What Do You Think About the Proposed Ambulance Fee?

We are now considering an Emergency Medical Services Transport Fee, also considered an ambulance fee. The charge for transportation in a medical emergency would be billed directly to an individual’s health insurer, although County residents without insurance would not pay for emergency transports to the hospital. According to the County Executive, who brought the bill to the Council, revenues generated by the fee would help the County keep pace with the public safety demands of our growing community. He adds that all of the region’s surrounding jurisdictions have implemented similar fees without reducing the willingness of individuals to call for emergency service transports. The bill assumes an average fee of about $250 per transport. Let me know what you think.

Is the County's Emergency Management Notification System Effective?

After attending Tuesday’s briefing from the Department of Homeland Security and following the ensuing press coverage about the recent WSSC water main break, I have serious concerns about the effectiveness of the County’s Emergency Notification System. I am especially troubled that information was not posted on the county’s website in a timely manner and that an electronic alert was not sent out. I believe that one of the most important responsibilities of local government is to ensure that our residents receive accurate, clear and timely information, especially during emergencies. It is essential that the public has confidence in our emergency management procedures.

That’s why I have requested that the newly reconstituted Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security brief the Council’s Public Safety Committee. It should be asked to explain its approach to keeping the community informed during emergencies, to describe its procedures for doing so, and to clarify whose responsibility it is to see that the correct information is sent out. It should also detail what outreach it will do before a crisis occurs so that residents know where and how to obtain critical information.

How do you get information about emergencies? Do you use Alert Montgomery? What questions do you think should be addressed in the Public Safety Committee briefing?

Think Tank: New Ideas to Decrease Montgomery County's Reliance on the Property Tax

You are invited to join me, along with civic, business and elected leaders, to look at ways of reducing Montgomery County's reliance on the property tax as a primary revenue source. Discussion themes include: How reliable is the property tax as a revenue stream? What options exist for stabilizing the county's funding? And what is the most equitable way of sharing the county's obligations? To see the invitation, click on "Think Tank" to the right.

Our Housing Policy in Real Life

The best thing about having this position is that we have an actual opportunity to follow through on policy, and in that regard, I want to highlight some parts of the County’s housing policy and what it means when the rubber meets the road.

According to our official policy, a safe, decent and affordable home is the cornerstone for a full, normal life. A neighborhood is the basic unit of community in which a family can grow and flourish. The vision for Montgomery County is for all of its residents to have decent housing in sound neighborhoods.

The Housing Policy of Montgomery County reflects our commitment to certain principles, identifying who we are and what we stand for as a community. These principles mandate that the County strive to maintain and enhance the quality of life of its citizens by developing a housing strategy to address housing needs in all segments of the population. The County also must provide funding and programs when necessary to supplement state and federal programs.
This Council has made it a priority to consider our housing needs on all county-owned land since 2002. We also require affordable housing in all major development, and several years ago we added a requirement for workforce housing. Our master plans identify the need for affordable and special needs housing in addition to other priorities, such as green space and parkland.
As I understand it, there are at least 150 families with children who are currently homeless in this county, whom we have a responsibility to help. Between 2005 and 2006, more than 280 families and 1,300 individuals entered the homeless system. At the present time, we have 21 families in motels (23 adults and 53 children). Over 500 formerly homeless families and 267 individuals are currently housed in scattered shelters in the County. In addition, there are 340 beds for families and 220 beds for individuals in what is known as transitional housing.
In addition to housing for the homeless, there are 277 beds in group homes with some supervision and 2,257 beds in over 400 group homes with substantial supervision scattered throughout the County. These residences are serving people with minor to intense developmental issues.

Someone recently asked me why we should go against a community’s desire when there is conflict over a property, as was the case in Hillmead. After all, it is just one piece of property, merely a drop in the bucket. But I believe that local government is about paying attention to the small stuff. Folks at the federal and state level can make housing policy a priority, but they don’t actually build it. We do. And we do it within communities and throughout neighborhoods. That’s why I cringe when folks marginalize housing initiatives by saying that they are just a drop in the bucket. Well, what is a bucket but a combination of many drops?

In the case of the Hillmead property, there was a whopping price tag of $2.5 million for one acre of parkland. When the proposal first came to the PHED committee, we were aware of the likelihood of budget problems, and we were concerned about the fiscal implications of such a purchase. The existence of a home on the property allowed us to consider other public uses as well, and that made the expense much more palatable to me.

Although I’m disappointed the Council decided to demolish the home in this case, there will be many more opportunities in the coming months and years. To learn more about the County’s housing policy, click on the links to the right. How do you think we can reconcile the County’s housing policy with community desires in future cases?

America's Carbon Footprint

According to a new Brookings Institute report on the carbon footprint in metropolitan America, “The nation’s carbon footprint has a distinct geography not well understood or often discussed. This report quantifies transportation and residential carbon emissions for the 100 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, finding that metro area residents have smaller carbon footprints than the average American, although metro footprints vary widely. Residential density and the availability of public transit are important to understanding carbon footprints, as are the carbon intensity of electricity generation, electricity prices, and weather.” To see the enire report, click on the link to the right.

Thoughts on the Mortgage Crisis and Property Tax

On May 21 I had a rare opportunity go down to Capitol Hill to testify before the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives on the Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008 (HR 5818) dealing with the sub-prime mortgage crisis. It was great to speak to former local government officials (Chair, Rep. Dennis Kucinich was former Mayor of Cleveland) and talk about the critical issue of protecting neighborhoods from the risk of homes being abandoned due to foreclosure.

Speaking on behalf of the National Association of Counties, the United States Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies and the National Community Development Association, I had the opportunity to point out that even in a relatively affluent community like Montgomery County, the foreclosure rate had increased 800% over last year. While our numbers are nothing like those in places like Flint, Michigan, they certainly are worrying.

I also mentioned my long term concern about how the potential for deteriorating property values can affect our ability to provide necessary services due to our heavy reliance on the property tax for revenue. (This basic issue is indeed shared across the country.)

That leads me to my next question for my constituents.

Now that we have concluded our struggle with the budget, what are your suggestions for decreasing our reliance on the residential property tax to fund government services? In this last round of budget review and tax raising, I cannot, for the life of me, see how we can go any further. Certainly many Montgomery County residents have e-mailed me to say we have gone too far already. Others have said thanks for funding a service that is important to them. But finding the right balance between desired services, and our ability to pay, is the inevitable and constant struggle in the budget.

Do you have any good ideas on what policies we should pursue in the coming year to keep us from demanding any more from the residential property tax base? I personally cannot see how reducing employee compensation in order to add more services is fair or even doable, but I am all ears as to your suggestions.

What the Heck Happened on the Budget?

It’s been quite a week. And a good example of how eight people with differing points of view can ultimately come to agreement after a certain amount of pushing and shoving.

Throughout this process, I worried about the burden the proposed property tax increases would have on the average resident and kept advocating for spending less generally while some of my colleagues directed their attention to reducing employee compensation one way or the other. It was certainly true that everyone here was genuinely concerned about protecting our residents from unnecessary costs, although we may have expressed that point in different ways.

After the dust cleared, we ended up this way:

1. We eliminated Ike’s proposed 7.5 cent property tax rate increase and still were able to give every homeowner a $579 credit on their tax bill. Although the rate has not gone up, residents will still see an increase in the bottom line.

2. We adopted my carbon tax surcharge which takes some of the burden off property tax payers by generating about $11 million from ALL users of power, including those who do not pay property tax such as the federal government.

3. Our tax supported budget spends about $6 million less than Ike proposed. (At least a start towards my objective!) No employee compensation is affected by this.

4. We allocated about $18 million more to schools than Ike proposed; restored nighttime fire and rescue staffing to Glen Echo; restored community outreach officers and a recruit class to the police; added $7.5 million for Montgomery College; and added nearly $5 million to the park and planning budgets, among a myriad of other things.

It’s a good but not perfect budget; it represents a fair compromise among eight different points of view.

I’ve included the material we had to work with in the links to the right. Take a look. I’ve had my turn. How would you have balanced the budget based on the information in the links?

My Call for a 2% Cut in Spending Across the Board

Today I challenged all departments and agencies to provide us with budgets that reduce spending to 2% below the County Executive’s proposed budget by noon on Friday. A 2% reduction would save about $76 million and would reduce the County Executive’s proposed property tax increase by a little more than half.

As far as I am concerned, the proposed tax burden is untenable, particularly for the average homeowner facing increased fuel, food and health care costs. I am afraid that this budget is way out of line. In today’s economy, it is unaffordable.

The County Executive’s proposed tax-supported budget is about $3.77 billion, a 4.2% increase over last year’s approved budget. It is funded in part by an average 14.7% increase in property taxes that can be as high as 20% for commercial properties and 40% for some rental properties, according to Council staff analysis.

Mr. Leggett’s budget is currently about $138 million over the Charter Limit, which is defined as last year’s budget increased by the inflation rate of 3.6%. My proposal also would exceed the limit but by the lesser amount of $62 million, which could be partially resolved by taking the reserve down to 5.5% to save another $20 million; stretching the Other Post Employment Benefit Payments to 10 years for $11 million; and passing the carbon surtax for $11 million.

I appreciate the hard work all of the committees did in analyzing the agency budgets before them. I know my colleagues have put their hearts into trying to limit spending. But I don’t believe we have gone far enough. Our neighbors in Fairfax County, the District of Columbia, and Prince George’s County are looking at budget increases of no more than 1.3%. We in Montgomery County need to join the rest of the region in looking toward a more sustainable budget.

New Bethesda Parking Garage

Today the Transportation and Environment Committee, which I chair, approved the County Executive’s proposal to construct a new parking garage south of Bethesda Avenue at Woodmont Avenue. This approximately 1,158-space garage would replace Lots #31 and #31A (279 spaces). Although this underground garage, which will be partially funded by the developer of an adjoining mixed-use project, will net 879 new public parking spaces, parking will continue to be constrained in the area, and we will continue to encourage alternative means of access such as transit and biking. Construction is scheduled to occur in fiscal years 2011-12, although you may notice some preliminary work earlier than that. Will you use this parking garage to visit existing and upcoming retail in the area, or are you more likely to walk, bike or take Metro? To learn more about this project, click on the link to the right.

Green Business Certification

It is challenging to run a business in Montgomery County because of regulations, taxes and high rents. This County has a reputation for continually adding fees, changing the rules, or imposing regulations. The perception is out there that we are unfriendly to commercial enterprises. Well, it is time to change that atmosphere, and Green Business Certification Program takes one small step toward doing so.

Consumers are caring more and more about what they are purchasing, and we have many businesses that deserve a great pat on the back for what they are already doing. I am convinced that many Montgomery County companies would do much more if: 1 - they knew how, 2 - knew they would be acknowledged for what they would do, and 3 - knew there would be a bottom-line savings.

So I brought this idea to the Executive – that we craft a way to give our consumers the information on which County businesses are going green and give local companies that employee green practices the promotion and recognition they deserve.

This program will reward those who go the extra mile to protect our climate. I strongly believe that environmentally friendly efforts made by our companies, big and small, should be recognized. Our initiative will have three components: a logo for the certified businesses to display, a County website that will list them so consumers can find them, and promotional practices, such as County press releases, when a company achieves certification.

Our companies have long been known as the gold standard; now they should be recognized for their green standard as well. To learn more, click on the link to the right.

Realigning Priorities with a Carbon Surtax

Today I introduced a Carbon Surtax Resolution as a way of reaffirming my commitment to the environment. My plan targets our energy taxing efforts on the fuels that are most destructive to the environment while allowing us to continue to fund our energy conservation and greenhouse gas reduction goals for the future.

The Carbon Surtax would be applied in a graduated manner with the dirtiest fuels being taxed at the highest rates and the cleanest fuels being taxed at the lowest rates.

With Montgomery County residents and businesses tightening their belts in the face of increased State income and sales taxes, increased gas prices and a proposed property tax hike, there are some who would say that now is not the time to ask residents for more. I agree.

My plan would result in about $11 million in revenues for the County while costing the average homeowner less than $10 for the entire year. I am working hard to lower the County Executive’s proposed 7 ½ cent proposed property tax so that, essentially, we can keep ourselves on track with environmental preservation without doing harm to residents’ pocketbooks.

I am not recommending new programs to be funded by the Carbon Surtax right now. Rather, I am suggesting we will realign our revenue structure to be more consistent with our priorities. By placing our tax burden on energy consumption rather than real property, we give people more control over their own obligation, and we pave the way for future revenue to pay for some of our most important conservation and efficiency initiatives, such as the Clean Energy Rewards program, free Ride On trips on code red days and tree planting programs.

To learn more, click on the links to the right. I look forward to your guidance on this issue.

Is the Growth Debate Over?

A recent Washington Post article points out that the economic downturn has slowed growth to a point where it has affected local government revenue sources. While some folks had argued that we must slow growth in order to catch up on infrastructure, we now are in a position of scaling back our capital projects because decreased transfer, impact, recordation and income taxes have left us with a big budget shortfall, an estimated revenue loss of $78 million in FY08, in fact.

According to the County’s Department of Finance, there are three economic indicators of particular note. First, the County continues to have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the state, but job growth in payroll employment remains anemic with businesses adding fewer jobs in the past twelve months. Second, while home prices are still increasing at a low rate, home sales have declined nearly 34% during the fiscal year to date. Finally, because of the decline in home sales and the increase in the inventory to sales ratio for existing homes, the outlook for any improvement in residential construction is not encouraging.

I also find it interesting to note that the County's Department of Economic Development reports: from the second quarter of 06 to the second quarter of 07 (the most recent data available) private payroll jobs in Montgomery County dropped by 4,653 bringing the total number of private sector jobs to the lowest level in two years.

In a December column in the Gazette about our recently adopted growth policy, I worried that bringing growth to its knees would have an adverse effect on the county’s fiscal bottom line. As we now face school and transportation impact taxes about 1/3 lower than anticipated, we’re looking at delaying high school modernizations, deferring construction funding on five fire stations, delaying land acquisition for the Montrose Parkway East and cutting the Ride On bus fleet expansion. We’re falling behind, not catching up, on infrastructure and necessary programs and services.

In my April 4 post, I encouraged more discussion on the base budget issues. Here I solicit your views on the bigger picture. Do you agree with the Post that the “growth” debate is over? Do you have any thoughts on whether we should think about revisiting any current policies?

To read the Post article, my Gazette piece, the Department of Finance’s economic indicators, or the Department of Economic Development's Montgomery's Pulse, click on the links to the right.

Working Out a Budget

In his proposed FY09 Operating Budget, the County Executive lays out a plan to maintain most services in the face of decreased revenue projections, including what is likely to be only minimal State aid (I’ll let you know when we find out how much we will get from the State). His budget reflects an overall 3.9% increase over last fiscal year, including a 4% increase for Montgomery County Public Schools.

To achieve this budget, he proposes to abolish about 225 County positions and add an ambulance fee. He also proposes to increase property taxes by 20.7% for commercial property and 23.7% for rental property. A variable scale for residential property would mean a 6.2% increase for homes assessed at $343, 200, and an 11.9% increase for homes assessed at $500,000, and a 15.8% increase for homes assed at $1 million. Given that these increases would be in addition to the State’s bump in income taxes and the sales tax, I’m not convinced the community can bear them. On the other hand, the alternative would be significant cuts in service, which I’m not sure folks are willing to do either.

We will hold public hearings all next week and then start committee worksessions. We’ll pass a final budget at the end of May. Let me know what you think. To see the entire proposed budget, click on the link to the right.

Use for Property at Hillmead Park

This week the Washington Post details the ongoing controversy about the potential use of an existing house on the County’s newly acquired parkland in the Hillmead neighborhood. While the County proposes placing a 14-member homeless family in the house or using it as special needs housing, neighbors argue that such plans represent an inappropriate use of County resources. At this time, we don’t know the cost of making the house habitable. You can learn more by visiting the links to the right. “Post: Hillmead Property” chronicles the history of the controversy while “HOC Strategic Plan” provides details of affordable housing needs and strategies in the County.

Folks may not be aware that currently Montgomery County has over 21,000 families on waiting lists for housing help of one sort or another. With the foreclosure crisis, this number will no doubt grow. While affordable housing issues have been studied every which way for many years, we really have not made tremendous progress in addressing the basic needs--increasing the supply of new affordable housing and protecting existing affordable housing. But one thing all the various reports and studies have recommended is that the government use public land to support the effort.

The proposal to save the existing home on the property that the County has just acquired for an extension of Hillmead Park is a small step in that direction. Certainly, there are a lot of variables to work through. But, the need for more housing that is affordable (or at least a stop-gap solution for families and individuals in crisis) is huge. The Hillmead solution could be a win/win--saving a lovely piece of green space in perpetuity for public use and using a small part of it to serve folks who need a hand.

What do you think? Here are examples of the emails I’ve been receiving on this issue:

Excerpt 1: “I am writing to you to express my support for the joint DHCA and DHHS proposal to use the recently purchased Hillmead House to provide a home for a family exiting homelessness. As you know it is extremely difficult to find suitable housing for large families; in many cases their homelessness is prolonged for this reason alone. It seems like a perfect solution to put a family in such a wonderful neighborhood, utilizing a home already owned by the county. I know that you have traditionally supported inclusive communities throughout the county and hope you will do so in this case as well.”

Excerpt 2: “Since when is the county in the business of buying and developing some of the most expensive real estate in the country for housing homeless at the expense of taxpayer money when those funds can be more effectively used to provide services for a greater number of needy families? The house on Hillmead could generate revenue of about $10,000 a month. That is enough to cover the rental of FIVE to SIX single family homes for homeless families--a far more effective use of taxpayer money. What is next? Do we start housing homeless families at the Four Seasons, when there are more affordable options out there that will serve more needy families with the same funds?"

Time With Family for Spring Break

As the Council starts its spring recess, I’m looking forward to spending time with my 91-year-old mother-in-law who unfortunately has not been in the best of health lately. I’m also looking forward to seeing my two sons. Since they live in San Francisco, I don’t get to see them as much as I’d like. I hope you also will have the opportunity to enjoy time with your family. The Council will have its plate full when we return on March 31.