From the Daily Record:

The Court of Appeals’ order, which was slated to be issued Friday, will not be issued until Feb. 16 at the earliest. The order, or mandate, gives effect to the top court’s Jan. 4 ruling that criminal defendants have a statutory right to counsel at initial bail hearings.

The postponement will give the court a chance to consider motions from the state public defender and attorney general to delay implementation of the ruling in DeWolfe v. Richmond.

It will also give the court time to consider and vote on proposed procedures for implementing the forthcoming order, said retired Court of Appeals Judge Alan M. Wilner, who chairs the Maryland Judiciary’s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The committee intends to finalize its proposals by 4 p.m. Friday. The high court is scheduled to vote on them Feb. 16.

Read the Daily Record coverage here.

To assist counties with covering these costs, the Governor has also proposed a series of revenue enhancements totaling $244.5 million.  However, when you  look at the proposal on the table, the offset is for only one year.  After which, contribution costs go up and the local offsets go down, leaving counties with an even bigger hit.  Based on recent estimates released by the Department of Legislative Services, county costs will escalate by nearly $70 million immediately in FY 2014, and rising in each subsequent year thereafter, reaching over $358 million by the end of the projection, FY 2017.  This may leave many counties with no other choice but to seek local tax increases.

Further, when you begin to examine the components of the offset, one begins to question whether they will generate the estimated amount of revenue or whether the offset is going to the counties at all.  Listed below are the proposals the Administration characterizes as a pension shift offset and MACo’s concerns with each.

 The adoption of your plan would represent a giant-step backward on the issue of statewide equity in public education. The more affluent jurisdictions will find themselves more able to absorb the cost and thereby maintain a competitive edge in hiring and retaining highly-qualified educators. Coping with the increase in retirement costs will hinder less affluent jurisdictions from offering competitive public schools.

…

PGCEA believes that this plan would ultimately prove harmful to both children and public employees. It is for these reasons that we stand in opposition to this provision of the proposed Budget Reconciliation & Finance Act.

Education advocacy groups are concerned about last year’s removal of the waiver requirement, which came after the state cuts it own education cuts. The General Assembly also lowered requirements for counties to fund only their share of “foundation aid,” which is about 75% of the local spending average in the four previous years.

In an earlier Conduit Street article, MACo sheds light on how to reform the wavier process and disputes the claim that counties are cutting billions from school budgets.

 MACo has been advocating for a more sensible MOE waiver process for the last two sessions, and will now expend this effort to address the wider range of accountability and management concerns raised by these increasingly difficult budget times. Counties fear that without meaningful reform to both MOE and these budget accountability matters, the years ahead will see a damaging “chilling effect” as counties become reluctant to fund in excess of the MOE target, for fear of creating unsustainable future requirements. If the General Assembly chooses to create tougher standards and harsher penalties on counties, this may be a very negative (though unintended) result affecting future school funding decisions.

In the past, POS was funded through general operating funds but in recent years was shifted into the capital budget and is now funded through general obligation (GO) bonds.  In addition, the payment of some local POS funding has been “stretched out” so that instead of a county receiving its total allocation for a given year, that year’s allocation is paid out to the county over three years.  These changes to the POS program left some counties carrying the cost for POS projects out of their own budgets because they had already encumbered funds based on assurances that the POS funds would be available.   As previously reported on Conduit Street, there is $51 million in Governor Martin O’Malley’s proposed FY 2013 capital budget for local POS.  The $51 million is sufficient to allow counties to pay all past encumbrances that resulted from the POS funding changes.

But while the General Assembly will be debating whether $51 million is the appropriate amount of POS funding during this Session, it will also be debating the appropriate uses for that funding.  In the past year, two schools of thought have evolved concerning the use of POS money.  The first school, supported by the environmental community and some members on the environmental committees of the General Assembly, is that POS funding should be focused on land acquisition, in order to take advantage of low land costs and interest rates.  The other school of thought is that POS should focus on recreational facilities and infrastructure, in order to take advantage of low construction costs and to generate jobs.

The second school of thought was discussed during the recent hearings by the House and Senate Capital Budget Subcommittees.  When reviewing the POS portion of the Department of Legislative Services’ capital budget analysis, both subcommittees evinced interest in using POS funding to create jobs and build infrastructure.  MACo has always argued that POS has been successful because it contains both a land acquisition and facility development component and that local governments should have the flexibility to direct funding between these two components in a way that will best meet local needs.   However, the difficult economic situation has intensified efforts to alter the traditional focus of the program and this debate will certainly continue during this Session.

“In recent years, the Transportation Trust Fund has been depleted,” Garagiola, D-Montgomery, said in an e-mail. “This legislation proposes a constitutional amendment to create a firewall for current and future Transportation Trust Fund monies. It is critical that we act now to address our infrastructure needs.”

“Maryland needs to begin the process of restoring this vital funding to our counties and municipalities,” Garagiola said. “Marylanders do not distinguish importance between state and local roads.  At a time when our local governments are also struggling to balance their budgets, we have taken essential funding from their own equally critical transportation projects.”

Historically, county and municipal governments got 30% of the Transportation Trust Fund revenues. The percentage shrunk to 10% over the last two years due to transfers to the general fund. The proposal keeps local governments’ share at 10% in FY2013 but increases it to 25% by FY2016.

The Local Government Insurance Trust, the county’s liability insurer, offers longevity and loss control credits toward the annual premium. The trust also offered for the first time a $1 million limit for excess liability at no additional charge. This saved the county $8,000 on the annual premium.

LGIT is a non-profit association authorized by state law, wholly-owned and managed by its local government members. The Trust’s main purpose is to provide joint self-insurance programs or “pools” for towns, cities and counties in the State of Maryland. The concept is simple: rather than paying premiums to buy insurance from an insurance company, local governments contribute those premiums into a jointly-owned fund. The money in that fund is used to pay for the members’ claims, losses, and expenses.

*Prior to traveling to any meetings please confirm the accuracy of the meeting dates and locations with the respective committee as they are subject to last minute changes. Click here to access the Maryland General Assembly Hearing Schedule Index*

Tuesday, February 7

• Maryland Department of Transportation Overview
  Senate Budget & Taxation
  1:00 p.m.
  House Office Building, Room 120
  3 West Miller Senate Office Building
• Maryland Sustainable Growth Commission
  House Environmental Matters
  10:30 a.m. or immediately following session
  House Office Building, Room 250
  

Thursday, February 9

• Department of Assessments & Taxation
  House Appropriations-Public Safety & Administration Subcommittee
  1:00 p.m.
  House Office Building, Room 120

Friday, February 10

• Department of Assessments & Taxation
  Senate Budget & Taxation-Health & Human Services Subcommittee
  1:00 p.m.
  Amoss Room, Miller Senate Office Building
• Maryland Department of Planning
  Senate Budget & Taxation-Public Safety, Transportation, and Environmental Subcommittee
  1:00 p.m.
  Schweinhaut Room, Miller Senate Office Building
  
  

The Department of Legislative Services presented first, providing an overview of State Aid to Local Governments.  The lengthy document provides in-depth information of funding trends  by area of local government -  public schools, libraries, community colleges, local health, and county/municipal.  It also provided an analysis of the proposed FY 2013 budget and its effects on local governments.

Additional handouts provided by DLS, but not discussed in detail included, the Overview of Maryland Local Governments: Finances and Demographic Information and County Revenue Outlook Fiscal 2012.

MACo’s representatives discussed county finances, the teacher pension shift, school accountability, and maintenance of effort.  Panelists expressed concern with accommodating additional costs related to pensions in light of significant funding reductions and growing budgets.  They also disputed that shifting teacher pensions to the counties will incentivize locals to consider the impact of salary decisions on retirement benefits.

County governments have no control over the setting of teacher salaries, and do not even have a seat at the table to negotiate benefits and terms. This responsibility lies solely with the boards of education.  Shifting retirement costs to the county does not provide an incentive for boards of education to hold the line on salaries, any more than current law requires school budget proposals to reflect any fiscal consideration or balance.  School boards are free to negotiate and propose any budget they deem suitable, and the county is to work within the narrow confines of the state’s funding requirements and its own other service needs to arrive at a balanced budget.

The Laurel Leader reports that Delegate Barbara Frush, who chairs the House Environment Subcommittee, is sponsoring legislation with Senator Paul Pinsky  are pushing for legislation that would allow Prince George’s to institute a bag fee.

Del. Frush, who chairs the House Environment Subcommittee, and Prince George’s County Democrat Sen. Paul Pinsky are sponsoring the enabling legislation, which is currently awaiting a vote from the Prince George’s County delegation’s County Affairs Committee. If it gets approval from the committee and then the entire delegation, the bill is expected to be given local courtesy and pass through the General Assembly.

…

Last year, the Prince George’s County Council passed a resolution with six members in favor of the bag fee; two abstained and one was absent for the vote. Lehman said County Executive Rushern Baker is “100 percent behind it,” having listed the bag fee as one of his top priorities for 2012.

Following Montgomery County and the District of Columbia’s programs, Council Member Lehman says the fee will likely be five cents per bag.