Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Fiscal Plan topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee reviews FY25–30 tax‑supported fiscal plan summary, clarifies reserve and revenue assumptions and forwards recommendation to full council

Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee · June 13, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County staff presented the FY25–30 tax‑supported public services fiscal plan summary; the committee discussed revenue growth rates, CIP funding averages, reserve treatment and the revenue stabilization fund, and recommended the resolution be forwarded to the full council.

County staff presented the tax‑supported FY25–30 fiscal plan summary to the Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee and the committee recorded a recommendation that the resolution and attached fiscal plan be forwarded to the full Montgomery County Council for approval.

A staff presenter summarized the plan’s revenue and policy assumptions, saying total revenues are estimated to increase at an annual average of 2.6% from FY25 to FY30, property taxes at 2.6% annually, income taxes at an annual average of 4% (with a 2.1% estimate in FY25 and higher growth from FY26–30), and recordation and transfer taxes projected to rise at 7.3% annually over the six‑year period.

Mr. Ali, county staff, said resources available for agency use increase 6.3% from FY24 to FY25 but that growth is much more constrained in FY26–30 because the FY25 budget used one‑time undesignated reserves. He told the committee that current revenue for the capital improvement program (CIP) averages about $131,800,000 from FY25–FY30, with FY25 current revenue at $174,500,000 and FY26–FY30 averaging $123,300,000.

A committee member asked for clarification about the difference between the plan’s 10% policy target and the 10.3% figure cited for FY25. Ms. Charlie explained the distinction between the revenue stabilization fund (RSF) and undesignated general fund reserves, noting a county code requirement that interest earned in the RSF remain in the RSF. Because the RSF’s balance plus interest equals about 10.3% of projected FY25 reserves (projected at 10.8%), the council could not reduce reserves below that RSF level without council action. Ms. Charlie also said approximately $27,400,000 of the FY25 reserves are available as undesignated reserves for supplemental spending.

The committee thanked staff for the presentation, recorded the clarification for the public, and said it will forward the resolution and fiscal plan to the full council; no committee roll‑call vote appears in the transcript.

Next steps: staff will transmit the committee recommendation and the fiscal plan summary to the full council for consideration.