Then next time Democrats complain about being called "tax and spend liberals", remember this 19% tax rate increase and shove it right back in their faces. Better yet, remember it at the next local election. Vote for people who trust you to make better decisions about your money than government officials by lowering your taxes. If you think 19% is a bad number, wait until the government starts running health care. Between the huge tax increases to support the inevitable cost overruns and health care rationing that will come later "to control costs", you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

Posted by obviously (anonymous) on April 1, 2008 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Do you realize that this tax increase is due to the lack of foresight by the prior board--oh a <b>Republican</b> board. You cannot plan to have developers pay for future service brought on by the increase in population due to the prior board's out of control build it and they will pay later mentality. At least the current board has the foresight to have a budget that will keep our schools strong--the very thing that helps us preserve our higher than average property values. Just look at PWC if you want to see what happens to property values when schools are under funded.

Posted by davepal (anonymous) on April 1, 2008 at 8:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No matter how they spin it this is a massive tax increase. At least Lori Waters put ideas on the table that would have cut the increase. It is sad to see Scott York on the same par as Eugene Delgaudio -- voting no is easy -- being part of the solution is much harder. The taxpayers deserve better.

Posted by LoudounModerate (anonymous) on April 1, 2008 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Vote these bums out. I do not want to pay higher taxes to pay for some other family's kids. How about just raising the taxes on families that actually have kids and leave the rest of us alone?

Posted by kmccorma (anonymous) on April 1, 2008 at 9:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We simply can't afford to bankroll this influx of kids/families any longer in Loudoun County. It's over the top. Few places in the country can match the number of kids this county has per capita. On the smallest of subdivision streets alone, there could be over 30 kids! And these kids, particularly teens, are costing the county more than just education expenses. It's time for a moratorium on residential and school development. Time for some serious, bold and creative thinking. And a 19 percent tax increase should be a major wake-up call to everyone who cares about the county and is grounds to impeach politicians who can't find more reasonable ways to control spending and slow the onslaught of families moving here.

Posted by mjc8075 (anonymous) on April 1, 2008 at 9:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This board needs to stop playing the blame game and make the tough decisions like keeping taxes low. Miller said he wanted to grow the businesses to offset the taxes in future years. Well unless you build roads and solve the transportation and stop filling the entire corridor from rt 7 to the airport with industrial which is starting to block some major connections like shellhorn to the half used sterling interchange we are not going to attack the kinds of businesses that will pay the big tax dollars for the amount of land they use. A one or two story industrial building is going to cover far more land, look like crap then a 5 or 20 story building that would attract class A companies. I am not against industrial but it does hinder the attraction of the higher
paying businesses on less land. Why in the world would you build a hosing development off 606 by the airport instead of industrial??? And industrial like the top secret visa complex on prime class A land by rt 7. Something is out of whack in this county when it comes to zoning.

Posted by lbuividas (anonymous) on April 1, 2008 at 11:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I commend this BOS for not taking the easy way out by dipping into reserves or putting off hard decisions for another year. Exactly what do you want to do with 3,000 new children? We may not want them, but we've got them! I am all in favor of slow growth, but that's not what the last BOS gave us, so this Board has to deal with it. They have given LCPS an austere budget. As many people have mentioned on this blog and others, if everyone is unhappy, the BOS must have gotten it right! So far, I'm planning to vote for my Supervisor, Mr. Miller, again next time.

Posted by octamatilda (anonymous) on April 2, 2008 at 6:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

octamatilda almost seventy percent of the population says the tax raise is too high.

The blame game only goes so far and people will not get reelected if this is how they solve problems by throwing money at it. There is a saying in my business "" anyone can build a million dollar home and make it cost a million. the trick is and this is what separates the men form the boys make the home look like a million but cost far less"""""

Posted by lbuividas (anonymous) on April 2, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The BOS are a bunch of idiots. I'm sorry, but what are they thinking? With Loudoun county already having high foreclosure rates, what in their little heads made them think that raising the rates by 17% was a good thing?

This reminds me of Herndon's day labor site, and how the entire county was saying "no" but the board still approved the day labor site.

Well, I know at the next election I'll make sure I vote for someone else besides these idiots. If I can do anything to help a vote of no confidence, I'll do it.

Great job the BOS is doing... ugh.

Posted by pillera_joseph (anonymous) on April 2, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Perhaps the LCPS budget wouldn't be so high if they weren't trying to accomodate the non-English-speaking Hispanic community at every turn. How much is the LCPS forking out on translation of every document sent home, ESL tutelage, community outreach programs, and employment assistance for non-English-speaking adults? Perhaps if we weren't providing all these lovely services, we wouldn't be growing at such a rate, and we wouldn't have to have such a large budget. Hello, LCPS, are you listening? This is the United States of America, not Los Estados Unidos, and the official language here is English.

Posted by ronin718 (anonymous) on April 2, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Well, I know at the next election I'll make sure I vote for someone else besides these idiots. If I can do anything to help a vote of no confidence, I'll do it."-- pillera_joseph . Look Joseph, it's ignorant statements like that that got us where we were in previous years. Were you around for the 1999-2003 Board? They were voted out,probably by someone like you and 6 Republicans(in name only) were voted in on promises that they were "smart growth".
THIS last board added over 18K homes in the pipeline (that haven't even begun warming up with more children)combined with by-right homes that did add to the infrastructure. THIS board had increase in people,kids and infrastructure bloat brought on by their predecessors. Hold onto your wallet, joe, cause it gets even better in a year where the those 18K homes start coming online, and bringing their 2.2 children to bear on the budget. And lastly, have you done anything in the preceding 3 years to the election to try to address the previous board, or did you recently stick your head up and cry foul?
Some of us have been in the trenches trying to correct this for over 4 years, friend.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on April 2, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Honcho and others they also just said with this increase

"""""" LOUDOUN IS NOW CLOSED FOR BUISINESS"""""

Or do the new businesses get a tax break we all will pay for????? like orbital. Besides when you fill tons and tons of prime land with industrial you also lose on taxes because a beautiful high rise office complex would pay far more taxes on the same amount of land. Further class A businesses do not want to be next to industrial. There is a place for industrial but in this county's lousy zoning it is all over the place with no rhyme or reason except by the airport which also built a bunch of homes off 606 so who is planning this county a bunch of ninny's???????

You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth brand new supervisors. 70% of Loudoun said this tax increase is way too high. They were not elected to play the blame game . ANyone can do that.

LOUDOUN IS NOW CLOSED FOR CLASS A BUSINESSES

Posted by lbuividas (anonymous) on April 2, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I will add I watched the BOS meeting where the big shot commercial real estate experts some were national companies that spoke. They were not too high on Loudoun before the tax so just think what this tax increase said to them. A third world road system and and industrial going up like crazy on prime land is not going to attract these national companies. They are tearing down the kind of buildings we are building here by the new nationals ball park. Granted those are older by the park but it is still industrial and that does not attract Class A companies as well as no roads and high taxes.

Posted by lbuividas (anonymous) on April 2, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks to mjc8075 for pointing out that the real problem in Loudoun County is kids. Way to go.

Posted by blarf (anonymous) on April 2, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

honcho, how is calling someone a RINO, and someone else ignorant, part of your Lincolnesque party-building?

Were you here for the 1999-2003 board? I think not, but you'll get a chance to enjoy the deja-vu.

It is their approvals, exacerbated by the by-right land rush they drove, that has our appalling lack of infrastructure underserving the homes here now.

You're still in the trenches if you're here talking about RINOs, Honest Abe.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 2, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am very distraught about the new rate. Eastern Loudoun County has one of the highest foreclosure rates in the area and this will make mattters dismally worse for many. I myself may not be able to afford the increase. If property assessments are lowered where the net increase would be about 5% - I would be okay with that. Not everyone in Loudoun county earns as much as some of the richer homesteaders. Eugene Delgaudio is the one of the few board members who continually serves as the advocate of reality. I commend his efforts. The many of us who live paycheck to paycheck would like the rate to be lowered - we can't handle much more - higher gasoline and energy costs, inflated food costs, there seems to be no end in sight. It's almost unethical to ask for more money given the current economy. Everyone needs to tighten up more. My tax rebate won't help anyone other than those who are profiteering from the increased costs. This is very sad for Loudoun County.

Posted by daydream_dks (anonymous) on April 2, 2008 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms Munsey,
This is not an LCRC meeting. It's a history lesson. That is the indisputable past. We look forward to a brighter future by remembering exactly how we were duped by some who said they were for lowered taxes, and then demonstrated exactly the opposite approach with their actions. Only one of the 6 came to her senses and stopped taking calls from the queen bee. An invitation was sent to the queen bee, and she's welcome to join the committee like everyone else who values true conservative values (of which build and tax out is not one). She can have a voice in all conversations, she just won't be running things this time.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on April 2, 2008 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, you should maybe learn a little more history before you teach it, especially if you're going to frame your opinion as indisputable.

I though this board that you helped to get into office was going to lower taxes. They have demonstrated the opposite of their campaign promises on several fronts: voting to re-do a land use application for a contributor, nullifying the last Board's actions on illegal immigration, and voting against all but one cell tower application despite being "pro-business". In addition, although several have touted impact fees in the past, they lobbied against them when the GA was discussing them this session, saying they preferred proffers (after campaigning that proffers were bad). They subsequently voted down, without even sending to committee, a land use application containing a school site (which they may pursue condemnation on) and $20 million in proffers, including road improvements.

Thank God nobody was fooled this time!

Are you using the RINO term out here in the world because it won't be tolerated at meetings? Well, that's something...

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 2, 2008 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We've had this discussion, or someone who sounded an awful lot like you had it. There was simply not an awful lot this board was left to work with. I'm dissappointed in one of the new Supervisors to be sure regarding taking Hatrick to task. But in another matter, the insane buildout that got us here has ended. At least they aren't COMPOUNDING the problem like the last Board majority did.
The final vote is not in on immigration just yet, and there's more discussion presently occuring. You've twisted the truth again when you suggested that the folks at HCA gave to these candidates and expected a favor. VLF gave money in the name of Loudoun's Future, and I don't think these Supervisors even knew that the HCA money was in there. In order to have any standing in this discussion, you're going to have to PROVE that they did, since you made the allegation.Maybe the $3.5 MIL in HCA tax contributions is their pro-business belief.
The Impact Fees put forth in the House Bill were laughable. They were $10K per house back in 1994 when the legislation was allowed to "sunset" at the behest of the Homebuilder's lobbyists. Now, 14 years later, with allowance for inflation and adjusting dollars to 2008 dollars, $8K was retarded, and $12K was rediculous to suggest. The Homebuilder's Association needs to pony up the cost to the infrastructure and come off of the 150% profit that they enjoyed thru the years. It isn't our job to pay for their expenses. That's called Corporate Welfare when a company pushes for legislation to allow them to slide out from under their obligations and pass ANY burden to the taxpayers. I tell them to pay the modern day equivalent to that measely $10K of yesteryear. They may be tempted to pass it on to the housing costs, but the free market will control that. You remember the free market, don'tcha? The very endorsement of those inadequate impact fees, and the burden they would impose on us in a year where we're experiencing such an increase in the tax rate shows your real position on lowering resident's taxes vs. helping fund the homebuilder's war chest. The former is a Republican value, and the latter is a syphon on the people's money to help make somebody rich.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on April 2, 2008 at 10:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll go one further.If the Homebuilder's Assoc. will get serious and start at $47K per house, and then start lowering that figure by adding the By-right Impacts that will now also be charged, they can arrive at a reasonable figure that will not be laughed at, and will finally have a cure for those dreaded proffers that miss By-Rights, as it stands today.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on April 2, 2008 at 10:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, I would guess that is the purpose of PAC-to-PAC donation: it can provide plausible deniability.

Voters for Loudoun's Future gave in the name of Loudoun's Future? 'K. And a responsible candidate who has been endorsed by a PAC doesn't keep tabs on where the money is coming from. 'K.

Mr. Burton did a very interesting thing: He returned an amount totaling one ninth (his portion) of the amount donated by HCA's PAC to VLF. He had no trouble figuring it out.

As I've said before, it would be improbable to expect Mr. York to return everything he has received from HCA and employees, which is why he should recuse himself (as he apparently said he would last year).

The last board collected more in proffers, got more school sites, and more road improvements than any board to date in this county.

It will be interesting to watch the tally sheet on this board; so far they are off to a rocky start between campaign rhetoric and action.

Yes Dean I do remember the free market. Its why there is no Catoctin County.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 2, 2008 at 10:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, there will be very few, if any, major applications--either residential or business--under this board. So I guess four years from now we can bemoan the evil greediness of the builders for NOT trying to build anything so they can avoid proffers AND impacts. Those tricky SOBs!

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 2, 2008 at 10:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You just spelled it out...by the numbers.
The referendums hit the voting booth to pay for all those really neat things, and we incurred debt that has to be paid for. The proffers were inadequate because they did not begin to address the problems caused by the buildout, and I'm also left to wonder who watched to see that they were actually paid?

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on April 2, 2008 at 11:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The triple A rating was achieved in 04, remember?

There was a chance to get schools through CDA, with the cost repaid by the new homebuyers, but that wasn't even worth talking about.

The part a lot of people leave out is that there has to be SOME kind of activity in order to take a percentage of it.

The last board came in on a maxed out credit card--lots of things approved in CIPs, but never even put to bond.

They also tracked down millions in proffers that were just sitting there, because they were never triggered.

That's why the last board was so hard on up front proffers and better triggers.

As I said, we can all sit here and dream up what SHOULD be charged, but if there are no applications, then its moot.

This Board raised the residential and business taxes and is discussing raising the application fees. Remember Wolf furniture leaving Leesburg before they even got there? Two years in the process and nowhere?

Who is going to waste that kind of time and money for the mere privilege of being reamed?

Coulda shoulda woulda Dean.

We just got our budget, and it doesn't look like a lot of people are happy with it.

I hope they do better with getting business in here.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 2, 2008 at 11:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Builders don't pay anything the person buying the homes pay it all. 150% profit you say these builders made. Just what builders made that kind of money?????? I certainly don't know any.

There were a lot of amateur real estate flippers that eventually got killed and helped create the inflation in the price of homes. Seems more like the greedy average Joe flipping homes created a lot of the problems. Just like musical chairs there is only one person sitting at the end of the game and that is the bank.

Posted by lbuividas (anonymous) on April 2, 2008 at 11:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I will add to everyone complaining here about the builders. Well guess what, there was nothing here no schools, nothing until the developers came and built these beautiful PUDS. Nobody forced anyone to move here. THe residents that bought the homes did not create these beautiful PUDS or schools for that matter. You can blame the people that moved out here as much as anything. What were they expecting. Just like a marriage it takes two to tango. But raising taxes is not a good business decision, because it is going to scare business away they we are trying to attract.
I just heard another fairly large business/store is moving into fairfax from Loudoun just today. What is the tax rate in fairfax and if it is much lower and they dipped into the rainy day fund why is that not hurting them??

Posted by lbuividas (anonymous) on April 2, 2008 at 11:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Look, Barbara is pushing Impact fees that will ream taxpayers who already are paying too much, and then Lee comes in ands makes an excellent case for the HHMC tax break for a green building, that so many are against. You guys need to get together more before you start slashing each other to pieces here.
I've given Tulloch credit for negotiating that AAA rate in his first months. That, coupled with cutting the massive amount of homes back in 2003, like a majority of those folks campaigned on(smart growth) could have improved what we are seeing today. Instead, they COMPOUNDED the problem. Instead, taxes rose EVERY YEAR of THEIR terms.
Lee, I know several builders, and at different points in my committee and business association meetings,they've all declared the 150% (I don't think they could help themselves, because they boasted in one context, and it was recieved in another quite different context)
I am a builder myself, and I can get an idea of the materials and labor they used to get a house up and finished, and then see what they USED TO charge for that badboy in this county.Times have changed, but there are no excuses. I had to stash it away while the times were good, and many of the "big box" builders(Toll Brothers and their like)were spending it like there was no end to the good times.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on April 3, 2008 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Loudoun better start catering to businesses for more tax income. We have new people at work transferring into VA. They have done research and locals are telling them to avoid Loudoun too. Of the 3 new transfers, two are buying homes in Fairfax and one in Jefferson county, WV.

Posted by mazman128 (anonymous) on April 3, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, I said the Board looked ridiculous wetting their pants over proffers being better, after years of some of them wailing for impact fees, particularly when they then refused to even send something to committee (where the application in question has NEVER been, at either commission or BoS level, and don't think that won't help their lawsuit) that had over $20M on the table for discussion. The property may be part of the sacred Transition Area (planned for future growth cachement until the plan revision of 2001, set in stone with the ZO of 2003), but it is surrounded by suburban development, bisected by a state road alignment, and next door to about 1M sf of commercial.

The 03 board campaigned to grow smarter, that's for sure. By right alone isn't smart in the suburban policy area. They never campaigned on the bogus undefined smart growth of the single-issue special interest, because when all is said and done it ends up no growth: wrong place, wrong context, wrong color, wrong size, better study it again, and again, and again...

I see you are now in building, and The Clue over at tc is a 30-year construction authority instead of just a police authority. Are you guys now going to re-image as developers so you can speak with authority?

Granted, run-in sheds or contracting out barns is construction, so can I just once, please, call you a greedy developer? Please?
;)

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 3, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Resolve to harass them with novel taxes. They will probably complain to your Parliament that they are taxed by a body in which they have no representative, and that this is contrary to common right... Let the Parliament flout their claims... and treat the petitioners with utmost contempt."

Benjamin Franklin - (propaganda pieces he wrote for the English papers in September 1773).

Some things never change. The BOS may be elected but they certainly do not represent the citizens of Loudoun County and boy do they ever treat those of us who protest with contempt.
Math question? If there are 3000 new students next year then there must be close to 1500 new families (or more if you take into account those who have graduated HS this year). So where, in the overall calculations for this new budget, is the new tax revenue from these new residents? Add this amount into the total increase in spending, (ahem! taxes), and you will see that the BOS has just about completely lost their collective minds.

Posted by salm624 (anonymous) on April 3, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ignorant Fools!!! A new household in Loudoun contributes ~ $4500 in tax revenue. The cost to the county is ~ $25,000 in services (assuming 2 school age children). Guess who makes up the shortfall?! That's right, it's those of us who already live here.

Get ready for a long continuation of tax increases. The costs of our recent residential relocators have only just begun to be felt. What we have now is the true legacy of the growth happy boards of 1999 and 2003.

Proffers don't come close to covering the true cost of a new house. The 2003 board did much better than 1999, but the one thing they did almost nothing on was increasing businesses coming into the county. Building office space is only one part of the puzzle. Encouraging companies to rent the space is the other part. For Republicans, I'm shocked at how little they were able to attract any businesses other than builders!

For now, my vote goes to the current board. At least they recognize that to build a long term tax base requires continued investment in our schools. Once you cut schools too far, you can't come back. Roads are the responsibility of the state. If the downstate idiots can get off their high horse about a gas tax, we may be able to get a decent network out here before the next century begins!

Posted by dannews (anonymous) on April 3, 2008 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lets see if I was a business today looking to move. hmmmmm

Fairfax close in and only .89

Loudoun way out on the fringes and a third world road system with industrial everywhere and all that for 1.14 hmmmm where am I going to relocate. It does not take a rocket scientist to know Loudoun is now closed for business.

Posted by lbuividas (anonymous) on April 3, 2008 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Casting blame on past Boards just stinks of sour grapes. It may make some feel good, but so what? What we need is solutions to how the County undertakes it budget review, does business etc. Fairfax County at the height of its growth had a tax rate north of $1.40. Plenty of lessons learned there. We have a first rate business community and plenty of top executives who live in Loudoun. Let's get down to business and look at how we as a community can get things done.

Posted by LoudounModerate (anonymous) on April 3, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara...in the no news department, I have been a builder for many years since I arrived here. Barns and run-ins is some of it in past years, but the bulk the last few years is in remodeling.When they stopped buying new ones, they started fixing up and adding onto what they had.
And I've already opined that if the Virginia Homebuilders would start with the $47K per home fee and then were able to relax that as they calculate how many By-Right homes are in the current Comp Plans, and how much impact could be collected on them, too... I'd really look at a serious Impact Bill. But what they offered was pathetic...and ill-advised to even throw it out there to see what happened. They will now face the most extreme scrutiny in everthing they propose.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on April 3, 2008 at 5:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, if you think too much will ever be enough for some people, then knock yourself out.

(Moderate, you're right, and I'm sorry for rising to the bait with the selective historians.)

So Dean, you are basically in the old Scott York mode, like the classic closets, etc?

I'm sorry, it just gives me a tickle that of all the things you are an authority on, never a peep about being a builder until now.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 3, 2008 at 6:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, no problem. We are all in this together. Fact of the matter is in some instances houses popping out of the ground were approved 20 years ago either by-right or in re-zonings. The current BOS needs to take responsibility now, blaming others will tire everyone out real quick and result in their sacking 3 years from now.

Posted by LoudounModerate (anonymous) on April 3, 2008 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Funny, but I thought I'd always championed builders who buy their materials in Loudoun, hire their men from Loudoun,pay their taxes in Loudoun, and live in the developments they build,etc. It's the big box builders who buy all their materials in South Carolina, are incorporated in Delaware and used to bring legions from outside Loudoun to run thru the County coffers on their way to outlandish profit and West Virginia. Truth of the matter is, West Virginia has an invisible barrier. It's called mandatory impact fees. And they're steep.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on April 3, 2008 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, that invisible barrier hasn't stopped growth in Jefferson County. Growth has been occurring there for some time, as it has in Clarke County, and all the way out to Winchester.

It's called "affordability", which Loudoun just took another step away from.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 4, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And I've never heard you "champion" much of anything (beyond your few political talking points), particularly anything to do with building or construction in any way shape or form.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 4, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Next door in WV, Jefferson County charges an impact fee of about $10,500.00 per single family home with 80% going to the school system. Due before any building permits are issued.

Posted by mazman128 (anonymous) on April 4, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That isn't much higher than the proposed impact fee that got shot down here. Of course, their costs are probably lower!

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 4, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You've just never acknowledged it. Many in the County have definitely heard me chip in for those that keep it all local. John Andrews was a prime example of the kind of Builder the county needed.
The Jefferson County infrastructure is much lower. But those fees are mandatory and have been for quite some time. This is why they are so low.
They've BEEN paying for it as it came upon them, something that was lobbied away in Virginia in 1994.
What I have always said regarding Loudoun is that the pendulum of the actual buildout should have been stalled sometime ago before the last two Boards.Not building enough raises the COCS ratios. Building too much raises it as well. Moderating the homes per year and reevaluating costs would keep the COCS ratios hovering around a dollar and a quarter paid out fr infrastructure for every dollar collected, instead of the current additional seventy five cents pulled from the county coffers and put with the dollar that these homes actually contribute.
The argument has more parts, however. Commercial percentages in Jefferson have a huge amount of influence on the County infrastructure, too. They only cost the county $.65 of every dollar they contributed, and are actually what fills those coffers. But Rural properties are the real bulk of the County's coffer fillers. They rarely exceed $.45 in county services and infrastructure on ever dollar that they contribute.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on April 4, 2008 at 6:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lets see a 19% property tax raise, foreclosures go up, bank owned houses not paying property tax, driving down property values, so next year the shortage of revenue will be larger. Property tax goes up more. Sounds like a vicious cycle to me.

Posted by thunter2276 (anonymous) on April 5, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There are already a group of us working page by page to trim the budget FOR Hatrick, since he hasn't recognised that his ride is over. It will be much worse next year, and especially if building picks up again and more children are introduced to the mix. This will look tame compared to next year if nothing is done.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on April 5, 2008 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, we've had the talk about COCS before, over at the Paeonian Springs e-zine column.

The body of literature on them is growing, but they are still primarily lobbying tools created by non-profits who hold conservation easements, for the purpose of lobbying governments to create more conservation easements, i.e. take more land off the tax rolls.

We already have a skewed tax structure here, and like it or not, the lion's share of the budget goes to schools not only because we have a very good (and costly) system, but because the lion's share of the growth here has been families with children and in their childbearing years.

If COCS held as true as you say it does, Catoctin County would have happened years ago.

The posse can take aim at the schools next, but bring all your long guns because as soon as you start directly criticizing families with kids (more than you already do), there will be a lot of return fire from a lot of people.

(and what is it with you and the Imperial "we"?)

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 5, 2008 at 10:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And no, Dean, I've never heard you say you were in building or construction before, neither have I heard you praise John Andrews, except as the lesser of two evils in the primary a couple years ago.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 5, 2008 at 10:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Fire Hatrick and improve the quality of schools and lower the tax burden. We have the hightest taxes in the region.

Posted by jklaw (anonymous) on April 6, 2008 at 8:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thankfully, you aren't attending many of the meetings I do.I see John all the time, and we've discussed everything to eternity and back. He's a very pleasant individual.
You are definitely entitled to your opinion, but your presentation of COCS is ...well, horsepoop. They do work.They were ignored for four years. We are where we are, now.

The biggest contributor to the COCS ratios is rural property. If there were a 10 acre tract owned by one family, and they send the standard 2.2 children off to school from that property....
If we subdivided that property to 1 acre lots (when in reality, 1/4 of an acre lots, and smaller, are the norm)and each new home created on each one of these lots now sends 2.2 children to the schoolhouse. That's 22 children in the system where only 2.2 had been before. Now, with 75% of the budget being the schools, that has just created a monster deficit in the cost to educate 20 children instead of 2.2 children.
Add to this, other county services that are not required by rural properties. Due to wells and septic fields, we do not require the infrastructure to be run to our houses.
Because we contract directly with trash companies, we do not need the county to provide this service or require it to have enough trucks on hand to collect it all.
And because of all this, we only require $.45 cents in services (most of which is an average across all rural properties for those who actually do have children in the school system, as well as a much smaller amount for fire/rescue/police services)for every dollar we pay out. We leave half of every dollar we pay in the coffer.
COCS Residential works exactly the opposite for exactly the reasons indicated above...but in reverse. They do have 88 children averages per 100 acres. They do require a septic infrastructure to tap into. They do require a water system to tap into.
They do require the county to purchase trucks to collect their refuse.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on April 7, 2008 at 10:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, the flaw in the COCS talking points (and that's what they are) is that it assumes that services have an equal distribution cost to both rural and developed areas, and that everyone pays an equal assessed value, as opposed to an equal rate on that portion of the assessed value on which they are taxed.

The last year for which breakout costs were provided by individual school showed that the cost range per seat went from 4K to 16K, in a year that we had an 11K "average". Actually, a true average was closer to about 7K. The higher costs per seat were in the small rural schools.

Now let's apply a taxed-asset example: Let's say someone in a suburb has a third of an acre assessed at 600K, and one kid in a 5K school seat. At a 1% rate paying full value, they paid 6K and cost 5k.

Now let's take someone with 15 acres in open space or land use, paying the same 1% but only on 300K worth of an assessed 600K value because of the deferral. Let's say they had one kid in a 12K seat. They paid 3K but cost 12K.

If the 15 acres is in AR-1 or 2, you couldn't make the argument that they are "saving" us real money, because they COULDN'T be subdivided into smaller lots.

You can try to argue that since there are fewer people in the rural area it costs less overall to provide, but that doesn't work out per capita. I know some folks hate the larger footprint of the schools in the developed areas, but they do have a better economy of scale, when you calculate the cost per child of the parity of service.

See Ms. Buckley's quote in the article on economic downturn making the growth hysteria moot: she references taking a look at continuing to give tax breaks to people with private aircraft.

Maybe its about time! And while she's at it, look at some of the land use and open space shelters, because they are ridiculous in some cases.

Cherry-picking data backwards from your conclusion may be satisfying, but it doesn't change the fact that our current system has a lot of padding for preferred lifestyle in it.

I'm not trying to argue that Starbuck's is better than Southern States, but I AM saying that we need to acknowledge the change that has, and WILL CONTINUE, to occur (since 1868).

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 9, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It doesn't matter what we say or write or complain about or what statistics we show or what data we provide, the BOS will do whatever they please. Their minds are stuporous to the rest of the county except the 12% of high income sympathizers, who champion the BOS's cause. We did just fine prior to 2004 with our low rating.
The thinking one BOS stated, "she was thinking of the future has to bring". How about what is happening now, lets fix this now! BY NOT building this crystal palace called a county government building. What's with not remodeling the current structure for less than half the cost? I came from a county that is still utilizing the county building for the past 90+ years. Do we taxpayers need to provide a gold palace for the government, here? Isn't this the same government? Let's not throw reason out the window or the county taxpayers under the proverbial bus! Or what will be left standing is only the BOS and 12% of their followers.

On another note, how many of our children who went to school here could afford to move back here after college?

Posted by Rick122 (anonymous) on April 12, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, your argument got flawed because you do not understand the nature of those land use issues you hate so much.
I paid taxes on $600K of my $765K assessment.
Land use does not cover much for producing a crop. And the existance of land use breaks is not going to go away, asmuch as the pro-growthers want it to.
You also took the argument to seat costs. Those are a smoke screen to give your argument legs, where it really has none. It's $11K per student average, and that's what we work with. But it never suprises me when you attempt to pit neighbor against neighbor. It must be your crew's signature.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on April 12, 2008 at 8:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, I'm sure you personally are paying for things you don't use, even if you paid full value on your assets, because I believe I've heard you say you don't have kids in the system.

Fair game to attack kids, right?

I do understand the land use issues much better than you'd like me too, which is another reason you attack me.

Open space is the biggest smokescreen, as one only needs 5 acres to participate, and be in an agricultural or forestal district (which does NOT mean one has to practice either, simply that one is maintaining the property in good condition).

Being in an ag district is remarkably easy out where you live, because the Hillsboro district has SIX cores, each of which is its own measuring point for inclusion (of parcels that do not need to be contiguous with the existing district, but only within a measured proximity).

Pull the map of that district: it basically makes the entire northwestern county eligible.

Do you know that elimination of the open space deferral would have removed a penny and a third off of last year's .96 rate?

A significant percentage of the land use is negligible, except for a very few who produce a significant percentage of their income from agricultural production. The bars are set very low Dean, and you know it.

After your raging about families with children, you sound preposterous getting holier than all with the "neighbor against neighbor".

The average is itself the smoke screen, because of the amount the state pays of each average allotment. If, of the 11K, the state pays 7, or 8, or 9, that means money left over on each seat that actually costs less. This easily picks up the difference on the smaller percentage of kids who are costing double, triple or more per seat. But where does the rest go?

If you really want to look at the school budget, instead of simply using it as a tool to gripe about families moving here with kids (the market for your ponies, remember?), that's where you might want to start:

As for land getting breaks for simply being empty (when it cannot be subdivided anyway), or having three sheep and therefore qualifying as a farm, I won't hold my breath on you having a real discussion about it.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 13, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There you've gone again. As you put it, 7,8, or 9K means money left over...but take it further to the final result. 1200 cases of 7,8 or $9K trumps 200 cases of $11K. It's the nature of highly populated areas.

Open space deferrals vs. Land use. You should define this, but that, too, undermines your argument.
Open space deferral...By this, are you referring to Conservation easements? There is quite a difference in Conservation easements and land use. Conservation easements are arranged thru, and funded by the State and federal agencies. You'd better take your lobbying team to DC and Richmond if you want to change those.
Land Use REQUIRES a product. A DOCUMENTED product. They do not give the break on anyone's say-so. They need data of the product that they allowed the agricultural land use for. Empty land does not get land use.(we're still waiting to see Greenvest's declaration at the end of their current cycle, however)... One MUST prove that they used the land agriculturally. Pleasure horses DO NOT cut it. Only cattle, breeding horses or crops do. 3 sheep will produce a good bit of clothing wool. It won't be enough, however, to qualify as land use.
And since when have I ever sold my breeding offspring to anyone in Loudoun? I have to look back to see if that's ever happened. Most of those livestock are sold outside of Virginia, and only a few have been sold locally to Charlottesville in Virginia, and Potomac and Poolesville in Maryland. Think nationally, Barbara. Think nationally.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on April 14, 2008 at 11:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, I'm not talking about conservation easements and you know it. That is a whole other layer of tax shelter.

I am talking about the open space land use (I know, it's an oxymoron, but so is "sustainable development") tax deferral, for which the only requirements are that one have 5 acres in excess of the homesite and that the land be in an agricultural and forestal district, which does not require agricultural and forestal husbandry, but only certifies that the land is kept in a condition that makes it suitable for farming.

In addition, the requirement that an agricultural product be produced for land use has low bars and you know that too. What is it, $1K of the gross over a two year period? Take some hand carded wool to a two successive fairs and you've got it for three sheep, if your "value-add marketing" is good enough.

Simply owning a horse isn't enough, but boarding some is.

The county spends quite a bit on supporting these tax shelters too. Staff, website, brochures. Look at the ads for the restaurant that is the end result of the county installing a commercial kitchen at a private home (of a political contributor) in the first (and only?) rural economic development grant under the 99 BoS.

In this area, 1K is not even organic free range heirloom chicken feed.

As for thinking nationally, I'm a bit tired of being a "test case" county so that a very few people can have a tax shelter lifestyle while the tax-farming of the rest continues.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 15, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You make your facts up on the fly, don't you? I certainly do have to document what I'm recieving the Land Use for....and I'm IN an agricultural district. And there are not low bars. I have to sell five offspring yearly, or produce hay or soybeans on my acreage, or I forfeit land use. No one on a five acre lot has the space to produce anything. Interestingly, the ones with the tax-shelters seemed to be the builders in the past. Where else can you put up a product, earn 125% profit, and then get the taxpayers to pay for the impact to the county. It was a pretty good gig while it went on.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on April 19, 2008 at 10:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dean, it has been your habit to accuse me of making things up.

Recall that there is a difference between being included in an ag district and being in land use. The ONLY place those two things overlap is in the open space deferral, as I said. The requirements for open space are 5 ac min, and inclusion in an ag district. Fact.

If the "open space" that "deserves" a tax break for "protecting" us from development isn't big enough to subdivide, it isn't protecting us from squat. If we are bound and determined to give people a tax break for sprawling personal land use, then they should have some development rights that they abjure for the duration of the deferral at the very least.

Land use does have low bars in many cases, and you know it. Since you don't sell in Loudoun, let me ask you, do you breed here?

What is the carbon footprint of nationally transporting your product, Dean?

It's funny, but don't we have enough problems with the human commuters' impact on the environment (some of whom commute long distances from their open-space deferred lots?) without exacerbating the commuting horse issue?

(kidding Dean, but not on the open space and land use breaks in relation to services. If the rural area produced the revenue the services there already cost, there would be a Catoctin County. That's what "taking back Loudoun" was really all about, and those who pay full rate for your secret garden will probably never know the half of it)

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on April 20, 2008 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nobody is footing a bill for my activities. I fill the coffers. I don't empty them. I gewt a scant 35% back in services (and since I don't send children to the schools or use the fire/rescue/sherriff - that's debateable)of my pay-in.I am a cash cow.

Posted by honchonumberone (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)