[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6238612,"mediaKeyId","3350744-13e47035539f6713cd81f138f2c5ee63","parentId",3350744,"title","Council examines pool, golf course and ice rink as possible cuts; staff say contracts and operations limit near‑term savings","audioSeconds",5981,"startMs",685000,"endMs",6666000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3350744-13e47035539f6713cd81f138f2c5ee63&start=685&end=6666","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3350744-13e47035539f6713cd81f138f2c5ee63/thumbnail_685000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6238612/Hagerstown/Washington-County/Maryland/Council-examines-pool-golf-course-and-ice-rink-as-possible-cuts-staff-say-contracts-and-operations-limit-nearterm-savings","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6238612-f2778316154eeb44bed374cd62cad935/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200092&Signature=G9q5lsDan0COniqphwBzaBW9VEju1oL6N1WBiyLZMTgDARWtQvH3N2yAP8j7LGHVMSOmFnxmx6eDzajo-yfxyeKhvFW0KmalM7e1pKs0bLUoBohMhT5FqGNfI91SDMBSISZ1xw~wknH08VwiGLlNdsRs5Ztfjmcj-yFphqMR4Zd6Mx~Mg90hOglVgsm3dDIUz73CrNkSg~686XxDj1ZHg-VgRnc4BE3JoAaCO2XEZ1KhcIon7i2oT3XoIFDqqLWZuP6w5hQufxNXwZPxt9PelYB-11QnMUIXeFT4gP~w6~ctMpDb~nHqNIEvYvoR~BIumLP7Ct4pbGrTW5VIOHJItA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Hagerstown, MD","date","2025-05-15T22:00:06Z","article","HAGERSTOWN, Md. — During the budget work session councilors discussed whether to reduce or pause several city amenities — Potterfield Pool, the municipal nine‑hole golf course and the city‑owned ice rink — as potential offsets to a proposed tax increase.

City staff provided line‑by‑line context and cautioned that those choices have contractual, operational and service consequences. For Potterfield Pool, staff cited estimated FY26 revenue near $93,500 and direct operating expenses listed in the budget book at roughly $301,000; the pool is managed under a multi‑year contract with the YMCA that covers lifeguards and most on‑site operations, staff said, and terminating or pausing the season would still create obligations tied to that contract.

On the golf course, staff said the operation has not been financially self‑supporting and relies on a mix of seasonal, part‑time and two full‑time maintenance employees. Staff noted the city is under a multi‑year lease or contract for golf carts that would remain payable even if play were suspended; preliminary comments in the session put that obligation at approximately $25,300 per year (staff characterized the figure as approximate and related to a five‑year contract).

The council also discussed the ice rink, which staff said the city owns and which is operated under a contract with the Hagerstown Ice Amateur Athletic Association (HIAAA). Staff reported that ice‑making equipment at the rink has reached the end of its useful life and that the most recent budget estimate to replace the ice‑making system was about $2.7 million; that figure did not include additional design and engineering fees and could be higher once a final scope is developed.

Department directors told councilors that closing an amenity for a single season could save some near‑term operating dollars but often would not eliminate fixed costs like equipment leases, pre‑paid contracts or the costs needed to restore an asset that was allowed to deteriorate. Parks staff noted that seasonal positions are critical to daily operations across 22 parks and roughly 300 acres; staffing shortages in recent years have forced the city to contract out some services, sometimes at higher cost than in‑house provision.

Council members recorded informal votes and preferences during the meeting: most opposed wholly eliminating Potterfield Pool and the municipal band and expressed concern about broad cuts to events that residents value. On the ice rink, council support for closure was split; two council members said they would be willing to pause the rink, while others said the rink is a valued community facility and cited the partnership arrangement and capital needs as complicating factors.

Staff emphasized that some near‑term savings could be found by delaying discretionary CIP items, renegotiating or re‑evaluating contracts where legally possible, and by targeted hiring freezes for non‑public‑safety positions. Councilors asked staff to provide clear dollar amounts, the contractual penalties associated with closing or pausing each amenity, and the social impacts (for example, summer programs for children served by the pool) so the council could weigh tradeoffs before any formal decisions.

No formal closures or contract cancellations were approved during the session; staff were directed to return estimated savings, contractual consequences and implementation timelines for any amenity reductions under consideration.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","May 15, 2025 | Mayor & Council Meeting: Work Session","oneSentenceSummary","As part of the budget review, councilors considered closing Potterfield Pool, pausing the municipal golf course and delaying ice‑rink capital work; city staff warned contractual obligations and operational realities would limit near‑term savings and that the rink replacement could cost several million dollars.","taxTitle","Hagerstown, Washington County, Maryland","taxId",4678,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6238617,"Council weighs cutting Invest Hagerstown funding as program leaders say they could 'weather a year'",5088,92000,5180000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3350744-13e47035539f6713cd81f138f2c5ee63&start=92&end=5180","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3350744-13e47035539f6713cd81f138f2c5ee63/thumbnail_92000.jpg","/articles/6238617/Hagerstown/Washington-County/Maryland/Council-weighs-cutting-Invest-Hagerstown-funding-as-program-leaders-say-they-could-weather-a-year","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6238617-8ebe393189ce76f57ab9276a7c1b75d2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200092&Signature=jWgscWeXQdkdFmciFr9GlX93KYWXifhSpWNYjIAaOXU1IRFW54Yy9o~YsbepXmwjDlRsvaF1D8HI3TAZDRfNHQdHbJqH1UZKPVSki0GHVBMMrZ5fpwc1kKKkgZsxxImRFBJXNEKoRYO-n7fRuOsjiAsfjfjJNCFgXG6Ve813S8Zu7tIyCaiN51CerYjR4yjRmDqBSZMb7hPg5e2YsHDnhIsoSITWev0B2s3U7pupPfH0J6VInwH2scBGSLcmCyXOKyP3xlo--KKeAgI6swZTJPTu3VZhVxXBhOmfC84djciSY-WdOFjgOPY5Xw4yEVcE51WZsV0WAYmEyZSUhQYkIw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","HAGERSTOWN, Md. — Councilors discussed a proposal to reduce the Invest Hagerstown allocation by $500,000 as part of efforts to lower the proposed tax increase. Invest Hagerstown staff and program supporters told the council the program has a fund balance and could absorb a one‑year reduction, but cautioned that sustained cuts would reduce grant activity and slow homeownership gains.

Invest Hagerstown staff described the program as supporting multiple activities including a homeownership grant program and redevelopment grants. Staff noted the program’s recent pace: they reported unusually high demand for homeowner assistance in the current year and said repayment and forfeiture activity had left a fund balance that could cover a temporary reduction.

“We can weather a year with a $500,000 cut because we’re sitting on a fund balance due to some projects that had forfeited their dollars,” Invest Hagerstown staff told the council. Staff also pointed out the program’s return on investment: between FY19 and FY24 the city’s Invest Hagerstown dollars were shown in the budget materials to have leveraged roughly $48.2 million in private and other investment on about $4.8 million of city funds.

Councilors voted informal tallies on the $500,000 proposal during the session; the result was mixed and no formal, binding reduction was adopted. Several council members said they preferred a smaller, time‑limited reduction or slicing a reduction across programs rather than eliminating a major funding bucket.

Separately, councilors discussed an alternative offset: staff identified roughly $375,000 of assumed property tax revenue that would be lost if a large taxpayer (the stadium) were removed from the tax base; some members proposed covering that loss through contingencies rather than cutting Invest Hagerstown. Staff said they could reallocate contingency funds to offset the $375,000, but the council did not finalize a decision during the session.

Council members and Invest Hagerstown leaders agreed on the program’s goals — increasing homeownership and leveraging private investment — but differed on whether a one‑time reduction would be advisable while the city wrestles with its broader revenue needs. Councilors asked staff to model both a $500,000 cut and smaller, temporary reductions, showing likely impacts on homeownership grants and redevelopment activity. No final funding action was taken; staff were asked to return numbers and options at the next meeting.

The Invest Hagerstown funding question was discussed alongside the broader budget debate about whether to raise taxes, cut services or use one‑time reserves to cover ongoing costs.","Councilors considered a proposal to cut $500,000 from Invest Hagerstown’s budget; Invest Hagerstown and staff said the program could absorb a one‑year reduction but warned of long‑term impacts on homeownership grants and redevelopment efforts.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6238622,"Hagerstown council debates 5.5¢ property tax increase, asks staff for targeted cuts and ordinance introduction",9134,1000,9135000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3350744-13e47035539f6713cd81f138f2c5ee63&start=1&end=9135","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3350744-13e47035539f6713cd81f138f2c5ee63/thumbnail_1000.jpg","/articles/6238622/Hagerstown/Washington-County/Maryland/Hagerstown-council-debates-55-property-tax-increase-asks-staff-for-targeted-cuts-and-ordinance-introduction","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6238622-e60cc21481cf32698460dec41ce7ad42/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200092&Signature=gryVDpUs~qZ0NzfoHZCPtwV1nRL~50iOu0Dv9rlKAOmVPjyvg4naidCBybU0glU5ZoY90VQ9qEvJ0biDlK1ZgRGa4Qnenw8j0UQEsuDIL00rX53vUD-37lla0JAZNIIYXQRtvfIwQVO4aiFzrEIiTameZMYHhv4CbBlPq6kFvvY~JMJL2xHdRlELyjKckxZSWidZXOC6DRcuJe0OXPuUgKWuR-tnqlEJwkfuzOg6lcHf-XU421gOHjL8OWLvpBxa~nQnaGnjZysJzhaqBU8697TY9AoyJCe8a7njteuOAbQXFY1hZkjJO4utFbDRe4ZmMyQr1tsH-xx-aSDoV9MGSg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","HAGERSTOWN, Md. — The Hagerstown City Council spent more than two hours Tuesday debating a proposed 5.5¢ increase in the property tax rate — a change estimated in the staff budget to produce about $2.2 million — and asking staff to return with specific, line‑by‑line options before a final vote.

Council members and city staff framed the discussion as a choice between raising revenue, cutting services and programs, or using one‑time reserves. Councilors repeatedly said they supported public safety funding but differed on whether to protect services and amenities or reduce them to avoid the increase.

The issue mattered because the city has not raised its property tax rate since 2019, staff noted, and the council must decide whether to cap any increase for a future fiscal year. Council members discussed a cap tied to a future fiscal year (several members referenced capping the rate for FY28 or FY30) and sought clarity on legal limits and budget mechanics before committing to a final number.

City staff presented a range of offset options: a hiring freeze for non‑public‑safety positions, delaying or reducing capital improvement projects (CIP), trimming community amenity spending, and using portions of fund balance for one‑time needs. Staff cautioned that long‑term use of reserves would increase fiscal risk and could affect the city’s bond posture. The staff presentation also pointed to a roughly $4.1 million recommended use of fund balance in the proposed plan for one‑time capital items.

Council members reviewed several specific line items mentioned by staff: seasonal and part‑time parks staff, the Potterfield pool, the municipal golf course and other community events. Staff estimated Potterfield pool receipts near $93,500 against direct operating expenses in the hundreds of thousands; the golf course was described as historically operating at a loss and subject to an existing multi‑year lease for golf carts. Staff also noted that cutting some amenities would have implementation and contractual costs and in some cases would not produce enough immediate savings to materially reduce the tax increase.

Council members also discussed a separate budget detail: the expected loss of roughly $375,000 in property tax revenue tied to a large taxpayer change (discussed by staff as a previously included revenue assumption). Several councilors said that if the council removed that revenue from the budget, staff would need to find other offsets to avoid pushing the tax rate higher.

After the review, councilors directed staff to prepare and introduce an ordinance setting the proposed property tax rate (the introduction draft staff indicated would show a tax rate of 1.057) and to return at a later meeting with a menu of specific cuts and the budget language needed to implement any cap the council might adopt. Staff said they would bring the ordinance and the revised budget back to the council at the next scheduled meeting for continued discussion and formal action.

The council ended the session without a final vote on the tax rate; members asked for clearer written options and dollar amounts from staff so they could assess tradeoffs before a final decision.

Looking ahead, staff told councilors that projections for utility funds, permit/licensing revenue and the triennial property assessment process administered by the State Department of Assessment and Taxation would affect the final rate calculation. Councilors asked for more detail on how changes in assessed values and state assessments would phase in and what legal language would be required to cap a future fiscal year rate if the council chose to do so.

The council also scheduled additional budget discussion and the formal introduction of the FY26 budget ordinance at the next meeting, with staff to return a list of recommended cuts, the financial impact of each and the specific ordinance language needed to carry out any cap or targeted reduction.","City councilors discussed a proposed 5.5¢ property tax increase to cover public safety and other costs, weighed one‑time cuts and hiring freezes, and directed staff to return the proposed tax ordinance and budget with specific options.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council examines pool, golf course and ice rink as possible cuts; staff say contracts and operations limit near‑term savings

Council weighs cutting Invest Hagerstown funding as program leaders say they could 'weather a year'

Hagerstown council debates 5.5¢ property tax increase, asks staff for targeted cuts and ordinance introduction