Tazewell supervisors reopen debate on 6% meals tax to fund fire, EMS and first responders

Tazewell County supervisors reopened a months‑long discussion on a proposed 6% meals tax at a public hearing that drew fire chiefs, town leaders, restaurant owners and more than a dozen public speakers.

The board heard a presentation from Barry Brooks outlining gaps in county fire protection and a proposed plan to use proceeds from a meals tax to pay for apparatus, equipment, training and personnel. “We propose to use the proceeds from the meals tax to help our emergency services,” Brooks told supervisors, describing expired gear, aging stations and recruitment shortfalls at volunteer departments.

Why it matters: Supervisors and many speakers framed the proposal as an attempt to create a steady local funding stream for life‑safety services that county budgets and one‑time grants have not reliably supplied. Supporters said the tax would help replace aging vehicles, buy air packs and repair station infrastructure; opponents said it would hurt small food businesses and asked the board to pursue budget cuts first.

Board presentation and proposal Brooks, who led the county’s fire protection update, described equipment and staffing shortfalls and presented a preliminary list of uses county staff had tentatively budgeted for first‑year revenues: vehicle leases, stipends and training, equipment, apparatus and station improvements. County staff said an initial planning figure in committee packs included $300,000 for vehicle leases, $400,000 for stipends/training, $150,000 for equipment and $200,000 for apparatus or station work. Supervisors emphasized the figures were estimates to guide discussion, and some said the emergency services committees had not completed all recommended reviews.

Public comment: arguments for and against Supporters included volunteer firefighters and residents who said response times and worn equipment had put lives and property at risk. “If this revenue were to pass, it’s going to the people that are in this room right now,” said one board member speaking for his district’s first responders. Several speakers, including fire chiefs, asked the board to guarantee that any revenue would be directed to fire, EMS and other first‑responder needs.

Opponents included restaurant and small‑business owners who warned a new meals tax would cut already thin margins and could force some businesses to close. Citizen speakers also urged the board to cut nonessential donations, reduce elected officials’ benefits and reallocate budget items before adding new taxes. “Stop taking money from my pocket to make yourselves look good by giving donation after donation,” one commenter said.

Process and next steps County staff and the county attorney explained legal limits and timetable for the meals tax. The county attorney noted the statutory maximum is 6% and that recent changes to state law and past referendum history limit when and how the county may enact such a tax. The board did not adopt an ordinance at the meeting; instead, it confirmed earlier direction to hold a second public hearing and advertising round and scheduled further hearings for the April meeting so residents who could not attend could be heard. Supervisors also discussed the wording of the proposed ordinance and whether to describe eligible uses as “fire protection and emergency medical services” or more broadly as “first responders.”

What was decided The board voted to continue the public‑comment period and to schedule follow‑up public hearings in April. County staff was directed to revise advertising language to reflect public feedback and to circulate draft ordinance language that specifies eligible uses (examples discussed included fire station improvements, apparatus and personnel-related costs). No final vote to implement the tax occurred.

Local context Speakers repeatedly noted the county’s reliance on volunteers and on town fire departments that also serve county territory, and several supervisors pointed to state mandates and rising costs — especially for school construction and required salary/benefit increases — as constraining the county budget. Several supervisors urged additional outreach to businesses and suggested targeted outreach and additional budget reviews before a final decision.

Ending The board left the matter open for additional public comment and asked staff to return revised ordinance language and a clearer budget scenario at the April hearing so the public and supervisors could evaluate specific revenue estimates and spending priorities.