Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sales Tax Referendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears briefing on optional 1% sales-tax referendum for school projects; timeline and project lists needed
Summary
County staff briefed supervisors on a new option to ask voters for an optional 1% local sales tax to fund capital projects, noting an estimated $4.5 million annual yield, legal timeline uncertainties (81 vs. 105 days), and the need to coordinate with the school board to identify projects before moving to referendum.
Caroline County supervisors received a staff briefing on June 23 about new state legislation that allows localities to ask voters to approve an optional 1% local sales tax for capital projects.
Staff described procedural steps and timing: a circuit court order is required to authorize a special-election referendum, and depending on final statutory language and pending budget amendments the county may face either a 105-day or an 81-day filing window ahead of an election. For the November general election the earlier calendar would require an order entered by July 21; staff said 81 days is the likelier timeline if budget amendments pass.
Why it matters: staff estimated the additional 1% could raise roughly $4.5 million for Caroline County based on local revenues and cautioned that the enabling resolution and subsequent ordinance must identify the capital projects the tax would fund (or provide project bundles and estimates) before sending the referendum to voters.
Discussion and next steps - Revenue and scope: Staff gave an approximate revenue figure of $4.5 million and clarified that the measure would be an additional 1% sales-tax rate charged on local taxable sales, not a one-time levy. - Project identification: Board members emphasized the need to work with the school board to agree on a package of projects and cost estimates before asking voters to approve the tax. Staff noted the referendum resolution only needs to authorize the referendum; project-specific ordinances and advertising requirements follow if the vote passes. - Timeline uncertainty: Legal staff and the county attorney noted pending amendments and case-law questions (Scott v. McDougall referenced as a potential issue), which could affect deadlines and early-voting considerations; the board recognized that those factors may complicate scheduling for a November referendum.
No vote was taken; the board asked staff to continue coordinating with the schools and to report back with refined project lists and a clearer calendar.
Quoted "No, it's 1% sales tax increase. So, whatever it is, it's another 1% that the public would pay," a staff presenter explained when clarifying the structure of the proposal.
"The resolution just has to authorize the referendum itself. The specific details of those capital projects don't need to be known right at that moment," staff added while describing the procedural steps.
