House rejects amendment to tie WMATA funding to property-tax gains near stations
Loading...
Summary
The Maryland House rejected a minority‑leader amendment to the Metro Funding Modification Act that would have directed state property‑tax revenue increases near WMATA stations to WMATA. The amendment, which the sponsor said targeted about $140 million a year, failed on a roll call.
The Maryland House of Delegates on Feb. 22 rejected an amendment to the Metro Funding Modification Act that would have required the state’s share of increased property‑tax revenue from commercial and multifamily properties within roughly a 1‑mile radius of WMATA stations to be segregated and used first to fund WMATA.
The amendment, offered from the floor as an amendment at the desk, was described by the sponsor as a way to have property‑value gains near WMATA stations pay directly for the regional transit agency. "It essentially takes roughly, as estimated by the fiscal experts ... about a $140,000,000 a year extra on top of what we already give WMATA," the minority leader said in floor debate, framing the change as a targeted revenue source rather than drawing from the Transportation Trust Fund or general obligation bonds.
Supporters of the amendment said the approach would align benefits to nearby jurisdictions with contributions to WMATA’s capital needs, and would add a cap and a local‑value funding priority so that state transportation projects elsewhere would not be cut to backfill WMATA funding.
The floor leader urged lawmakers to reject the amendment, arguing it would redirect state property‑tax revenue that by law supports debt service and the state’s general‑obligation bond capacity. The floor leader warned that the proposal would constitute a "sea change" in transportation funding and stressed WMATA’s statewide benefits: "We are 1 Maryland," the floor leader said, arguing that WMATA serves riders and employers across many counties and that transportation funding should be distributed through established statewide processes.
After debate the clerk called the roll on the amendment. The clerk announced that the amendment failed on the roll; there being 90 votes in the negative, the amendment did not pass. The underlying bill was then auto‑printed for third reading.
Why it matters: The debate highlighted a recurring tension in Maryland transport finance — whether to direct geographically targeted growth‑driven revenues to regional infrastructure that disproportionately benefits a small number of jurisdictions, or to continue funding capital needs through statewide trust and bond mechanisms. Lawmakers in the minority framed the amendment as protecting local projects from diversion; leaders in the majority raised fiscal, legal, and policy risks to statewide debt capacity and precedent.
Next steps: House Bill 386 remains on the calendar for third reading and further consideration under the standard legislative schedule.
