Grassroots Bedford Bulletin, March 5, 2003 Cost of Community Services Study is One Way to Look at Growth. Sticker shock: That is what many in Bedford are experiencing upon receiving the County’s latest reassessment of property values. This is the first shoe to fall. The next is the tax rate the county will assess on these new values. Together, the amount of taxes property owners will be paying will be determined. Don’t expect the amount of taxes you pay to drop. In a November 24, 2002 article in the Newport News Daily Press Patrick Lynch reported that local taxes in Virginia in the past decade “have tended to increase greatly in rural counties experiencing population growth, according to data from the state Auditor of Public Accounts. Comparing per person local tax collections from 1988 to 2001 – adjusted for inflation – numbers from smaller counties stand out. Of the 20 fastest-growing cities and counties during that period, the three with the greatest percentage increase in per-person tax collections were rural counties that became suburban: Powhatan, Bedford and King George counties.” Bedford’s per-person tax collections increased by 93 percent during this period – this includes all local taxes, including those on businesses. What is behind the increase in property taxes of Bedford County? Bedford County is the fastest growing county west of I-95. A popular misconception is that a growing population provides the solution for, and is not the cause of, the need to raise revenues. The reasoning goes like this: The more residents there are, the more taxpayers there are. The more taxpayers there are, the more tax revenue there is for the county to pay its bills -- which is true. However, the expense side of the equation tells another story, according to the American Farmland Trust (AFT). A growing community requires more community services, which cost more money. The AFT, an advocate of farming interest in the field of public policy, believes a study of county income and expenses, especially a county experiencing pressure to convert its farmland to residences, places the burden of growth on the shoulders of the farmer. To demonstrate this, AFT has developed a relatively quick and inexpensive way to determine who uses and who pays for community services. AFT calls it a study of the Cost of Community Services (COCS), or COCS study. COCS studies produce an analysis of county revenues and expenditures based on land use. A COCS study attempts to depict the county’s budget through summaries of expenditures and revenues as a function of land use. County income and expenditures are grouped into three broad categories of county property owners, 1) agricultural and other open lands, 2) residential land, and 3) commercial and industrial developments. Such a study shows how much the farmer, the businessman and the residents pay in taxes and receive in services. The results of the many COCS studies they have conducted are consistent and surprising. Using a COCS study, many communities have found that certain types of growth, namely residential developments, do not pay their own way. This is because they require more in county services, schools, road construction and maintenance, police, etc., than the additional taxes they pay to the county. Schools are by far the most expensive service provided by a community, and high-density residential areas often create the greatest demand for schools. The greater the density of the residential areas (excluding retirement and second home developments, which depend less on schools), the greater the burden created on the County. Commercial and agricultural land uses, on the other hand, pay more in county taxes than they use in county services. COCS studies have consistently shown that, in communities in transition -that is, those with large areas of open space- farms and forest lands are important commercial land uses that help balance a community budget. According to a summary of eighty three COCS studies conducted in nineteen states, revenues from farms, ranches, forest lands, and other forms of open space consume only thirty six cents ($.36) in community services for every dollar of community taxes they pay. Commercial and industrial taxpayers receive even less, that is twenty-seven cents ($.27), for every dollar they pay their local community. These are median figures. The specific figures for Bedford may vary, but the point remains the same. Open Space subsidizes development, especially in communities in transition, where farmland is being lost to residential development. Bedford County should not expect to be any different, but a COCS study of the county should provide the public and county decision makers with a useful tool with which to determine how to properly balance growth. The AFT hopes these studies remind the community and county policy makers of the value of farming and other forms of open space in planning development patterns. Preserving and supporting the county’s agriculture is an important element in preserving the fiscal wellbeing of the county government. The key to that level of fiscal wellbeing is for each community to find the proper combination of residential, agricultural and commercial/industrial land uses. The challenge for Bedford, or any other predominantly agricultural community experiencing persistent development pressures, is to find the kind and level of growth that will sustain itself in a manner that meets the needs and wishes of its citizens. The potential benefit of a COCS study is that of providing Bedford an accounting method to apportion the cost of development between agricultural land, residential uses, and commercial/industrial land. In doing so, the study attempts to illuminate the fiscal dynamics of decisions affecting land use patterns in their area. And the cost? Fifteen to twenty thousand dollars ($15,000 to $20,000). COCS studies have proven to be particularly useful where policy decisions are being made and long range plans are being developed. Yet, surprisingly, Bedford County has not produced a COCS study, even though such a study has the potential of saving the county many millions of dollars. Potentially saving millions with an investment of $20,000? Now that is the kind of sticker shock one can get used to!