Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board opens public hearing on admissions tax; residents warn of affordability impacts
Summary
County staff outlined options for a new admissions tax permitted by state law, and residents urged caution, arguing the levy would fall on local attendees and compound recent tax increases. Board members asked for options and coordination with York County and directed staff to return with details.
James City County staff opened a public hearing May 20 on a possible admissions tax now available under state law, outlining potential taxable activities, exclusions and a recommended July 1 effective date if approved.
Sharon McCarthy told the board the statute permits a tax up to 10% and counties can craft exclusions or caps; staff recommended earmarking revenue for debt service or capital purposes. Examples of taxable activities include amusement and theme parks, sporting events, movie theaters and similar admissions, while many localities exclude charitable and school-sponsored events.
Speakers from the public urged the board to reject or limit the tax. "The arts, athletics and culture of this county are not luxuries to be taxed," Susan Franz said, urging the board to scrutinize spending rather than impose another levy. Another resident presented a petition of more than 500 signatures opposing the proposal and linked admissions-tax discussion to recent meal- and property-tax increases.
Board members debated possible approaches. Several supervisors signaled they did not support a 10% top rate; some preferred focusing narrowly on large amusement/theme parks (which staff estimated could account for the bulk of potential revenue), while others favored a lower 5–6% rate with specific exclusions for school events, charitable activities and small agritourism operations. Supervisors also discussed coordinating policy with adjacent York County because joint tickets and cross-jurisdiction pricing could complicate implementation.
No ordinance vote occurred on May 20. The board directed staff to return with draft ordinance language, exclusion lists and revenue estimates for further consideration with a goal of deciding by July 1 to allow an effective date that could be applied in FY2027.
