Some Montgomery County Council members are seeking to put a question on the November ballot that would ask voters to decide whether county budget decisions could be approved by fewer members than the number now required under the county charter .
Councilmembers Sidney Katz (D-Dist. 3) and Gabe Albornoz (D-At-large) are sponsoring a resolution that would change the number of councilmember votes needed to approve certain budget decisions, based on a recommendation from the county’s Charter Review Commission.
According to the resolution:
- At least two-thirds of councilmembers would need to approve an operating budget that exceeds the total of the previous year’s operating budget, a change from the current requirement of approval by seven councilmembers;
- At least two-thirds of councilmembers would need to approve passing an operating budget that exceeds spending affordability guidelines, a change from the current requirement of approval by eight councilmembers; and
- At least two-thirds of councilmembers would need to approve passing an increase in the property tax rate, a change from the requirement that all councilmembers must approve the increase.
Under the current model of the 11-member council, two-thirds would be equivalent to at least eight votes. For purposes of the amendment, two-thirds would be calculated by rounding up to the nearest whole number the product of multiplying the number of current councilmembers by two-thirds.
Katz said at Tuesday’s council meeting that he was frustrated when he heard there had been “misinformation” in the community that the public would not be able to weigh in on whether these initiatives will appear on the ballot.
“There was a statement that I’ve heard that said that this would not even go to public hearing. Obviously, that is wrong,” Katz said. “The proposed charter amendment is being brought forward by the Charter Review Commission … these were not my amendments.”
A public hearing on the proposed resolution is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. during the council’s July 16 regular meeting. The council will vote whether to put the referendum on the ballot at a later date.
“Being able to raise property taxes, which is obviously an immensely sobering and immensely important and in my opinion, should always be a last resort, only if necessary to be able to continue the county’s business at a level that we all feel is important to move forward,” Albornoz said. “But having a two-thirds majority as opposed to just one outlying vote, I think is important and makes a lot of sense on the merits.”
The 11-member Charter Review Commission is appointed by the council. It is tasked with presenting a report to the council in May of every even-numbered year and to present proposed amendments that members believe should be made to the county charter.
Robin Ficker, a Boyds resident and frequent Republican political candidate, sponsored a ballot initiative measure in 2020 that sought to prevent the county from raising property taxes above the rate of inflation. A similar but competing initiative sponsored by the council in 2020 passed, prohibiting the council from adopting a tax rate on real property that exceeds the tax rate on real property approved for the previous year, unless all current councilmembers vote affirmatively for the increase. Ficker was in the audience Tuesday to show opposition to the resolution proposed by Katz and Albornoz.
In an interview with MoCo360, Ficker said he believes the goal of the proposed charter amendment is to allow the council to raise taxes more easily and allow councilmembers who support a tax increase to vote against one for public perception, knowing it would pass.
“There’s greed,” Ficker said. “The taxpayers are there as a convenient ATM.”
Ficker said he hopes the voters will vote against the initiative if it is on the November ballot and retain the current regulations.
“They’re trying to overturn a voters’ mandate,” he said of the council.
Amending the appointment process
Another proposed charter amendment, recommended by the commission and sponsored by Katz, would amend the county charter to confirm automatically any appointment made by the county executive to a non-merit position if the council has not voted on the appointment within 60 days after receiving a nomination from the county executive.
According to the county code, non-merit positions include directors of the regional services centers, director of the Office of Community Partnership and director of strategic partnerships assistant chief administrative officers and special projects managers.
“The commission felt having a finite time frame would be advantageous for the county to fill competitive positions,” Katz said. “This would have better predictability when hiring would occur and would avoid uncertainty in the process and possible disruption of county services.”
Limiting county executive terms
The council is also required by state law to vote on a resolution that would place a referendum for a two-term limit on the county executive on the November ballot. The initiative is sponsored by the Committee for Better Government, which is led by former Montgomery County Republican party chair and 2022 GOP county executive nominee Reardon Sullivan. The committee has submitted a petition to the Montgomery County Board of Elections to request that the referendum be placed on the ballot.
Several supporters of the two-term limit were in the audience Tuesday, clad in shirts that said “2T,” referencing to the shorthand term for the ballot initiative.
The elections board announced Friday the petition is 626 valid signatures short of the minimum of 10,000 required to place the question on the ballot. The committee has until July 29 to submit additional signatures to the board. No councilmembers are sponsoring that resolution.
The Charter Review Commission also recommended an amendment to limit a county executive to serving a total of three terms throughout the executive’s lifetime, as an alternative to the Committee for Better Government initiative. Currently, a county executive could be elected to serve more than three terms, as long as an additional term is not consecutive with the first three. No councilmembers are sponsoring this proposal.
