Debate on a proposed amusement tax in Lower Towamensing Township continues to rage on a month after the board was asked to delay action last month.

Connie and Rich Banko, who have pushed for the township to consider an amusement tax, disputed several of the claims made by Blue Mountain Resort’s attorney, as well as several Blue Mountain employees, at last month’s meeting.

Connie Banko said that Blue Mountain General Manager Jim Dailey keeps saying he wants to be a good steward of the township, but that she doesn’t believe Blue Mountain employees understood what the amusement tax would be applied to.

Connie Banko also noted how Dailey made comments that Blue Mountain’s had some bad winters, but that “they aren’t the only ones who have to work around the weather.”

She also questioned why Blue Mountain is fighting so hard not to have to pay the amusement tax.

“I don’t see where this amusement tax is going to be that much of a detriment to anybody,” Connie Banko said. “If they are fighting this so hard not to pay a nickel, what are the plans for the future?”

Rich Banko noted that at last month’s meeting, Blue Mountain “brought all kinds of people to help make their case,” and questioned whether they were paid to attend.

“In 16 months, you can come up with some (kind of) game plan,” Rich Banko said. “They had an entire year to negotiate.”

Rich Banko then said if Blue Mountain’s employees are worried about their jobs, he suggested they consider bringing in a union.

Blue Mtn. response

Dailey told Rich Banko that he didn’t pay Blue Mountain employees to attend last month’s meeting.

“We’ve been making pledges to this township,” Dailey said. “Are we opposed to the tax, yeah.”

Dailey added that Blue Mountain is responsive to its neighbors and the needs of the community.

“I wish there was a way I could win you over,” Dailey said. “I know (you) want this tax; we feel it does not apply to us.”

Dailey reaffirmed his commitment.

“I don’t want animosity; I pledge our support to this township,” he said. “We’re not excited about paying a tax we feel does not apply to us.”

Angela Farrell, a member of the township planning commission, said she was still questioning what happened to the $50,000 annual contribution the late Ray Tuthill, former owner of Blue Mountain Ski Area, used to make to the township.

Retired Blue Mountain Resort CEO and minority owner Barb Green said throughout its 49-year existence, there have been several years in the past where Blue Mountain had bad years from a revenue standpoint.

But, Farrell said that Tuthill, Green’s father, did pay, and that “you’re the one that fizzled out (on that one).”

Green said that when she took over at Blue Mountain, it was $25,000, and it went toward the township’s recreation area until they told her they no longer needed the money.

Regardless, Farrell told Green there was an agreement that was made, and that everybody has needs.

Opposition

Green explained the reason why Blue Mountain is so opposed to an amusement tax is because it’s competing for the summer with the Jersey Shore, and people going on their vacations.

Not to be dismayed, Farrell told Green that the failure on her part to comprehend these things is “disappointing.”

“We’re a seasonal business,” Green responded. “We’re a very weather dependent business.”

Resident Steve Kuhns said he doesn’t believe Green understands the way the amusement tax works.

Kuhns said they aren’t going after the ski area, but instead the extra stuff they’re doing because it’s bringing in more traffic and as a result damaging township roads.

“I don’t know why we’re having an argument on this,” Kuhns said. “It’s very simple.”

Green said the summer time is a loss from their bottom line.

Rich Banko complimented Blue Mountain and said he’s “proud to have” Blue Mountain there, citing it’s excellent reputation for how great it is and what all its guests are able to do there.

Good neighbor

Dailey said he understands that the township needs money, but that an amusement tax would have an impact on Blue Mountain.

“We want to be a good neighbor,” Dailey said. “The partnership we have with this township, I don’t want that partnership to be impaired.”

Resident Drew Everett said he supports the amusement tax, and cited how the roads in the township are falling apart, along with the ton of traffic.

“You’re no longer a fledgling business,” Everett said. “Now’s the time to be a true partner of the township.”

At last month’s meeting, Blue Mountain Resort’s attorney warned the measure could spark an expensive legal fight and yield “zero dollars” from the ski area.

Attorney Jan Budman of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, representing Blue Mountain Resort, asked the board at that meeting to table the ordinance for at least 90 days.

The widely debated tax, which was listed on the supervisors’ agenda, was ultimately tabled at that time in the absence of board Chairman Jay Mullikin. With only two supervisors present, Supervisor Michael Takerer said no vote would be taken.

Budman said Pennsylvania legislation enacted in 2002 prohibits municipalities and school districts from levying amusement taxes on ski facilities.

He said Blue Mountain’s position is that even if the township passes an amusement tax, it would not apply to the resort.

Budman told the board the township should vote no on the ordinance, and said if the tax is approved, the township will get zero dollars from Blue Mountain.

He added that during the proposed 90-day period, the resort would be willing to work with the township.

Dailey said at that time the resort has tried to maintain a positive relationship with the community and called the proposed ordinance unfair.

However, Connie Banko said at that time the measure is about fairness as Blue Mountain has grown into a year-round destination.

It was asked at that time why the amusement tax proposal has resurfaced now. Township solicitor Jim Nanovic said the topic has been discussed for about a year.

Nanovic said the proposed tax would be 5% of admissions, and estimated it could generate roughly $65,000 annually.

According to a public notice published in the Times News in April, the tax would apply to the admission fee or privilege to attend or engage in any amusement within the township at a rate of 5% of the established price charged to the general public. The notice states the tax is intended to generate revenue for the health, safety and welfare of the township.