More News

In a topsy-turvy vote, the ballot question pushed by anti-tax advocate and frequent gadfly Robin Ficker was losing early this morning in a close tally.

With 199 of 245 precincts reporting as of 12:10 a.m. Wednesday, Ficker's ballot Question B — requiring all nine members of the County Council to approve a budget that exceeds the county's charter limit on property tax collections, which limits budget growth to the rate of inflation — was trailing 133,444 votes, or 50.2 percent, to 132,393 votes, or 49.8 percent.

About 55,000 absentee and provisional ballots are still to be counted, beginning Thursday.

Just before county polls closed at 8 p.m. yesterday, Ficker was somewhat optimistic that this year county voters would approve his ballot question.

"Hopefully, we'll do well," he said. "I can't curse the darkness; all I can do is to light a candle. I suppose I could have spent a lot of money on this with robo-calls, and everything."

The County Council has voted to exceed the charter limit four times, including this year.

Ficker has attempted the same question unsuccessfully on the county ballot in the past. In 2004, nearly 59 percent of voters rejected his initiative.

But with the economy slumping, the county facing a $251 million budget deficit next year and taxpayers seemingly fed up with increased taxes, the lawyer and real estate agent proposed his amendment as a solution for stemming the tide of tax increases.

Similar to four years ago, a slate of elected officials, union leaders and civic groups lined up to oppose Ficker's amendment. The group called the amendment "bad policy" that could result in cuts to essential services.

A news release from all nine council members last week included similar arguments, as well as raising the possibility that a single council member could block the budget.

Generally, Montgomery County voters realize that "tying the hands" of council members is not a good idea, council President Michael J. Knapp (D-Dist. 2) of Germantown told reporters last week.

Armed with name recognition and advertising dollars, the group sent out its message through robo-calls and mailed campaign literature to county voters. Also opposing Question B were both The Gazette and The Washington Post newspapers.

"We are opposing the amendment because we know what a detriment this amendment would mean," said Bonnie Cullison, president of the county teachers union, which is part of the opposition group.

Representatives of the county's League of Women Voters, which also opposed the amendment, said that the amendment could jeopardize the county's vaunted triple-A bond rating.

"The problem we have is that it looks like the elected officials of Montgomery County want the ability to impose tax increases," Ficker said early tonight. "But their problem will be, as I see it, the governor and other elected officials in other parts of the state will see that and will say let's shift the tax burden to Montgomery County, where they are willing to impose tax increases."

Already, County Executive Isiah Leggett (D) has vowed not to exceed the charter limit in his fiscal 2010 budget recommendation, which is due out in March.

Likely to be approved by county voters today was lesser-known ballot Question A, which involved repealing three legally ineffective procedures. With 199 precincts reporting, 159,424 votes, or 63.9 percent, were for the ballot question and 89,904 votes, or 36.1 percent, were against.

The procedures deal with the use of county funds to operate a landfill system on residentially zoned land, burying or trenching sewage sludge on residentially zoned land and service offered by the C&P Telephone Co. The company eventually became Verizon, and C&P no longer exists. Again, Ficker opposed this question, which would remove the provisions placed in the charter through referendum.

"The citizens of Montgomery County voted these items into the charter, and they should not be removed," he said.

Ficker also opposed removing the sewage sludge provision for fear that the county could begin the practice in the future. There are no plans to begin burying or trenching sewage sludge on residential land, county officials have said.

A third ballot question regarding the county's anti-discrimination law was removed from the ballot after a decision by the Maryland Appeals Court last month.