The Death of the Humble Farmer

(Newsletters will be posted on Mondays.)

Gone are the days when farmers labored from sunrise to sunset every day while fully bearing the costs of bad weather and the competition of lower-priced products. Now farming consists mostly of large, wealthy, land-owning families hiding behind the protection of incorporation to escape the burden of estate taxes and the risk of liability while still benefiting from taxpayer-subsidized cheap labor and government handouts.

The agricultural contribution to society

According to Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), every year the agricultural community in Frederick County employs about 400 people. Based on statistics touted by the Rural Areas Subcommittee (RAS) and the Preservation of Rural Life in Frederick County (PRL), unlike residential development which they claim costs the County money, agriculture has a positive fiscal impact. And for these very reasons (along with the sacred cows of rural view sheds and tranquility), the County must do everything possible to preserve agriculture.

Agriculturalists and other special interest groups shamelessly use the power of government to give themselves advantages over other citizens and businesses: land use tax deferrals, bonus TDR densities, protection from eminent domain and nuisance ordinances, etc. They have also pushed to make things more difficult for the average citizen who wants to build a home by tightening well and septic system regulations and increasing “preservation tract” requirements on new housing developments.

The belief is that agriculture should be encouraged because it is positive for the County, but residential development should be discouraged because it is a burden on the County. But this simply is not true.

What about the kids?

For years, local farmers, particularly those belonging to the Frederick County Fruit Growers Association, have applied to the Virginia Employment Commission for migrant workers to pick fruit and other crops during the harvest season. They made requests for hundreds of workers who are not residents of the state, let alone the County, and likely not even residents of the country. The farmers do not pay unemployment insurance, and migrant workers are often directed to local public health clinics for any non-emergency medical care. Some of these workers bring their families–over 1,000 migrant children came to Virginia last year.

According to the minutes from a Winchester Public School (WPS) Board Buildings & Grounds Committee meeting (Sept 10, 2010):

Interest was expressed in the number of migrant students WPS enrolls. Dr. Leonard reported numbers of migrant students are difficult to identify because of general increases in transiency, but will investigate and report back.

And no, the Winchester Watchdog did not find where he reported back.

Based on WPS Fast Facts sheets for 2010, it costs the City of Winchester over $12,000 a year to educate a child. Frederick County’s cost-per-pupil is about $10,000. Based on these numbers, even if only five children of migrant workers are enrolled in a city school for the fall semester, Winchester will spend $30,000 a year to educate them. Have the local agricultural companies paid any proffers to offset these costs? Are they even paying real estate taxes on their properties to help with the education costs of migrant workers’ children or the social services provided to migrant workers such as health care? We already know that many of them take advantage of the “land use value” tax deferral program.

Frederick County Fruit Growers Association, Inc.

Members of the FCFGA include (but are probably not limited to) Timber Ridge Fruit Farm (Cordell Watt), Fruit Hill Orchard (Diane Kearns and C. Robert Solenberger), Russell Orchards (James Douglas), Marker-Miller Orchard (John Marker), and William Whitacre.

When it comes to payroll, some of these companies do not withhold taxes, especially when it comes to H2A workers. Looks like those companies plan to just “1099” the migrant workers, and we all know how that typically turns out. Some of the companies also deduct meals expenses from the workers’ paychecks.

Workers are housed at what Scott Kensinger, captain of the Winchester Fire and Rescue, called in a memo “the Labor camp at 801 Fairmont Ave.” It is a compound of nineteen or so cinder block buildings surrounded by eight-feet-high, barbed-wire-topped chain link fencing. The floors are concrete, and a small room can sleep as many as ten on metal bunks with thin, yellow foam mattresses. Bathrooms and eating areas are in separate buildings.

Last year Kevin Sieff reported in the Washington Post about the Labor camp at 801 Fairmont Ave. In his November 6, 2010 article “For migrant students, a cycle of dwindling opportunities” he described the place as “Virginia’s largest migrant camp, a rundown agglomeration of one-story cinder block buildings constructed to house German POWs during World War II.”

He interviewed some of the workers and their children. And then he described an incident that should alarm Winchester residents:

On a recent Saturday afternoon at the camp, Ellifina [a 13-year-old daughter of a migrant worker] was sitting with 13-year-old Iris Juarez when the trucks and vans began to arrive. Workers piled out of the vans: old men with hard bodies, fresh from some of the country’s largest apple fields. Out of the trucks, drunk men, on their day off from the fields, led women toward the camp’s sparse rooms.

“Prostitutes,” Iris said. “Again.” She whispered, so that her younger siblings – 10, 8 and 3 – couldn’t hear.

Wonder who pays for the STD treatments…

Last year the Winchester Star also reported on the migrant labor camp, but didn’t look too closely at the camp’s conditions. Instead, the focus was on the weather’s effect on the apple harvest as well as new employment regulations’ effect on the FCFGA’s ability to hire foreign workers. According to Federal law, farmers must hire domestic laborers before giving the jobs to H2A workers (foreigners granted temporary agricultural visas). Camp manager Cindy Burke complained about the process and the reduced number of migrant and domestic workers. Joel Danoy reported in his September 7, 2010 article “Slim pickings for workers”:

A growing number of domestic workers has also made the employment process more complicated this year. […]

“We’re seeing more domestic workers this year,” Burke said. “It’s hard because you have these migrant workers, but then you have to replace them with domestic workers. It just makes for a lot of confusion.”

Yes, that is so confusing. You have to hire people in America before you request workers from Jamaica or Mexico.

More Costs

Aside from the taxpayer-subsidization of migrant worker health care and the education of their children, America’s taxpayers also subsidize the farmers’ produce. According to the Environmental Working Group, during years 2001 – 2003 the Apple Market Loss Assistance Program dished out $3,159,407 to Frederick County farmers. Between 1995 and 2009, Frederick County farmers received over $1.8M in disaster payments, over $1.8M in corn subsidies, $424,183 in dairy program subsidies, and $292,812 in wheat subsidies.

Some of the top recipients for apple subsidies included: Timber Ridge Fruit Farm (Cordell Watt), Woodbine Farm (James Douglas), Fruit Hill Orchard (Diane Kearns and C. Robert Solenberger), Marker-Miller Orchards (John Marker), and Russell Orchards (James Douglas).

Conclusion

Yesterday’s essay showed that the Development Impact Model used by the County is flawed. The local government uses the DIM to give the false impression that new single-family homes are costly burdens on the County whereas agriculture provides a fiscal benefit, and therefore land-use controls must be put in place to curb residential growth patterns.

If we take into consideration these facts:

*much of the agricultural property in the County is part of the tax deferral program
*local farmers do not employ local residents but rely on out-of-state and even out-of-country workers
*migrant workers depend on local social services including public education
*taxpayers around the country, including those in Frederick County, subsidize the farmers’ products

then it is pretty obvious that the agricultural community is not contributing significantly to provide local jobs or real estate tax revenue, but it is contributing significantly to local education and social services costs while receiving tax dollars directly through USDA subsidies.

The Good Ol’ Boy System of Frederick County

A small group of government officials, appointees, and their citizen cronies are using legal “devices” to inflate their personal land values and squeeze the rest of current and future county residents into a box.

Why would they want to do that? you might ask. Well, you need to understand how these central planners (many of them agriculturalists and/or rural landowners) think. These people honestly believe that their view shed and tranquility are more important than your liberty and private property rights. Because they enjoy looking outside their windows and seeing acres of beautiful rolling countryside, you are not allowed to develop your property beyond what and how they permit you to develop. Never mind that some of them sold parcels of land for millions of dollars to real estate developers that eventually ended up ruining their neighbors’ view shed and tranquility. Some land owners are simply created more equal than others.

The web is thick and tangled so get ready—we are cutting deep and getting technical as we tackle the knot of Planning & Development. We’re going to look at the central planners who are “playing SimCity” with Frederick County residents and businesses. Yes, folks, you are being herded and corralled like cattle.

The Quick ‘n Dirty On What Is Going On

A major component of the 2030 Plan is the TDR program. An important part of the TDR program is the granting of bonus density transfer rights to AFDs by the local government. The key players in the designing, approving, and/or implementing of the 2030 Plan, the TDR program, and the AFD program are long-time cronies, a suspicious number of whom directly benefit from these bonus density rights. They have the potential of raking in tons of cash for development rights that didn’t exist prior to April 2010. The government literally pulls these rights out of thin air and hands them to certain landowners on pieces of paper that can be sold for cash. Let’s hope real estate developers and investors don’t take the bait.

If you didn’t understand the previous paragraph, then you need to read the rest of this post.

And if you want names, click here.

The Plan

Let’s start with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan (or The Plan.) The County defines The Plan as “the guide for future growth of Frederick County.” According to the Board of Supervisors, The Plan reflects their vision statement:

Insuring the quality of life of all Frederick County citizens by preserving the past and planning for the future through sound fiscal management.

Keep in mind that any time county officials try to minimize the importance of The Plan by calling it “just a guide,” they are lying. In the Introduction of The Plan, it states:

The ultimate goal is to make The Plan implementable, and by extension, achieve the Board of Supervisors’ vision for the future of Frederick County.

And once the Board of Supervisors votes approval for it, you had better believe they are going to implement it.

So, how did the County come up with The Plan? Between April 2010 and December 2010, the Planning Commission guided the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Executive Committee (CPPC) in the drafting of The Plan with the assistance of “working groups.”

The CPPC includes the following individuals: George Kriz, Gary R. Oates, Stanley Crockett, June Wilmot, Roger Thomas, Christopher Mohn, Philip Lemieux, H. Paige Manuel, Marjorie H. Copenhaver, and Jim Golladay Jr. The working groups included: Bob Morris, Patrick Sowers, Whit Wagner, Diane Kerns (Kearns), John Marker, Patrick Hogan, Dudley Rinker, John Bishop, Phil Lemieux, George Kriz, Chris Mohn, Richie Wilkins, Martha Shickle, Richard Ruckman, H. Paige Manuel, Stanley Crockett, Jim Guillano, Smith Cooley, Herschel Kelly, Paul Anderson, Josh Phelps, Brian Madagan, Nick Nerangis Jr., Rhoda Kriz, Jeff Rezin, Joe Graber, Julie Armel, Beth Stern, and Dan Martin.

The Plan will influence every aspect of County planning and development down to the very ordinances used to restrict citizens’ lives in some way, shape or form. Welcome, folks, to the Progressive Utopian Plan of “smart growth” and “sustainable development.” (By the way, if you ever hear or read central planners use those two phrases, realize that it is deliberate. The presumption underlying those terms is that any growth or development not conducive to The Plan is stupid and unsustainable.) The obvious but unspoken philosophy of any plan for “smart growth” and “sustainable development” is that sprawl is bad. Period.

What is sprawl?

Sprawl is the development pattern of segregated, large single-family lots far from existing infrastructure. Of course, descriptions like “segregated,” “large,” and “far from” are in the eye of the beholder. A ten minute drive might be far for some, and a one-acre lot may be large for some, and seeing only seven neighbors rather than twenty-five may be segregated to some. But this is not the case for everyone. In fact, this is not the case for many people.

Fixing What Isn’t Broken

According to The Plan:

Most of Frederick County’s land area is rural in character. Of the County’s 266,000 acres, approximately 243,000 acres are rural and located primarily west of Interstate 81. The remaining acreage comprises the Urban Development Area (UDA) where the majority of the County’s future growth is directed.

Translation: The Frederick County government desires to cram most of the future growth into 23,000 acres of space. One local resident has accurately described this goal as building a “city around a city.”

In 2008, the Preservation of Rural Life in Frederick County reviewed available residential lots and found that “over 92% of the lots created in recent years reside within the UDA.” And according to The Plan, “the Rural Areas of the County have traditionally seen 30% of the County’s new residential growth.”

Based on this information, it is clear that 91% of Frederick County’s land (243,000 Rural acres) only absorbs 30% of new growth and sees less than 8% of new residential lot creation. The areas of the county these central planners are trying so feverishly to “preserve” are seeing the smallest amount of growth!

Fighting Sprawl

The County plans on combating sprawl with the creation of what can only be described as a derivatives market, complete with government manipulation of the tax code and bonus features for specially-designated areas.

In 2008, the Board of Supervisors created the Rural Areas (RA) Study Subcommittee “to deal with increasing development pressures in Rural Areas over the last decade.” The members of the RA subcommittee were Richard Shickle, Gary Dove, Gary Lofton, Cordell Watt, H. Paige Manuel, and Greg Unger.

In 2009, the RA subcommittee presented a “Report and Recommendations” to the Board of Supervisors. On April 22, 2009, the Board of Supervisors approved the Report and Recommendations as a policy component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The RA subcommittee’s Recommendations included the creation of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program.

Based on a memorandum from Planning Director Eric Lawrence on April 15, 2010, a draft TDR Ordinance was presented to the Board of Supervisors on December 9, 2009:

At the meeting, staff provided an overview of the ordinance and stated that prior to the meeting, staff was made aware of the Model TDR Ordinance drafted by the State Workgroup that included density bonuses. Discussions during the Rural Areas Subcommittee meetings had included the desire to include density bonuses; however under the wording of the TDR language in the Code of Virginia, it was believed that bonuses were not permitted. Staff then revised the draft TDR Ordinance to include bonuses based on where the density right is located. The revised TDR Ordinance was discussed by the Board of Supervisors at their March 10, 2010 meeting. The Board of Supervisors requested minor clarification and additions and with those changes sent the proposed ordinance forward for public hearing. The draft TDR Ordinance has been revised to reflect the Board of Supervisors’ comments.

According to the same memorandum:

The Planning Commission held their public hearing on April 7, 2010, and recommended approval of the TDR Ordinance by a majority vote, with the following revision: If a property is removed from an Agricultural and Forestal District, the development rights remaining will equal what is available for the underlying sending district minus any development rights already sold.

One citizen spoke during the public comment portion of the hearing, Mr. Paul Anderson, a farmer in the Gainsboro District. Mr. Anderson said he was representing the Frederick County Farm Bureau and he spoke in favor of the TDR Program.

Commission members discussed the possibility for high-density development on the receiving properties without the benefit of proffers to offset costs for community services. This impact was compared to the cost efficiency of providing services in designated growth areas. An issue was raised regarding the methods for calculating development rights on a sending parcel. Staff noted the intention to make the TDR Program as simple as possible so that owners of sending properties would not be required to expend large sums of money for surveying or engineering to determine whether or not to sell their rights. A suggestion was made to include criteria specifying that if a landowner is getting the benefits of being in the Agricultural and Forestal District [AFD] such as doubling of density units, and then subsequently the property is removed from the District after selling the development rights, then the remaining available rights will be reduced by the true number that was sold.

The Insidious Foundation of TDRs

Here is how they work:

1. The government determines and restricts private property rights through zoning.
2. The government decides how many development rights (ie density) a property has based on government-created zoning ordinances.
3. The government defines boundaries for Rural/Sending Areas and Urban/Receiving Areas. Private property generally falls into one of those two categories.
4. The government facilitates a one-way derivatives market for Rural landowners to transfer (sell) their development rights to Urban landowners. Participation in the market is voluntary.
5. Buyers (Urban landowners/developers) pay for a private property right that inherently belongs to them as free people but has long been restricted by government through zoning laws. (It’s the nature of the beast.)
6. Sellers (Rural landowners) receive cash for a derivative—development rights—created by the government.
7. The Rural/Sending Area loses those development rights in perpetuity, and future growth is corralled into the UDA.

The only way this market is not going to crash is if the local government continues to tighten the noose of zoning around the private property rights of the people. Should the government decide to repeal zoning ordinances throughout the county, effectively making TDRs worthless, the house of cards would fall.

On April 28, 2010, the Board of Supervisors voted to adopt the TDR Ordinance and Program. The program breaks down Rural Areas into three categories: Sending Area #1, Sending Area #2 and Sending Area #3. Most rural properties are a part of Sending Area #3 with a density transfer of one TDR density right to one dwelling unit. A strip about six miles wide that runs the length of I-81 is Sending Area #2 with a density transfer of one TDR density right to one and a half dwelling units.

Scattered about the county, but concentrated mostly in or adjacent to Sending Area #2 and/or UDAs, is Sending Area #1. The properties in Sending Area #1 are zoned with a transfer ratio of one TDR density right to two dwelling units. These properties are part of Designated Agricultural Districts.

With a density transfer ratio of 1:2, developers seeking to purchase development rights will likely turn to Sending Area #1 first. These properties have a monopoly on the 1:2 ratio until 2015 thanks to the process of becoming a part of a Designated Agricultural District. Every five years, rural landowners can apply to the Agricultural District Advisory (ADA) Committee in order to have their properties included in or removed from the Agricultural District program. The latest renewal deadline was in 2010, and that ADA Committee included the following individuals: Carl C. Ay, James M. Douglas, Dudley H. Rinker, Walter G. Baker, Gary R. Oates, John Steizl, Jack K. Jenkins Jr. and John R. Marker.

According to the Department of Planning and Development, “Agriculture and Forestal Districts encumber the land.” Properties in these districts are restricted from development even if the land is sold. However, “between renewal periods, land owners may request removal from an AFD based on death of a landowner or good and reasonable cause.” The County decides whether or not the request is good and reasonable.

In response to the question “How do I join a District?” on the Department of Planning & Development’s webpage for AFDs, it states:

Any interested landowner can obtain an Application for the creation of or addition to an Agricultural and Forestal District from the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. The Districts are renewed every five years; 2015 is the next renewal period. Applicants for the 2015 renewal must be submitted to the Department of Planning and Development by January 29, 2015.

Now, I’m no lawyer but it doesn’t take one to see that the Frederick County government is overstepping its bounds by not allowing people to join these districts except during the renewal period that only comes up every five years.

Here is where the county gets its authority to establish a five-year renewal period:

§ 15.2-4309. Hearing; creation of district; conditions; notice.

[Excerpt] The ordinance shall state any conditions to creation of the district and shall prescribe the period before the first review of the district, which shall be no less than four years but not more than ten years from the date of its creation.

(By the way, has anyone actually seen the Frederick County ordinance for the creation of Agricultural and Forestal Districts? If so, please direct me to it because I have yet to find the darn thing.)

And here is where the County is clearly violating State code:

§ 15.2-4305. Application for creation of district in one or more localities; size and location of parcels.

[Excerpt. Emphasis mine.] On or before November 1 of each year or any other annual date selected by the locality, any owner or owners of land may submit an application to the locality for the creation of a district or addition of land to an existing district within the locality.

For those rural landowners who meet Land Use eligibility requirements, real estate taxes are deferred. The Agricultural and Forestal Districts (AFD) also have the following benefits:

Protection against local laws unreasonably restricting or prohibiting farm structures and farming practices during the term of the district; and Protection against local laws unreasonably restricting or prohibiting farm structures and farming practices during the term of the district; and Protection against eminent domain, such as for roadways, where a public review process is required if a minimum of 10 acres is to be taken from a District, or one acre from one parcel in a District. In addition, should the County ever rescind its Land Use Assessment Program, those enrolled in an AFD would be eligible for Land Use under the State’s program, provided land eligibility requirements are met.

According to the Dept. of Planning webpage for AFDs, the first AFD was created in 1980 and named “South Frederick.” The second district, “Double Church,” was created in 1985, and the third was created in 2007—“Red Bud.” All three were updated during 2010, the renewal year.

With such a program in place for the last thirty years (along with the options of selling or donating conservation easements) one wonders why the local government felt the need to adopt a TDR Ordinance at all. The logical explanation is that the government wants to stack-n-pack the unwashed masses into an area equivalent to 9% of the County while giving rural landowners a new way to put cash into their pockets by selling derivatives.

On the same day that the Board of Supervisors voted to adopt the TDR Ordinance and Program (April 28, 2010), the Board also voted to approve the addition of three new Agricultural and Forestal Districts: Albin, Apple Pie Ridge, and South Timber Ridge.

The 2010-2015 Albin AFD consists solely of properties owned by Fruit Hill Orchard and DTS LC. Both companies are owned by C. Robert Solenberger who serves on the Conservation Easement Authority (CEA). His daughter, Diane Kearns (Kerns) also serves on the CEA, and it was she who made the request for the creation of the Albin District and the Apple Pie Ridge District. (Ms. Kearns also served on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan working group.) The 2010-2015 Apple Pie Ridge AFD properties are owned by BHS LC, KSS LC, Becon Inc, and Fruit Hill Orchard. All of these companies are owned by Mr. Solenberger.

The 2010-2015 South Timber Ridge AFD consists solely of properties owned by Cordell Watt or his company Timber Ridge Fruit Farm.

Because these farmers waited until the deadline to create these districts, should any of their neighbors want to join them, they will have to wait until 2015 to apply.

When presented with this information, one Winchester resident and business owner, who asked to remain unnamed, remarked, “They are raking it in from [the sale of the Walmart lot] and now they can tie up the land forever and get nice, tidy checks for the sale of the property via TDRs and tax deductions into perpetuity. It’s perfect for them!”

He added, “They got their view shed, and now they want to close the door behind them so you can’t get yours or ruin theirs!”

The Comprehensive Crony Plan

Many of the people who worked on components of The Plan and/or voted on The Plan have numerous connections to each other, inside and outside of local government. In fact, most of the people who voted or will vote on The Plan also played a major role in designing it or some component of it.

For example, look at the creators of the TDR Ordinance and Program again—the RA Subcommittee. Richard Shickle, Gary Dove, and Gary Lofton were on the Board of Supervisors at the time. Cordell Watt, H. Paige Manuel, and Greg Unger were on the Planning Commission. For years, many of the planning commissioners had been serving with one another in various government capacities with a good number of the same supervisors. It is no surprise that the TDR Ordinance was easily approved by the Planning Commission and then quickly recommended for approval to the Board of Supervisors in 2010.

And if we look at the Sending Area #1 of the TDR program that is granted a double bonus of density rights, nearly one in three acres is owned by Diane Kearns’ father, C. Robert Solenberger. Both Ms, Kearns and her father serve on the Conservation Easement Authority along with Richie Wilkins, Gene Fisher (Board of Supervisors), John Marker, Charles Triplett (Planning Commission) and four others. Wilkins and Marker also served with Ms. Kearns on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Working Group. Marker and Kearns are members of the Virginia State Apple Board, and they both belong to the Preservation of Rural Life (PRL) in Frederick County, a group that submitted reports to the local government on growth and development in rural areas. In addition, John Marker’s company M&M LP owns nearly 690 acres in Sending Area #1.

Remember, Sending Area #1 consists solely of Agricultural and Forestal Districts. Initial implementation of the AFD program is carried out by the AFD Advisory Committee. At least five out of the eight Advisory Committee members have direct interests in Sending Area #1. For example, James M. Douglas, another PRL member, is Treasurer of Woodbine Farms which owns 1,189 acres in the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. The Sending Area #1 landowners on the AFD Advisory Committee are Dudley Rinker, Gary Oates, John Stelzl, and John Marker. Rinker, Marker and Oates also served on the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC) and/or the Comprehensive Plan Working Group (CPWG).

Twenty-eight individuals filled the thirty working group positions. At least sixteen of those individuals hold at least one appointed position in the local government. At least five of them are planning commissioners. In fact, nine commissioners of the 14-member Planning Commission served on the CPPC and/or the CPWG. Take Gary Oates, for example. He is on the Planning Commission, the AFD Advisory Committee, and the CPPC. And he owns over 45 acres of land in The Red Bud AFD, likely qualifying his land for bonus density transfer rights.

Also located in the Red Bud AFD are battlefields owned by the Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT) and the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation (SVBF). According to the CWPT’s 2009 Annual Report:

CWPT and SVBF are working closely together to save land at battlefields located in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley. In 2009 the joint effort between CWPT and the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation to protect 209 acres at Third Winchester, VA, created a 576-acre swath of protected battlefield land.

Obviously these two groups do not intend to ever allow development on their lands. In fact, they have been taking advantage of the County’s Land Use tax deferral program. And yet they are included in Sending Area #1 with a 1:2 TDR. Is this designation simply a matter of belonging to an Agricultural and Forestal District and not really applicable or do the battlefields really have bonus density development rights?

Hopefully Supervisor Dehaven can answer that question considering he is on the Board of Trustees for the SVBF. Oh, and guess who is also a member of the SVBF? C. Robert Solenberger.

Since a majority of the Planning Commissioners were directly involved in the creation of The Plan, The Plan was inevitably approved by the Planning Commission and recommended for approval to the Board of Supervisors.

Considering many of the people in authority positions are rural landowners with similar ideas for the way the county should be developed, it is no wonder that the TDR Ordinance and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan appear to benefit rural landowners, and especially agriculturalists, at the expense of those people in the Urban Development Areas.

If the TDR program results in frequent TDR sales (and local government hopes it does), rural lands not under restrictive covenants or conservation easements will increase significantly in market value, effectively pricing out many middle class families who tend to prefer single family homes with large yards rather than high density and mixed use zoning. Some long-time “rural” residents may find it hard to keep up with a rising property tax bill.

I do not hold out any hope that the Board of Supervisors will reject the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as it is currently drafted. The goal of The Plan fulfills the vision of the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission and all their cronies. It is one, big, happy family.

Property Taxes in Winchester

In response to a comment on Facebook by one of WW’s readers, this post provides information on certain personal property and real estate taxes on businesses in the City of Winchester. Should any information appear inaccurate or outdated, please do not hesitate to leave a comment addressing the problem.

History of real property tax increases since recession began

• At a city council meeting on April 8, 2008, citizens accused the city of inflating property value assessments in order to bring in more tax revenue during 2007. One person asked if he was entitled to a refund for that. With only one council member voting no and another absent from the meeting, the city council, including Art Major and Jeff Buettner, voted to increase the real property tax rate from $0.65 to $0.68 per $100 assessed value.
• In a special session on April 21, 2009, the city council unanimously approved raising the tax rate from $0.68 to $0.77 per $100 assessed value.
• And on April 12, 2011, the city council (with Mr. Hill and Mr. Veach absent) voted to increase the rate again from $0.77 to $0.86 per $100 assessed value.
• Since spring 2008, city council has voted to increase the real property tax rate $0.21 or 32.3%.

In February of this year, the Winchester Star covered the latest proposed tax increase and reported:

The city completed a biennial mass reassessment of real estate in 2010. That process determined that the total value of taxable real estate in Winchester had dropped by more than $341 million, or 11 percent.

Update: During the housing boom, the local government got used to the nice tax revenues thanks to the artificially-inflated housing market values. Yes, some folks had to sell their properties because they couldn’t afford the property tax payments. When the housing bubble popped, housing values plummeted and the local government’s cash cow became an emaciated mess. It is no mystery why tax rates have increased on property owners: the local government hates having to tighten its belt. So, that means no break for homeowners. Sorry, folks.

How Winchester property tax rates compare to other Virginia cities, FY 2010-2011

For the purposes of this article, nominal real estate tax rates are listed but many localities do not assess the property at 100% of fair market value, such as the City of Bedford (84.7%), thereby causing effective tax rates to be significantly lower. The City of Winchester, however, does assess real property at 100%.

“Personal property” represents nominal tax rates on light cars and trucks. The assessment ratio is typically 100%, such as in Winchester, but cities vary in their assessment ratios and in how they calculate value: average trade-in, average loan, average retail, or some other method. Therefore, nominal rates can vary greatly from effective rates, but due to the way effective rates are calculated, it is difficult to compare them between cities.

Winchester
Real estate is $0.77 (Recently raised to $0.86)
Personal property is $4.50

Alexandria
Real estate is $0.98
Personal property is $4.75

Bedford
Real estate is $0.86
Personal property is $2.35

Bristol
Real estate is $0.94
Personal property is $7.00 (Assessment ratio is 30%.)

Buena Vista
Real estate is $0.90
Personal property is $5.85 (Assessment ratio is 80%.)

Charlottesville
Real estate is $0.95
Personal property is $4.20

Chesapeake
Real estate is $1.04
Personal property is $4.00

Colonial Heights
Real estate is $1.10
Personal property is $3.50

Covington
Real estate is $0.66
Personal property is $5.60 (Assessment ratio is 55%.)

Danville
Real estate is $0.73
Personal property is $3.00

Emporia
Real estate is $0.81
Personal property is $5.00

Fairfax
Real estate is $0.96
Personal property is $4.15

Falls Church
Real estate is $1.24
Personal property is $4.71

Franklin
Real estate is $0.77
Personal property is $4.50

Fredericksburg
Real estate is $0.68
Personal property is $2.99 (Assessment ratio of 90%)

Galax
Real estate is $0.57
Personal property is $1.68

Hampton
Real estate is $1.04
Personal property is $4.25

Harrisonburg
Real estate is $0.59
Personal property is $3.00

Hopewell
Real estate is $0.99
Personal property is $3.50

Lexington
Real estate is $0.70 (recently raised to $0.73)
Personal property is $4.25

Lynchburg
Real estate is $1.05
Personal property is $3.80

Manassas
Real estate is $1.32
Personal property is $3.25

Manassas Park
Real estate is $1.65
Personal property is $3.50

Martinsville
Real estate is $1.02
Personal property is $2.30

Newport News
Real estate is $1.10
Personal property is $4.25

Norfolk
Real estate is $1.11
Personal property is $4.25

Norton
Real estate is $0.80
Personal property is $1.85

Petersburg
Real estate is $1.35
Personal property is $4.40

Poquoson
Real estate is $0.81
Personal property is $4.15

Portsmouth
Real estate is $1.24
Personal property is $5.00

Radford
Real estate is $0.76
Personal property is $2.44

Richmond
Real estate is $1.20
Personal property is $3.70

Roanoke
Real estate is $1.19
Personal property is $3.45

Salem
Real estate is $1.18
Personal property is $3.20

Staunton
Real estate is $0.90
Personal property is $2.00 (It appears that the city recently raised it to $2.40)

Suffolk
Real estate is $0.91
Personal property is $4.25

Virginia Beach
Real estate is $0.89
Personal property is $3.70

Waynesboro
Real estate is $0.70 (Recently raised to $0.75)
Personal property is $5.00 (Assessment ratio is 50%)

Williamsburg
Real estate is $0.54
Personal property is $3.50

Assuming my math is correct, the range of nominal real estate property tax rates for FY 2010-2011 was $0.57 to $1.65, and the median nominal real estate property tax rate was $0.95. Winchester’s nominal rate that fiscal year was 18 points lower than the average. The median effective tax rate was $0.91. The effective rate was lower because although property values on average were rising, property assessments in many localities were not being performed as often as necessary to keep up with the changing markets. Winchester’s effective rate that year ($0.77) was 14 points below the average.

The median personal property tax rate on cars and light trucks for cities using a 100% assessment value was $3.66 with a range of $1.68 to $5.00. Winchester’s personal property tax rate of $4.50 is 23% higher than average for the 34 Virginia cities using a 100% assessment value. Most cities (18 out of 39) use the Average Loan to determine taxable value. Ten cities, including Winchester, use the Average Trade-In value: Bedford, Buena Vista, Falls Church, Franklin, Harrisonburg, Lexington, Lynchburg, Manassas, Norton. Four cities use the Average Retail value. Seven cities use some other form of assessment.

The City of Winchester determines Average Trade-In value with the following pricing guides: N.A.D.A. Official Used Car Guide, N.A.D.A. Official Older Used Car Guide, and the Black Book from Hearst Business Media.

Tax rates and information were gleaned from the Virginia Economic Development Partnership’s 2010 – 2011 Virginia Guide to Local Taxes on Businesses.

June 4, 2011

May 21, 2011

May 14, 2011