Locals argue against BPOL tax; it passes anyway

By JIM LAWRENCE
For the Stafford County Sun

Published: July 2, 2008

STAFFORD — The proposed business, professional, occupational license (BPOL) tax came to a public hearing before a meeting of the Stafford County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.

After 3 a.m. the following morning, supervisors approved the controversial measure 4-3 despite overwhelming testimony from the public against the proposal.

People started showing up for the meeting at 6 p.m. By 7 p.m., all seats in the chambers were taken, people lined the walls and approximately 160 people stood outside waiting to enter. 

George Whitehurst of the Chamber of Commerce handed out anti-BPOL stickers, and a great number of people in attendance wore them.

Early on, Stafford Supervisor Mark Dudenhefer, R-Garrisonville, made a motion that the meeting be postponed until a time that another larger venue could accommodate the overflow crowd.

Supervisor Paul Milde, R-Aquia, moved that the meeting be postponed until 2010, after elections. His motion was met with laughter and cheering, but all to no avail.

Maria Perrotte, the county’s chief financial officer, recounted the parameters of the ordinance that had been set forth by the board. The threshold would be the amount a business could take in before the tax took hold. Even so, under the proposal, “...a person could lose money and still pay the tax,“ Supervisor Cord Sterling commented.

Most of the attendees speaking against the tax argued to the supervisors that it was a bad time to pass such a tax. Given the economic climate of rising fuel prices, increased assessments and real estate issues, it was felt that a gross receipts tax was unfair.

Several anti-BPOL residents said they located their businesses in Stafford due to the absence of this tax, unlike most other jurisdictions nearby. Several of them claimed that given the uncertainty of the economic climate, they might fold or have to lay off workers. And two local construction company owners stated the added tax burden would mean they would likely go out of business.

Proponents of the tax argued that nearly all jurisdictions had the tax and that businesses would not be driven away. They felt that retail prices would not be affected. They said they felt that such a tax would ease the burden of homeowners.

One person likened the tax to smoking. He recalled the ads of the 1960s when tobacco companies stated there was no link between smoking and cancer. He thought the idea of stating there was no “linkage” between job growth and taxes was a curious one. He feared that many years later, like smoking, data would indicate quite the opposite.

Resident Alane Callandar reminded the board that the business community was only a small fraction of Stafford County and that most people during the arguments were home in bed. She spoke in favor of the tax, and felt it was time for it.

Numerous opponents argued otherwise. Chip Causey: “This is a tax increase; call it for what it is.“ Tom Gregory: “If you pass this law, saw down those ‘business friendly’ signs on the highways.“ Mark Dean, a representative of Intuit, a major employer in the county: “I urge you to oppose any incremental tax (like BPOL).“ Roy Boswell claimed, “The board has already made up its mind; if so you should be ashamed of yourselves.“

Immediately after ending the public hearings well after midnight, supervisors’ Chairman George Schwartz, D-Falmouth, moved that the ordinance be adopted but subject to a threshold, to make $200,000 an exemption to all categories for all gross receipts and to set the effective date of the ordinance to begin on Jan. 1, 2010.

Supervisor Cord Sterling, R-Rock Hill, made a substitute motion to deny the ordinance. It was defeated, again by the typical 4-3 margin as the Democrat majority held firm.

“Here are some facts (about the proposal),“ added Bob Woodson, D-Griffis-Widewater. He then did some arithmetic, which gave an example how much a contractor making $500,000 would have to pay

Milde ridiculed Woodson about his math and said, “You don’t even understand the tax.“

Sterling called it one of the “dumbest type taxes…to go after someone’s gross receipts instead of profits is not serving anyone.“

Yet, Supervisor Harry Crisp, D-George Washington, noted the growth in Stafford County for the past 15 to 20 years, adding that in order to fulfill the school board’s requests, a tax increase of up to 94 cents would otherwise have been necessary, which he found “unacceptable.“

“Personally, I don’t want to see this money just go into the general fund… I want to see it go to a specific use,“ he said.

At one point, Milde pleaded with Supervisor Brito not to vote for the tax, citing Brito’s record on voting against tax increases over the years.

During the supervisors’ heated arguments the chairman had to scold the audience to keep out of the conversations, which had become more than testy. He threatened to clear his chambers of the onlookers, if necessary.

A 4-3 vote for Sterling’s substitute motion to set aside the tax carried, with Brito voting for it. A loud cheer of approval went up from the crowd.

Brito hurriedly added, “It’s late” and admitted he had pushed the wrong button. He asked for a re-vote and got it, reversing the decision.

Similarly, on a subsequent, crucial vote, Woodson also pushed the wrong button and got a recount.

Finally the vote on adopting the BPOL tax passed 4-3, with Dudenhefer, Milde, and Sterling dissenting.

Whereupon most of the crowd angrily left the chambers, several of them heckling the board as they left.

The Republican minority on the board scored one win. Sterling offered an amendment to the tax decision directing that all money collected from the tax would be dedicated to transportation. His amendment passed unanimously.

The drawn-out contentious sessions seemed to please nobody, except the small minority of residents there who had supported the new tax, plus the four supervisors on the winning side.

Jim Lawrence is a contributing writer at the Stafford County Sun. Reach him at .