5/12 County Council Meeting -- Gutting MCPS Budget Request to the Tune of $180M

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Council just voted to adopt the income tax reductions

2.7% up to 50k MD taxable income
3% 50-150k
3.3% 150k+

These are progressive brackets, but just like fed brackets, someone earning $1M will pay the same rate on their first $50k as someone earning just $50k. Staff estimated that everyone earning under $600k will receive an overall income tax break from the flat 3.2% that has been in effect since 2004. This decimates revenue and requires either revenue elsewhere to meet some of the service need (like MCPS), use of borrowing or "rainy day" reserves to do the same (nearly everyone says no to that, probably rightly) or more service reductions (like the MCPS personnel decimation list, discussed in a separate thread).

It clearly was set up by Council as the first vote to lay the groundwork to eliminate the eliminate the resident-owner ITOC ($692 credit against property tax) that was meant to counter the increase to 3.2% all those years ago and keep, effectively, more overall within the county, as non-resident landlords would not benefit. That's now all but certain, along with the remote possibility of overall property tax increases if they want to close gaps. This developer-friendly Council, most specifically Natali Fani-Gonzàlez and Andrew Friedson (who has gone into his shell with this subject now being a third rail for his County Executive campaign), might continue to find ways to keep it focused on residents -- they already insulated many special interests from future property tax with their misuse of Payment In Lieu Of Tax (PILOT) arrangements.

Nobody changed their position from last week's straw vote. They did not even discuss other proposals. Gonzàlez, true to form, repeatedly insisted that this was all data, as if only considering one possibility and analyzing that presented the kind of holistic data which would inform a good decision.

If you oppose the PILOT agreements, that is a separate discussion from the ITOC.

The median income of homeowners in Montgomery County is $177k. The median for renters is less than half of that. The ITOC exclusively benefits homeowners, most of whom are not poor. There are specific tax credits for poor and elderly homeowners. And yes, I know we have discussed this on the other thread, but there are numerous studies showing incidence of property taxes on renters, which are linked in the other thread. The fact that you think property taxes on landlords is essentially free money does not make it so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Council just voted to adopt the income tax reductions

2.7% up to 50k MD taxable income
3% 50-150k
3.3% 150k+

These are progressive brackets, but just like fed brackets, someone earning $1M will pay the same rate on their first $50k as someone earning just $50k. Staff estimated that everyone earning under $600k will receive an overall income tax break from the flat 3.2% that has been in effect since 2004. This decimates revenue and requires either revenue elsewhere to meet some of the service need (like MCPS), use of borrowing or "rainy day" reserves to do the same (nearly everyone says no to that, probably rightly) or more service reductions (like the MCPS personnel decimation list, discussed in a separate thread).

It clearly was set up by Council as the first vote to lay the groundwork to eliminate the eliminate the resident-owner ITOC ($692 credit against property tax) that was meant to counter the increase to 3.2% all those years ago and keep, effectively, more overall within the county, as non-resident landlords would not benefit. That's now all but certain, along with the remote possibility of overall property tax increases if they want to close gaps. This developer-friendly Council, most specifically Natali Fani-Gonzàlez and Andrew Friedson (who has gone into his shell with this subject now being a third rail for his County Executive campaign), might continue to find ways to keep it focused on residents -- they already insulated many special interests from future property tax with their misuse of Payment In Lieu Of Tax (PILOT) arrangements.

Nobody changed their position from last week's straw vote. They did not even discuss other proposals. Gonzàlez, true to form, repeatedly insisted that this was all data, as if only considering one possibility and analyzing that presented the kind of holistic data which would inform a good decision.

Predictably, all three CE candidates voted against the tax, not because they disagree with it in principal, but because none of them wanted to be saddled with voting to raise taxes on county residents while running for CE.

This was rehearsed and choreographed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about the gutting of our special ed programs, putting children with behavioral challenges in learning centers, and paying for Ivymount and the like for so many? Get rid of the Homeschool Model (which doesn't help those in need and makes the classroom environment challenging for teachers and neurotypical students), bring back the amazing special ed programs we had 15 years ago, and you'll dramatically improve things for all and free up money at the same time

Not sure if this poster is saying this in jest, but how will putting more kids in learning centers or paying for non-public placements like Ivymount help the budget? Learning centers have small teacher to students ratios and typically there is an assigned para to the classroom.

I read that comment as recommending the opposite: discrete programs for sped students instead of ad-hoc individual arrangements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agreed with several prior posters. I'm a teacher in MCPS, so is my wife. MCPS has the money to fund the teachers contract, but they just cannot muster up the courage to cut a lot of the waste in the budget.

There are still a great many teacher-level positions across schools that don't have teaching responsibilities. And central office still has WAY too many people. This can be done.

MCPS teacher and parent here and I agree. When I saw some of the rows on the proposed cuts I said - good!! Not all of them, but a good amount. Lots of people at my school who aren’t in the classroom. Not sure what they do all day or how impactful they are.

Also, what happened to Cross Functional Teams? Do we see anyone from these teams in our building? Ours used to come maybe once or twice a month in the beginning of the year, but I don’t think I’ve seen her since January or so.

Another place to reevaluate.

Interesting- are you at an MS or HS? I know what every staff member at our ES does. Based on the list sent the first on the chopping block would be our media assistant, who does way more than check out and shelve books. Better than losing a teacher I guess but would still really suck. I wish MCPS would make more effort to trim CO staff but they know that wouldn't generate as much outrage.

Yup, I am really skeptical of the teacher PP who thinks lots of those school-based positions are useless and is cheering on the cuts. She literally says she is "not sure what they do all day" yet thinks she can confidently assert that they are not needed or helpful.

[Anonymous]

So did they decide to make the layoffs from the list on the other thread? I am close with our media assistant but don't want to ask her outright....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So did they decide to make the layoffs from the list on the other thread? I am close with our media assistant but don't want to ask her outright....

We don't know yet. On 5/21 we will find out how much the County will cut (although we will probably hear more about what way it's headed beforehand), and on 6/4 the Board of Ed will vote to finalize which staff are laid off as a result of those cuts.

Media assistants are likely doomed, though. They are in the first set of jobs to be cut so the only way they will be saved is if the County funds MCPS at 100% of their request which there is basically zero chance of unless they raise taxes (which they refuse to because they believe County residents would rather see school cuts than tax increases.)

Some of the other positions like the 220 middle school teachers might be saved, though, although the funding level currently being recommended by County Council staff would require cutting all the staff on the MCPS list plus more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So did they decide to make the layoffs from the list on the other thread? I am close with our media assistant but don't want to ask her outright....

We don't know yet. On 5/21 we will find out how much the County will cut (although we will probably hear more about what way it's headed beforehand), and on 6/4 the Board of Ed will vote to finalize which staff are laid off as a result of those cuts.

Media assistants are likely doomed, though. They are in the first set of jobs to be cut so the only way they will be saved is if the County funds MCPS at 100% of their request which there is basically zero chance of unless they raise taxes (which they refuse to because they believe County residents would rather see school cuts than tax increases.)

Some of the other positions like the 220 middle school teachers might be saved, though, although the funding level currently being recommended by County Council staff would require cutting all the staff on the MCPS list plus more.

What happened to the state trying to end the requirement for school librarians? Hopefully that didn't go through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m an MCPS employee, a parent of MCPS students, and a Montgomery County homeowner. I’m glad the county council is listening to those of us who said we cannot afford to write MCPS a blank check. I’d love to see the council go line by line through MCPS’ budget.

That would be great. And I agree with another PP that a lot of Central Office needs to be overhauled. I'm not against a large overhead if it makes for a better student and teacher experience... but in all my years as an MCPS parent (kids are now 21 and 16), I've often been irritated at Central Office decisions or lack thereof, which do not appear to be really addressing the needs of Principals, staff, kids and parents. What's going on at Central Office?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So did they decide to make the layoffs from the list on the other thread? I am close with our media assistant but don't want to ask her outright....

We don't know yet. On 5/21 we will find out how much the County will cut (although we will probably hear more about what way it's headed beforehand), and on 6/4 the Board of Ed will vote to finalize which staff are laid off as a result of those cuts.

Media assistants are likely doomed, though. They are in the first set of jobs to be cut so the only way they will be saved is if the County funds MCPS at 100% of their request which there is basically zero chance of unless they raise taxes (which they refuse to because they believe County residents would rather see school cuts than tax increases.)

Some of the other positions like the 220 middle school teachers might be saved, though, although the funding level currently being recommended by County Council staff would require cutting all the staff on the MCPS list plus more.

ugh ok, thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about the gutting of our special ed programs, putting children with behavioral challenges in learning centers, and paying for Ivymount and the like for so many? Get rid of the Homeschool Model (which doesn't help those in need and makes the classroom environment challenging for teachers and neurotypical students), bring back the amazing special ed programs we had 15 years ago, and you'll dramatically improve things for all and free up money at the same time

Not sure if this poster is saying this in jest, but how will putting more kids in learning centers or paying for non-public placements like Ivymount help the budget? Learning centers have small teacher to students ratios and typically there is an assigned para to the classroom.

I read that comment as recommending the opposite: discrete programs for sped students instead of ad-hoc individual arrangements.

Agreed, if you can meet the needs of those students in discrete placements, they don't have to go non-public. That's the whole point. Those SpEd placements support those students to make progress, instead of being unsupported in the gen ed setting, where everyone is affected, both staff and gen ed students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Council just voted to adopt the income tax reductions

2.7% up to 50k MD taxable income
3% 50-150k
3.3% 150k+

These are progressive brackets, but just like fed brackets, someone earning $1M will pay the same rate on their first $50k as someone earning just $50k. Staff estimated that everyone earning under $600k will receive an overall income tax break from the flat 3.2% that has been in effect since 2004. This decimates revenue and requires either revenue elsewhere to meet some of the service need (like MCPS), use of borrowing or "rainy day" reserves to do the same (nearly everyone says no to that, probably rightly) or more service reductions (like the MCPS personnel decimation list, discussed in a separate thread).

It clearly was set up by Council as the first vote to lay the groundwork to eliminate the eliminate the resident-owner ITOC ($692 credit against property tax) that was meant to counter the increase to 3.2% all those years ago and keep, effectively, more overall within the county, as non-resident landlords would not benefit. That's now all but certain, along with the remote possibility of overall property tax increases if they want to close gaps. This developer-friendly Council, most specifically Natali Fani-Gonzàlez and Andrew Friedson (who has gone into his shell with this subject now being a third rail for his County Executive campaign), might continue to find ways to keep it focused on residents -- they already insulated many special interests from future property tax with their misuse of Payment In Lieu Of Tax (PILOT) arrangements.

Nobody changed their position from last week's straw vote. They did not even discuss other proposals. Gonzàlez, true to form, repeatedly insisted that this was all data, as if only considering one possibility and analyzing that presented the kind of holistic data which would inform a good decision.

If you oppose the PILOT agreements, that is a separate discussion from the ITOC.

The median income of homeowners in Montgomery County is $177k. The median for renters is less than half of that. The ITOC exclusively benefits homeowners, most of whom are not poor. There are specific tax credits for poor and elderly homeowners. And yes, I know we have discussed this on the other thread, but there are numerous studies showing incidence of property taxes on renters, which are linked in the other thread. The fact that you think property taxes on landlords is essentially free money does not make it so.

Not at all separate. The PILOTs reduce tax revenue. The direct beneficiaries are the companies (e.g., Texas-based Real Estate Invenstment Trusts), many of which will not accrue the resulting profit directly to MoCo owners/investors. By well established understandings of economics, not all of the benefit will pass to residents of MoCo, whether they rent or purchase housing in the resulting developments.

So MoCo forgoes that tax revenue, needing to shift the burden, in order to fund the budget, to MoCo residents, and the Council has chosen to do so by the Income Tax Offset Credit (ITOC -- as the name suggests, established to offset a prior increase in income tax). The net result is less, overall, for MoCo.

Now, if you want to talk about how tax burden within MoCo should be distributed or how the overall common wealth of revenue/funding from all sources should be distributed via varying government services, (i.e., whether we should be more or less progressive in these matters), sure, fire away -- I might agree with you, depending on your positions, there, though I'm guessing we would disagree about the likely efficacy of the PILOTs as a go-to in progressive aims. But don't insinuate this Council action isn't shifting the burden, overall, more to county residents, either in terms of tax collected or in terms of services, like public schools, being handicapped by the resulting lower budget funding available.

[Anonymous]

MCPS doesn't need more money. It needs accountability and to work within the budget it has. Declining test scores, many students not getting what they need, poor treatment of staff, etc.. MCPS should go under recievershipi via the courts like DC did at one point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So did they decide to make the layoffs from the list on the other thread? I am close with our media assistant but don't want to ask her outright....

We don't know yet. On 5/21 we will find out how much the County will cut (although we will probably hear more about what way it's headed beforehand), and on 6/4 the Board of Ed will vote to finalize which staff are laid off as a result of those cuts.

Media assistants are likely doomed, though. They are in the first set of jobs to be cut so the only way they will be saved is if the County funds MCPS at 100% of their request which there is basically zero chance of unless they raise taxes (which they refuse to because they believe County residents would rather see school cuts than tax increases.)

Some of the other positions like the 220 middle school teachers might be saved, though, although the funding level currently being recommended by County Council staff would require cutting all the staff on the MCPS list plus more.

ugh ok, thanks!

I should add that the one other way media assistant jobs could be saved is if the cuts are on the smaller side and MCPS decides to switch who they target for cuts first (or if the Board of Ed decides to reject the MCPS recommendation to target them for cuts first and switches it with something else.) I doubt either of those things are possible-- and I doubt the cuts will be small enough to matter-- but it is the one other possibility to consider advocating for if this is important to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about the gutting of our special ed programs, putting children with behavioral challenges in learning centers, and paying for Ivymount and the like for so many? Get rid of the Homeschool Model (which doesn't help those in need and makes the classroom environment challenging for teachers and neurotypical students), bring back the amazing special ed programs we had 15 years ago, and you'll dramatically improve things for all and free up money at the same time

Not sure if this poster is saying this in jest, but how will putting more kids in learning centers or paying for non-public placements like Ivymount help the budget? Learning centers have small teacher to students ratios and typically there is an assigned para to the classroom.

I read that comment as recommending the opposite: discrete programs for sped students instead of ad-hoc individual arrangements.

Agreed, if you can meet the needs of those students in discrete placements, they don't have to go non-public. That's the whole point. Those SpEd placements support those students to make progress, instead of being unsupported in the gen ed setting, where everyone is affected, both staff and gen ed students.

At issue, there, are federal/state requirements for placement in the least restrictive environment consistent with education delivery to the particular individuals. MCPS's hands are tied in that respect.

The law doesn't really consider (at least on a basis of equivalence) the related impact on education delivery to others. And while those needing/seeking accommodation see such a large relative impact one way or the other that they are incentivized to push very hard for favorable placement for the individual student, including retention of legal representation when they are wealthy enough for that, the impacts across the general student population typically are smaller, such that a litmus of such aggressive push rarely is reached, especially with the potential stigma of opposing accommodation.

That is not to say that there should be no accommodation or that the LRE concept should be abandoned. The impacts on others definitely exist, though, and it might be better if we could employ a certain equivalence of consideration for the needs of all students. Funding, as a separate matter, should follow determinations, and MCPS holds the burden of figuring out whether operations of centers or equivalent private placements are a best use of funds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS doesn't need more money. It needs accountability and to work within the budget it has. Declining test scores, many students not getting what they need, poor treatment of staff, etc.. MCPS should go under recievershipi via the courts like DC did at one point.

Agree with the accountability, but the effortlessness with which particularly tax-averse folks toss around "they don't need more money for schools" trope is laughable in the face of all of that which has been explained as driving cost increases. And those low test scores (which have a lot to do with the factors driving up costs in the first place) -- are we supposed to believe that taking away funding/resources will make them go up instead of further down? SMH.