By Adam Pagnucco.

Yesterday afternoon, the county council rejected the hidden tax hike that was buried in the county executive’s recommended budget.

The primary issue that bothered the council was the lack of transparency surrounding the tax hike. It was not mentioned in the executive’s budget but it would have raised $5.1 million next year and more money cumulatively in later years. Tax increase proposals attract major attention at budget time with much discussion and public testimony. But this one, which was not published but still included in revenue numbers, flew under the radar until near the end of the FY21 budget process.

Multiple council members complained about process issues. Council Member Hans Riemer noted the failure of the budget to mention the tax hike and said, “This is about our values and our approach to government… The reason why I am so concerned about this proposal is because I really think it flies in the face of our approach to good government and to transparency.” Council Member Andrew Friedson said, “Public policy means public input. And we cannot have transparent and accountable policy making unless there are transparent and accountable decisions for how we make those decisions, how we calculate the policies that we make.”

Council Member Evan Glass put on his CNN journalist hat to investigate what happened. Glass asked council staff how the issue surfaced. Staff replied, “I did not read anything published that this was included,” and said the issue was uncovered through discussions with executive staff. Glass then asked budget director Rich Madaleno why the administration proceeded with it. Madaleno defended the executive’s proposal as an appropriate calculation of the charter limit and said the executive would have discussed this upon release of the budget but that event was canceled because of COVID-19 concerns. Madaleno also said this:

Council Member Riemer is correct that in the final iteration of the budget book the piece that explained this was taken out for revision and did not make it back in before it went to the printer. For that I am profoundly sorry but other than that there would have been deep conversation and of course many of you have heard the county executive say over and over that he thinks the charter interpretation is wrong and has been talking about that for months.

Glass acknowledged that he had heard Elrich express various opinions at forums. (Remember those back in the good old days?) But he replied, “To say something in a forum but then not convey it to the council or not to, as you noted, not to even include the cover page in the budget for whatever reason is a problem.”

Even Council Member Gabe “Mr. Rogers” Albornoz had nothing nice to say about the process for considering the tax hike. When Mr. Rogers is unhappy, there is a problem.

Riemer proceeded to claim that the executive’s proposal was actually illegal because it allegedly violated the charter. The charter’s exact language on the property tax charter limit says:

Unless approved by an affirmative vote of all current 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.

So the charter applies the rate of inflation to adjust “the total revenue produced by the tax on real property in the preceding fiscal year” to calculate the charter limit. The methodology used by the finance department for the last 30 years uses actual taxes paid on real property, including partial-year taxes on newly constructed property which was in use for only part of the year, to calculate current year total revenues. The executive’s new methodology would use taxes that new construction would have paid if billed on an annual basis to calculate current year revenue even though full-year taxes on those properties were not actually collected.

Riemer alleged that the use of hypothetical revenues rather than actual revenues to calculate the charter limit violates the plain language of the charter and asked a council attorney for his opinion. After explaining the technical issues and the possible steps for analysis by the courts, the council attorney replied, “My opinion is that the courts if asked – the court of appeals if asked – would ultimately rule for all the reasons I explained that this provision means actual revenue received during the relevant year for newly constructed property and not the potential revenue you could have received had everything been online for a full year.”

Riemer was bothered by both the transparency issue and the legal risks of the executive’s proposal and he linked the two.

The fundamental issue here is, given how risky it is, the fact that the county council and even more importantly, the public was not informed of this proposal is highly problematic. If you look at the county executive’s budget, you will not find an explanation of this decision. It’s not there. The county executive did not present a budget explaining this method of calculation. The fact is it is a $5 million increase in property taxes from all payers of property taxes in the county. But there is no explanation of that in the county’s budget. It is unthinkable to me that we would have a tax increase that has not actually been transparently presented to the community and, what more, is actually illegal. It is a violation of the charter. The combination of those two aspects of this proposal are just profoundly troubling.

Let’s remember that the principal charter limit activist in the county – Robin Ficker – is an attorney who has sued the county before and prevailed multiple times. A legal challenge to a change in charter limit administration is far from a hypothetical thing.

It’s not clear that a majority of the council agrees with Riemer on opposing the merits of the executive’s proposal. But there was obvious discomfort in dealing with this issue both late and without public input. That goes on top of other tensions with the executive branch on the budget and issues ranging beyond that. Add in stir craziness during the lockdown and these are strange times in Rockville.

After 40 minutes of discussion, the council killed the executive’s hidden tax hike on a 9-0 vote.

By Adam Pagnucco.

One month ago, I roasted the Montgomery County Republican Party for inaccurately claiming that the county was trying to “sneak in” a tax hike. At that time, the issue was a state notice requirement and not actual intent – at least not by the county council – to raise taxes. But it turns out that there actually was a hidden tax hike embedded in the budget on top of the executive’s open recommendation to raise property taxes. No one reading the budget would have found it. But county council staff did find it and now the matter is exposed.

Folks, I have been reading county budgets for almost 15 years and I don’t remember seeing anything like this.

The issue at hand is how the county calculates the charter limit on property taxes. In concept, it’s a simple procedure. The county’s finance department uses two data points: the estimated amount of real property tax revenues collected in the current fiscal year and the percentage growth of the consumer price index from the previous calendar year. Tack on inflation to the current fiscal year’s property tax revenue and that’s the charter limit for the next fiscal year. (The county can collect additional property tax revenues on a few other categories of property outside the charter limit.)

Sounds easy, yeah? But what about taxes collected from properties newly built during the current fiscal year? For the last 30 years, the county’s finance department has included the actual taxes paid on those properties in its calculation of current year revenues. So if a property was built halfway through the fiscal year, half of its annual tax bill is included in current year revenues. If a property was built nine months into the fiscal year, then one-quarter of its annual tax bill is counted. And so on. Add in these pro-rated tax bills to full-year tax bills for existing properties and that’s the current year property tax collections. Tack on inflation and that’s the charter limit.

The Elrich administration used a new methodology to calculate the charter limit in its FY21 recommended budget. Instead of using the actual tax bills paid by newly built properties in the current fiscal year, it included full-year tax bills in its estimate of current revenues even though those bills were not actually paid for the full year. That allowed the administration to calculate slightly higher current year property tax revenues. Tack on inflation and the charter limit is slightly higher. And so there is more room to raise the property tax rate than there would be otherwise.

In other words, it’s a tax hike.

It’s not a very large tax hike. Council staff estimates that the new methodology allows the county to raise an extra $5.1 million in the FY21 budget, or 0.24 cents per $100 of assessed value. (By contrast, the executive’s openly recommended tax hike was 3.18 cents.) But if this new methodology is adopted, it will compound over time and eventually raise tens of millions of dollars more than under the old methodology.

Basing tax estimates on taxes not actually received is a questionable practice at best, but let’s set aside the merits of the policy for now. The disturbing thing about this is that it was not disclosed to the public through the budget. Search the county’s 831 page budget for “charter limit” and you won’t find any discussion of this methodology change. Instead, the matter first surfaced in a council staff memo released late last week. The council held a closed session to discuss the legal ramifications of the change on Wednesday. The council will now decide the matter today.

Regardless of how one feels about taxes, let’s agree that decisions concerning them are important and warrant public scrutiny and participation. The issue was not publicly known when testimony was heard on the budget, so residents were denied the opportunity to weigh in. That is a direct result of the administration’s failure to disclose the issue in its published budget.

We deserve better.

Let’s see what the council makes of this.