OLO Report Compares Tax Burdens of Six Local Jurisdictions

Take a look at the report from our Office of Legislative Oversight entitled Individual and Business Tax Burdens in Local Jurisdictions. The report analyzes the tax burden for individuals and businesses in Montgomery County compared to five other local jurisdictions: Prince George’s, Howard and Frederick counties in Maryland, Fairfax County in Virginia and the District of Columbia.

The tax burden data in the OLO report comes from two reports conducted for the District of Columbia government. Some highlights of the OLO report include:

• Among the local jurisdictions examined in the report, Montgomery County ranked third in projected Fiscal Year 2016 total revenue at $5.1 billion, following the District ($14.0 billion) and Fairfax County ($7.5 billion).
• Among families in the six jurisdictions at five annual income levels ranging from $25,000 to $150,000, Montgomery County ranked third in annual tax burden at all income levels except for $50,000. At the $50,000 level, the tax burden in Montgomery County is lower than all but one of the jurisdictions examined.
• A September 2013 report created for the D.C. Tax Revision Commission found that in many scenarios, taxes are lower for businesses located in Montgomery County, compared to Prince George’s County, Fairfax County and the District of Columbia.

The Council is scheduled to receive a briefing on the report on Tuesday, July 12. Stop by the Third Floor Hearing Room of the Council Office Building or watch it on County Cable Montgomery.

Report: Resources and Staffing among MCPS Schools

We received a report today from the Office of Legislative Oversight describing school funding and allocation patterns within Montgomery County Public Schools. The report, titled Resources and Staffing among MCPS Schools, compares differences in class size, staff tenure, per pupil expenditures and teacher salary costs between MCPS’ schools with the highest rates of free and reduced priced meals and those with the lowest FARMS rates. The report also examines the additional state and federal revenue that MCPS receives and budgets for ESOL and compensatory education programs that serve these two student subgroups.

The achievement gap between poor and middle class or wealthy students remains one of the most important and most intractable problems within our otherwise excellent education system in Montgomery County. I’m grateful to the Office of Legislative Oversight for its in-depth look at the resources allocated to resolving this long-standing issue. The findings raise some complex questions that I encourage the Board of Education to consider seriously.

Each year, the Board of Education asks the County Council for additional funding over Maintenance of Effort to meet the needs of its increasingly diverse and low-income student enrollment. According to the OLO report, though, MCPS only allocated two-thirds of the $151 million it received in additional federal and state aid for low-income students to compensatory education programs designed to meet their learning needs. That leaves $47 million in funds designed to close the gap unaccounted for. Why should the County Council ask taxpayers to chip in more resources for closing the achievement gap when MCPS hasn’t used all the money it already has precisely for that purpose?

MCPS notes in its response to the report that using $47 million in compensatory education funding for non-compensatory education programs is legal under state law. I don’t question whether it is legal, but I question whether it is morally right given the persistence of the achievement gap between poor and non-poor students in MCPS. What could MCPS have done for under-achieving students if the $47 million had been spent exclusively on compensatory programs? MCPS claims that it must use the $47 million in compensatory funding for other programs in order to maintain the high quality of instruction across the County. Does MCPS really need to tap this relatively small resource when the total MCPS budget is $2.3 billion? Where is the nearly two and a half billion dollars going if not to instruction across the County?

These are serious questions, and I look forward to working with MCPS on serious solutions. I thank the Office of Legislative Oversight for its hard work on the report.

OLO Report on Procurement Process for Local, Small or Minority Business

The Office of Legislative Oversight recently released two reports that looked at issues affecting economic development.

One looks at the County’s procurement process for local, small or minority businesses. The report, titled “Procurement and Small, Minority, Female, Disabled and Locally-Owned Businesses,” summarizes survey data collected from approximately 1,200 businesses about the County’s procurement process and the Local Small Business Reserve and the Minority, Female and Disabled-Owned Business programs. Here's the full press release:

ROCKVILLE, Md., July 29, 2014—The Montgomery County Council released a report today from the Office of Legislative Oversight (OLO) regarding the County’s procurement process for local, small or minority businesses. The report, titled “Procurement and Small, Minority, Female, Disabled and Locally-Owned Businesses,” summarizes survey data collected from approximately 1,200 businesses about the County’s procurement process and the Local Small Business Reserve (LSBRP) and the Minority, Female and Disabled-Owned Business (MFD) programs.

The report summarizes the experiences of local small businesses with the County procurement process, including a look at the steps involved in the application process and the County’s interaction with businesses. 

While survey respondents reported mixed experiences with County procurement, OLO found a strong interest among the business community to provide goods and services to County Government. 

Based on the survey results, OLO recommended in its report that the County Government strengthen current procurement outreach efforts and develop consistent follow-up for bid submissions.   

The report is available at the OLO web site at:  
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/olo/reports.

OLO Report on Project Approval Timeframes

The Office of Legislative Oversight recently released two reports that looked at issues affecting economic development.

One examines the review and approval timeframes for preliminary plans, site plans and record plats for development projects in Montgomery County. The report found that certain projects that are required to go through all stages of the review process could take more than three years to gain approval. It also states that the median processing timeframes for new preliminary plans, new site plans and record plats exceed the limited timeframe guidelines or assumptions that exist in County law or are published in agency documents. Here is the full press release:

ROCKVILLE, Md., July 29, 2014—The Montgomery County Council today released a report from the Office of Legislative Oversight (OLO) that examines the review and approval timeframes for preliminary plans, site plans and record plats for development projects in Montgomery County. The report found that certain projects that are required to go through all stages of the review process could take more than three years to gain approval. It also states that the median processing timeframes for new preliminary plans, new site plans and record plats exceed the limited timeframe guidelines or assumptions that exist in County law or are published in agency documents

The OLO report responds to the County Council’s request for a better understanding of how long it takes to receive certain types of approvals and some of the factors that influence the predictability of the County’s regulatory land use processes. A regulatory land use approval is a structured administrative review that achieves compliance with multiple sets of codified development standards.

OLO compiled a dataset of 415 preliminary and site plan applications (both new applications and amendments to existing approvals) completed between Fiscal Year 2010 and mid-year FY14. It also examined a dataset of 284 record plats approved by the Planning Board and the Department of Permitting Services (DPS) during FY12 and FY13 and subsequently recorded.  Key findings from the report include: 

• Median review and approval timeframes of approximately 15 months for a new preliminary plan; 12 months for a new site plan and 9-to-10 months for a record plat. Approvals for a project that requires all three reviews could take more than three years.  Additionally, each review process has a large range of approval times, indicating a more variable and less predictable process. Approval timeframes ranged from 119 to 3,128 days for new preliminary plans; 151 to 3,128 days for new site plans; and 65 to 2,383 days for record plats.
• Median processing timeframes for new preliminary plans, new site plans and record plats exceed the limited timeframe guidelines or assumptions that exist in County law or are published in agency documents. However, total review time data combines active agency review time with applicant response time, indicating some shared accountability for review timeframes.
• OLO also analyzed data to determine how much of the total review timeframe is attributable to agency staff (i.e., the amount of time an application is with staff either awaiting or undergoing review) compared how much is attributable to applicant response time (i.e., the amount of time it takes the applicant to make requested revisions and formally resubmit an application after agency review).  For new site plans, OLO found that approximately 71 percent of the time is for staff review and 29 percent for applicant response. For new preliminary plans, OLO found that approximately 44 percent of the time was for staff review time and 56 percent was due to applicant response time. An analysis of 19 record plat case studies indicates a high degree of variability within the amount of time the application is with reviewing agencies versus the applicant.

 Feedback from agency staff and representatives of the building/development community identified several factors that can impact the timeframes for preliminary plans, site plans and record plats, and a review of processing data confirms many of these observations.

The report states that surrounding jurisdictions have varied approaches to development review timeframe goals and requirements, and multiple approaches exist for ongoing reporting of development review performance metrics.

In the report, OLO recommended that the Council create an online system of benchmarks and processing time metrics to strengthen its oversight of regulatory land use approvals and shorten approval timeframes. Specific recommendations include: 

• Establish pre-set development approval timeframes and targets for record plat, preliminary plan and site plan approval processes—including metrics for review cycles, phases, and periods within each process.
• Establish a data system that captures and reports accurate agency and applicant review times.
• Create a regular reporting structure to the Council and the public to enhance transparency of and accountability for the development review processing data.
• Request that DPS and the Planning Department jointly improve communication and information delivery processes for record plats, including a coordinated online presence.

 The complete report is available at the OLO web site at:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/olo/reports/2008.html.

Council Seeks Office of Legislative Oversight Director

We’re accepting applications for the position of Director, Office of Legislative Oversight. OLO is an independent Legislative Branch office that conducts program evaluations, fiscal analyses, audits, and policy research projects assigned by the Council. By law, a majority of Councilmembers appoints the OLO Director to a renewable four-year term. The new OLO Director will succeed Karen Orlansky, who plans to retire from County service in May. Applications will close on March 9. For details on the application process, click here or contact the Council’s Administrative Services Coordinator, Mary Jane Berry, at 240-777-7930.