Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget Education Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident warns Maryland budget proposals could shift costs to local property owners
Summary
During a public comment period, a resident raised concerns about state education funding and proposed local tax or fee mechanisms, citing proposals in Montgomery and Howard counties and criticizing the lack of a funding mechanism in the state "Blueprint."
An unidentified resident, a resident commenter, told the St. Mary's County meeting that recent education-funding proposals in Annapolis lack clear funding mechanisms and could push costs onto local property owners.
The resident said Montgomery County’s executive had proposed a 3.5% property tax increase and cited remarks by Howard County officials that the latter county could not meet a school system budget request. "On Friday, the county executive for Montgomery County proposed a 3.5% increase of property taxes in Montgomery County to help pay for the blueprint," the resident said. The speaker added that, "In Howard County ... theirs is substantially higher than ours. I think their total budget for the entire county is 1,200,000,000.0, and they can't touch that right now."
The comment focused on the statewide education plan the speaker called the "blueprint," and on the absence of a funding mechanism. "It was vetoed to begin with by Governor Hogan," the resident said, and later commented: "there's no real solutions in Annapolis right now." The speaker criticized the state House majority and urged listeners to consider alternatives such as lowering energy costs rather than raising business taxes.
The resident also referenced a proposal by Delegate Moon described as a business-to-business service fee and offered a concrete example: an extra 2.5% charge for at-home dog grooming. "Last year, Delegate Moon ... came up with this brainchild of a business to business service fee tax ... the private citizen where you have to pay an extra 2.5% for dog grooming that came to your house," the resident said, urging attendees to review voting records of lawmakers who support such measures.
The remarks were made during the meeting’s public comment period and did not prompt any formal action at that session. The resident closed by mentioning an upcoming budget work session and expressing expectation of more robust discussion there.
No board motion, vote or formal decision on these matters was recorded in the meeting transcript provided.
