Rayner et al Tax Vote Challenge Dismissed Again Amid Ongoing Court Filings

By Valerie Cury

Loudoun County Circuit Court Judge James E. Plowman on April 15 dismissed a revised legal challenge brought by Purcellville Town Council members Erin Rayner, Kevin Wright, and Caleb Stought, marking the second time the court has declined to take up the merits of their claims regarding whether a supermajority vote is required to set local tax rates.

Judge Plowman dismissed the case after determining that it did not meet the legal threshold required for judicial review.

The lawsuit sought a judicial determination on whether a two-thirds supermajority vote is required for the Town Council to approve tax rates. However, the court again found that the case did not present an “actual controversy” involving infringed legal rights.

Town Attorney Robert Sproul argued that the dispute did not present a valid legal controversy, but rather reflected a disagreement over a prior council vote. The court agreed, concluding that the matter amounted to an internal dispute among council members and dismissing the case without addressing whether a simple majority or supermajority vote is required under Virginia law.

The ruling is consistent with longstanding legal guidance provided to the town. Both former Town Attorney John Cafferky and his predecessor advised that a supermajority vote is required only to impose a new tax—not to adjust an existing rate or adopt the annual budget.

The legal challenge stems from a 4-3 vote in which the three council members bringing the suit were in the minority. Since losing their governing majority following the 2024 election, the group has turned to the courts to contest procedural and policy outcomes decided by the council majority.

The plaintiffs were represented in court by attorney Sarah Bruns of the Marquis Law Group, a Leesburg-based firm that includes State Sen. Russet Perry among its members. Perry is the sponsor of Senate Bill 648, legislation tailored specifically to municipalities in her district, with Purcellville being the only locality that matches its size and planning district classification.

SB 648, along with a proposed emergency amendment, is expected to be considered at the General Assembly’s April 22 reconvened session. If adopted, the amendment could allow for the immediate removal of Vice Mayor Ben Nett. The bill introduces a series of targeted governance and oversight measures, including:

• Requiring the automatic suspension of town officials charged with felony offenses, with courts authorized to appoint temporary replacements
• Mandating a comprehensive, state-directed study of the town’s debt, infrastructure, utilities, and long-term liabilities, to be completed by July 1, 2027
• Requiring the town to adopt a remedial plan based on the study’s findings
• Restricting Town Council votes to items published at least three days in advance, unless waived by a three-fourths supermajority
• Granting residents expanded legal standing to challenge council decisions, including priority
  court scheduling and potential reimbursement of attorney’s fees
• Including proposed emergency language tied to amendments expected to be considered at the General Assembly’s April 22 reconvened session, which, if adopted, could result in the immediate removal of Vice Mayor Ben Nett from the Town Council upon enactment
  

The legislation is scheduled to sunset on July 1, 2028, approximately one year after the next town election.

The overlap between the ongoing legal challenge, the plaintiffs’ representation by a firm connected to the bill’s sponsor, and the advancement of legislation directly affecting Purcellville underscores a broader convergence of legal and political efforts surrounding control of the town’s governance.

This latest dismissal follows a January ruling in which the court similarly found that the initial complaint failed to justify declaratory relief. Although the plaintiffs were granted an opportunity to amend their filing, the revised complaint did not alter the court’s fundamental conclusion that the matter falls outside its purview.

The plaintiffs’ attorney has a limited window to file objections or pursue further legal action, including a potential appeal.

More broadly, the case represents the latest development in an ongoing series of disputes following the shift in council control after the 2024 election. Since then, council proceedings have been marked by repeated legal challenges, procedural conflicts, and sharply contested claims surrounding fiscal authority, reflecting deep divisions over the town’s growth strategy, governance, and financial direction.