Charles City leaders vote to implement four-percent meals tax beginning in 2024

With reluctance in their voices, Charles City County supervisors voted to adopt a meals tax during the Sept. 26 board meeting.

County leaders unanimously agreed to the four-percent increase beginning Jan. 1, 2024, after receiving information and listening to concerned business owners.

One of those business owners was Bonnie Whittaker, who expressed her concerns about the increase and how it would impact her business, Cul’s Courthouse Grille.

“I know we need money in this county, but I would like to have more options than this,” she said. “We only have about three restaurants in the county.

“This is going to interfere in us giving discounts,” Whittaker continued. “Most of the people who come here are not from Charles City and they say the reason they drive further is because they don’t have to pay the tax. I just don’t think it’s good for the restaurant and for the county.”

Patrick Weller, owner of Indian Fields Restaurant, echoed the same sentiments that Whittaker had.

“About 80 percent of the customers come from outside of the county and they drive by many, many restaurants,” Weller said. “I had two people who heard about this and they say they aren’t coming here anymore because they save five dollars and they are going to eat in New Kent.”

After hearing comments, District 2 supervisor Bill Coada advised Weller that New Kent’s meals’ tax is six percent, but he understands the dilemma the owners are dealing with.

“If I owned a restaurant, I would be sitting right there with you saying the same thing,” the supervisor said. “Sitting up here, I’m trying to figure out how to pay for everything.

“Nobody wants solar farms, nobody wants power plants, nobody wants EDA (Economic Development Authority) developments along Route 106, nobody wants nothing,” Coada added. “We have people packed against the wall from this wall to this wall against the power plant and that would have brought $5.3 million in revenue to the county.”

Coada added to his monologue, saying how $1.3 million in this year’s budget was used on Fire & EMS services alone.

“We have one of the cheapest real estate taxes around and we don’t have a b-pole (business license) tax, but we have been struggling and struggling on how to pay for everything,” he added. “And when the people filled this auditorium up to talk about the power plant, those people who supported it were at home comfortable.

“I hate imposing taxes, but we have to pay for this one way or another,” he concluded.

After the motion was approved for the four-percent meal tax, the public comment period yielded disdain on the decision by the board.

“I know it’s a moot point because you already voted,” said Peter Boyd. “I can’t speak about how much revenue they make for the county, but they are the face and venues that people on cars and bikes they see.

“To do something to affect four institutions that don’t provide the bulk of immediate revenue to the county seems to me something that is contrary to these people work so hard and what they done. There is probably a better way. We must protect our local businesses,” Boyd concluded.

Peter Churrins asked about other ways the county could pay for projects instead of implementing the meals tax.

“I guess my concern is that we have a rainy day fund. What’s the status of it?” he asked. “I heard we had $11 million, and now we have $5 million. At the work session, I heard ‘we did this and we did that’ but how much is in that fund now?

“Over here there are two families, and these are family businesses,” Churrins continued. “They’ve been here for years and this tax is going to take out of their profit and take away their ability to do business.”

Churrins added that another business from out-of-state is planning to occupy land in the courthouse area, charging the board of supervisors of giving away land.

“I hear there is going to be a bodega here and that is direct competition for them,” he added. “This is no laughing or giggling matter. That’s their livelihood.”