Fifth round not likely for meals tax

Voters probably won’t see a meals tax question on the ballot in the next election, but the Board of Supervisors doesn’t seem completely ready to abandon the idea just yet.

Some say they’d be willing to put it to voters again, while others say a fourth rebuff is enough.

On Tuesday, voters rejected Culpeper County’s fourth attempt since 2004 to gain approval for a meals tax. The measure was defeated by the widest margin yet — nearly 24 percent.

Put to a referendum in 2004, 2005, and 2006, the meals tax failed each time by about 11 percentage points. The question did not go to voters in the 2007 election.

Last week, Culpeper rejected the initiative with nearly 61 percent of voters against it.

Background and rationale
If the measure had been approved, by law, the tax could not exceed 4 percent of the total purchase. That means the tax on a $40 meal could have equaled about $1.60.

Groceries and packaged foods would have been excluded, and only businesses in the county would be affected as patrons of town businesses already pay a similar tax.

It’s not clear how much money such a tax might generate because no formal studies have been performed. However, several supervisors said estimates indicate that revenue from a meals tax could exceed $500,000.

The supervisors all agree that a meals tax would be an effective tool that would negate the need to raise real estate or property taxes to fund the county budget. With waning federal and state funding and increasing costs, the supervisors say that without the revenue a meals tax might generate, that leaves them few options — either cuts to services and programs or higher taxes.

In April, the supervisors approved a 5-cent increase on real estate taxes for the 2008-09 budget year. A 9 percent increase, that means an average real estate tax bill rose by about $150.

Here’s what Culpeper County’s seven supervisors had to say about the meals tax and taking it to voters again:

Cedar Mountain District Supervisor Larry Aylor
Despite failing every time it’s come up for a vote, “I’d introduce it again,” Aylor said, noting that people in nearby communities and in town pay a similar tax.

“I feel that it was a missed opportunity,” he said.

To encourage more support, Aylor suggested that an option would be to earmark some of the potential funds for the schools. However, he added that he would stop short of establishing a direct, permanent link between the meals tax and school funding, saying that he didn’t want to see the funds tied to one purpose.

“We don’t know how the state is going to work with us,” Aylor said regarding likely funding cuts.

Stevensburg District Supervisor and Board Chairman Bill Chase
“I guess I would consider supporting again,” said Chase, noting that an increase in other taxes is the only other option, to maintain revenue.

“I feel (a meals tax) hits the people from outside the county,” he said. “It would have cut down on the real estate tax.”

West Fairfax Supervisor Steve Nixon
Nixon said he will not support the meals tax again.

“I think the people have told us how they feel,” he said. However, “we only have basically a couple of ways we can get revenue. The meals tax would have been one that would have taxed transient people through the area or tourists,” he continued.

But citing the latest failure, Nixon said it’s apparent that the necessary support doesn’t exist.

“The public has spoken,” he said. “They don’t want it.”

Jefferson District Supervisor Brad Rosenberger
Asked if he would support introducing the meals tax again, Rosenberger said he wouldn’t consider the idea anytime soon.

“It’s very evident that people don’t want the meals tax,” he said. “I’m not going to support it.”

Catalpa District Supervisor Sue Hansohn
Hansohn said she’d like to “hold the line” on taxes, but added that the county doesn’t yet know how anticipated state and federal money may affect her decision.

Hansohn also said that she will not consider supporting the meals tax again.

Salem District Supervisor Tom Underwood
Citing an apparent lack of understanding of the reasoning behind the meals tax, Underwood said getting support would be the key to getting the measure passed.

“My personal feeling is that if the public believed that the proceeds from the meals tax would be used to offset other taxes instead of increasing revenue, it might gain support,” he said. “If we could make the case that the tax would be used to offset or lower other taxes, I think it would have a chance” Underwood also said he is not in favor of raising taxes.

“Now’s not the time to be raising property taxes or real estate taxes.”

East Fairfax District Supervisor Steve Walker
“At this point in time, I would say it’s off the table,” said Walker.

In lieu of raising taxes, Walker said the county continues to explore other options like sharing resources and responsibilities by creating regional service entities.

“More than likely, there’s going to be some hard choices, and at the same time, there’s going to be some greater needs,” he said. “We’re trying to do everything we can not to raise taxes.”

Statewide response
On Election Day, voters in six other counties also faced a meals tax question. It failed every county except in King William, where it passed by 45 votes, according to a statement released Friday from the Northern Virginia GOP Political Action Committee. Voters in Bath, Fauquier, Loudoun Rockingham and Smyth counties rejected it.

Nate Delesline III can be reached at 825-0771 ext. 110 or .