Complex budget often loses the taxpayers in the details

by James Simpson
Potomac News
Friday, April 9, 2004

As a member of the Occoquan District Budget Committee, I must confess that I have a number of issues with the whole budget process. I will touch on a couple of them in this column, but suffice it to say there are many, many more.To begin with, government should be open and transparent to the average citizen. One should not have to be experienced in "Generally Accepted Accounting Principles" to figure out where their money is going. Unfortunately, with all the transfers that occur, not only between the federal, state and local governments, but within the county itself, it is too convoluted for John and Jane Homeowner to understand. Mostly because they don't have hundreds of hours to try and figure out how the budget works. This is very dangerous as waste and corruption become very easy to hide in such a mess.

I will offer Linton Hall Road as an example:

On Nov. 3, 1998, the citizens of the county were asked to approve the issuance of general obligation bonds in the maximum amount of $42.7 million to construct six transportation-related projects. One of the projects on this referendum was Linton Hall Road.

Well, as it stands now, none of that bond money is going to be spent on Linton Hall Road. Don't panic, it is going to be completed, but it will be done with funding from proffers and Virginia Regional Surface Transportation Program funds. The bond money was transferred to the Spriggs Road project.

You might say, so what, it is getting done and that is all that matters.

However, I personally believe it is egregious for the county board to approve reallocation of debt that voters approved, based on where they thought it was going to be spent. If that is going to happen, why even list specific roads on the ballot initiative? Oh, wait a second, I guess you need those listed in order to get folks to vote in favor of the bond referendum. What a scam.

According to a 1999 PWC Annual Financial Report: Congress passed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) on May 22, 1998, so that: "Over the next six years, $162 billion will be spent for highways and $36 billion will be spent for transit nationally."

The report stated, "Transportation projects in the county that will be accelerated due to this new legislation include the Route 1/ Route 123 interchange, the I-66/ Route 29 interchange and a new CSX railroad bridge over Quantico Creek."

It's nice of Congress to call this funding the "TRANSPORTATION" equity act - since much of the funding the county is receiving is going into historical property restoration. That should really help alleviate our congestion. I see that it has really helped "accelerate" improvements to transportation projects like the U.S. 1/ Va. 123 interchange.

Just trying to get reliable number from the county can be a chore. For instance: According to a flyer titled "FY 2005 Proposed Budget in Brief" provided at several different county presentations, the average tax bill in FY 2004 was $2,554 and is estimated to increase to $2,797 in FY 2005, under the proposed tax increase.

According to a press release (NR#061) from the Finance Department, dated March 12, the average tax bill for FY 2004 was $2,612 and it is estimated to go to $2,873 in FY 2005 under the proposed tax increase. I believe residents have a right to receive consistent numbers, even from different county departments.

According to a guest column on the Opinion Page of the Saturday, April 3, edition of the Potomac News, Craig Gerhart (county executive) states twice that the increase in the "per capita cost of government" will only be $28. That doesn't seem too bad - it's a nice, friendly number.

Of course when looked at from the taxpayer perspective the average tax bill increase, according to the aforementioned "FY 2005 Proposed Budget in Brief" flyer, will be $243 per home. Frankly, due to the county's constantly changing numbers, I am not confident the average increase will be that low.

Even going back to the beginning of the budget process, when I tried to figure out what the "Lowered Rate Necessary to Offset Increased Assessment" should be, I came up with figures that differed from the county's numbers - as advertised on page C7 of the Saturday, March 13, edition of the Potomac News.

In that advertisement, the county determined that the tax rate to offset increased assessments should be $1.007 per $100 of assessed value. When I tried to calculate the tax rate that would generate 101 percent of last years revenues, I came up with a rate that was 96 cents per $100 assessed based upon $315 million in revised, estimated real estate revenues collected last year.

Of course, what I failed to include in my calculations was the exclusion of "new growth." The county is allowed to exclude property that was on the books as of Dec. 31, 2003. Even though, as I understand it, this "new growth" is generating revenues for FY 2004.

In just four years, between the 2000 and 2003 fiscal years, Prince William County received surpluses totaling more than $79 million from property taxes, local taxes, permits, fees, licenses and fines.

The county may be allowed to legally exclude new growth in their calculations, but that just allows them to take more money from taxpayers and spend it on their pet projects at the end of the year.

This is how Supervisors Chairman Sean Connaughton can keep telling citizens that he has lowered the tax rate (not taxes mind you) while the county is annually awash in surplus taxpayer money. It's all a game to our elected representatives.

James Simpson is a member of the Prince William Taxpayer's Alliance. He lives in Lake Ridge.