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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You seem knowledgeable about this so maybe you can educate me. IDEA passed in 1990, yet over the past 35 years there's been a movement toward placing as many kids as possible in mainstream classrooms. Were there amendments to IDEA, or just different interpretations of LRE? I'm trying to get at whether the models more often used between around 1991-2010 would be considered consistent with IDEA today.

If it's determined that a student can succeed in a mainstream classroom if and only if they have a full-time aide, what happens if there isn't the money for that?

[Anonymous]

Maybe they can put off the giant elementary school redistricting consulting project too.

[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.

Thanks, was planning to do my ballot today.. now I know who to vote out.

[Anonymous]

I would encourage everyone to familiarize themselves with the Section G list of the operating budget. You won't find it in the proposed budget - it's created by Council after they vote on the operating budget. So, you can see the list for last year, but not this year.

The Section G list is a list of nonprofits who are to be awarded non-competitive contracts by the County for the upcoming fiscal year. For fiscal year 26, it totaled $131,933,975.

A lot of what is on there is really important. But there is absolutely room for cuts/consolidation/reduction to preserve other essential services. Some examples from the fiscal year 26 budget:

- $2.3 million to promote tourism in the County

- $2.48 million for 2 community media cable channels

- A total of $4.5 million to various nonprofits for coaching and training to small and/or minority business owners.

- $61,798 for online real estate information for the County business community

- $50,605 for outreach to businesses in the Asian-Pacific and Hispanic communities to increase awareness of the various business assistance programs available (so not even the actual assistance)

- $47,206 for promoting economic development between the County and Israel

- A total of $957,315 to various nonprofits for providing legal services to residents involved in removal proceedings.

The above are just from the first 3 pages of the list. Flipping forward several pages (and bypassing all the HHS stuff), I see a total of $700,249 across several nonprofits for tenant education services. Maybe that can be halved? We could record the info sessions and put them online?

$7 million to the Arts and Humanities Council for support of the art community, including grants to artists. Another $400,000 into the public arts trust fund to purchase and maintain artworks in public buildings. Nice to have, sure, but not an essential government service or worth several people losing their jobs.

No one talks about this because Council is loathe to cut the Section G list. The nonprofit community has enormous political sway in Montgomery County. But there's no doubt that there is money to be had, if you look into the details.

[Anonymous]

Chaos at the Council today as they waited 40 minutes into their Budget Work Session to announce that the Work Session was delayed until tomorrow as there are more discussions to be had. The room revolted and they silenced the audio as the crowd booed.

Montgomery County government needs a reset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would encourage everyone to familiarize themselves with the Section G list of the operating budget. You won't find it in the proposed budget - it's created by Council after they vote on the operating budget. So, you can see the list for last year, but not this year.

The Section G list is a list of nonprofits who are to be awarded non-competitive contracts by the County for the upcoming fiscal year. For fiscal year 26, it totaled $131,933,975.

A lot of what is on there is really important. But there is absolutely room for cuts/consolidation/reduction to preserve other essential services. Some examples from the fiscal year 26 budget:

- $2.3 million to promote tourism in the County

- $2.48 million for 2 community media cable channels

- A total of $4.5 million to various nonprofits for coaching and training to small and/or minority business owners.

- $61,798 for online real estate information for the County business community

- $50,605 for outreach to businesses in the Asian-Pacific and Hispanic communities to increase awareness of the various business assistance programs available (so not even the actual assistance)

- $47,206 for promoting economic development between the County and Israel

- A total of $957,315 to various nonprofits for providing legal services to residents involved in removal proceedings.

The above are just from the first 3 pages of the list. Flipping forward several pages (and bypassing all the HHS stuff), I see a total of $700,249 across several nonprofits for tenant education services. Maybe that can be halved? We could record the info sessions and put them online?

$7 million to the Arts and Humanities Council for support of the art community, including grants to artists. Another $400,000 into the public arts trust fund to purchase and maintain artworks in public buildings. Nice to have, sure, but not an essential government service or worth several people losing their jobs.

No one talks about this because Council is loathe to cut the Section G list. The nonprofit community has enormous political sway in Montgomery County. But there's no doubt that there is money to be had, if you look into the details.

+10000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would encourage everyone to familiarize themselves with the Section G list of the operating budget. You won't find it in the proposed budget - it's created by Council after they vote on the operating budget. So, you can see the list for last year, but not this year.

The Section G list is a list of nonprofits who are to be awarded non-competitive contracts by the County for the upcoming fiscal year. For fiscal year 26, it totaled $131,933,975.

A lot of what is on there is really important. But there is absolutely room for cuts/consolidation/reduction to preserve other essential services. Some examples from the fiscal year 26 budget:

- $2.3 million to promote tourism in the County

- $2.48 million for 2 community media cable channels

- A total of $4.5 million to various nonprofits for coaching and training to small and/or minority business owners.

- $61,798 for online real estate information for the County business community

- $50,605 for outreach to businesses in the Asian-Pacific and Hispanic communities to increase awareness of the various business assistance programs available (so not even the actual assistance)

- $47,206 for promoting economic development between the County and Israel

- A total of $957,315 to various nonprofits for providing legal services to residents involved in removal proceedings.

The above are just from the first 3 pages of the list. Flipping forward several pages (and bypassing all the HHS stuff), I see a total of $700,249 across several nonprofits for tenant education services. Maybe that can be halved? We could record the info sessions and put them online?

$7 million to the Arts and Humanities Council for support of the art community, including grants to artists. Another $400,000 into the public arts trust fund to purchase and maintain artworks in public buildings. Nice to have, sure, but not an essential government service or worth several people losing their jobs.

No one talks about this because Council is loathe to cut the Section G list. The nonprofit community has enormous political sway in Montgomery County. But there's no doubt that there is money to be had, if you look into the details.

Can you provide a link to Section G? I'm having trouble digging to this document. TIA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Chaos at the Council today as they waited 40 minutes into their Budget Work Session to announce that the Work Session was delayed until tomorrow as there are more discussions to be had. The room revolted and they silenced the audio as the crowd booed.

Montgomery County government needs a reset.

How many of those people screaming live in Montgomery County?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Chaos at the Council today as they waited 40 minutes into their Budget Work Session to announce that the Work Session was delayed until tomorrow as there are more discussions to be had. The room revolted and they silenced the audio as the crowd booed.

Montgomery County government needs a reset.

Kudos to Taylor for his successful theatrics. MCPS uses these scare tactics every year. In no universe does MCPS have to cut all these positions. They could just give slightly smaller raises and fund all of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Chaos at the Council today as they waited 40 minutes into their Budget Work Session to announce that the Work Session was delayed until tomorrow as there are more discussions to be had. The room revolted and they silenced the audio as the crowd booed.

Montgomery County government needs a reset.

How many of those people screaming live in Montgomery County?

Considering it's most MCEA and SEIU folks, a good portion of them definitely don't live in the county, since we know a lot of the MCPS workforce can't afford to live in the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Chaos at the Council today as they waited 40 minutes into their Budget Work Session to announce that the Work Session was delayed until tomorrow as there are more discussions to be had. The room revolted and they silenced the audio as the crowd booed.

Montgomery County government needs a reset.

How many of those people screaming live in Montgomery County?

Considering it's most MCEA and SEIU folks, a good portion of them definitely don't live in the county, since we know a lot of the MCPS workforce can't afford to live in the county.

there is no data on this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Chaos at the Council today as they waited 40 minutes into their Budget Work Session to announce that the Work Session was delayed until tomorrow as there are more discussions to be had. The room revolted and they silenced the audio as the crowd booed.

Montgomery County government needs a reset.

How many of those people screaming live in Montgomery County?

Considering it's most MCEA and SEIU folks, a good portion of them definitely don't live in the county, since we know a lot of the MCPS workforce can't afford to live in the county.

there is no data on this

Yes, there is: https://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2023/05/county-report-reveals-that-highest-paid.html

The statistics for FY2023 highlight this stark disparity, with a mere 58.6% of highly compensated administrators and principals choosing to make Montgomery County their home, in contrast to a significantly higher proportion of 81.6% among relatively low paid clerical workers, janitors, teachers' aides, and blue-collar employees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Chaos at the Council today as they waited 40 minutes into their Budget Work Session to announce that the Work Session was delayed until tomorrow as there are more discussions to be had. The room revolted and they silenced the audio as the crowd booed.

Montgomery County government needs a reset.

How many of those people screaming live in Montgomery County?

Considering it's most MCEA and SEIU folks, a good portion of them definitely don't live in the county, since we know a lot of the MCPS workforce can't afford to live in the county.

there is no data on this

Yes, there is: https://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2023/05/county-report-reveals-that-highest-paid.html

The statistics for FY2023 highlight this stark disparity, with a mere 58.6% of highly compensated administrators and principals choosing to make Montgomery County their home, in contrast to a significantly higher proportion of 81.6% among relatively low paid clerical workers, janitors, teachers' aides, and blue-collar employees.

So the higher paid employees are less likely to live in MoCo, while the vast majority of lower paid employees do live in MoCo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would encourage everyone to familiarize themselves with the Section G list of the operating budget. You won't find it in the proposed budget - it's created by Council after they vote on the operating budget. So, you can see the list for last year, but not this year.

The Section G list is a list of nonprofits who are to be awarded non-competitive contracts by the County for the upcoming fiscal year. For fiscal year 26, it totaled $131,933,975.

A lot of what is on there is really important. But there is absolutely room for cuts/consolidation/reduction to preserve other essential services. Some examples from the fiscal year 26 budget:

- $2.3 million to promote tourism in the County

- $2.48 million for 2 community media cable channels

- A total of $4.5 million to various nonprofits for coaching and training to small and/or minority business owners.

- $61,798 for online real estate information for the County business community

- $50,605 for outreach to businesses in the Asian-Pacific and Hispanic communities to increase awareness of the various business assistance programs available (so not even the actual assistance)

- $47,206 for promoting economic development between the County and Israel

- A total of $957,315 to various nonprofits for providing legal services to residents involved in removal proceedings.

The above are just from the first 3 pages of the list. Flipping forward several pages (and bypassing all the HHS stuff), I see a total of $700,249 across several nonprofits for tenant education services. Maybe that can be halved? We could record the info sessions and put them online?

$7 million to the Arts and Humanities Council for support of the art community, including grants to artists. Another $400,000 into the public arts trust fund to purchase and maintain artworks in public buildings. Nice to have, sure, but not an essential government service or worth several people losing their jobs.

No one talks about this because Council is loathe to cut the Section G list. The nonprofit community has enormous political sway in Montgomery County. But there's no doubt that there is money to be had, if you look into the details.

Can you provide a link to Section G? I'm having trouble digging to this document. TIA.

Wow thanks for sharing this. Certainly should not cut 200 middle school positions without considering cuts to some of this and the poster said there were 14 positions in the SSL office? Is that right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well said. Thank you for your informed post.