes (18%), that wealthy second homeowners should pay their fair share (15%), that it makes taxation more fair and balanced (14%) and that it generates income and revenue for the Town (13%).”

The poll indicated that if the annual fee was reduced to $2,300, which would raise $1 million annually, 51% said they would be even more likely to vote for the tax measure. Forty one percent said that reduction would make them less likely to vote for the proposal. As for exempting homes that have been continuously owned by the same individual or family for 25 years or more, 69% of those polled said the tax should be applied equally to all vacant homes.

On the idea of shifting around what the current RETT can be used for, the majority of voters – 58% – “also support a measure to reallocate the Town’s existing 3% Real Estate Transfer Tax, so that 50% goes to capital projects, 25% to open space and 25% to a fund to be used for affordable housing purposes, while 37% oppose it.”

Another question being considered by the council is whether to throw in a property tax rebate to long-time locals. Not surprisingly, that polled well. When asked if “a General Fund property tax rebate could be paired with the non-primary home tax for full-time residences that have been in continuous ownership for 25 years or more, averaging a rebate of approximately $180 per residence,” would this make you more or less likely to support the proposal, 56% indicated they would be more likely to do so.

According to town manager Dara MacDonald, such a move would apply to “approximately 338 properties, or around $64,000. It would be a refund of the General Fund mill levy for those properties, so would be paid from the General fund,” she said. “The council would make that rebate decision annually as part of the budget consideration and adoption.”

Based in Telluride, Keating Research, Inc. says it “provides our clients with personalized, custom research services to successfully measure voter and consumer attitudes and produce effective message framing and branding.” The poll was conducted in late June and early July using both phone and text-to-online methods. According to its report, “The worst-case margin of error at the 95% level for the full sample of 103 respondents is plus or minus 9.8%.”

Council to discuss poll on July 20

The Crested Butte council will hold a public work session on the polling results at the Monday, July 20 council meeting. Keating Research reps will attend that meeting to discuss the poll and results.

Keating was paid $15,000 for the polling. The town has budgeted $10,000 with GSBM (Miles Graham) to assist with messaging around long-range financial planning efforts including explanations of why the council is considering a ballot measure for new revenue.

“The council will be asked at that meeting (July 20) to provide direction on whether or not they wish to proceed with considering a ballot measure for the voters this fall,” explained MacDonald. “If so, staff are asking council to provide direction on several questions (about details of the proposal) so that they can proceed with drafting ballot language. Draft ballot language would likely be brought to council for discussion on August 4 with final adoption of ballot language at the regular meeting on August 17.” The final county deadline for ballot initiatives is September 4.

That July 20 work session will begin at 6 o’clock, and chances are it won’t be short.

Mayor Ian Billick said he thinks the polling results were so clear given what the town has been doing the last several years. “I was surprised by the strength of the support, though I think it reflects two-plus years of financial planning by the town,” he said. “We have taken a series of steps, such as freezing the number of staff, reducing or delaying building projects and squeezing personnel costs. But with the cost of capital projects increasing dramatically, such as the cost of repaving roads go up approximately 400% in seven years or construction costs doubling in a year or two, and with regular double digit increases to health care costs, there is only so much we can do on the cost-cutting side. Maintaining affordability for the working community in a resort is not easy.”