Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ballpark Tax Exemption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State legislators and Hagerstown leaders debate ballpark tax status; delegation urges talks with ballpark owner
Summary
Delegation members briefed the council on recent legislation clarifying the property-tax status of the new downtown ballpark, saying the facility was intended to be tax-exempt via a nonprofit industrial foundation and urging local negotiations for a payment-in-lieu agreement if the city expects costs.
Delegate Matthew Schindler and other members of the local delegation briefed the Hagerstown City Council on the recent legislative activity addressing the downtown ballpark’s tax status and urged further local conversations about municipal costs and potential payment-in-lieu-of-tax (PILOT) agreements.
Schindler said the ballpark was structured to be owned by a 501(c)(3) industrial foundation — known in session as “Chief” — and that the original intent was to mirror out‑of‑state industrial‑foundation models that treated similar ballparks as tax‑exempt. He said the facility operates as a community amenity, the foundation collects rent and applies proceeds to a capital-improvement fund, and “there was no money that ever began. There was no property tax that ever was to be discussed.” (Transcript attribution: Delegate Matthew Schindler.)
The delegation explained that House bill HB750 (the Washington County tax‑credit vehicle) passed the House and that Senate bill 596 was used as the vehicle to insert language clarifying the ballpark’s exemption. Delegation members said the bills were separated in the process: the county tax‑credit provision and the ballpark clarification were handled on different tracks in each chamber. They urged the city to open discussions with Chief to determine whether a voluntary PILOT or other agreement should be negotiated to cover service costs such as police, fire and parking-deck maintenance.
Council members noted city costs associated with large events — parking-deck debt service, police and fire staffing — and asked for a factual accounting of any revenues the city receives now (for example amusement taxes) and the SDAT (State Department of Assessments and Taxation) assessments that would apply if the property were taxable. The delegation said they were willing to pursue legislative changes if local negotiations did not yield an equitable arrangement.
Multiple council members urged the city and Chief to meet and try to reach an agreement on payments or compensatory measures; the delegation said the bill as enacted allows for a negotiated PILOT agreement as currently written but that the council could pursue a stronger legislative requirement if needed. No formal council vote was taken at the work session; participants agreed the next step is a local conversation between city officials and the foundation that controls the ballpark.
