By Randy Arrington
LURAY, May 6 — Following a public hearing that drew five speakers opposed to the measure, the Page County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously on Monday evening to increase the county’s Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) rate from 5 percent to 10 percent. The levy increase on lodging fees is projected to generate an additional $1.8 million for the general fund and fend off a need to hike tax rates on personal property or real estate.
“The folks who come here put a strain on our services too,” said District 5 supervisor and vice chairman Jeff Vaughan, who stepped in to gavel Monday’s meeting in the absence of Chairman Keith Weakley.
“When they get in an accident or if there’s a complaint, the sheriffs office has to respond…if they have a medical emergency, they expect EMS to show up,” Vaughan continued. “I think it’s only fair that the tourists help pay for the services they are putting a strain on…because we’re already struggling to keep them going as it is…”
During the board’s discussion of the TOT increase, County Administrator Amity Moler highlighted about $1 million in expenses in the budget that were not mandated, such as GIS services and contributions to multiple non-profit agencies like the Stanley library, the Concern Hotline and the local senior center. Moler noted more than a dozen areas of the budget that could potentially be cut, but recommended keeping all of them in the FY25 spending plan. She also noted that more than $1 million was cut from budget requests before they ever reached the board.
While no member of the board voiced support for further cuts beyond those recommended by staff, District 3 supervisor Ryan Cubbage noted that shifting the burden of those expenses to other revenue streams could have meant as much as an additional $60 in personal property tax on the average vehicle, or more than $100 per household in additional real estate tax. The board previously agreed — and publicly advertised — that there would be no increases to real estate or personal property tax rates in FY25.
“I know when I have a destination in mind to visit, I don’t ask what the meals or lodging tax is going to be, I just go,” said District 2 supervisor Allen Louderback, noting the local tourism industry should see minimal impact from the tax hike.
Of the total $1.8 million in projected TOT collections in the current budget cycle, just over $1 million must be spent on tourism-related activities (state law mandates this use for 60 percent of the first 5 percent in TOT collected, all other TOT monies may be directed to the county’s General Fund). The proposed rate increase is projected to generate a total of $3.6 million ($1.8 million in new TOT revenue), raising the amount projected to go into the General Fund from $720,000 this year to more than $2.5 million for FY25. The amount spent on tourism would remain the same.
The county administrator told supervisors on Monday that TOT revenues would be tracked and reported monthly to the board. Since the TOT rate increase is an ordinance amendment independent of other tax rates and the formal budget, it can be changed at any time. District 1 supervisor Keith Guzy noted that unfunded requests such as additional E. coli testing along the South Fork of the Shenandoah River could potentially be revisited later on and funded with TOT dollars.
In addition to adopting the 10-percent TOT rate, the supervisors also unanimously adopted the $90.3 million spending plan for the county and schools for the next budget cycle. That total includes a $500,000 increase in local funding for schools, but it also reflects the elimination of three formerly grant-funded positions in the sheriff’s office.
The resolution supporting the proposed school budget included a caveat that if the division needs an additional $255,180 to cover a 3-percent increase for faculty and staff — depending on which version of the biennium state budget gets approved in Richmond — the supervisors will provide that additional funding. Once again, the General Assembly is lagging behind in providing local decision-makers with finalized state funding figures on which to base local budgets.
The current fiscal year ends June 30.
“It’s hard going blind without knowing the state’s part,” Louderback stated during Monday’s budget discussion. “We’re at a bit of a loss.”
For a more detailed look at the FY25 Page County budget and tax rates,
•••
RELATED ARTICLES
Lodging owners speak out against proposed doubling of lodging tax
Public hearing Monday on county’s proposed $90.7M budget for FY25
Be the first to comment