| Montgomery County Taxpayers League |
| Charter The Montgomery County Taxpayers League (Of Maryland) has two major functions:
|
| Last Update Home Sep 24/08 Current Events Apr 14/07 Taxation Dec 16/07 Budget Apr 24/07 Schools Jan 19/07 Views Jun 14/08 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| League Meeting - The next meeting is the 1st of October. Meetings are held in the 5th floor conference room in the County Council building, 100 Maryland Ave., Rockville. Time is 7:30 PM. |
Budget Related Presentations
If your organization would like to have a Montgomery County budget presentation from the President of the Montgomery
County Taxpayers League, contact Marvin Weinman at Weinmanm@msn.com or 301-946-3799.
If your organization would like to have a Montgomery County budget presentation from the President of the Montgomery
County Taxpayers League, contact Marvin Weinman at Weinmanm@msn.com or 301-946-3799.
| The Montgomery County Taxpayers League has published it's annual newsletter. For a summary of the League's views on the issues click on: |
| FY 2009 Budget Facts and Recommendations from the Montgomery County Taxpayers League Did you know? III The FY 2009 budget shortfall is $297 million. The cumulative shortfall is $2.45 billion from FY 2010 through FY 2014 The proposed FY 2009 budget puts the burden for closing the gap on taxpayers To close the gap, the proposed FY 2009 Budget increases property tax 14.7% -- that is 420% of what the County Charter Limit allows without a council supermajority Even with the proposed "credit," a typical homeowner's property tax will go up 10% The county council has been overly generous in the contracts that it has approved for county employees' unions 80% of the Tax Supported Budget goes for salary and compensation for the over 34,000 current employees and for retiree benefits MCPS Board of Education, with almost 22,000 employees, approved a contract that gave a compounded average increase of 9.28% per year for qualified employees The last two three-year firefighter contracts gave a compounded yearly increase of over 11% per year for qualified individuals Can the budget gap be closed without huge tax increases and without massive cuts in services? YES!! The Montgomery County Taxpayers League Recommends that the County Council – 1 – Limit property taxes to the County Charter tax cap* 2 – Invoke County Code 33-108 (k)**, thus initiating re-negotiation of overly generous contracts with the county employees unions * From the Montgomery County Charter: "Unless approved by an affirmative vote of seven Council members, 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." ** From County Code 33-108 (k): "Any agreement must provide for automatic reduction or elimination of wage or benefits adjustments if: (1) The Council does not take action necessary to implement the agreement or a part of it; or (2) Sufficient funds are not appropriated for any fiscal year when the agreement is in effect. |
Testimony on the FY 2009 Recommended Operating Budget
By Marvin Weinman for the Montgomery County Taxpayers League April 10, 2008
How much longer can county taxpayers afford to live in Montgomery County?
The county is finding itself in the worst financial difficulty in memory. Why do we find ourselves in such a difficult situation? The two major
factors are the excessive spending increases over many years and the compounding labor costs that have created the burden of
unaffordable higher taxes for county residents.
This is all done in the name of improvement of the quality of life for county residents. We hear individuals at public hearings identifying
"wants". Cost is never a factor; the public is expected to pay for it even if they don't use it or want it. Now more than ever we deserve a
demanding cost/benefits review with comment from the public before we invest in situations that result in recurring public financial support.
I believe most county residents are generally satisfied that their basic "needs" are being met. They simply want to be able to afford to live
in Montgomery County. Many are finding out they are reaching a point where they are losing that option.
Are we addicted to spending? The previous Council in their four year term, FY 2004 to FY 2007, approved budgets resulting in a Total
Tax Revenues increase of $931.2 million, an average annual increase of $232.8 million per year. As I look around I wonder how much
better the public is as a result of all the spending.
Where did the money go? 80% of the Tax Supported Budget goes for salary and compensation for the over 34,000 current employees
and for retiree benefits. Over the last seven years I have had the privilege of working closely with many of the county employees. Do they
deserve to be fairly compensated for their efforts? Of course they do. The labor bargaining agreements however are structured in
restrictive manners which bind the Human Resources negotiators hands and limit county negotiation options. These awards increase on a
yearly basis and when compounded over time place an unsustainable burden on the county, which then is reflected in higher taxes.
Last year, in consideration of the FY 2008 budget the Council, with little discussion or public hearings, approved the three year
negotiated contracts for over 28,000 employees. The MCPS Board of Education, with almost 22,000 employees, approved a contract that
will result in a compounded average increase of 9.28% per year for qualified employees. The two last firefighter three year contracts
resulted in a compounded yearly increase of over 11% per year for qualified individuals.
The County Executive has initiated some personnel actions in an effort to reduce county labor cost. With issues of appropriation for
existing contracts and approval of newly negotiated bargaining agreements up for Council approval the public should be aware of the
potential cost of Council approval action and the resulting inevitable tax increases. Should county employees be exempt from contributing
to the resolution of the current financial problem or should they share the fiscal pain of the general public and try to help contribute to its
solution.
The current fiscal situation due to escalating salary and compensation are bad enough but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Retirement
will increase dramatically due to the compounding of the excessive salary awards and the large number of the current 3,400 employees
already qualified for retirement. With difficulty in the financial markets can we expect the retirement fund investments to continue to
perform in a manner consistent with previous actuarial projections?
The County Executive has taken a number of positive actions to reduce spending in an effort to reduce the initial $401 million budget gap.
His savings plan has not had the cooperation it needed to reach its goal. When the savings plan came back to the Council they choose to
restore $4 million of the previously submitted cuts.
The FY 2008 budget fiscal plan projected a 3.0% property tax increase of $36 million for FY 2009. The Recommended FY 2009 Budget
now indicates the property tax increase is projected to be 14.7%, an increase of $177.7 million. We have run out of additional sources of
revenue. Any remaining progress needs to be done through additional savings opportunities.
We continue to do one year budgets. The gap for the five remaining years of the FY 2009 Operating Budget is $2.45 billion! Does that
number concern anyone? Can we continue to close our eyes to the pending funding crisis? Any delay in taking immediate action will just
create greater future problems. We desperately need to find savings now.
The Executive has done all he can do. The burden is now on the Council. There is only one viable saving option and that is for the
Council to take action available under County Code 33-108 (k), "by not taking action necessary to implement any current bargaining
agreements or by not appropriating funds for the agreement in effect." The savings as a result of such an action would be a good first
step in the development of a multi year fiscally responsible budget process.
The public needs to become aware of the serious long term financial problems facing the county and how it will affect their lives. A
problem of this magnitude deserves time for a real dialog on the matter. This is not available for public hearings due to the limited three
minute public hearing policy. Town meetings are not the answer to public education on county wide critical issues. They typically address
local complaints and provide opportunities to request additional local funding. The fiscal aspects of government remain a mystery to most
county residents.
The public deserves more from the Council then the previous quick up or down votes on the matter of appropriations for existing
contracts and new bargaining agreements without full cost disclosure. The public and the media should continue to closely monitor the
Council which will hopefully produce the more open government we deserve.h
By Marvin Weinman for the Montgomery County Taxpayers League April 10, 2008
How much longer can county taxpayers afford to live in Montgomery County?
The county is finding itself in the worst financial difficulty in memory. Why do we find ourselves in such a difficult situation? The two major
factors are the excessive spending increases over many years and the compounding labor costs that have created the burden of
unaffordable higher taxes for county residents.
This is all done in the name of improvement of the quality of life for county residents. We hear individuals at public hearings identifying
"wants". Cost is never a factor; the public is expected to pay for it even if they don't use it or want it. Now more than ever we deserve a
demanding cost/benefits review with comment from the public before we invest in situations that result in recurring public financial support.
I believe most county residents are generally satisfied that their basic "needs" are being met. They simply want to be able to afford to live
in Montgomery County. Many are finding out they are reaching a point where they are losing that option.
Are we addicted to spending? The previous Council in their four year term, FY 2004 to FY 2007, approved budgets resulting in a Total
Tax Revenues increase of $931.2 million, an average annual increase of $232.8 million per year. As I look around I wonder how much
better the public is as a result of all the spending.
Where did the money go? 80% of the Tax Supported Budget goes for salary and compensation for the over 34,000 current employees
and for retiree benefits. Over the last seven years I have had the privilege of working closely with many of the county employees. Do they
deserve to be fairly compensated for their efforts? Of course they do. The labor bargaining agreements however are structured in
restrictive manners which bind the Human Resources negotiators hands and limit county negotiation options. These awards increase on a
yearly basis and when compounded over time place an unsustainable burden on the county, which then is reflected in higher taxes.
Last year, in consideration of the FY 2008 budget the Council, with little discussion or public hearings, approved the three year
negotiated contracts for over 28,000 employees. The MCPS Board of Education, with almost 22,000 employees, approved a contract that
will result in a compounded average increase of 9.28% per year for qualified employees. The two last firefighter three year contracts
resulted in a compounded yearly increase of over 11% per year for qualified individuals.
The County Executive has initiated some personnel actions in an effort to reduce county labor cost. With issues of appropriation for
existing contracts and approval of newly negotiated bargaining agreements up for Council approval the public should be aware of the
potential cost of Council approval action and the resulting inevitable tax increases. Should county employees be exempt from contributing
to the resolution of the current financial problem or should they share the fiscal pain of the general public and try to help contribute to its
solution.
The current fiscal situation due to escalating salary and compensation are bad enough but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Retirement
will increase dramatically due to the compounding of the excessive salary awards and the large number of the current 3,400 employees
already qualified for retirement. With difficulty in the financial markets can we expect the retirement fund investments to continue to
perform in a manner consistent with previous actuarial projections?
The County Executive has taken a number of positive actions to reduce spending in an effort to reduce the initial $401 million budget gap.
His savings plan has not had the cooperation it needed to reach its goal. When the savings plan came back to the Council they choose to
restore $4 million of the previously submitted cuts.
The FY 2008 budget fiscal plan projected a 3.0% property tax increase of $36 million for FY 2009. The Recommended FY 2009 Budget
now indicates the property tax increase is projected to be 14.7%, an increase of $177.7 million. We have run out of additional sources of
revenue. Any remaining progress needs to be done through additional savings opportunities.
We continue to do one year budgets. The gap for the five remaining years of the FY 2009 Operating Budget is $2.45 billion! Does that
number concern anyone? Can we continue to close our eyes to the pending funding crisis? Any delay in taking immediate action will just
create greater future problems. We desperately need to find savings now.
The Executive has done all he can do. The burden is now on the Council. There is only one viable saving option and that is for the
Council to take action available under County Code 33-108 (k), "by not taking action necessary to implement any current bargaining
agreements or by not appropriating funds for the agreement in effect." The savings as a result of such an action would be a good first
step in the development of a multi year fiscally responsible budget process.
The public needs to become aware of the serious long term financial problems facing the county and how it will affect their lives. A
problem of this magnitude deserves time for a real dialog on the matter. This is not available for public hearings due to the limited three
minute public hearing policy. Town meetings are not the answer to public education on county wide critical issues. They typically address
local complaints and provide opportunities to request additional local funding. The fiscal aspects of government remain a mystery to most
county residents.
The public deserves more from the Council then the previous quick up or down votes on the matter of appropriations for existing
contracts and new bargaining agreements without full cost disclosure. The public and the media should continue to closely monitor the
Council which will hopefully produce the more open government we deserve.h
| The League has long warned against the exponential increases of wages and entitlements that the County has awarded. The council seems not to understand the power of compounding over a number of years. Also of concern is the additive effect of such irresponsible actions by all levels of government. These links to Washington Post articles give insight on some of the raids on the taxpayer's finances. Underfunded pensions Union influence |
| On fixed pension? Inflation and taxes pressing you? |