Tag Archives: Montgomery County

MoCo’s Giant Tax Hike, Part One

By Adam Pagnucco.

As part of the Fiscal Year 2017 budget, the Montgomery County Council has voted to increase property taxes by 8.7 percent.  This is a landmark event that is drawing attention from a large number of people who hold differing views.  While it is a dramatic development, it is also the product of several factors that have been building for a number of years.  This series will explore those factors, explain how it happened, and look at the future.

First, a bit of background.  Property taxes are the number one source of revenue for Montgomery County Government, as they are for most, if not all, county governments in Maryland and Virginia.  In recent years, property taxes have accounted for 35-40% of the county’s total revenues, and the average household paid $4,154 in FY16.

In 1978, the nationwide property tax revolt that produced Proposition 13 in California came to Maryland.  That year, Prince George’s County voters passed the Tax Reform Initiative by Marylanders (TRIM) charter amendment, which placed a hard cap on property tax collections, and replaced it with a rate cap in 1984.  A 1996 referendum to repeal the cap failed.  Montgomery County voters also saw a TRIM charter amendment in 1978, but they voted it down by a 52-48% margin.  In 1990, Montgomery civic activist Bob Denny authored a charter amendment limiting growth in property tax collections to the rate of inflation, and county voters passed it.  But the charter amendment contained an override provision allowing the County Council to exceed the limit on a 7-2 vote.

By the 2000s, the charter limit’s constraint on the council began to evaporate.  The council voted to exceed the limit in FY03, FY04, FY05 and FY09, thereby prompting Robin Ficker to place one of his many anti-tax charter amendments on the ballot in 2008.  After years of failure, the same general electorate that voted for Barack Obama for President by 45 points approved Ficker’s amendment by 5,060 votes.  Ficker’s amendment did not convert the property tax limit to a hard cap, but it did require all nine Council Members to vote in favor of exceeding it.  The council has not done that until this year’s budget.

It’s worth understanding how Montgomery County’s charter limit works.  Section 305 of the charter states the following.

Unless approved by an affirmative vote of nine, not seven, Councilmembers, the Council shall not levy an ad valorem tax on real property to finance the budgets that will produce total revenue that exceeds the total revenue produced by the tax on real property in the preceding fiscal year plus a percentage of the previous year’s real property tax revenues that equals any increase in the Consumer Price Index as computed under this section. This limit does not apply to revenue from: (1) newly constructed property, (2) newly rezoned property, (3) property that, because of a change in state law, is assessed differently than it was assessed in the previous tax year, (4) property that has undergone a change in use, and (5) any development district tax used to fund capital improvement projects.

This is not a cap on rates.  It is a cap on collections, which are not allowed to grow faster than the rate of inflation with certain exceptions unless all nine Council Members vote to override.  Collections are a product of both rates and assessments.  If assessments grow rapidly, it’s possible for the county to cut the tax rate and still grow collections to the limit (or beyond).  Conversely, if assessments fall, the rate could rise and collections might grow slowly (or even shrink).  This distinction is key to understanding how the county makes decisions on this item.

In the new FY17 budget, County Executive Ike Leggett proposed increasing the property tax rate by 3.94 cents per $100 of assessed real property, an increase of 8.7 percent that would have raised $140 million more than the charter limit.  The Executive cited two main reasons for doing so: the challenge of dealing with the adverse consequences of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Wynne decision, which required large refunds to be paid to some county taxpayers, and the fiscal needs of the public schools.  We will look at both of those items as this series continues.

Share

Prince George’s Out Negotiates Montgomery

As explained previously on 7S, Prince George’s County Executive Rushern Baker played hard to get on ponying up additional funds for the Purple Line in an effort to set up his County to extract concessions in price and other matters. Turns out he succeeded at both:

Prince George’s County has tentatively agreed to commit an additional $20 million to finance the Purple Line in exchange for assurances from state transportation officials that construction will begin within its borders and the command center be built there, a top aide to County Executive Rushern L. Baker III said Thursday. . . .

“I agree to accomplish each of these requests,” [Transportation Secretary] Rahn replied in an Aug. 12 letter to Baker.

Montgomery agreed to pay $40 million in additional costs and received nothing.

Baker negotiated a better deal than Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett or Council President George Leventhal. His County will pay half as much in additional costs, obtain more, and still have the light-rail project he supported move forward.

Share

Martin’s Additions Ousts Incumbent

The Village of Martin’s Additions, an independent municipality in Chevy Chase, held elections on May 14th for three of the five seats on the Town Council. All are elected at-large within the small town. Two incumbents, John Fleming and Bill Lebovich, sought reelection to second terms. They faced four challengers: Richard Krajeck, Katya Hill, Mark Weiner, and Katie Filipczyk Howard.

The major issue appeared to be the management of the Village by longtime Manager Jean Sperling, a resident of the Village. Hill and Krajeck were supported by the group that wanted change. Krajeck served previously for seven years on the Council, including as Chairman. Hill touted her work as a Project Manager at Fannie Mae.

Krajeck and Hill easily won the first two seats. Lebovitch held on by 12 votes despite winning support from just 36% of Martin’s Additions voters. Town Manager Jean Sperling resigned, as the faction seeking new management now controlled four of the five seats on the Council. Here are the results:

Richard Krajeck, 255 (64.9%)
Katya Hill, 246 (62.6%)
Bill Lebovitch, 143 (36.4%)
Mark Weiner, 131 (33.3%)
Jon Fleming, 123 (31.2%)
Katie Filipczyk Howard, 111 (28.2%)
Write-Ins, 3 (0.8%)

The percentages are calculated out of the 393 valid ballots. There were also 11 rejected ballots for a total of 404 voters.

Unlike in the nearby Town of Chevy Chase, people who wanted new blood in the Martin’s Additions had the novel idea of running candidates openly instead of an unethical stealth campaign backed by two sitting members, John Bickerman and Al Lang, of the Council. In the Town of Chevy Chase, the two councilmembers still refuse to answer questions. In contrast, the Martin’s Additions Council doesn’t face such questions, as they won the old-fashioned way.

Glad to see that the spirit of democracy still lives in part of Chevy Chase.

Share

MoCo Young Republicans Attack Madaleno Letter

“Indiana may have taken our Colts; they cannot be allowed to trample our principles.”

Indiana Letter

The Montgomery County Young Republicans have attacked Sen. Madaleno for his letter:

mocoyr

Interesting that the Young Rs view the letter as somehow an attack that needs response. I wonder how in tune they are with their members, as surveys routinely show that younger Republicans heavily favor LGBT rights.

These tweets seem particularly ill-timed since the budget just passed the Senate with bipartisan enthusiasm. If you’re unhappy about taxes and debt, Republicans now own it as much as the Democrats.

Share

Pesticides Won’t Kill This Debate

George Leventhal Debates the Issue on WMAL

Council President George Leventhal and Councilmember Marc Elrich have taken the lead on a measure that would create new county regulations regarding the use of pesticides. Specifically, their bill would:

  • “require posting of notice for certain lawn applications of pesticide;”
  • “prohibit the use of certain pesticides on lawns;”
  • “prohibit the use of certain pesticides on County-owned property;”
  • “require the County to adopt an integrated pest management program for certain County-owned property.”

The bill would not impact the application of pesticides on farm land in the County’s Agricultural Reserve but it would affect public County ball fields as well as private property. Montgomery County is usually strongly in favor of environmental regulations but these have already generated controversy that is likely to heat up.

Whatever you think of the bill, it was a gutsy piece of legislation to introduce precisely because of the heated debate. While gaining further support from the environmental community, Leventhal and Elrich risk facing a real backlash from opposed voters.

My understanding is that members of the Council tried to draft a compromise bill that would garner support, or at least acquiescence, from potential major opponents. However, that initiative having failed, Council President Leventhal decided that he might as well take the heat for introducing a firmer measure since he could not gain backing for a more moderate bill.

While funding for core services has been the hot debate in past years due to large budget cutbacks, this promises to attract the interest of many on both sides.

Share

Raskin In for the Eighth, Madaleno Staying in MD Senate

A Photo from Three Years Ago that Works Even Better Today
(Photo: Edward Kimmel)

Sen. Rich Madaleno (D-18) mentioned to Kevin Gillogly (reported on his Facebook page) that he is not running for the Eighth Congressional District and will stay in the Maryland Senate, where he is Vice Chair of the Budget and Taxation Committee.

In the Baltimore Sun, Sen. Raskin said previously that he was loathe to oppose Sen. Madaleno who is “like a brother to me” but otherwise, “wild horses” wouldn’t keep him out of Eighth Congressional District race. As Madaleno is not running and the nearest wild horses in Chicoteague don’t seem likely to take up Raskin’s challenge by swimming to the Eighth, it seems safe to say Jamie is running for Congress.

Share

The Giant Purple Credit Card, Part III: Is Pro-Purple Anti-Transit?

Opportunity Costs

The choice to spend vast sums of money on one project requires foregoing other choices. The tangled finances for the Purple and Red Lines (see also here) render it especially obvious. When the fares from Baltimore’s public transit system are needed as a backstop in case Purple Line fares are lower than hoped, the use of the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) for non-Purple purposes is obviously going to be quite limited.

The plans to move ahead also with Baltimore’s Red Line should further assure that the TTF is tied up for literally decades. Indeed, the two projects have been closely tied together in order to build political support. It is hard to imagine moving ahead with one project without the other, as legislators in one metro area are unlikely to want to fund an incredibly expensive project in the other unless their constituents share in the benefits.

Existing Transit Needs

Montgomery and Prince George’s County already have an extensive public transit system. Both are integrated into WMATA’s Metro and Metrobus system. Each operates its own bus system: RideOn and TheBus. Both are also tied into the MARC system.

All parts of the system have suffered from cutbacks and need investment in infrastructure. Metro, the lungs of Washington’s transit system, remains in particularly dire need of money to maintain and to upgrade its infrastructure. Placing so many chips on the Purple Line will constrain the ability of the State to aid Metro–Montgomery and Prince George’s cannot expect to get all of Maryland’s transportation funding.

Less widely heralded in Montgomery in the face of perennial Metro problems–endless single tracking, escalators that don’t work, overly crowded trains at rush hour despite stagnating ridership–have been the cutbacks to MARC and Ride-On. Oddly, we reduced transit service designed to connect to the Purple Line even as we move forward with building it.

Foregoing Other Transit Opportunities

Some key supporters of the Purple Line recognize these implicit tradeoffs even if they don’t advertise them. In the at-large County Council debate in Chevy Chase, new Council President George Leventhal derided Councilmember Hans Riemer’s support for additional Ride-On service. He and other Purple Line supporters have also expressed great skepticism about the proposed countywide bus-Rapid Transit System (RTS).

The irony here is that for the cost of building the Purple Line, we could build a RTS that would serve all parts of the County. Indeed, a Purple Line incorporated into an RTS would accomplish most of the goal at far less cost than the proposed light-rail system even according to MTA’s own analysis (see also here).

Purple Line supporters like to accuse opponents of being anti-transit–it’s a good simple communication meme that boils down a complex decision to good versus bad. Except that wanting to spend transportation dollars wisely and get the most for our tax dollars is pro-transit. Opposition to expanding bus service and continued negativity regarding an RTS that could serve the whole county sure doesn’t sound pro-transit.

The Bottom Line

We shouldn’t starve our existing transit system and forego future opportunities in order to build the Purple Line and the Red Line. Ironically, we could build cheaper RTS versions of both that would save the State billions–not chump change–and allow for additional transit and road improvements that would truly aid economic development and the ability of all Marylanders to reach jobs far more broadly. Now that’s smart growth.

Share

People Voting Early. . . Just Not in West MoCo

Today’s Early Vote Takeaways:

  • Early Vote is Very Stable.
  • Democrats will Start Gaining from EV Tomorrow.
  • Western Montgomery Epicenter of Low Turnout.

EVGraph

Black = All, Blue = D, Red= R, Purple = Unaffiliated

Stability is the Story

Early voting remained highly stable on Day 6, rising just a bit over Day 5. The rate of Democratic turnout continues the trend of rising at a miniscule rate above Republican turnout. Right now, 6.04% (122,996) of registered Democrats have voted as compared to 5.97% (56,675) of Republicans and 2.59% (17,030) of the unaffiliated have cast ballots.

The number of registered voters who have voted early in 2014 equals 90.5% of the 2010 total across all days. The total number of Democrats who voted early in 2014 is 87.6% of 2010. The similar figures are 96.8% for Republicans and 93.0% for the unaffiliated. The higher GOP number reflects that they have virtually closed the gap in turnout with Democrats from 2010.

Democrats will Start Gaining Tomorrow

Total early voting turnout should exceed that of 2010 tomorrow. At that point Democrats will start to benefit from the ramp up in early voting despite the lost of their advantage in the rate of turnout. Due to their dominance, Democrats will extend their raw vote advantage over the Republicans.

Here are the Day 6 early vote and absentee totals by county:

early6

But Not as Much as They Might

The gap in turnout between high and low turnout counties continues to grow with the big three Democratic counties all lagging more and more behind the high turnout counties. Except for Howard, I expect every county above the state average in turnout to vote for Hogan. Charles, the only other solid Brown county, is also below the red line.

Western Montgomery Epicenter of Low Turnout

Turnout in Montgomery is especially abysmal, particularly on the west side of the County. Outside of portions of Allegany and Washington Counties, the four legislative districts in western Montgomery have the lowest early voting turnout rates in the State:

2.13% in District 15 (Potomac to Poolesville),
2.20% in District 16 (Bethesda),
2.59% in District 17 (Rockville-Gaithersburg),
2.05% in District 39 (Clarksburg-Germantown-Mont. Village).

Lt. Gov. Brown seems tailor made to appeal to the liberal voters who predominate in this part of the world. Yet, these levels are between 34% and 42% of the statewide rate. The mystery is even greater because education is usually heavily related to turnout and these districts have among the highest share of college graduates and people with graduate degrees in the country.

In short, these are exactly the sort of core Democratic voters that Brown needs to turn out. No wonder he spent yesterday morning at the Bethesda Metro Station greeting people as they entered the escalators. (P.S. Anyone who really fixes these perpetually under construction behemoths would get my vote.)

Share

MoCo At-Large County Council Forum

Incumbents
Marc Elrich, Nancy Floreen, George Leventhal, Hans Reimer (Democrats)

Challengers
Beth Daly and Vivian Malloy (Democrats) Robert Dyer (Republican) Tim Willard (Green Party)

Wednesday, May 21, 7 p.m.

4-H Center
7100 Connecticut Ave., Chevy Chase

Cosponsors: Chevy Chase View, Chevy Chase Village, Chevy Chase West, Citizens Coordinating Committee on Friendship Heights, Edgemoor Citizens Association, Garrett Park, Rollingwood Citizens Association, Town of Chevy Chase, Town of Somerset, Village of Chevy Chase Section 3, Village of Chevy Chase Section 5, Village of Martin’s Additions, Village of North Chevy Chase

Share