Tag Archives: property taxes

Adam Pagnucco, campaign finance, David Blair, Ike Leggett, MCEA, MCGEO, Montgomery County Council, Robin Ficker, taxes

MoCo Ballot Issue Committee Campaign Finances, October 18

October 27, 2020 Adam Pagnucco

By Adam Pagnucco.

The six committees formed to advocate for and against MoCo’s ballot questions have filed their final campaign finance reports before the general election, covering the period through October 18. Let’s see where the money is coming from.

First, a quick summary of the ballot questions.

Question A: Would freeze the property tax rate but allow a unanimous vote of the council to increase it. Authored by Council Member Andrew Friedson.
See Why Progressives Should Support the Friedson Amendment.

Question B: Would remove the ability of the county council to break the current charter limit on property taxes, thereby capping property tax revenue growth at the rate of inflation. Authored by Robin Ficker.

Question C: Would add 2 district seats to the county council, thereby establishing 7 district seats and 4 at-large seats. Authored by Council Member Evan Glass.
See MoCo Could Use More County Council Districts.

Question D: Would convert the current council’s 5 district seats and 4 at-large seats to 9 district seats. Authored by Nine District for MoCo.
See Don’t Abolish the At-Large County Council Seats, Nine Kings and Queens.

Here is a summary of finances for the committees for the entire cycle through October 18.

To understand why these flows of money are occurring, it’s useful to recall the genesis of these questions. This year’s ballot question fight was joined when two questions were placed on the ballot by petition: Robin Ficker’s anti-tax Question B and Nine Districts for MoCo’s Question D, which would eliminate council at-large seats and remake the council into 9 district seats. In response to those ballot questions, the county council put two of its own questions on the ballot to compete with them: Question A (a different tax limitation measure) and Question C (which would keep the at-large seats and add two district seats). It is believed by some that if two directly conflicting ballot questions pass, they will both get thrown out, though that is not 100% certain.

Once it became clear that both Ficker’s anti-tax question and the nine districts question were going to appear on the ballot, no fewer than four new ballot issue committees were created to stop one or both of them and/or to promote the council’s alternatives. In short order, many of the county’s power players took sides in an uncommon off-year ballot question war. The players’ positions are at least as interesting as the committees’ activities themselves.

Nine Districts for MoCo, the oldest of the committees, has by far the most individual contributors but 82% of its cash funding has come from the real estate industry. In its most recent report, MoCo GOP Central Committee Member Ann Hingston made 6 more in-kind contributions totaling $993, thereby providing more evidence of the links between Nine Districts and the county Republican Party. Nine Districts’ fundraising pace has slowed as they have collected just $154 since October 4.

The competing committees have rapidly closed the gap. Three groups have paid for mail: former County Executive Ike Leggett’s group opposing Questions B and D, former executive candidate David Blair’s group supporting Question A and opposing Question B and Residents for More Representation, a group supporting Question C and opposing Question D. These groups are also paying for websites and online advertising. But they got off to a late start while Nine Districts has been campaigning for more than a year.

Below are all the major players who have contributed at least $10,000 to one or a combination of these ballot issue committees.

David Blair – $165,000
Supports Questions A and C, opposes Questions B and D
Businessman and former executive candidate David Blair is the number one spender on ballot questions. He has contributed $65,000 to Legget’s group opposing Questions B and D, $50,000 to his own group supporting Question A and opposing Question B, and $50,000 to Residents for More Representation, which supports Question C and opposes Question D. Blair’s positions mirror the positions taken by the county Democratic Party. (Disclosure: I have done work for Blair’s non-profit but I am not involved in his ballot question activities.)

Charlie Nulsen – $123,500
Supports Questions A, C and D, opposes Question B
Nulsen is the president of Washington Property Company. On June 4, he contributed $50,000 to Nine Districts to help get Question D on the ballot. On October 13, he contributed $23,500 to Residents for More Representation to defeat Question D. Nulsen could have saved more than $70,000 and achieved the same outcome by simply doing nothing. He also contributed $50,000 to Blair’s group supporting Question A and opposing Question B.

Monte Gingery – $40,000
Supports Question D
The head of Gingery Development Group has made three contributions totaling $40,000 to Nine Districts.

Willco – $40,000
Supports Questions C and D
On August 5, this Potomac developer gave an in-kind contribution of $15,000 to Nine Districts which was used to pay Rowland Strategies (their campaign firm). On October 9, Willco gave $25,000 to Residents for More Representation, which is seeking to pass Question C and defeat Nine Districts. Folks, you can’t make it up.

MCGEO – $30,000
Supports Question A, Opposes Question B, Gave Contribution to Question D
The Municipal and County Government Employees Organization (MCGEO) has made a $20,000 contribution to Montgomery Neighbors Against Question B and a $10,000 in-kind contribution to Nine Districts. MCGEO President Gino Renne is the treasurer of Empower PAC, which gave another $5,000 to Montgomery Neighbors Against Question B.

MCEA – $20,000
Opposes Question B
The Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA) has contributed $20,000 to Montgomery Neighbors Against Question B.

UFCW Local 400 – $10,000
Opposes Question B
This grocery store union which shares a parent union with MCGEO gave $10,000 to Montgomery Neighbors Against Question B.

The Montgomery County Democratic Party recommends voting for Questions A and C and voting against Questions B and D. The Montgomery County Republican Party recommends the exact opposite. The Washington Post editorial board opposes all four ballot questions.

Adam Pagnucco, Andrew Friedson, Robin Ficker, taxes

Friedson Floors Ficker on Taxes

October 13, 2020 Adam Pagnucco

By Adam Pagnucco.

Friends of White Flint made a huge score last week when they landed the heavyweight battle of the year, at least for MoCo tax geeks: a debate between Council Member Andrew “Real Deal” Friedson and long-time anti-tax activist Robin Ficker. Friedson and Ficker are the authors of Questions A and B, dueling tax limit charter amendments on the ballot this year. No quarter was asked and no quarter was given!

First, a reminder of what these tax questions would do. Question A (the Friedson amendment) would freeze the property tax rate and allow it to be increased only by a unanimous vote of the county council. Question B (the newest of many Ficker amendments) would allow property tax collections to rise at the rate of inflation and remove the current ability of a unanimous council to override it. Both questions impose limits on property taxes that the vast majority of Maryland counties don’t possess, although Question A would raise more money than Question B over time.

Friends of White Flint invited Friedson and Ficker to discuss their charter amendments on a Zoom meeting and they did not disappoint. Stiff jabs, hooks and uppercuts were thrown (virtually of course) as the high school linebacker and Muhammad Ali’s running partner put on a show. But Friedson threw the winning punch with this statement:

What Robin Ficker will not say, what he is not telling you, is when he repeatedly talks about that 8.7% property tax increase [in 2016] based on this ridiculous tax policy that we currently have, his property taxes, not just his tax rates, his property taxes, the literal dollars that Mr. Ficker pays today, are lower than what they were when property taxes were raised.

This is a true statement as can be verified from county records. Ficker was charged $4,920 in county property taxes on his Boyds home in 2016 and has been charged $4,723 this year, a 4% drop in his taxes. This is despite a slight increase in his property’s assessed value. Ficker’s experience demonstrates a quirk of the current property tax charter limit that his charter amendment would convert into a hard cap: because the charter limit ties revenue growth to inflation and not growth in the assessable base (which is usually higher), it can actually result in cuts to property tax rates and reductions in collections from some specific properties, including Ficker’s. Friedson argues that this deprives the county of the full tax benefits it could otherwise derive from growth and serves as a disincentive for economic development.

Ficker had no response on the issue of his county property taxes.

The full video is below.

Adam Pagnucco, campaign finance, David Blair, Ike Leggett, MCGEO, Montgomery County Council, Robin Ficker, taxes

Who is Spending Money on the Ballot Questions?

October 12, 2020 Adam Pagnucco

By Adam Pagnucco.

The six committees formed to advocate for and against MoCo’s ballot questions have filed campaign finance reports through October 4. Let’s see who is paying for all of this – so far.

First, a quick summary of the ballot questions.

Here is a summary of committee finances for the entire cycle.

Nine District for MoCo, by far the oldest committee, has raised and spent the most money. It has had far more individual contributions (252) than Ike Leggett’s Vote No on B and D (30) with no other committee reporting any. Real estate interests have accounted for 83% of Nine District’s cash contributions. Interestingly, while Washington Property Company president Charlie Nulsen and the three county employee unions were major Nine District contributors in prior reports, they have not contributed any more since July. Nine District has collected contributions from leaders of the county’s Republican Party, which has raised money for the group on its website. The group has spent money on fees for Baltimore consultant Rowland Strategies, legal fees, robocalls and advertising (especially on Facebook).

Vote No on B & D, Leggett’s committee, spent $9,610 on graphic design for printing and campaign materials and $58,437 on direct mailing. So far, this is the only expenditure by any committee on mail. (Where’s my mailer, Ike?) Two other committees have collected money but not spent it and two more have collected less than $1,000.

Here are the biggest contributors to these committees and their positions on the ballot questions.

David Blair – $100,000
Supports Question A, Opposes Questions B and D
The former county executive candidate has given $50,000 each to Leggett’s group opposing Questions B and D and his own group supporting Question A and opposing Question B.

Charlie Nulsen – $50,000
Supports Question D
The president of Washington Property Company made one $50,000 contribution to Nine District for MoCo on 6/4/20. This was a critical boost for the group as it was in the home stretch of gathering signatures to appear on the ballot.

Monte Gingery – $40,000
Supports Question D
The head of Gingery Development Group has made three contributions totaling $40,000 to Nine District for MoCo.

MCGEO – $30,000
Opposes Question B, Supports Question D
The largest county government employee union gave $20,000 to Montgomery Neighbors Against Question B and made a $10,000 in-kind contribution to Nine District for MoCo. MCGEO President Gino Renne is the treasurer of Empower PAC, which gave another $5,000 to Montgomery Neighbors Against Question B.

Willco – $15,000
Supports Question D
The Potomac developer gave an in-kind contribution of $15,000 to Nine District for MoCo which was used to pay Rowland Strategies.

UFCW Local 400 – $10,000
Opposes Question B
This grocery store union which shares a parent union with MCGEO gave $10,000 to Montgomery Neighbors Against Question B.

David Blair, taxes

New Ad Supports Question A

October 9, 2020 Adam Pagnucco

By Adam Pagnucco.

Montgomery Countians for Question A & Against Question B, a ballot issue committee headed by David Blair, has announced its first ad. The ad and accompanying press release appear below.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 7, 2020

Scott Goldberg
Montgomery Countians for Question A & Against Question B
Scott@AistheAnswer.com

PRO QUESTION A & ANTI QUESTION B EFFORT LAUNCHES

Group Headed by David Blair Announces First Round of Ads Supporting Fiscal Responsibility

Montgomery Countians For Question A & Against Question B is spearheading a significant campaign to pass Question A and oppose Question B on citizens’ ballots this fall. A broad spectrum of growing groups and individuals share this policy position including the Greater Capital Area Association of REALTORS® (GCAAR), Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teachers Association, Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce, Montgomery County Education Association, the Montgomery County Democratic Party, Jews United for Justice, the Sierra Club, SEIU Local 500, all 8 State Senators and 32 Delegates representing Montgomery County, State Treasurer Nancy Kopp, and former Republican Councilmember Howie Denis.

Enacting Question A is a fix to our broken property tax system. “I strongly support Question A. This common-sense measure will set a consistent property tax rate so we can adequately plan to fund our schools, parks, and libraries,” according to David Blair, Chair of the Council for Advocacy and Policy Solutions and the ballot issue committee. State Treasurer Nancy Kopp has this to say: “Montgomery County is the gold standard in this country when it comes to public finances because our leaders make thoughtful, reasoned decisions. Question A continues allows county officials to balance budget stability, fiscal responsibility, and financial flexibility in a crisis. Question B would endanger Montgomery County’s financial well-being, threatening our triple AAA bond rating and creating instability for future budgets.” GCAAR has been working in close collaboration and their 2020 President, Danai Mattison Sky, says “Question A would modernize the property tax charter limit allowing for proper, measured growth in the county. Question B would threaten the financial stability of our county and endanger our AAA bond rating. GCAAR is proud to stand For Question A and Against Question B.”

In the coming days, the Committee will release digital ads, a social media plan including Facebook (@QAistheAnswer), Twitter (@AistheAnswer), and Instagram (@QAistheAnswer), direct mail and launch a website which can be found at www.AistheAnswer.com.

#

Adam Pagnucco, taxes

State Audit: Thousands of MoCo Homeowners Overcharged on Property Taxes

October 9, 2020 Adam Pagnucco

By Adam Pagnucco.

The state’s Office of Legislative Audits (OLA), which is part of the General Assembly’s Department of Legislative Services, is one of the most useful offices in all of state government. Its many audits of state agencies are often must-reads for those who care about the proper functioning of government. And this week, OLA dropped a bombshell:

Because of mistakes made by the state in calculating homeowner tax credits, thousands of MoCo homeowners have been overcharged on their property taxes.

In most states, local governments assess property values, send property tax bills and handle appeals. Maryland uses a hybrid system in which the State Department of Assessments and Taxation (DAT) calculates assessments and tax credit values which the local governments use when they send tax bills. The state handles appeals.

OLA audits agencies all over state government. On October 5, OLA released an audit of DAT that contained many troubling findings. Of most significance is its finding that a mistake in calculating homeowner tax credits resulted in thousands of MoCo homeowners being “improperly” – yes, that’s the word OLA used – overcharged on taxes.

OLA’s Finding 5 starts with this statement.

DAT did not ensure HTCs [homeowner tax credits] were properly calculated. As a result, HTCs awarded to thousands of homeowners in certain jurisdictions were improperly reduced by at least $4.4 million in fiscal year 2019. Most HTCs are calculated automatically by DAT’s automated system based on applicant income data entered in the system by DAT employees. Certain HTCs are calculated manually by DAT employees when a homeowner does not receive an individual real property tax bill (such as in the case of a housing cooperative) or for new home purchases where the tax credit must be prorated for less than a year.

The improper HTC calculations that we address in this finding were the result of DAT’s incorrect treatment of certain additional tax credits offered by certain local jurisdictions. Because each local jurisdiction may or may not provide its residents with other tax credits, which are in addition to the HTC provided for in State law and are paid for by the State, each jurisdiction could be impacted differently or not at all by this finding.

Let’s recall that Montgomery County offers MANY property tax credits and exemptions.

OLA continues:

DAT did not periodically review the programming of its automated system to verify that it was calculating HTCs in an accurate manner and in accordance with the law. As a result, DAT was not aware that it had incorrectly programmed the system and that HTCs for residents of at least one jurisdiction (Montgomery County) were not being calculated consistent with the law as further described below…

DAT’s automated system improperly deducted the income tax offset credit (ITOC) administered by Montgomery County from homeowners’ State and County real property tax liabilities, resulting in the HTCs awarded to homeowners in Montgomery County being improperly reduced. Specifically, individual homeowners under the age of 65 had their State and County HTCs improperly reduced by amounts up to a total of $692, and homeowners at least 65 years old had their HTCs reduced by amounts up to a total of $1,038. Based on our analysis of HTC applications processed in DAT’s automated system for Montgomery County residents in fiscal year 2019, the improper reduction of homeowners’ tax liabilities resulted in reduced HTCs awarded to 5,388 applicants totaling $4.4 million. We determined that, based on the automated system’s programming for Montgomery County, DAT improperly calculated HTCs dating back to at least 2005 in the same manner. We could not readily determine the amount by which HTCs were improperly reduced for years prior to fiscal year 2019…

DAT received advice from its legal counsel on January 23, 2019 that confirmed our determination that DAT’s HTC methodology commented upon above was incorrect.

OLA offers this example of DAT’s miscalculation of the homeowner tax credit.

As the above example shows, the state’s miscalculation of the homeowner tax credit increases the homeowner’s tax liability, resulting in an overcharge on property tax bills. One of OLA’s recommendations was that DAT “consult with legal counsel on how to proceed regarding any refunds resulting from the HTC miscalculations including the $4.4 million noted above.”

DAT (which refers to itself as SDAT) was not having any talk of refunds. DAT responded:

SDAT disagrees with the sentiment of impropriety in the statement “HTCs awarded to thousands of homeowners in certain jurisdictions were improperly reduced by at least $4.4 million.” Before OLA began their audit, SDAT made a policy determination that increased the amount of tax credits received by certain jurisdictions in future years. Subsequent conversations with SDAT’s Assistant Attorney General confirmed that this is the appropriate course of action moving forward, but the Department does not feel as though prior year calculations were inaccurate as they were consistent with the Department’s practice at the time and implicitly upheld by PTAAB and Maryland Tax Court decisions.

OLA shot back:

DAT’s statement that the PTAAB and the Maryland Tax Court “implicitly upheld” the specific calculation method we addressed in our report is not consistent with its position during our audit fieldwork or subsequent to the audit when we discussed the finding with DAT management. Furthermore, the statement is questionable since the specific calculation method we addressed was demonstrably improper, and our assessment that the calculation method was improper was consistent with advice DAT received from its legal counsel in January 2019 as noted in our report.

So the two agencies are deadlocked. OLA can’t force DAT to give anyone any refunds. But the General Assembly can and OLA is an arm of the legislature.

MoCo’s 8 state senators and 24 delegates need to get all over this like white on rice. Government bureaucrats don’t get to screw up, get caught and then say, “Sorry, we’re keeping the money.” If OLA’s findings hold up, our delegation must ensure that any MoCo homeowners who were overcharged must be identified and paid refunds.

Ike Leggett, taxes

Leggett Responds to Seventh State on Question B and School Funding

October 7, 2020 Adam Pagnucco

By Adam Pagnucco.

Former County Executive Ike Leggett sent us the following statement about this morning’s post on Question B and school funding.

*****

Thanks to Seventh State for providing a public service by describing the state maintenance of effort law on school funding (“Would Question B Harm Schools?”). You accurately conclude: “… the bottom line is that Question B would do far less to hurt MCPS than the rest of county government.” Trust me, no one understands that point more than I do. As County Executive, I had to make deep cuts to county government to get us through the great recession of a decade ago. The fact that Question B would harm the county government more than it would harm the schools does not make the case that Question B would not harm the schools. Your article confirms the point that Bruce Adams and I have made that Robin Ficker’s Question B could harm our schools and public services. I urge Montgomery voters to vote against Question B.

Adam Pagnucco, budget, MCPS, taxes

Would Question B Harm Schools?

October 7, 2020 Adam Pagnucco

By Adam Pagnucco.

One of the key claims made by some opponents of Question B (Robin Ficker’s latest charter amendment on taxes) is that it will harm schools by limiting growth in property tax revenues. For example, former County Council Member Bruce Adams wrote on Maryland Matters: “Ficker’s amendment would not let even a unanimous council act to preserve our quality schools and services.” Former County Executive Ike Leggett also told MCM in an interview that it could “certainly impact schools.”

Is that true?

First, let’s remember what Question B would actually do. Right now, the county charter limits annual growth in property tax receipts to the rate of inflation (with a few exceptions) unless the county council unanimously votes to go over the limit. The last time that happened was in 2016, when the council voted to increase property taxes by 8.7%. Question B would remove the ability of the council to exceed the limit, thereby imposing an absolute cap on property tax revenue growth at the rate of inflation. (Question A, a competing tax limit charter amendment authored by Council Member Andrew Friedson, would raise far more revenue than Question B over time.) Because of Question B’s limit on revenue growth, some opponents criticize it for potentially damaging many different kinds of county services, including schools.

But school funding is different from most other kinds of funding when it comes to charter limits. The reason for that lies in a fight between the counties and the state back in 2012. At that time, the counties were struggling with the budgetary effects of the Great Recession and several of them had cut local per pupil school funding below the floor established by the state. The state responded by passing SB 848, which made a number of changes to the state’s maintenance of effort law on school funding. One of them allowed counties to circumvent their charter limits to fund school budgets. (State law preempts county charters.) The exact language of this part of the bill, which is now contained in Md. Education Code Ann. § 5-104(d)(1), reads:

Notwithstanding any provision of a county charter that places a limit on that county’s property tax rate or revenues and subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, a county governing body may set a property tax rate that is higher than the rate authorized under the county’s charter or collect more property tax revenues than the revenues authorized under the county’s charter for the sole purpose of funding the approved budget of the county board.

That means that a county can exceed its charter limit for the purpose of funding its school budget. A majority of county council votes are all that is required to raise property taxes for MCPS’s operating budget regardless of what MoCo voters put in the charter.

Five counties in Maryland have charter limits on property taxes: Anne Arundel, Montgomery, Prince George’s, Talbot and Wicomico. Since the maintenance of effort law was changed in 2012, three of them – Anne Arundel, Prince George’s and Talbot – took advantage of their new authority under state law to circumvent their charter limits and raise taxes for schools. (Talbot did it three times.) Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich proposed doing the same in his FY21 recommended budget, but the council rejected his tax hike. (It’s not a coincidence that then-budget director and current Chief Administrative Officer Rich Madaleno was one of the architects of the school funding exemption when he was in the State Senate.)

There are two ways in which Question B would indirectly affect MCPS. First, property taxes are a major source of revenue to pay off debt service, which is required to finance bonds issued for school construction. If reduced growth in property taxes impacts debt service, MCPS’s capital budget could become tighter. Property taxes also generate cash that goes into some school capital spending (like technology modernization). Second, county departments outside MCPS contribute ancillary services that benefit the schools. Examples include health and human services (school health nurses, health room technicians, childhood wellness, linkages to learning), police (crossing guards and school resource officers), libraries (research and internet resources) and recreation (sports academies). These services are not inside MCPS’s local appropriation and would be impacted by Question B.

Over time, Question B if passed would probably result in two pots of property tax money – one exclusively for the MCPS operating budget requiring a majority of council votes to increase, and another for everything else with growth capped at inflation. Smart people like Madaleno and the county’s budget analysts can figure out how to move money around to avoid the worst effects of this. Question B would still be a challenge to the county’s finances, a distortion to its budget process and an impediment to funding police, fire service, parks, libraries, road maintenance and more. That’s reason enough to vote against it. But the bottom line is that Question B would do far less to hurt MCPS than the rest of county government.

Andrew Friedson, Ike Leggett, Judicial Elections, MCEA, MCPS, Montgomery County Council, police, Robin Ficker, taxes, washington post

Leggett Speaks Against Questions B and D

October 2, 2020 Adam Pagnucco

By Adam Pagnucco.

Former County Executive Ike Leggett, who is chairing a ballot question committee opposing Question B (Robin Ficker’s tax limiting charter amendment) and Question D (a charter amendment for nine council districts), gave the interview below to MCM. Leggett previously wrote a guest blog for Seventh State on the subject.

Chamber of Commerce, Montgomery County Council, Robin Ficker, taxes

County Chamber of Commerce Takes Positions on Ballot Questions

September 30, 2020 Adam Pagnucco

By Adam Pagnucco.

The Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce has announced that it is supporting Question A (Council Member Andrew Friedson’s tax limit charter amendment), opposing Question B (Robin Ficker’s tax limit charter amendment) and opposing Question D (nine council districts). The chamber took no position on Question C, which would keep the at-large council members and create two new district seats. The chamber’s press release is reprinted below.

*****

MCCC Board of Directors Votes to Oppose Questions B and D, Supports Question A
View the Official Sample Ballot

At its September meeting, the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce (MCCC) Board of Directors voted for its positions on the Montgomery County ballot questions for the 2020 General Election.

“There is so much at stake on the ballot in this year’s election,” said Gigi Godwin, President and CEO of the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce. “The County ballot questions could potentially have long-lasting impacts for Metro Maryland’s residents and businesses.”

The MCCC Board of Directors recommends the following:

Vote FOR Question A – The Chamber strongly supports this change to the County’s tax policy by establishing a cap on the property tax rate instead of the total revenue that the County can receive. Importantly, Question A keeps the requirement an affirmative vote by all Councilmembers, as is currently required to raise the revenue limit.

Vote AGAINST Question B – Question B risks the County’s ability to respond to emergencies and could compromise the Triple-A bond rating which would increase borrowing costs by substantially.

“Question A is a strong solution to Montgomery County’s broken property tax system that promotes more transparency and understanding,” said Lowell Yoder, MCCC Board Chair. “It sets a consistent tax rate each year and is straightforward, as tax policy should be. By simply keeping tax rates stable, the County would generate tens of millions of dollars in revenue over time, without even raising taxes to do so.”

Vote AGAINST Question D – The Chamber strongly opposes moving to a nine district County Council. Currently, Montgomery County residents are represented by a majority of the Council (five votes): one district member and four at-large members. Question D would eliminate this majority representation.

“Question D arose out of frustration by the lack of Upcounty representation,” stated Leslie Ford Weber, MCCC Immediate Past Chair and Legislative Committee Chair. “The Chamber fully appreciates and acknowledges the need for fair representation on the Council; however, this proposed change is not the way to go about it.”

Currently, the Chamber is not issuing a recommendation on Question C or the statewide ballot initiatives.

Seventh State

Tag Archives: property taxes

MoCo Ballot Issue Committee Campaign Finances, October 18

Friedson Floors Ficker on Taxes

Who is Spending Money on the Ballot Questions?

New Ad Supports Question A

#

State Audit: Thousands of MoCo Homeowners Overcharged on Property Taxes

Leggett Responds to Seventh State on Question B and School Funding

Would Question B Harm Schools?

Top Seventh State Stories, September 2020

Leggett Speaks Against Questions B and D

County Chamber of Commerce Takes Positions on Ballot Questions

Maryland Politics Watch