According to the DC Examiner, here is what those "revenue enhancements" would mean to Montgomery County citizens. If you are going to send this "sample letter" to the County Council, know what these "modest increases" will mean to your home, family and neighbors.
By Leggett's calculations, doubling the energy tax would add about $100 annually to residential energy bills, and $3,360 to commercial energy bills. The tax increase would end at the end of fiscal 2012.
"If you just turn down the thermostat, you can avoid the tax," he said. "I thought that was fair."
Leggett's revised budget also includes a $1 increase on the county's $2 monthly cell phone levy. The energy and cell phone tax increases together would restore 70 percent of the county's shortfall.
Read more at the Washington Examiner here.
__________________________
Sent by: mccpta_board@
Subject [MCCPTA_Board] CALL OR EMAIL COUNTY
05/05/2010 11:06 COUNCIL TO OPPOSE FURTHER CUTS
AM
Hi all,
See below for a sample letter that we have circulated in the Whitman Cluster to urge people to voice their opposition to further cuts by the County Council to MCPS. We have asked people to email or call this week as the straw vote is scheduled for May 20.
Our schools are putting it out on the list serves, and grade schools are asking room parents to send out to class parents. Some PTA presidents, together with cluster reps, will also be handing out flyers at drop off and pick up to get the word out to as many as possible.
Obviously, the more people who contact the County Council the better, so we hope you'll add your Cluster's voices to the mix.
Best,
Jean Schlesinger, Deborah Goldman and Keith Parsky (Whitman Cluster Co-Coordinators)
Dear Councilmembers,
I am a parent of Montgomery County public school students. I understand that because of the serious
economic crisis in Montgomery County that MCPS has to make do with less next year. Consequently, I
accept that the reduction of MCPS’ budget by $137 million, while unfortunate, is necessary. I do not
agree and am strongly opposed to the County Council’s efforts to impose an additional $30
million cut to the school system’s budget. Such a cut would be gambling with the quality of our
children's education, as it would put our schools at further risk of a $52 million penalty from the
State, for failure to comply with the Maintenance of Effort Law. The $137 million cut is barely
tolerable, given the increase in enrollment of more than 2000 students and the heightened needs of
students due to the increase in poverty across our County. Risking a cumulative cut of $219 million
is simply irresponsible. This fall, I will vote for Councilmembers who fight to preserve the high
quality of education for which Montgomery County is nationally known and who are unwilling to penalize
our children any further.
I do support the revenue enhancements necessary to balance this year's budget, including the
modest proposed increases in energy and cell phone use taxes, as well as the ambulance fee.
NAME
ADDRESS
As long as we' are already discussing the prospect of higher energy taxes, it's worth noting that PEPCO has applied for an increase in its Retail Rates For The Distribution Of Electric Energy. A hearing for the purpose of receiving public comment about the proposed increase is scheduled for Thursday, May 6 at 7:00 PM at the Montgomery County Executive Office Building, 101 E. Monroe Street in Rockville.
ReplyDeleteHere is the announcement about the hearing from the Maryland Public Service Commission.
http://www.pepco.com/_res/documents/pepcopublicnotice1.pdf
Prior to circulating the letters above, parents should understand what some of the "revenue enhancements," such as ambulance fees, really mean. Indeed, the ambulance fee proposal (which the County Executive claims will raise approximately $14 million annually), actually places the County in substantial fiscal jeopardy as a result of the adverse affect it will have on volunteers (who are NOT paid and perform the same jobs as career firefighters) and stations that currently accept no money from the County for the funding of fire and rescue operations.
ReplyDeleteMr. Leggett has argued that insurance companies will be paying the bills. This is misleading. First, the bill specifically notes that except in the case of hardship, which must be submitted in the form of a waiver, that “each individual who receives an emergency medical services transport is responsible for paying the . . .. transport fee.” Second, if insurance companies do ultimately assume the cost of the fees, they will be forced to re-coup their costs through raised premiums. While proponents have argued that the increases will be minimal, business owners and employees will beg to differ. Even a 1% increase in premiums will result in thousands of dollars in increased costs to companies currently paying health insurance premiums, resulting in those companies’ being forced to decrease the benefits provided to employees.
In 2009, press releases by the County stated that the fees were intended “to recover costs generated by providing . . . transports via County ambulances.” Where once the intent was to seemingly limit the fee to “County ambulances,” which would necessarily remove those transports provided by NON-County purchased units, the County Executive has now broadened the imposition of the fee to all Fire and Rescue service vehicles, regardless of how those vehicles were purchased, how the equipment onboard the units was purchased, how the fuel was purchased, and whether the personnel staffing the vehicles are volunteers or career members of the fire and rescue services. It should be noted that several stations in the County (including the BCC Rescue Squad) are either entirely (as in the case of BCCRS) or substantially funded by community donations.
The County Executive’s current plan is perhaps most short-sighted in its potential effect on fire service volunteers. Notwithstanding that no money will actually make its way back to fund non-County owned stations, volunteers, non-County purchased vehicles, or non-County purchased equipment, some County residents will believe that donating to these organizations will be unnecessary (since they will believe that the fees being imposed are going to all fire and rescue departments in the County). If donations decrease substantially to these organizations (like BCC Rescue Squad and Wheaton Rescue Squad), how will the County Executive avoid incurring millions and millions of dollars in costs to hire career fire personnel to do jobs currently performed by volunteers and provide or replace community-purchased fuel, vehicles, or equipment? The County Executive will lose every cent he proposes to raise and more – putting the County (and its education system) in more fiscal jeopardy in three or ten years (long after his departure) than it is in now.
Finally, the language of the bill explicitly states that the money will be used to SUPPLEMENT fire and rescue services, which means that no dollars whatsoever will become available (as a result of the fees) to the education system in the County. So, it seems like a stretch to send a letter supporting the bill when the bill itself does absolutely nothing to aid schools.
I failed to provide my contact information (sorry about that). If anyone would like to contact me in reference to the ambulance fees or to find out additional information as to why it doesn't make sense (particularly so for Whitman students or parents, who could absolutely be detrimentally affected because of the adverse impact the fees would have on the BCC Rescue Squad), please feel free to email me at brooke.davies@bccrs.org.
ReplyDeleteThe Bethesda Chevy Chase Rescue Squad (BCCRS) is a unique and valuable resource for students who are interested in emergency medical services, or giving something back to the community. As a Walt Whitman alumnus, I have enjoyed the experience of a lifetime that BCCRS offers. Please help keep this organization alive by not endorsing Ambulance Fees.
ReplyDelete