Election Day voters mixed on Vail tax | VailDaily.com

Election Day voters mixed on Vail tax

Lauren Glendenning
Vail, CO Colorado
Preston Utley/Vail DailyBob Armour of Vail campaigns with his homemade sign in favor of the construction use tax outside of Vail Town Hall Tuesday.

VAIL ” Lunchtime voters in Vail had mixed feelings about the construction use tax proposed on Tuesday’s ballot.

The tax would raise the $25.8 million needed for buildings and roads projects over the next five years, but some voters think the local government could find other ways to raise the money.

“I think it’s double taxation; I don’t like it,” voter Jerry Sibley said.

When asked about a possible alternative to the tax, he said, “politicians don’t have a problem raising money.”

The 4 percent tax would apply to materials used in Vail, like steel, concrete and bricks.

Dave Hilb, who voted in Tuesday’s election, said money raised by the tax would be spent on things that would benefit the entire community ” so he opposes it.

“It’s more broad, for streets and bridges and things,” he said. “I think it should be a property tax increase.”

Those who support the tax point toward towns like Eagle and Gypsum that already impose a construction use tax. John Fee, a Vail voter, said those towns benefit from it, so “why shouldn’t Vail?”

“I think it’s a good thing,” Fee said. “If it keeps the free buses running, I’m all for it.”

Several voters like the tax, but want to see more details worked out for private homeowners looking to do some home remodeling or additions. Ed and Susan Abramson both said they don’t want the tax to inhibit people from making home improvements, but the couple does support the tax for commercial construction.

“I’m for it now, but I thought it could have been more reasonable for property owners,” said voter Dan Ryan. “But it needs to get done.”

One voter said the tax isn’t necessary because there isn’t even a budget deficit to worry about.

“It’s a wish-list,” she said, talking about the proposed “capital” projects that account for the so-called $25.8 million shortfall.

Support Local Journalism