The Robin Ficker amendment to the County Charter seems to be passing with only a few more votes needing to be counted. This amendment requires a full 9 vote plurality of the County Council in order to approve a real property tax increase above the fixed limit. Here is the editorial from the Washington Post of November 7 on this subject:
Friday, November 7, 2008; Page A18
THE JOKE HAS always been that Montgomery County residents never met a tax they didn't like. Voters, tired of being a punch line, sent a contrary message to county leaders on Tuesday: Stop the tax hikes and start spending less. Half of Montgomery voters supported a measure that would make it more difficult to raise the limit on property tax rates. The ill-advised measure, which could hinder the County Council's ability to raise revenue in a time of fiscal crisis, became an outlet for voters frustrated with spending in Rockville. It's unclear whether the measure will pass -- it's ahead by a few hundred votes with thousands of absentee and provisional ballots uncounted -- but, whatever the outcome, Montgomery lawmakers would be wise to take voters' concerns seriously.
The possible success of the measure, peddled by anti-spending ideologue Robin Ficker, isn't a total validation of Mr. Ficker's three-decade crusade against taxes. But it is a repudiation of the county government's warped fiscal priorities. The council, and County Executive Isiah Leggett (D), buckled to union pressure last year and approved audacious pay increases that far exceeded inflation and defied common sense. The raises, which total 8 percent this year for many county employees, contributed to a severe budget deficit that forced the council to approve a 13 percent increase in property tax rates earlier this year. Taxpayers, incensed by the increase, wondered why they had to bear the brunt of the budget crunch. At a time when the county is shedding jobs and many feel lucky to have a steady paycheck, shouldn't county workers also contribute to a solution?
ad_icon
No doubt many voters also may have had in mind the recently reported excesses of the county's disability retirement program. More than 60 percent of Montgomery police officers who retired in the past four years are collecting service-related disability payments. Some officers have legitimate complaints; others are gaming the system and taking taxpayers for a costly ride. Reforming the disability program would have tangible fiscal benefits -- $35 million was awarded for service-related disability benefits in fiscal 2008. Reform would also send a message to voters that county leaders are serious about rebuffing excessive union influence.
Mr. Leggett could reinforce that message if he takes a firm position in negotiations about possible pay concessions. Usually the soul of conciliation, Mr. Leggett must make the case that it's better for union leaders to compromise on wage hikes than risk the council's deciding not to fully fund the increases. The council must buttress Mr. Leggett by making clear that such threats aren't idle. The alternative will be serious budget cuts that reduce services and cut jobs. That's no laughing matter.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
MoCo Considering School System Pay Cutbacks
Pay raises might be cut back, Weast says
Gazette Regional News, Wednesday October 8, 2008
by Marcus Moore
Given the bleak financial outlook for the county and state, the schools superintendent has talked with principals about possibly scaling back pay raises in next year's operating budget.
The talks represent a drastic change for Superintendent Jerry D. Weast and the public school system. They have flatly disagreed with at least one County Council member over cuts to employee pay increases the past two budget cycles.
Under the negotiated agreement, the school system's 22,000 employees are scheduled to receive a 5.3 percent pay increase for the next fiscal year.
But the county is staring at a $250 million budget shortfall for fiscal 2010, largely caused by the high price of fuel and flat home sales.
"Dr. Weast has been having conversations with lots of people, letting them know the fiscal 2010 budget situation is going to be dire," said Brian K. Edwards, Weast's chief of staff.
At this point, Edwards said, Weast has discussed the possibility of scaling back pay raises, but no decision has been made.
The county school system workers union will meet later this month with school board President Nancy Navarro to look at the fiscal 2010 budget forecasts.
"We have not seen the numbers," said Anna Oman, a spokeswoman for the union. "We believe that if the money does exist, it's the obligation of the county to fund the contracts."
School leaders are compiling the school system's spending plan for fiscal 2010, which begins July 1. Weast will unveil the budget in December.
The school system already has been hit hard by the economic downturn.
Last year, it gained approval for a $2.07 billion spending plan for fiscal 2009, about $41 million short of its initial request. And with the potential shortfall looming for next fiscal year, the school system froze hiring and cut spending to save money. It is still waiting on an additional $5.68 million from the county to help pay for diesel fuel for buses.
In fiscal 2009 budget discussions, the school system did not want to scale back pay increases. But council Vice President Philip M. Andrews (D-Dist 3) of Gaithersburg, later joined by Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg (At-large) of North Bethesda, said that all county agencies should reduce pay increases by 2 percent.
"I think the superintendent is right to do that," Andrews said Tuesday of Weast's recent talks with principals. "He recognizes that the increases are not affordable this year, and there will have to be changes made to them."
The renegotiation of school system contracts "would make sense given the fact that they would not have full funding" in the budget, said Robert L. Monsheimer, education chairman for the Montgomery County Taxpayers League. "It had to come. It's good that they're at least looking at it."
Eliminating cost-of-living increases across all county agencies would save the county $125 million, including $75 million in the school system, Andrews estimated.
"To protect the classroom, that's what we're going to have to do," Andrews said. "It's not something anyone wants to do, but I think it's necessary. We want to keep the progress going that we're seeing in the school system."
Copyright © 2008 Post-Newsweek Media, Inc./Gazette.Net
Gazette Regional News, Wednesday October 8, 2008
by Marcus Moore
Given the bleak financial outlook for the county and state, the schools superintendent has talked with principals about possibly scaling back pay raises in next year's operating budget.
The talks represent a drastic change for Superintendent Jerry D. Weast and the public school system. They have flatly disagreed with at least one County Council member over cuts to employee pay increases the past two budget cycles.
Under the negotiated agreement, the school system's 22,000 employees are scheduled to receive a 5.3 percent pay increase for the next fiscal year.
But the county is staring at a $250 million budget shortfall for fiscal 2010, largely caused by the high price of fuel and flat home sales.
"Dr. Weast has been having conversations with lots of people, letting them know the fiscal 2010 budget situation is going to be dire," said Brian K. Edwards, Weast's chief of staff.
At this point, Edwards said, Weast has discussed the possibility of scaling back pay raises, but no decision has been made.
The county school system workers union will meet later this month with school board President Nancy Navarro to look at the fiscal 2010 budget forecasts.
"We have not seen the numbers," said Anna Oman, a spokeswoman for the union. "We believe that if the money does exist, it's the obligation of the county to fund the contracts."
School leaders are compiling the school system's spending plan for fiscal 2010, which begins July 1. Weast will unveil the budget in December.
The school system already has been hit hard by the economic downturn.
Last year, it gained approval for a $2.07 billion spending plan for fiscal 2009, about $41 million short of its initial request. And with the potential shortfall looming for next fiscal year, the school system froze hiring and cut spending to save money. It is still waiting on an additional $5.68 million from the county to help pay for diesel fuel for buses.
In fiscal 2009 budget discussions, the school system did not want to scale back pay increases. But council Vice President Philip M. Andrews (D-Dist 3) of Gaithersburg, later joined by Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg (At-large) of North Bethesda, said that all county agencies should reduce pay increases by 2 percent.
"I think the superintendent is right to do that," Andrews said Tuesday of Weast's recent talks with principals. "He recognizes that the increases are not affordable this year, and there will have to be changes made to them."
The renegotiation of school system contracts "would make sense given the fact that they would not have full funding" in the budget, said Robert L. Monsheimer, education chairman for the Montgomery County Taxpayers League. "It had to come. It's good that they're at least looking at it."
Eliminating cost-of-living increases across all county agencies would save the county $125 million, including $75 million in the school system, Andrews estimated.
"To protect the classroom, that's what we're going to have to do," Andrews said. "It's not something anyone wants to do, but I think it's necessary. We want to keep the progress going that we're seeing in the school system."
Copyright © 2008 Post-Newsweek Media, Inc./Gazette.Net
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
The Current Financial Mess Has Finally Caught Up to MoCo
Several recent news reports in the Washington Post point out the severity of the budget crisis and show that our worries in the past have come to fruition now with cut-backs and limits on unwarranted wage increases now necessary. See below:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Ann E. Marimow
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 5, 2008; Page C08
Anti-tax e-mail messages lit up the Montgomery County Council inbox in the days after the panel signed off on a new budget in spring. The deal raised property taxes for the average homeowner by about 13 percent, increased the local energy tax and left raises for public employees untouched.
"You have exceeded our pain limit," Terry Fletcher of Silver Spring wrote. "We can't take any more."
"I want to reiterate my shock and dismay that the County Council has seen fit to increase our taxes once again," wrote Mitzi Schroeder of Darnestown. "You will hear from us at election time."
Neither County Executive Isiah Leggett (D) nor any council members are on the November ballot. But local politicians and labor and civic leaders fear that anti-tax sentiment and turmoil in the financial markets could fuel support for the latest incarnation of the Ficker amendment.
ad_icon
Ficker refers to Robin Ficker, the political gadfly, onetime state legislator and Bethesda lawyer turned real estate broker who has spent thousands of dollars of his money to petition referendums to curb taxes in Montgomery County since 1976.
Voters will be asked Nov. 4 to decide whether to amend the county's charter to make it more difficult for the nine-member council to exceed the limit on property tax revenue. Ficker's proposal would increase from seven to nine the number of votes required to surpass the cap that ties increases to roughly the rate of inflation.
Ficker says his amendment would serve as a safeguard for Montgomery's homeowners and would empower individual council members to "make a difference" by essentially giving one person veto power in budget talks.
"The people in Rockville have showed no inclination to control spending," he said of the county's elected officials.
None of Ficker's low-tax measures has been successful. But opponents remember how close Ficker came to prevailing in 1994, when he tried to roll back the county income tax rate.
Jerry Pasternak, who worked to defeat Ficker's efforts as an adviser to former county executive Douglas M. Duncan (D), sees similarities to 1994. That year, Ficker won 49.4 percent of the vote. Then, as now, elected officials had raised taxes and trimmed government services in what Pasternak called a "deadly combination" for voters.
"That's when they say, 'A pox on all your houses.' It's going to be a tough, tough fight," he said.
Council members have busted the limit on property tax revenue four times since the cap was approved by voters in 1990, including this year. And budget problems persist.
Montgomery's fiscal forecasters project a $250 million gap for 2010. After raising state taxes on income, sales and corporations last fall, legislators in Annapolis anticipate having to plug a shortfall of as much as $1 billion.
Even as Leggett has warned of furloughs for county employees, he has pledged not to recommend that the council exceed the tax limit to balance the books for fiscal 2010. But Ficker is not convinced.
"He's dreaming when he says he's not going to raise property taxes next year," Ficker said.
Opponents say the amendment would severely limit the council's flexibility to make spending decisions about schools, roads and social services and give one member unprecedented power to hold up the budget.
"It leaves it up to just one person. That's just overly restrictive," said Leggett, who helped craft the existing tax limit during his council tenure.
Council member Phil Andrews (D-Gaithersburg-Rockville) called Ficker's amendment "a recipe for mischief-making" that could have the unintended consequence of driving up spending. Requiring a unanimous vote, he said, could allow one member to extract additional spending from fellow council members in exchange for a vote.
ad_icon
Inside the headquarters of the Montgomery County Education Association last month, a coalition of union, business and civic leaders gathered to plot their opposition strategy. Among them was former Gaithersburg mayor Bruce Goldensohn, who like many in the room discussed his long history with Ficker.
"I've been watching and afraid of Ficker since at least 1980," he said.
The fear for opponents this year is that their message could get lost in the campaign clutter of the presidential contest and high-profile statewide referendum on legalizing slot-machine gambling, and, more broadly, that the anti-tax message resonates with residents.
The coalition aims to raise more than the $109,000 they collected four years ago to make their case to voters.
Ficker insists that his crusade is not about him. But the opposition has gotten personal in the past. A countywide mailing in 2004 read "Another bad idea from Robin Ficker."
This round, Ficker has had a head start. After his law license was suspended last year for failure to properly represent clients, Ficker combined his passion for cutting taxes with his new real estate business. He says he has visited thousands of homes, handing out glossy postcards that promote his business and the referendum campaign with the message "Save Our Homes!"
Alan S. Rosenthal, a retired federal government worker from Kensington, has consistently opposed Ficker's proposals. But after the council's vote in May, he said he would be hard-pressed to make a convincing argument against limiting the council's taxing authority.
Rosenthal warned in an e-mail to the council then that future anti-tax measures would have "little difficulty in persuading the electorate that given the irresponsible action taken by the council in 2008, the time has come for its adoption."
Marvin Weinman, head of the Montgomery County Taxpayers League, said Ficker's amendment would probably have little practical effect because all but two of the budgets in the past 14 years have had the unanimous support of the council.
Even so, he urged voters to view the measure as a referendum on how Leggett and the council are managing the county's finances. The outcome of the election, he said, could answer the question: "Is the public fed up enough with the fiscal situation to make a statement that it's time for a change?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And a second article about school system cut-backs came a few days later.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
School System Cannot Afford Raises, Chief Says
By Daniel de Vise and Ann E. Marimow
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 7, 2008; Page B02
Montgomery County's schools chief has told principals that the system cannot afford to fund scheduled pay raises for the coming budget year, underscoring grim economic conditions that could also have repercussions for thousands of other local government workers.
School Superintendent Jerry D. Weast has said that labor contracts will have to be renegotiated, and Board of Education President Nancy Navarro said yesterday that planned raises of 5.3 percent for teachers are probably unrealistic when the county faces a projected $250 million shortfall for fiscal 2010.
"The financial situation is such that everything is on the table," Navarro said. "Obviously, what we have in place right now looks like it will not be viable."
Weast's chief of staff, Brian Edwards, confirmed the superintendent's private warnings to school principals. "Dr. Weast is having very frank conversations with staff, with union leadership, with parent leadership that next year's budget situation is a dire one," he said.
During a contentious budget battle last spring over raises for government workers, union contracts became a symbol to some critics of overspending and the power of labor leaders. The school board was able to honor the contract for this fiscal year by cutting and reassigning positions and scaling back academic initiatives.
ad_icon
Montgomery teachers are in the second year of a three-year contract that awarded a pay raise of 5 percent this year. Roughly two-thirds of teachers also received annual step increments of between 1.9 and 5.5 percent. The average salary for Montgomery teachers was $70,011 a year as of fall 2007, the highest figure of any Maryland county, according to state data.
Tom Israel, executive director of the Montgomery County Education Association, said the labor group has not agreed to renegotiate the contract and will not do so based on economic forecasts.
"Obviously all the indications are we are already in very difficult times," he said. But "we will make decisions based on the actual data, not just on forecasts, because time and time again, the forecasts have proven wrong."
The superintendent is legally required to fund the negotiated pay raise absent a mutual agreement with union leaders. No elected official or union leader would publicly discuss breaking the contract, which is regarded as one of the most sensitive topics in upcoming budget talks. Privately, though, several officials said the contract cannot be funded.
Teacher pay is central to the budget blueprint that Weast must present to the school board in mid-December and sets the context for the overall spending plan that County Executive Isiah Leggett (D) sends to the County Council in March.
Four months ago, council members signed off on a $4.3 billion budget for the current year that increased property tax bills for the average homeowner by about 13 percent and left union contracts untouched. But the sentiment from school system leaders was echoed yesterday by Leggett and council members, who have the final say on Montgomery's budget.
Council President Michael Knapp (D-Upcounty) is preparing a preliminary framework for closing the shortfall that considers rolling back or eliminating pay raises for all county government workers. Wiping out so-called cost-of-living adjustments would shave as much as $125 million.
"All the unions recognize where we are," said Knapp, who called labor leaders his partners. "There's going to have to be some element of employee participation."
Leggett said that in meetings with union leaders "the message has been clear" about the county's fiscal constraints.
"We will be asking them to make some adjustments," he said, "in order to avoid severe cuts in services."
To close a budget gap five years ago, leaders of the unions representing county government and school system employees agreed to defer pay raises for several months.
Union leaders agreed with the assessment of the local, state and national economic outlook, but said it was premature to talk specifics.
"I'm never excited about the prospect of going back to the bargaining table," said Gino Renne, president of the Municipal and County Government Employee Organization. "That said, we look at the numbers just like everybody else does. This is a different year."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Ann E. Marimow
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 5, 2008; Page C08
Anti-tax e-mail messages lit up the Montgomery County Council inbox in the days after the panel signed off on a new budget in spring. The deal raised property taxes for the average homeowner by about 13 percent, increased the local energy tax and left raises for public employees untouched.
"You have exceeded our pain limit," Terry Fletcher of Silver Spring wrote. "We can't take any more."
"I want to reiterate my shock and dismay that the County Council has seen fit to increase our taxes once again," wrote Mitzi Schroeder of Darnestown. "You will hear from us at election time."
Neither County Executive Isiah Leggett (D) nor any council members are on the November ballot. But local politicians and labor and civic leaders fear that anti-tax sentiment and turmoil in the financial markets could fuel support for the latest incarnation of the Ficker amendment.
ad_icon
Ficker refers to Robin Ficker, the political gadfly, onetime state legislator and Bethesda lawyer turned real estate broker who has spent thousands of dollars of his money to petition referendums to curb taxes in Montgomery County since 1976.
Voters will be asked Nov. 4 to decide whether to amend the county's charter to make it more difficult for the nine-member council to exceed the limit on property tax revenue. Ficker's proposal would increase from seven to nine the number of votes required to surpass the cap that ties increases to roughly the rate of inflation.
Ficker says his amendment would serve as a safeguard for Montgomery's homeowners and would empower individual council members to "make a difference" by essentially giving one person veto power in budget talks.
"The people in Rockville have showed no inclination to control spending," he said of the county's elected officials.
None of Ficker's low-tax measures has been successful. But opponents remember how close Ficker came to prevailing in 1994, when he tried to roll back the county income tax rate.
Jerry Pasternak, who worked to defeat Ficker's efforts as an adviser to former county executive Douglas M. Duncan (D), sees similarities to 1994. That year, Ficker won 49.4 percent of the vote. Then, as now, elected officials had raised taxes and trimmed government services in what Pasternak called a "deadly combination" for voters.
"That's when they say, 'A pox on all your houses.' It's going to be a tough, tough fight," he said.
Council members have busted the limit on property tax revenue four times since the cap was approved by voters in 1990, including this year. And budget problems persist.
Montgomery's fiscal forecasters project a $250 million gap for 2010. After raising state taxes on income, sales and corporations last fall, legislators in Annapolis anticipate having to plug a shortfall of as much as $1 billion.
Even as Leggett has warned of furloughs for county employees, he has pledged not to recommend that the council exceed the tax limit to balance the books for fiscal 2010. But Ficker is not convinced.
"He's dreaming when he says he's not going to raise property taxes next year," Ficker said.
Opponents say the amendment would severely limit the council's flexibility to make spending decisions about schools, roads and social services and give one member unprecedented power to hold up the budget.
"It leaves it up to just one person. That's just overly restrictive," said Leggett, who helped craft the existing tax limit during his council tenure.
Council member Phil Andrews (D-Gaithersburg-Rockville) called Ficker's amendment "a recipe for mischief-making" that could have the unintended consequence of driving up spending. Requiring a unanimous vote, he said, could allow one member to extract additional spending from fellow council members in exchange for a vote.
ad_icon
Inside the headquarters of the Montgomery County Education Association last month, a coalition of union, business and civic leaders gathered to plot their opposition strategy. Among them was former Gaithersburg mayor Bruce Goldensohn, who like many in the room discussed his long history with Ficker.
"I've been watching and afraid of Ficker since at least 1980," he said.
The fear for opponents this year is that their message could get lost in the campaign clutter of the presidential contest and high-profile statewide referendum on legalizing slot-machine gambling, and, more broadly, that the anti-tax message resonates with residents.
The coalition aims to raise more than the $109,000 they collected four years ago to make their case to voters.
Ficker insists that his crusade is not about him. But the opposition has gotten personal in the past. A countywide mailing in 2004 read "Another bad idea from Robin Ficker."
This round, Ficker has had a head start. After his law license was suspended last year for failure to properly represent clients, Ficker combined his passion for cutting taxes with his new real estate business. He says he has visited thousands of homes, handing out glossy postcards that promote his business and the referendum campaign with the message "Save Our Homes!"
Alan S. Rosenthal, a retired federal government worker from Kensington, has consistently opposed Ficker's proposals. But after the council's vote in May, he said he would be hard-pressed to make a convincing argument against limiting the council's taxing authority.
Rosenthal warned in an e-mail to the council then that future anti-tax measures would have "little difficulty in persuading the electorate that given the irresponsible action taken by the council in 2008, the time has come for its adoption."
Marvin Weinman, head of the Montgomery County Taxpayers League, said Ficker's amendment would probably have little practical effect because all but two of the budgets in the past 14 years have had the unanimous support of the council.
Even so, he urged voters to view the measure as a referendum on how Leggett and the council are managing the county's finances. The outcome of the election, he said, could answer the question: "Is the public fed up enough with the fiscal situation to make a statement that it's time for a change?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And a second article about school system cut-backs came a few days later.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
School System Cannot Afford Raises, Chief Says
By Daniel de Vise and Ann E. Marimow
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 7, 2008; Page B02
Montgomery County's schools chief has told principals that the system cannot afford to fund scheduled pay raises for the coming budget year, underscoring grim economic conditions that could also have repercussions for thousands of other local government workers.
School Superintendent Jerry D. Weast has said that labor contracts will have to be renegotiated, and Board of Education President Nancy Navarro said yesterday that planned raises of 5.3 percent for teachers are probably unrealistic when the county faces a projected $250 million shortfall for fiscal 2010.
"The financial situation is such that everything is on the table," Navarro said. "Obviously, what we have in place right now looks like it will not be viable."
Weast's chief of staff, Brian Edwards, confirmed the superintendent's private warnings to school principals. "Dr. Weast is having very frank conversations with staff, with union leadership, with parent leadership that next year's budget situation is a dire one," he said.
During a contentious budget battle last spring over raises for government workers, union contracts became a symbol to some critics of overspending and the power of labor leaders. The school board was able to honor the contract for this fiscal year by cutting and reassigning positions and scaling back academic initiatives.
ad_icon
Montgomery teachers are in the second year of a three-year contract that awarded a pay raise of 5 percent this year. Roughly two-thirds of teachers also received annual step increments of between 1.9 and 5.5 percent. The average salary for Montgomery teachers was $70,011 a year as of fall 2007, the highest figure of any Maryland county, according to state data.
Tom Israel, executive director of the Montgomery County Education Association, said the labor group has not agreed to renegotiate the contract and will not do so based on economic forecasts.
"Obviously all the indications are we are already in very difficult times," he said. But "we will make decisions based on the actual data, not just on forecasts, because time and time again, the forecasts have proven wrong."
The superintendent is legally required to fund the negotiated pay raise absent a mutual agreement with union leaders. No elected official or union leader would publicly discuss breaking the contract, which is regarded as one of the most sensitive topics in upcoming budget talks. Privately, though, several officials said the contract cannot be funded.
Teacher pay is central to the budget blueprint that Weast must present to the school board in mid-December and sets the context for the overall spending plan that County Executive Isiah Leggett (D) sends to the County Council in March.
Four months ago, council members signed off on a $4.3 billion budget for the current year that increased property tax bills for the average homeowner by about 13 percent and left union contracts untouched. But the sentiment from school system leaders was echoed yesterday by Leggett and council members, who have the final say on Montgomery's budget.
Council President Michael Knapp (D-Upcounty) is preparing a preliminary framework for closing the shortfall that considers rolling back or eliminating pay raises for all county government workers. Wiping out so-called cost-of-living adjustments would shave as much as $125 million.
"All the unions recognize where we are," said Knapp, who called labor leaders his partners. "There's going to have to be some element of employee participation."
Leggett said that in meetings with union leaders "the message has been clear" about the county's fiscal constraints.
"We will be asking them to make some adjustments," he said, "in order to avoid severe cuts in services."
To close a budget gap five years ago, leaders of the unions representing county government and school system employees agreed to defer pay raises for several months.
Union leaders agreed with the assessment of the local, state and national economic outlook, but said it was premature to talk specifics.
"I'm never excited about the prospect of going back to the bargaining table," said Gino Renne, president of the Municipal and County Government Employee Organization. "That said, we look at the numbers just like everybody else does. This is a different year."
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Another Montgomery Citizen Questions Tax Policy
From the Wheaton Gazette of Aug. 27
Open letter to the county executive and County Council:
I want and deserve a county government that critiques in detail the "wish lists" from the school system, employee unions, organizations asking for grant money, etc., and that is willing to take a position of telling these groups that there is not enough tax revenue being received to do everything they wish to do.
When the income isn't there you should require these groups to submit and live by a restricted but balanced budget that does not exceed the last approved budget by more than the cost of inflation, or failing that, take a strong leadership position and dictate the amount of necessary cuts required to balance the budget. There should also be no room for "special interests" in dispensing taxpayer's money.
My property tax bill increase from 2001 through 2008 has averaged 6.37 percent, which is more than 50 percent higher than the cost of living. The average increase in my taxable assessment has been 14.76 percent for the same period. The average annual increase in the "certified constant yield tax rate" has been 7.3 percent, which has resulted in an annual growth of revenues to the county of 9.4 percent over the same period. In other words, you have increased spending to about two to three times the cost of living rate and still run a deficit!
In a market where food costs have risen by at least 20 percent for the real staples in our diets, housing values have dropped by 15 to 20 percent since last November, gasoline prices have increased nearly 100 percent in the last year, heating oil prices have risen by about 33 percent in the past year, our electricity bill has risen by 70 percent, the savings we have had to plan for in retirement are being eroded by 15 percent or more by the current downturn in the stock market (401Ks and IRAs) and private sector wages have escalated by only 3.5 percent, you find it acceptable to reward the county employees with a 9 percent increase and raise the Water Quality Protection Charges by 40.1 percent.
As if that were not enough, you then choose to levy an 11.9 percent increase in my property tax bill. How much more do you plan to take from the citizens in 2009?
If your aim is to drive the average retired person from the county, you are succeeding.
Delmar J. Luce, Brinklow
Open letter to the county executive and County Council:
I want and deserve a county government that critiques in detail the "wish lists" from the school system, employee unions, organizations asking for grant money, etc., and that is willing to take a position of telling these groups that there is not enough tax revenue being received to do everything they wish to do.
When the income isn't there you should require these groups to submit and live by a restricted but balanced budget that does not exceed the last approved budget by more than the cost of inflation, or failing that, take a strong leadership position and dictate the amount of necessary cuts required to balance the budget. There should also be no room for "special interests" in dispensing taxpayer's money.
My property tax bill increase from 2001 through 2008 has averaged 6.37 percent, which is more than 50 percent higher than the cost of living. The average increase in my taxable assessment has been 14.76 percent for the same period. The average annual increase in the "certified constant yield tax rate" has been 7.3 percent, which has resulted in an annual growth of revenues to the county of 9.4 percent over the same period. In other words, you have increased spending to about two to three times the cost of living rate and still run a deficit!
In a market where food costs have risen by at least 20 percent for the real staples in our diets, housing values have dropped by 15 to 20 percent since last November, gasoline prices have increased nearly 100 percent in the last year, heating oil prices have risen by about 33 percent in the past year, our electricity bill has risen by 70 percent, the savings we have had to plan for in retirement are being eroded by 15 percent or more by the current downturn in the stock market (401Ks and IRAs) and private sector wages have escalated by only 3.5 percent, you find it acceptable to reward the county employees with a 9 percent increase and raise the Water Quality Protection Charges by 40.1 percent.
As if that were not enough, you then choose to levy an 11.9 percent increase in my property tax bill. How much more do you plan to take from the citizens in 2009?
If your aim is to drive the average retired person from the county, you are succeeding.
Delmar J. Luce, Brinklow
Thursday, July 24, 2008
The Gazette Publishes More Letters Regarding Recent MoCo Real Property Tax Increase
From The Gazette edition of July 23 Letters to the Editor, here is one of three complaining about the recent tax increases. People are very unhappy when they see their new tax bill and realize that more increases will be needed for next years budget because real property values continue to decrease and the concomitant tax base is thus going down. The only choice the County has is to institute expenditure cut backs RIGHT NOW! The place to start is with out of control County workforce salaries which have been increased by nearly 30% over three years. This is unsustainable. Read on-----
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open letter to County Executive Isiah Leggett:
I am writing to vigorously voice a complaint. I just reviewed my 2008 property tax bill. I was totally shocked by the magnitude of my property tax increase, 11.6 percent over the 2007 levy.
I further reviewed my property tax increases over the last 10- and five-year periods. In both cases the annual increase averaged 3.2 percent. I thus am totally dismayed by the 2008 year-to-year increase.
As a retired person trying to live on a fixed income, in an environment where earnings on savings are down considerably, increases like this are making the county tax hostile to retired people like myself.
You and the County Council members are good people trying to manage a county during austere times with growing demands. Your ‘‘Dear Montgomery County Taxpayer” note, signed by you and Councilman Mike Knapp and provided with our tax bills, appears to take pride in the fact that ‘‘the property tax rate remains unchanged.” However, because of the county property price escalation bubble, the magnitude of the resulting tax increase is reprehensible.
The council members and you have been elected by taxpayers like myself. I must conclude that the resulting budget compromise reached for the 2008 property tax year was more directed toward serving the ‘‘special interests” of the organizations funded through the county budget and insensitive to the needs of your constituency. Tell me, would the county electorate return you and the council to office if you promised them an 11.6 increase in their property tax bills?
Before trying to deal with the 2009 budget, I would suggest you insist that all organizations in the county submit budgets that are at least 5 percent less than 2008 levels.
Let the organizations funded by the budget know that these are austere times and insist they develop budgets consistent with your fiscal guidance. They must be tasked with the problem of running their operations in a fiscally constrained environment. Failure to do so should result in draconian budget reductions at the executive and County Council level.
I suggest you also strongly consider a reduction of the excessive and callous salary increments previously approved for county employees. Industry and government operations across the country are not providing their employees with a 28 percent increase over three years. This would help restore fiscal sanity to county expenditures.
I can accept a situation where the county’s needs are increasing consistent with inflation. I cannot accept an 11.6 percent increase. Please share this with your colleagues.
Richard B. Jasinski, Potomac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open letter to County Executive Isiah Leggett:
I am writing to vigorously voice a complaint. I just reviewed my 2008 property tax bill. I was totally shocked by the magnitude of my property tax increase, 11.6 percent over the 2007 levy.
I further reviewed my property tax increases over the last 10- and five-year periods. In both cases the annual increase averaged 3.2 percent. I thus am totally dismayed by the 2008 year-to-year increase.
As a retired person trying to live on a fixed income, in an environment where earnings on savings are down considerably, increases like this are making the county tax hostile to retired people like myself.
You and the County Council members are good people trying to manage a county during austere times with growing demands. Your ‘‘Dear Montgomery County Taxpayer” note, signed by you and Councilman Mike Knapp and provided with our tax bills, appears to take pride in the fact that ‘‘the property tax rate remains unchanged.” However, because of the county property price escalation bubble, the magnitude of the resulting tax increase is reprehensible.
The council members and you have been elected by taxpayers like myself. I must conclude that the resulting budget compromise reached for the 2008 property tax year was more directed toward serving the ‘‘special interests” of the organizations funded through the county budget and insensitive to the needs of your constituency. Tell me, would the county electorate return you and the council to office if you promised them an 11.6 increase in their property tax bills?
Before trying to deal with the 2009 budget, I would suggest you insist that all organizations in the county submit budgets that are at least 5 percent less than 2008 levels.
Let the organizations funded by the budget know that these are austere times and insist they develop budgets consistent with your fiscal guidance. They must be tasked with the problem of running their operations in a fiscally constrained environment. Failure to do so should result in draconian budget reductions at the executive and County Council level.
I suggest you also strongly consider a reduction of the excessive and callous salary increments previously approved for county employees. Industry and government operations across the country are not providing their employees with a 28 percent increase over three years. This would help restore fiscal sanity to county expenditures.
I can accept a situation where the county’s needs are increasing consistent with inflation. I cannot accept an 11.6 percent increase. Please share this with your colleagues.
Richard B. Jasinski, Potomac
Sunday, July 20, 2008
At another blog another resident complains about tax increases
Scanning through the blog site (http://nancyfloreen.blogspot.com) of Nancy Floreen one of our Council members I found this wonderful comment on the already passed yearly budget. Since I couln't say it any better I have copied it here:
Anonymous Bogdan said...
Dear Mrs. Floreen,
Let me start by thanking you for publishing this blog that indeed contains useful information and most importantly allows your constituents to express their opinions. Your willingness to speak your mind and open yourself to potential criticism deserves appreciation. Unfortunately, I am afraid that this is where my agreement with your actions ends.
I am deeply dissapointed at the actions of the council in regard to the budget. As should have been expected after years of spending with abandon and irrational increases that were disproportional to any sustainable income stream, the council was faced with a significant budget deficit. This was blamed on the slowing economy when in fact the council is the only one who should be held responsible and now should pay the piper. Well, I was just kidding, as in fact the residents are the one who in the opinion of the council have to pay. With an irony that somehow escapes the council the solution of a budget crunch that is "caused by hardship in the economy" is to put even more hardship on the county residents by increasing their property taxes. No need to insult our intelligence by saying the tax rates are not changed, because increasing the cap on yearly collections -breaking the county charter in the process, but hey, who is counting-the result is a more than 13% increase in the property tax bill.
How did we get here? Well its not so complicated, by agreeing to just about any spending proposal. The council has been a never ending source of "worthy" programs that desperately needed funding. A program here, a program there, after all who can argue with more funding for schools? The fact that we need to consider how much is enough should not bother us because there is never enough. The council should have listened to my son's Social Sciences teacher who in a lesson explained that "needs" are unlimited but "resources" are not. This is exactly the job of the council, to have the power of restraint and only spend cautiously and only the money we actually have. In my opinion you should receive an F at this test.
You ask at the end of your entry on May 16, how would we have balanced the budget. Well for starters I would have never increased the budget a cent more that the revenues. Now, its kind of late and the medicine is harder to take but in fact still very easy to understand. The budget needs to be cut until it equals the money we actually have-no dumping on resident by taxes and fees increases. It will be my pleasure to come back to discuss more specific budget issues another time.
Thank you.
May 19, 2008 6:17 PM
Anonymous Bogdan said...
Dear Mrs. Floreen,
Let me start by thanking you for publishing this blog that indeed contains useful information and most importantly allows your constituents to express their opinions. Your willingness to speak your mind and open yourself to potential criticism deserves appreciation. Unfortunately, I am afraid that this is where my agreement with your actions ends.
I am deeply dissapointed at the actions of the council in regard to the budget. As should have been expected after years of spending with abandon and irrational increases that were disproportional to any sustainable income stream, the council was faced with a significant budget deficit. This was blamed on the slowing economy when in fact the council is the only one who should be held responsible and now should pay the piper. Well, I was just kidding, as in fact the residents are the one who in the opinion of the council have to pay. With an irony that somehow escapes the council the solution of a budget crunch that is "caused by hardship in the economy" is to put even more hardship on the county residents by increasing their property taxes. No need to insult our intelligence by saying the tax rates are not changed, because increasing the cap on yearly collections -breaking the county charter in the process, but hey, who is counting-the result is a more than 13% increase in the property tax bill.
How did we get here? Well its not so complicated, by agreeing to just about any spending proposal. The council has been a never ending source of "worthy" programs that desperately needed funding. A program here, a program there, after all who can argue with more funding for schools? The fact that we need to consider how much is enough should not bother us because there is never enough. The council should have listened to my son's Social Sciences teacher who in a lesson explained that "needs" are unlimited but "resources" are not. This is exactly the job of the council, to have the power of restraint and only spend cautiously and only the money we actually have. In my opinion you should receive an F at this test.
You ask at the end of your entry on May 16, how would we have balanced the budget. Well for starters I would have never increased the budget a cent more that the revenues. Now, its kind of late and the medicine is harder to take but in fact still very easy to understand. The budget needs to be cut until it equals the money we actually have-no dumping on resident by taxes and fees increases. It will be my pleasure to come back to discuss more specific budget issues another time.
Thank you.
May 19, 2008 6:17 PM
Thursday, July 17, 2008
The Gazette Reports that Property Tax Bills Bring Sticker Shock
The Gazette paper of July 16, on the front page, reports that interviews with Montgomery County citizens who have received their 2008 tax bills found that even though their community home values have decreased in recent months their tax bills have increased substantially. This is caused by the 3 year assessment cycle that may have evaluated their home in a previous year when home prices were much higher while their current home value has gone down and that is not reflected in their bill. Thus they must pay a substantial tax increase made much worse because the County has raised the current tax rate by more than 10% over the cap value. See the Gazette article here for a more detailed description of what is happening:
http://www.gazette.net/stories/071608/montnew181059_32357.shtml
Be aware that the worse is yet to come because it is estimated that next year's budget deficit may be $250 million and would have to be covered by yet again a real property tax increase unless the County takes actions to cut expenses. You may have read that the School system has requested an additional $5 million for added fuel costs for the school bus system. While the average citizen has been forced to economize in these difficult times the County Council has refused to do the same. By waving a 30% county union wage increase in our faces we have been left to absorb more taxes while these high paid union workers, many of whom do not even live in Montgomery County, go on their merry way to enjoy the largess we are providing them. At next election time we must show the present Council membership what we think of their extravagant use of our tax dollars. What do you think?
http://www.gazette.net/stories/071608/montnew181059_32357.shtml
Be aware that the worse is yet to come because it is estimated that next year's budget deficit may be $250 million and would have to be covered by yet again a real property tax increase unless the County takes actions to cut expenses. You may have read that the School system has requested an additional $5 million for added fuel costs for the school bus system. While the average citizen has been forced to economize in these difficult times the County Council has refused to do the same. By waving a 30% county union wage increase in our faces we have been left to absorb more taxes while these high paid union workers, many of whom do not even live in Montgomery County, go on their merry way to enjoy the largess we are providing them. At next election time we must show the present Council membership what we think of their extravagant use of our tax dollars. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
