Arlington County collects and spends more cash per resident than any other county in Virginia by a wide margin, according to the state’s auditor of public accounts.
Arlington collected $4,240 in local revenues for each of its roughly 212,000 residents last year, the most recent year for which the auditor’s data was available. Fairfax trailed far behind at $3,306 collected per resident.
Northern Virginia’s smallest county in terms of land mass, Arlington spent $4,209 per resident in 2009 — about 10 percent more than any other county. Loudoun, which spent $3,833 per resident, ranked second.
Arlington’s dense, urban population may explain some of its collection and spending habits.
“When you have a more congested area you tend to have higher costs,” said Mike Thompson, president of the Thomas Jefferson Institute in Springfield, which monitors taxing and spending in the state.
“A larger more diverse population jammed together tends to bring different policing issues, different kinds of education issues and different kinds of social problems,” Thompson said.
State records show that Arlington spent more cash per capita than any other county on fire and rescue services, health services, parks, and cultural services. Arlington also ranked second among all counties in police and library spending.
Mark Schwartz, Arlington’s director of management and finance, said the county’s size and population more closely resemble a city, and therefore lead to increased costs associated with police and social services.
“We have more houses, we have more high-rises, we have more people and we have all the expenses associated with that,” Schwartz said.
The data backs up his claims.
Arlington’s revenues, expenditures and land mass are more comparable with Falls Church, Alexandria and other Northern Virginia cities than to its counties — though Arlington still collects more local revenue per capita than any other Virginia locality.
Arlington also spends more than any other county on welfare and social services, which Schwartz said was as much an ideological decision as a necessity.
“We’ve made choices to provide levels of social services that are different from many other jurisdictions because that is what our community has said they wanted,” Schwartz said.
