The financial condition of the Washington Suburban Commission (
The financial condition of the Washington Suburban Commission (
From BethesdaBeat.com May 15, 2017:
“The Montgomery County Council agreed to supply the county’s public schools with $1.663 billion during fiscal 2018, enough when combined with state and federal aid to cover the $2.522 billion spending plan backed by the school board….The $1.663 billion funding level suggested by the county executive is about $19 million above the state-required minimum…The council is expected to finalize the MCPS budget later this month.”
Topic: ” The Montgomery County Police Department and Performance-Based Budgeting”
Speaker: J. Thomas Manger, Chief of Police, Montgomery County
April 19, 2017 — Free and open to the public — 7-9 pm. — Council Office Building
The following questions have been sent to Chief Manger in advance of the meeting
1. Almost every police department in the country has performance targets to reduce crime. We assume that such targets do exist for the Montgomery County Police Department. However they are not included in the budget or strategic plan (except for strategy 1.3.2- traffic safety). How do these targets compare, over the last 5 years, with those in Fairfax County where you were the Chief of Police prior to your current appointment?
2. Other than crime reduction, many police departments use performance measures such as clearance rates, response times, and enforcement productivity (#of arrests, citations, “stop and frisk” searches, etc). Are these useful measures for the Montgomery County Police Department? How do you measure whether the department is working intelligently, using appropriate methods and having a positive impact?
3. How much of the $115 million for Patrol Services goes for Community Policing? The research shows that unreported crimes such as crimes against youth ages 12-17 and crimes committed by someone the victim knows well, for example, are 2-3 times higher than reported crime rates. Would these and “invisible” crimes such as crimes within the family, white collar crime, crimes involving intimidation, etc. be covered by community policing?
4. The $43 million budget for Strategic Direction 1, “Reduce and Prevent Crime and Create Safer Communities”, is allocated to Field Services. What are the performance measures for this category; more specifically, by how much will this $43 million reduce crime?
5. The budget for Investigative Services is $46 million. What are the performance measures for this category inasmuch as they relate to reduction in crime?
6. Management Services- How much of this $73 million budget relates to Strategic Direction 1 (e.g. body cameras), and how much relates to the other 4 strategic directions? How does the cost of overhead functions compare to other police departments such as those in Fairfax and Howard counties?
7. How large is the fleet and what is the budget for operating and maintaining this fleet? How does this compare to other police departments such as those in Fairfax and Howard counties? What are some of the metrics used to make these comparisons?
8. Last year, personnel of the Police Department received a 4% pay raise,; at the national level the increase was 2.3% as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This year’s budget includes a general wage increase of 2%, service increase of 3.5%, and longevity increase of 3.5%. Are these pay increases linked to the productivity of the Police Department? How does the average annual compensation (salary plus overtime) compare to police departments in Fairfax and Howard counties?
9. The retirement plan for county government workers is a defined contributions plan. The retirement plan for the Police Department is a much more generous and expensive defined benefits plan. Can you give us some reasons for the discrepancy between the two? Also, what percentage of those retiring this year are retiring on a disability?
10. Are there initiatives that longer term would make your department more efficient and save taxpayers money that are not in your budget due to belt tightening?
11. What is your process for identifying cost savings? What cost savings are included in this budget? Other police forces have implemented cost saving measures, have you considered or implemented any of these:
– eliminating land line phones for officers that have department-issued cell phones
– redesigning patrol deployment and creating shorter shifts to optimize coverage during periods of high call volumes and reducing coverage during times of low call volumes
– fleet reduction measures
From the Maryland Public Policy Institute an article published April 7, 2017, written by Jeff Hooke, a finance lecturer at Johns Hopkins Carey Business School
“Maryland legislators aren’t the only ones ducking the issue. When the board of the [Maryland State Retirement and Pension System] met in February, the lengthy agenda failed to mention that investment returns for 2016 were 1.5 percent below the average of similar funds, suggesting an income shortfall of $600 million, an amount equal to Maryland’s annual tax revenue from gambling.”
Wed., March 22, 2017 – 7:00 – 9:00 pm
Council Office Bldg. (3rd Fl. Conf. Rm.), 100 Maryland Ave., Rockville, MD 20850
Free and open to the public
Here are the 9 questions sent to the speaker in advance of the meeting and the answers supplied by the speaker at the meeting:
Q1. Moody Analytics predicts that reductions outlined so far by the Trump administration would reduce employment in our region by 1.8%, personal income by 3.5% and lower home prices by 1.9%. These reductions might affect Montgomery County even harder given the presence of several federal agencies and tens of thousands of employees in the county. The budget has been touted as a “cautious” budget. Is there room in this budget to handle what could be deep cuts later in the year?
A1. The proposed Federal budget suggests major cuts in Federal programs and employment, which will affect the county significantly. The county is home to many Federal agencies (Nuclear Regulatory Commission, National Institutes of Health, etc.). There are approximately 50,000 federal employees in Montgomery County. The county has not made any serious efforts to analyze the effects of the Federal budget so far and will wait until the federal budget picture becomes clearer.
Q2. Can you discuss the major sources of revenue for the County, and comment on the percentage contribution of each and their volatility (unpredictability) for the last 5 years? Are the revenue projections that underlie this budget realistic? How so?
A2. The major source of revenue is property tax which accounts for $1.8 B (28.7%) of total revenue followed by income tax of $1.6 B ( 25.3%) and Intergovernmental which is State and Federal funds of $1.1 B almost all of which goes to the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS). The rest of the revenue pie consists of transfer and recordation taxes, charges for services, fines and miscellaneous and other taxes.
As to revenue projections, so far these projections have been valid.
The county’s bond rating has remained at AAA, the highest possible, allowing the county to borrow at a rate less than 1 percent. Much of the bond revenue goes to finance capital projects such as school buildings and police and fire stations.
Q3. What did the property tax increase of last year actually accomplish? Could you list the programs towards which this increase was applied and did these programs achieve the ends for which they were intended? Given that the tax increase raised the base for these programs, how are these funds being spent in the FY 2018 budget or are these funds being used elsewhere?
A3. Most of the tax increase went to MCPS where the Maintenance of Effort funding has remained static for at least 5 years. The increased funding was able to decrease class size by 1, though the results of reducing class size will take some time to show up.
For FY 2018, the County Executive has recommended that the property tax rate be decreased but because property values are going up, there will be a small increase in property tax revenue.
Q4. When will we see a sunset of the energy tax which we were promised was temporary with a 2-year life ending in 2012? It is now 2017 and the energy tax lives on. It is true that the County Council has reduced it somewhat by nibbling at the edges but the promise has not been kept. What gives?
A4. The energy tax increase, enacted in 2010 brings in over $200 million in revenue. One advantage of this tax is that it is very broad and includes entities that pay very little or no tax such as the Federal Government and non-profit groups. There will be a problem if this tax is reduced or eliminated as it currently funds many programs. While the speaker did not address this, it is clear that a tax, once levied never goes away as this “temporary” tax increase now funds permanent programs.
Q5. What is the rationale for increasing the MCPS budget above the maintenance of effort level, after the huge increase provided last year? In the absence of a strategic plan to close the achievement gap, how is the Executive assured that continuing the extra spending will make a difference in academic performance? How much of the increase for MCPS is directly related to employee salaries and benefits?
A5. About half the county budget goes to MCPS which has grown by 2,000 new students annually over the last several years. Of the entire State student population, Montgomery County accounts for 30% of the increase every year; which is the equivalent of one high school per year. This increase in student population is more than that of any of the other 23 school districts in the State. A question was raised that it appears that 25,000 of our total student population are undocumented. The number was said to be highly suspect as there are only 23,000 students in the system who qualify as English for Speakers of Other languages (ESOL)and this includes those who are here legally.
The MCPS budget is supplemented by over $250 million in additional county funds that are used for police officers in schools, nurses, health aides, debt service for school construction, IT modernization, etc. This funding does not appear in the MCPS budget.
Q6. Given that 70+% of the county budget funds county salaries and benefits, what is the pay raise this year and how much will this pay raise alone increase pension costs over the next 10 years? Given the collective bargaining process where the unions are much more successful in bargaining than the Administration and given the tilted playing field of arbitration, is there a likelihood that the County Executive will push to change the arbitration process that failed in the Council last year?
A6. The pay raise for fire, police and Montgomery County Government staff is 2% for COLA, 3.5% for within-grade increases and 3.5 % for longevity. This was questioned by audience members as excessive compared to the private sector in the county.
As to the collective bargaining process and the need for public participation at least at the stage of “opening offers” and later before the “final” decision, the response was that the public might not find the process too interesting.
Q7. Would the county consider including civics/citizens groups in the budget formulation process so that ordinary citizens and taxpayers have greater input into how their money is spent? Also, has the County considered asking for representation in the budget formulation process for MCPS, given that it is close to half of the entire County budget.
A7. The County Executive has been very transparent and has held many meetings open to the public where he has listened to the public’s ideas on the budget. The question was raised as to why there could not be civic representation in the budget formulation process at the agency level before decisions were made by OMB and the County Executive. It was suggested to the speaker that public input could be useful in setting performance measures for the budget year linked to strategies and spending. Most performance measures are “outputs” and not “outcomes”. A discussion ensued as to whether county programs are developed and funded without performance measures established at the outset.
Q8. The County Executive supported a 4.5% salary increase last year for the WSSC, a $1 billion bi-county enterprise with little oversight and no Inspector General. In light of a benchmarking study last summer that showed higher than necessary staffing, and weak controls over high fixed cost reliability of service activities, and water rates that are much higher than Fairfax County for residences and businesses, how does the Executive justify a 3.5% spending increase this year. Why is there not a freeze on spending until new cost controls are implemented?
A8. The WSSC is a bi-county organization which means that both counties have to agree on the budget proposed by the WSSC. If there is no agreement, the budget as proposed by the WSSC goes into effect automatically. Also there is quite a bit of oversight in existence at present by 4 entities – each of the county executives for Montgomery County and Prince George’s County as well as the county councils of both counties.
Q9. Does every major department in the County Government have a strategic plan in place? For those that have such plans, why can’t the published budget for the department include a cross-walk of the budget request to the strategic plan so that the public can see how much planned spending is related to strategies, how cost-effective those strategies are, and how much spending is for non-strategic programs and overhead activities?
A9. Will think about it.
From “The Seventh State“:
“In 2010, almost all MoCo state legislators promised to oppose a shift in their election campaigns. But just two years later, Governor Martin O’Malley proposed a partial pension funding shift, backed by both the Speaker and the Senate President, and most MoCo lawmakers voted to support it. The cost of the shift to the Montgomery County Government increased steadily from $27 million in FY 2013 to $59 million this year, with $6 million offset by the state….. MoCo taxpayers get back just 24 cents for every dollar in taxes they pay to the state. The state average for all residents is 42 cents.”
On January 27, 2017, MCTL President Joan Fidler presented testimony in Annapolis to the Montgomery County Delegation. Her testimony was in support of a proposal (Bill MC/PG 110-17) to create the Office of Inspector General for the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC), the bi-county agency which provides water and sewage service to many Marylanders. The proposal would also create an Office of Inspector General for the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission.
Speaker: Dr. Jack Smith, Superintendent, Montgomery County Public Schools
Dec. 14, 2016 — Free and open to the public — 6-7:30 pm. — Rockville Public Library
1. What are the costs related to the top three academic strategies – Achievement Gap, 21st Century Education and Special Education for FY 2018. What percentage of increased spending is for these 3 strategies?
2. Data from prior superintendents and reports by the Council’s Office of Legislative Oversight (OLO) show that MCPS has expended an additional $2,000 per student annually in “targeted” elementary schools to reduce class size and provide supports to low-income learners. However the achievement gap by student race, ethnicity and income continues to persist and has widened on several measures of college readiness, such as SAT and ACT performance. How many schools did not meet district-wide performance targets? Have you set improvement goals for these schools for FY 2018? As you have highlighted narrowing the achievement gap as a major goal, would you consider sponsoring an independent review by outside specialists of gap closing strategies to determine which approaches are cost-effective – with a report to the public?
3. Will you consider charter schools as a means of closing the achievement gap? A review of Baltimore schools in Freddy Gray’s Sandtown neighborhood showed a charter school (Empowerment Academy) not only out-performed his public school (New Song), but out-performed two elementary (Greencastle and Strathmore) and two middle schools with high FARMS rates in Montgomery County – Benjamin Bannecker and Argyle. (see 5/18/15 study posted on MCTL web site).
4. Will you use Department of Education standards to decide if there is reasonable evidence to deploy a program countywide. For instance have the Choice Program and the Middle School Magnet Consortium met their performance goals? If yes, will they be expanded? Will you reprogram funds if goals for these and other programs are are not reached?
5. Are performance target improvements planned for special education students in FY 2018 separate from the at risk population at large? How do the marginal costs to achieve these improvements compare to the marginal costs for at risk students in the general student population for the same measures?
6. Given that the mandated Maintenance of Effort law may not be able to cover both the program needs of our school children and the salaries and benefits of staff which account for 90 percent of the MCPS budget, will you rein in labor contracts so that teacher’s salaries and benefits match more reasonably with their counterparts in Howard and Fairfax counties?
7. How does your FY 2018 budget manage non-instruction overhead ? Have you considered benchmarking this against other school systems? For example, the overhead rate at large school districts in California average 32%. For MCPS it was 45% in FY 2017. Lowering this overhead could result in the hiring of thousands more teachers to lower class size and narrow the achievement gap. Will you use the expertise of the business community to advise on administrative costs? Will you consider consolidating administrative functions with those of the Montgomery County government.
8. Language immersion programs are very popular and wildly over-subscribed. To open the program to a larger school audience, have you considered innovative solutions such as partnering with universities that provide video classroom learning in a wide range of languages.
Testimony by MCTL President Joan Fidler before the County Council on Bill 44-16
Retirement – Fossil Fuels Investment – Restrictions
December 6, 2016
Good evening, Mr. President and members of the County Council – I am Joan Fidler, president of the Montgomery County Taxpayers League and I am here to testify against Bill 44-16, Retirement – Fossil Fuels Investment – Restrictions.
I would like to state at the outset that I am fully aware of the effects of climate change. I worked for 21 years at the US Environmental Protection Agency, the last 11 as a member of the Senior Executive Service. I was head of the Office of Bilateral Affairs where we worked with the rest of the world on climate-related issues.
So while we are sympathetic to your passion for climate issues, we cannot support confounding that passion with fiduciary responsibilities.
The $4 billion Employees Retirement System and Consolidated Retiree Health Benefits Trust funds are managed prudently and are faring very well – in fact, far better and are run more efficiently than similar funds at the state level.
But this bill allows symbolism to determine investment decisions. We believe that more important than symbolism is a fiduciary responsibility to maximize earnings for the 20,000 current and 30,000 future beneficiaries whose financial security relies on these funds.
The notion to divest from certain fossil fuel companies is a heartfelt impulse but has little bearing on prudent investment principles. Purity of moral principle would dictate that we drastically move away from fossil fuel companies that currently heat and light our buildings, that fuel our transportation, that run our computers. Purity of moral principle would dictate that we never invest in Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola and their sugar-laden drinks, or in Volkswagen that played fast and loose with emissions reporting, or in Wells Fargo that willfully cheated its customers. Where will it end?
The Standard of Care requires the Board to act “only in the best interest of the participants and their beneficiaries”. To which I would like to add the best interests of the taxpayers of the county – who funded both the ERS and the Retiree Health Benefits Trust to the tune of $200 million just this year alone. Are we now going to let each new idea of social condemnation narrow the investment portfolio? Will you increase the taxpayer burden if divestment decisions result in lower returns?
Though sympathetic to your impulse, the Taxpayers League cannot support this bill which puts us on a slippery and dangerous slope that would allow investment decisions to be driven by political considerations. I don’t need to remind you that Gardez bien is the motto of the county. Enough said.