Aspen City Council considers additional increases to food tax refund
Austin Colbert/The Aspen Times
Just as everyone was getting used to the $15 increase in the food tax refund, Aspen City Council unanimously agreed that they’d like to see it increase even more.
During Monday’s work session, all five council members expressed interest in seeing the food tax refund program increase to as much as $132 in 2025. Council most recently supported an increase from $55 to $65 in 2024.
Mayor Torre said while he favors the increase, he was hoping to see it in increments to allow for more questions to be answered and explore more equitable ways of getting these funds to the appropriate people.
“I was really in support of a graduated system to work towards this as we understood more and as we’ve answered some of the questions that were coming to us,” he said. “But you know, hey, this is a feel-good move and I want to feel good, too.”
Finance Director Pete Strecker presented information and history on the food tax refund program to better assist Council further its discussion on where it would like to see the program pushed in the future.
Strecker explained that in 1970, Aspen first introduced its own sales tax on tangible personal property. Along with this, the city’s municipal code adopted language around creating a refund mechanism for local residents.
This refund, originally $7 per person, quickly tripled in 1972 to $21 and again to $39 in 1981. Since then, the refund amount has been increased three more times: $50 in 1998, $55 in 2018, and most recently to $65 when Council supported increasing the 2024 refund.
In total, the City’s tax rate has increased 240% from 1970 to 2023 (1.00% to 2.40%). Over the same time period, the consumer price index increased 785%. Strecker explained that when considering the inflationary impact to the original $7 refund amount over the duration of the program, today’s refund award ties out to the 2023 amount of $55. Furthermore, when accounting for the increased tax rate, the value in 2023 would equate to roughly $132.
The current refund program also includes eligibility groups, such as awards offered to those over 65 and for those who are blind. Council said it would not be looking at making amendments to the section that states eligible individuals that are over age 65 and/or are legally blind receive additional refund amounts in tandem with the base award.
Torre said that in addition to being interested in seeing the refund increased while continuing to address other issues, he agreed with Council member Sam Rose’s statement that people under 30 in the community would stand to benefit more from the increase than people over 65.
“You bring up an interesting point about people that are on the younger side and how this impacts them,” he said. “I have to say you’re right, it’s probably more impactful for them in a lot of ways.”
Council member Bill Guth, though, was in support of the increase. He said he had hoped to get rid of the doubling factors for the seniors and the blind and opt for a more equal spread of the refund.
“Taking away the doubling factor for blind and over 65 is not punitive because all of those individuals will be receiving the same amount that they were receiving,” Guth said. “So I think along the lines of equity and parity, I think just getting rid of that and making it even for everybody makes the most sense.”
Guth also asked for clarification around one of Strecker’s comments regarding upset applicants. He explained that as the refund continues to increase over time, the potential for conflicts becomes more prevalent with applicants that aren’t eligible for the award. Reasons for exclusion include partial residency, residency beyond the City limits, late application submittals and deceased family members.
“We’ve had a few individuals that would come by and say that, ‘I live in this community as well’ or ‘I live just on the outskirts of this community, but I might use your grocery store,'” Strecker said. “There’s different criteria like that; I’ve had folks that have only lived here a portion of the year and who then want a prorated amount. There’s just some challenges with all sorts of different criteria for why they request to be considered.”
To reach Jonson Kuhn, email him at jkuhn@aspentimes.com.
