The Fiscal Year 2010 budget process is over, and it revealed a lot.

It revealed that one commissioner was committed to tax relief. It also revealed that the leadership of the teachers' union was willing to misinform its members in a lobbying campaign against tax relief.

At the May 28 meeting to finalize the budget, I made a motion to reduce the real property tax rate from $1.048 per thousand of assessed value to $1.028. My colleagues joined me in a respectful debate, but would not vote in favor of this modest tax relief. Because the motion failed, I voted against the budget.

My concept would have reduced revenue to the county by $3.8 million. This impact would have fallen solely on funding for agriculture preservation in fiscal year 2010.

Over the last 20 years this program has received almost $100 million in county funding. Between FY 2009 and 2010, this program was slated to receive more than double its funding — from around $7 million to more than $15 million. In addition to county funding, the state has added more than $24 million to help preserve farms here over the last 20 years.

The impact of my proposal would vary depending on the taxable value of one's property. Our budget department determined that the 2-cent rate reduction would result in $50 in savings for homes valued at $250,000. For homes valued at $350,000, homeowners would save $70 and $450,000 would equal a $90 savings.

One of the reasons given by my fellow commissioners for opposing this relief was the impact would not really be greatly felt on any individual homeowner's household budget. My answer is that if it's OK to have as a goal to gradually improve services over time, why couldn't we gradually include more tax relief over time?

I appreciated the respectful tone of my colleagues in deliberation. I did not appreciate the spin cycle that the teachers' union leadership applied to this topic.

Prior to the meeting, I began to receive a number of e-mails from teachers urging me not to propose tax relief. Clearly someone had stirred the pot.

I'm always glad to receive advocacy, but it helps if advocacy has factual basis. Sadly, this was lacking here. One teacher shared with me the e-mail that got the ball rolling. To say that this e-mail lacked accuracy would be an understatement. This union leader has gone so far as to attack my motives in bringing this proposal to the board.

The union response was a tactical mistake in opposing a modest tax relief.

It was also a blunder to allege "the sky is falling" when the impact was going to fall on agriculture preservation — not Carroll County Public Schools.

Another criticism that came up in the discussion was that I had raised tax relief too late in the process to be taken seriously. This makes no sense. I spent six months of my life in 2006 telling folks the time for tax relief was here. That seems like more than enough notice to me.

I can accept that my ideas will not always enjoy support. It's important for transparency and accountability that folks know the actual facts of where I stand and why.

Michael Zimmer is a member of the Board of County Commissioners. Each month in The Eagle, one of the three commissioners has the opportunity to discuss any issue or topic of interest in this space.

---

user comments (0)