Henrico’s Cynical It’s-All-for-the-Children Gambit

Taxes for the sweet little children.
Taxes for the sweet little children.

by James A. Bacon

It’s all for the children. It’s always for the children!

Here’s how Virgil Hazelett, former Henrico County administrator, justified yesterday slapping a 4% meals tax on Henrico families, most of whom have seen a steady erosion of their take-home income over the past several years thanks to a sluggish economy and a panoply of new state and federal taxes:

I’m here today in support of Henrico’s children and Henrico’s schools, to maintain the excellence we all expect from our students and the successes for our children that they deserve. A meals tax is a small price to pay…. I believe that the citizens of this county will not fail us and the future of the educational system and of the county.

As bad as it was, that treacly nonsense was exceeded by Tammy Gartrell, president of the Henrico County Council of PTAs, who said, “The meals tax will be only pennies to us when we go out to eat. But all those pennies add up to so much for our children.”

This is some of the most cynical posturing I have ever seen in Virginia politics. Two points. First, there is no way to guarantee the money will always go towards education. Second, the real  beneficiaries aren’t teachers and the little children, they are the government programs and policies that county officials are protecting from cuts or alteration in lieu of raising taxes.

To the first point: Current County Manager John Vithoulkas spoke yesterday of putting the money in a “lockbox.” That is farcical. There is no way under Virginia’s Constitution to create a lockbox.

Vithoulkas said that after the meals tax passes, the board of supervisors can pass an ordinance spelling out that the new tax revenue will go to the schools. Reporter Graham Moomaw had the wits about him to ask how that would work. The fact is, under the Virginia Constitution, no board can bind a future board to its decisions; any ordinance can be amended or repealed. Vithoulkas’ lame response: “They would have to unwind the ordinance and hold a public hearing. … When we say we’re going to do something, we do it.”

In other words, the lockbox is as safe as Fort Knox — until this board of supervisors or some future board decides to unlock it.

In any case, Sidney Gunst, the real estate developer who has led the opposition to the meals tax, termed the lockbox an illusion. “Henrico County has guaranteed nothing, whether there is an ordinance or not. The only number that means anything is the overall school budget — and that’s what the board will still vote on every year. Annually, the school budget can go up or down.”

Henrico does need to allocate more money to schools in order to cover an estimated $10 million next year in additional teacher pension payments. (Henrico also needs another $4.5 million to cover pension payments for non-governmental employees.) Of course, the county must honor its pension obligations to the teachers. But please spare us the rhetoric that it’s all for the sweet little children.

To the second point: The real beneficiaries of the tax are those governmental programs that the Board of Supervisors chooses to maintain instead of cutting them and using the savings to pay for teacher pensions. Just to pick some obvious examples: Why does the county need a publicly owned golf course? Why does the county fund programming for the Henrico public access channel? Why doesn’t the county charge insurance companies for county-provided ambulance service?

If county officials and their pet-sheep allies in the PTA were being honest, they would level with Henrico voters: We want to tax your food so we can keep the public golf course, put obscure documentaries on public-access TV and let insurance companies off the hook for ambulance rides. That’s the real truth. Sadly, Henrico’s elected officials are doing everything they can to hide it.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

23 responses to “Henrico’s Cynical It’s-All-for-the-Children Gambit”

  1. Surprise! Surprise! We do charge for ambulance service but have a “compassionate billing” policy which basically means we charge whatever the insurance company pays if they have insurance and don’t charge if they don’t.

    so we end up still subsidizing the service and found out recently that we had inadequate budgetary controls on the money coming from billing. Imagine that!

    A “lockbox” IS possible – for instance – water/sewer Capital Facilities funds tend to be that way but agree in general it’s “not”.

    But would also point out that the policies that go into acquiring and keeping a AAA rating are also “not binding”.

    Of course rating agencies not only want fiscal integrity – they want to see revenues adequate to cover obligations so I’d be curious if the new accounting requirement for localities to “count” their pension obligations affects the rating agencies on future ratings or if it was already baked -in to prior rating criteria.

    What the rating agencies use – as well as the State when computing school funding is a term called “revenue capacity”.

    Va Locality Revenue Capacity Page 14

  2. HillCityJim Avatar
    HillCityJim

    State school funding, or at least most of it, is distributed via the Composite Index and not the Commission on Local Government’s Revenue Capacity calculations.

    1. HCJ -I might be confusing ability to pay with revenue capacity (which I think is an older term) but if you look here:

      Overview of the Standards of Quality Funding Process – Virginia …
      ww2.odu.edu/~wowings/Funding_Public_Education_in_Virginia.ppt‎

      ( it’s a download power point, sorry)

      starting on slide 20 and going through 22,…

      it gives a pretty good idea of how the composite index takes into account the ability of the locality to pay it’s calculated share.

      here’s another explanation from a different website:

      Management & Budget | FY 11-12 Budget FAQs – School Division
      brown-horizontal-line
      REVENUE

      What are the sources of School Division revenue?
      How does the local real estate tax rate affect School Division funding?
      What about funds from the Virginia Lottery?
      EXPENDITURES

      How does the School Division spend its budget?
      What is the “composite index” and how does it impact revenue?
      What are “unfunded mandates?”
      What are some examples of federal unfunded mandates?
      What are some examples of state unfunded mandates?
      BUDGET PROCESS

      How is the School Division budget created?
      What is the School Board’s responsibility in the budget development process?
      What role does the School Division’s vision, mission and strategic goals play in the budget development process?
      What method does the School Division use to create its funding request?
      How does student enrollment impact the budget?
      How does education impact our community’s economic vitality?**
      How do we determine the components and costs of our employee benefits packages?
      How many people does the School Division employ and in what types of jobs?
      Can we create a reserve in boom years, so that we have savings available to cover times of shortfall?
      Why are you proposing giving employees raises in 2011-12 when there is a gap between available revenue and expenses?
      What is the difference between “recurring funds” and “one-time money?
      REVENUE

      Q: What are the sources of School Division revenue?

      School Division Revenues

      The School Division receives the majority of its funding from local sources such as real estate and personal property taxes. For the 2009-10 school year, the School Division received about 67 percent of its revenue from local sources, 28.5 percent from the state, and less than 3 percent from the federal government. Over the past few years, the amount of money the School Division has received from the state is declining, putting more of the burden for funding education on our local taxpayers. As part of its annual budget development process, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors allocates a portion of certain types of new local revenue, typically 60 percent, to the School Division. The School Division also has access to federal and state grants and subsidies, and gathers a small portion of revenue from fees, such as for facilities rental.

      back to top

      Q: How does the local real estate tax rate affect School Division funding?
      The vast majority of School Division revenue comes from local tax dollars (about 72 percent of the budget). These local tax dollars are primarily derived from taxes collected on residential real estate owned in the county. The county also collects business taxes, personal property tax, fees such as business licenses, recording fees, dog and fishing licenses, etc., but those funds are not allocated to the School Division.

      Residential real estate is assessed at a tax rate per $100 of assessed value of the property. The current real estate tax rate as set by the Board of Supervisors is $0.742 per $100 of assessed property value. The amount of tax a homeowner pays is a combination of the tax rate and the value of the property. For example:

      Joe Resident’s home is valued at $280,000. At the current tax rate of 0.742 per $100, Joe owes $2077.60 in real estate taxes for a fiscal year. This will be payable in two installments, in June and December of each year. There are two ways Joe’s real estate taxes can increase or decrease: by changing the tax rate or changing the home’s assessed value. What has happened in the economic recession is that home values have fallen, lowering taxes on homeowners, and lowering the revenue the county receives that is available for schools. For example, as the tax rate remains at $0.742 per $100, Joe’s home is now assessed at $262,000. Joe now owes $1944 in real estate taxes for the same home. This decline in property values has created the decline in local revenue and cuts to County and School Division budgets.

      back to top

      Q: What about funds from the Virginia Lottery?
      It’s a common misnomer that the Virginia Lottery funds public education in Virginia. While it is true that the bulk of the profits from the Lottery are allocated for education funding, those profits do not come close to the amount required to support public education in the state. In addition, whatever lottery profits are directed to education, an equal amount of “general fund” tax dollars are subtracted from education; increased lottery sales does not equate to increased education funding. The Commonwealth uses a formula to determine the amount of lottery funds each locality earns, with the poorest Virginia localities receiving the lion’s share of the funds. Albemarle County receives approximately $1 million, or less than 1 percent of its revenue, from the Virginia Lottery each year.

      back to top

      EXPENDITURES

      Q: How does the School Division spend its budget?
      Education is a “people business”. More than 83 percent of the School Division’s budget is spent on salary and benefits for its ~2,400 employees with the remaining 17 percent covering operational costs. Looking at the expenditures another way, the School Division spends approximately 75.6 percent of its budget on instruction, well above the national target of 65 percent and more than 13 percent above the state average of all school divisions. Approximately 10 percent is allocated to building services, approximately 6 percent to transportation, approximately 4.5 percent to administration, attendance and health, approximately 1.5 percent to technology and 2.7 percent to transfers.

      back to top

      Q: What is the “composite index” and how does it impact revenue?

      The Composite Index is a ratio calculated by the Commonwealth of Virginia to determine our local ability to pay for school services. It is calculated every two years and includes such measures as average salary, average home price, overall local tax revenue, etc for the locality. The Composite Index determines how much money the state will contribute to the School Division to help fund Virginia Standards of Quality (SOQ) requirements. These SOQ are state mandates for numbers and types of positions required for state accreditation. Wealthier localities receive fewer Composite Index funds. Albemarle County is one of the wealthiest counties in the state, relative to other localities, and thus it receives only about 39% of the dollars necessary to fund the SOQ requirements. The state expects Albemarle County to pay the other 61% with its local tax dollars. In counties with less local tax revenue, such as Nelson, Buckingham and Greene, the state picks up more of the cost for the SOQ positions, since the state considers those localities less able to fund the mandated positions on their own.

  3. reed fawell III Avatar
    reed fawell III

    I am not familiar with the Henrico County government, save for what I read on this website. Thus I have heard the Henrico has an excellent past record of governance in many ways, including financial and fiscal.

    But the county’s handling this meals tax referendum raises red flags. It starts with the county’s questionable promotion tactics. Its followed by an apparent lack of straight talk, detail and transparency on the subject. This includes a shifting of rationales and vague suspect expressions of the need. Manipulative appeals to sentiments about saving kids from harm are one example. These tactics insult the voters intelligences. These tactics also combine with the county’s failure to answer with clarity pertinent questions raised by others concerning this tax, and its alternative solutions.

    The more the county argues for their tax, the more suspect their arguments become. One wonders begins to wonder if the county conducts all its business, meets all its challenges, and makes all its decisions, this way.

  4. Les Schreiber Avatar
    Les Schreiber

    As a retired school teacher ,I can tell you that the phrase “Its all for the children”is code it will go any place but the classroom. As a great man used to say “Patriotism is the last refuge of fools” I can tell you from 17 years of experience “It’s for the children” is the biggest red flag there is.

  5. It’s a cynical canard – I agree. I DO CARE what the CLASS SIZE is in K-3 core academic but to equate ALL positions in the school as having the same classroom size need is a sound-bite approach apparently accepted by some.

    A class size of 15 at-risk kids in 2nd grade is a handful for most average teachers.

    A class size of 50 is no big deal in high school elective subjects especially if there are online and offline reference sources available.

    Henrico – like most counties in Va fund locally – voluntarily and on a discretionary basis about 1/2 of the school funds – for non-SOL courses – the state does not require – nice to have things – important to parents and kids – but not required for a diploma and not eligible for state SOQ funds – totally voluntary at the local level.

  6. HillCityJim Avatar
    HillCityJim

    larryg,
    Now that YOU know that school funding is distributed, mostly, via the Composite Index, perhaps you can review the COLG methodology to see that Revenue Capacity is an entirely different animal.

    Many years ago JLARC was doing the studies and they were promoting fiscal stress as the way to distribute state monies but fortunately the GA was smart enough to can that idea. The more you can spend, the more stressed you are, the more state money you get? I don’t think so.

    Once you study the Revenue Capacity concept, come back and we will debate its merits.

  7. HCJ- the full name is “COMPOSITE INDEX OF LOCAL ABILITY TO PAY”

    correct?

    It appears that somewhere around 2007 – the phrase “revenue capacity” went away and “ability to pay” replaced it although if you know this better, please enlighten me.

    here’s a definition provided for ability to pay:

    ” Composite index of local ability to pay — a formula to determine the state and local government shares of K-12 education program costs, which is expressed as a ratio, indicating the local percentage share of the cost of education programs; for example, a locality with a composite index of 0.3000 would pay 30 percent and the state would pay 70 percent of the costs”

    I was/is equating the two terms as meaning pretty much the same i.e. “ability” = “capacity” but again, if you have superior knowledge and insight, please share and enlighten by all means.

    The context of my original remark if you check back is the criteria that rating agencies use is assigning their locality rating and here is an excerpt of Moody’s”

    “Property Tax Limitations are Considered in Context of Overall Financial Flexibility”

    Access to additional taxing or revenue capacity

    Some local governments are able to maintain their levies below state limitations, leaving an unused margin that is fully accessible when needed. For example, a municipality may levy only 5 mills under a 10 mill cap that they could utilize for excess capacity. Similarly, municipalities operating under a growth limitation are sometimes allowed to accumulate any unused portion of the property tax limit from one year to the next, building a margin. Any voluntarily untapped margin that is accessible in future years grants the local government additional revenue raising flexibility when needed.”

    In other words, Moody would see the ability to levy another tax – as increased flexibility.

    Okay – so come back and enlighten me (seriously).

  8. okay, here’s a little more info:

    ” The current funding formula used to determine local shares of funding for the CHD program is clearly outdated. This report sets forth two alternative formulas based on local revenue capacity for determining local ability to pay for the CHD program. These alternative formulas will ensure that tax equity is achieved through the funding for the program.

    Revenue capacity is a measure of the revenue-generating capacity of a locality, if statewide average tax rates are applied to each local tax base. The measure can be used to determine the local shares for the CHD program by converting it to a ratio which shows each locality’s relative ability to generate revenues. The ratio is calculated by dividing each locality’s per-capita revenue capacity by the statewide per-capita revenue capacity.

    The first alternative formula for determining local shares of CHD program funding is based on the local revenue capacity ratio. This formula continues to require a statewide local share of 45 percent, and the maximum share for any individual locality is also maintained at 45 percent. It ensures that localities with the greatest abilities to pay bear appropriate responsibility for funding the program. Localities with lesser abilities to pay are provided with greater State assistance in funding the program.

    The second alternative formula for determining local shares is also based on the revenue capacity ratio for each locality. However, each locality’s share is adjusted to reflect the adjusted gross income of local residents in relation to statewide adjusted gross income. Adjusting the local revenue capacity ratio for income recognizes that localities with residents who have lower incomes may have greater difficulty in taxing at statewide rates. The second formula also maintains a local share of 45 percent.

    The formulas presented in this report to determine local shares will account for local ability to pay for the CHD program. Both formulas are based on revenue capacity, and represent significant improvements to the current formula. The formulas do not measure need for the CHD program, however. Measuring need for public health services can best be accomplished through the VDH budget and fund allocation process. The use of a systematic, rational budget process along with either alternative funding formula will promote the achievement of equal access to needed services and tax equity.”

    from:

    Funding the State and Local Cooperative Health Department Program

    and here is a recent JLARC report on the subject:

    State Spending on the Standards
    of Quality (SOQ): FY 2011

  9. HillCityJim Avatar
    HillCityJim

    Again I say, study the methodology from the COLG report. I don’t have superior knowledge but YOU seem to think that YOU do!

    The problem with any formula was detailed in the very first JLARC fiscal stress study about 30 years ago and many attempts have been made to change funding formulas to benefit one locality at the expense of another. That was when the cost of competing for NOVA divisions came to be. I believe there is yet another ongoing study regarding the distribution formula and the day may come when a true revenue capacity formula is used. One issue that consistently arises is the valuation methodology used for personal property because every local Commissioner determines their vehicle pricing guide (NADA, Black Book, etc.), thus making comparisons impossible. Currently the assumption is that every vehicle across the state has a revenue capacity of $191 and I can assure you there are a lot more Rolls Royce and BMWs in NOVA than in southside.

    When I was a legislative aid and the first JLARC stress reports were released, many called them “Paving your roads in gold funding.” More spending, more stress, more aid.

    It is easy to see how well your school division would do by using your locality’s Revenue Capacity divided by the state average capacity multiplied by .45, and compare that to the Composite index. With the different taxing abilities of the localities, (you have a higher sales tax, I have a coal tax), revenue capacity is like beauty…its all in the eye of the beholder.

  10. Well I THINK I understand the LOGIC behind what they are doing but do not see a particular bias in it myself since real estate has to be assessed at true market. and there is an equivalence when they say:

    ” This report sets forth two alternative formulas based on local revenue capacity for determining local ability to pay for the CHD program.”

    I do not buy your conclusion that it’s done purposely to benefit some localities others but if you can actually demonstrate that it does, in fact, have that effect even if unintended can you give an example?

    but the basic concept as I see it is to try to determine what the ability of the locality is to pay their share of the mandated services costs and they use things like real estate and adjusted income which appear to be about 9/10th of the calculation with other taxes less prominent.

    After you show me how this benefits some at the expense of others (give me a couple of examples if you can)…

    how about showing a better method – to accomplish the desired goal.

    or are you disagreeing with the entire concept itself no matter what calculations are used?

  11. HillCityJim Avatar
    HillCityJim

    Either calculation, Composite Index or Revenue capacity uses True Value of Property, Local Sales tax revenue and one sort of income, used in various percentages as a proxy for the other tax revenues that are collected. When the Index was started, local entities extracted revenues, on statewide average, 50% from real estate, 10% from local sales tax revenue and 40% from other sources (meals, lodging, utilities, bank stock, vehicle tags, personal property, coal and on and on). Now the ratio is much different. Even if all localities had the same taxing authority, not all have the same capacity to generate taxable revenue. Thus the use of the proxy, income, to use in the formulas.

    Previous Revenue Capacity studies include Real estate, Sales tax (1%) and vehicle decals as they were the only consistent data point across the state that everybody collected. That got the proxy based upon income down to something like 30%. Decals have been removed and the generalized $191 per vehicle capacity has been added to the current methodology.

    The goal of any formula should be equity and that, as I said, is in the eye of the beholder. Giving Virginia Beach the Dillon authority to levy a coal tax is worthless, and giving Scott County meals and lodging tax authority nearly the same. Don’t use VA AGI, use BEA household income, don’t use this, use that.

    The only certainty is there are 134 ideas on how to measure ability to pay.

  12. HCJ – you obviously have more insight than I and I appreciate you sharing it and adding to my understanding.

    I’m not seeing where the 191 is used… though…

    ok…so you say the goal should be equity (agree) but you think AGI is less equitable than household income?

    why?

    and yes… I wonder if a meals tax in Henrico – affects the LCI… do you know?

    did you say if you consider “ability to pay” to be some level of equivalence with “revenue capacity”?

    In other words – instead of property tax – aggregate all taxes that accrue to each county? Why are the different categories of taxes treated not the same in terms of “revenue” ?

    in terms of “eye of the beholder” – I’m in agreement but a little amused as this is the same kerfuffle over transportation money also.

    I favor MORE transparency which the LCI does – in my view – much, much better than transportation revenues and spending.

    Localities can calculate down to the penny the amount of state aid for schools but apparently no so much with transportation dollars.

    For instance, no one that I know can provide a simple number as to how much VDOT spends on maintenance and operations in a county and figuring out how much is spent per year on road improvements is almost inscrutable.

    perhaps being in the line of work you are in (or were) you’d offer a few words of insight on the transportation conundrum also?

  13. DJRippert Avatar

    I find your repeated criticism of Henrico’s publicly owned golf course odd. Should Henrico have any publicly owned sports and recreation facilities? If so, why not golf? Does the Henrico golf course make or lose money? If it makes money isn’t that an intelligent way to turn public land into a revenue producer? Would you rather the land be sold to a developer so that more houses can be built? Should Henrico sell all of its parks too?

    I played Herndon Centennial Golf Course yesterday. Owned by the town of Herndon. Fun course. Helpful employees. The course generates a positive cash flow (although it basically breaks even after depreciation). The course employs a number of people. But best of all … the food concession is run by JJ’s Deli. Some of the best barbecue I’ve had in the state. Hell, east of Memphis. A big plate of delicious smoked wings for $5? Are you kidding me?

    Remember John Riggins? Redskins fullback. Hall of Fame player. He went to a dinner and was seated next to Sandra Day O’Connor. Mr. Riggins may have had a cocktail or two. He said to Justice O’Connor, “You have to loosen up a bit, Sandy baby.”.

    You have to loosen up a bit, Jim baby.

    In a postscript to the Riggins story – years later Sandra Day O’Connor sent John Riggins a beautiful bouquet of roses when he was honored as one of the greatest Redskins ever.

    Perhaps she took his advice after all.

    1. reed fawell III Avatar
      reed fawell III

      Sandra Day O’Connor is plenty vivacious, outgoing, and friendly to strangers and friends alike as those “beautiful bouquet of roses” attest.

      It’s quite likely that that night Riggo was the one who needed to sober up, rather that Sandra having any need to loosen up.

      Of course Riggo is Riggo. Who wants to change either Riggo (nobody could) or Sandra either – both of them great fun, great humanists, great people.

      1. I sorta like the idea that Riggo had an influence on Sandra Day. There’s hope in humanity yet!

        😉

        not that Sandra Day was a bad person.. but “loosening up” is good medicine for most……in this day and time of hate and discontent….

        1. reed fawell III Avatar
          reed fawell III

          Hey, I wasn’t there, but I suspect “Sandra baby” didn’t need any loosening up. Riggo the Diesel was flat on the floor staring up the ceiling at a dinner partly. And he got a “beautiful bouquet of roses” out of it. The Lady Justice was a class act, and one tough cowgirl to boot.

          1. DJRippert Avatar

            Riggens admits he was crushed. I suspect that he may have been a bit flirtatious too. Sandra Day O’Connor is not only a rare legal genius she is also a very attractive woman,

  14. I think there is a legitimate policy question here but suspect the fears of adding a new tax that will never be undone is at issue also.

    For instance. A diversified tax base is probably better than relying on a few “cash cows”.

    A consumption based tax on discretionary purchases is probably more fair to people on fixed incomes living in properties they have no control over the value.

    Finally – it’s irresponsible for Henrico (and other counties) to not pay their unfunded pension liabilities but I would admit that doing so in a phased way over several years where targeted positions are allowed to go away when someone retires could make it more of a revenue-neutral proposition – as I WOULD AGREE that taxes should not keep going up.

    It would be REFRESHING to see a county, any county, perhaps Henrico to institute a policy similar to the one they do for debt as a percent of revenues to do total-of-all-local-taxes per capita as a percent of revenues so that citizens will not mistrust the flexibility in having more taxing authority.

    As Jim pointed out – no policy can be forced on future BOS but traditional policies tend to be “sticky” over time and clear election issues.

    I can imagine, for instance, the Henrico BOS deciding to violate their own policies which help them maintain a AAA rating… People like Jim Bacon would jump out of their skin on that kind of bail out (and I’d agree!).

    However, I ALSO see this particular issue as a way for folks like Bacon to come back with a POSITIVE competitive proposal in response to the county’s preferences… (as opposed to attacking the county and it’s policies).

    You have to win with better ideas… or ..you SHOULD win with better ideas. We have too much blame and loathing these days and we need to think about BETTER ways to achieve some of the goals – goals that many folks agree with in concept but get bogged down with on specifics that ooze negative energy. ( I through that last phrase in for Reed).

    😉

  15. I think this is the report that HCJ alluded to in the threads discussing ‘revenue capacity’ and “local ability to pay”.

    Report on Comparative Revenue Capacity, Revenue Effort, And Fiscal Stress of Virginia’s Cities and Counties
    FY 2010

  16. Henrico county ranks 85 out of 107 in fiscal stress.

    from the report:

    ” The fiscal stress index illustrates a locality’s ability to generate additional local revenues from its current tax base relative to the rest of the Commonwealth.

    Revenue capacity is a computation of how much revenue a jurisdiction could generate if it taxed its population at statewide average rates.

    Revenue effort is a ratio of actual tax collections by a locality to its computed revenue capacity. ”

    Revenue Capacity per Capita Henrico County $1,932.05 rank 94

    Revenue Effort Henrico County 0.9085 Rank: 54

    what might be interesting would be to compare the Moody AAA counties with regard to these criteria.

    and … perhaps to compare the lowest Moody rated… with regard to same.

  17. I’m curious. In terms of the LCI… would a Moody rating be a more fair way to judge a localities revenue capacity/ability to pay?

Leave a Reply