GO Item 1
May 4, 2017
Worksession
MEMORANDUM
May 2,2017
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee
Robert H. Drummer, Senior Legislative
Attomey~
Worksession:
BilllO-17, Recordation Tax - Rates ­ Amendments
Bill 10-17, Recordation Tax - Rates - Amendments, by Lead Sponsor Councilmember
Eirich and Co-sponsor Councilmember Leventhal, was introduced on April 4. A public hearing
was held on April 25.
Bill 10-17 would modify the recordation tax rates levied under state law for certain
transactions.
Background
The "Recordation Tax Premium" went into effect in 2008. Bill 15-16, enacted on May 18,
2016, increased the Premium rate from $1.55 to $2.30/$500. Unlike the two elements of the base
rate paid on all transactions, the Premium applies only to the cost of a property or a refinancing
that is more than $500,000. Half of the proceeds from the Premium are allocated to County
Government capital projects (i.e., capital projects of departments in the Executive Branch); the
other half is for rent assistance for low and moderate income households.
Bill 10-17 would reduce the Premium for transactions that are more than $500,000 but less
than $1,000,000 from 2.30 to $1.55/$500. The Bill would increase the Premium for transactions
that are more than $1,000,000 but less than $2,000,000 from $2.30 to $2.55/$500. The Bill would
also increase the Premium for transactions that are more than $2,000,000 from $2.30 to
$3.55/$500.
Public Hearing
The lone speaker, Peg Mancuso, representing the Greater Capital Area Association of
Realtors, supported the Bill to the extent it lowers the premium recordation
tax
rate on transactions
greater than $500,000 and less than $1 million. See ©5-6. Ms. Mancuso also recommended that
the Bill be amended to lower all recordation tax rates.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Issues
1.
What is the fiscal and economic impact of the Bill?
The goal of the Lead Sponsor, Councilmember EIrich, is to change the premium rates for
transactions valued at more than $500,000 so that transactions valued at more than $1 million
would be charged a higher tax rate than transactions valued at less than $1 million. The intent of
the Bill is to make this change without changing the total amount of recordation tax revenue
received by the County. However, the tax rates in the Bill have not been verified to be revenue
neutral.
Finance has been analyzing these tax rates, but has not yet been able to complete its
analysis. The Department of Finance analysts need to use State assessment records for multiple
years to determine an estimate of the total revenue. They had not completed their analysis when
this packet went to print. Representatives from the Department of Finance are expected to attend
the worksession to explain their work to date.
2. Would the Bill increase the volatility of recordation tax revenue received each year?
Recordation tax is charged on real property transactions. The total revenue depends upon
the total number of transactions completed in each fiscal year. Historically, the number of smaller
transactions below each year varies less than the number oflarger transactions. To the extent that
more revenue is derived from the largest commercial transactions, the total revenue received each
fiscal year is likely to vary more.
3. Is action on this Bill necessary for the Council to complete its budget decisions for FY18?
If the final tax rates adopted in the Bill are estimated to produce the same revenue as the
current tax rates, then there should be no change in the revenue or expenses for FYI8. Therefore,
the Council can delay a decision on Bill 10-17 until Finance completes its analysis of the actual
rates necessary to remain revenue neutral. If the Council decides to increase or decrease the total
revenue received from the recordation tax, the Bill should be acted on prior to finalizing the FYI8
budget.
4. Technical amendment.
The Bill, as introduced, inadvertently left no premium tax for transactions valued at
$1,000,000 or at $2,000,000. Council staff recommends the following technical amendment to
implement the intent of the Bill:
Amend lines 13-20 as follows:
(2)
if the consideration payable or principal amount of debt secured exceeds
$500,000[,t
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
(A)
an additional [$2.30] $1.55 for each $500 or fraction of $500 of the
amount over $500,000 but less than $1,000,000[,];
@
an additional $2.55 for each $500 or fraction of $500 of the amount
equal to or more than [[over]] $1,000,000 but less than $2,000,000;
and
{Q
an additional $3.55 for each $500 or fraction of $500 of the amount
equal to or more than [[over]] $2,000,000.
This packet contains:
Bill
10-17
Legislative Request Report
GCAAR Testimony
F:\LAw\BILLS\171 0 Recordation Tax Rates - Amendments\GO Memo.Docx
Circle
#
1
4
5
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
-:------::::-:------:--.---=1~0-....:.1..:...7=___:-­
Concerning: Recordation Tax - Rates ­
Amendments
Revised: April 7,
2017
Draft No. =.3_ _
Introduced:
April
4, 2017
Expires:
October
4,2018
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: -:------:-:---_ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date:
---.!..!.No~n:?:e=_:_____:~-~---:-_
Ch.
~,
Laws of Mont. Co.
[year]
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
Lead Sponsor: Councilmember EIrich
Co-sponsor: Councilmember Leventhal
AN
ACT to:
(1)
(2)
modify the recordation
tax
rates levied under state law for certain transactions; and
generally amend the law governing the recordation
tax
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 52, Taxation
Section 52-16B
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
* * *
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deletedfrom existing law by original bill.
Added by amendment.
Deletedfrom existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 10-17
1
Sec. 1. Section 52-16B is amended as follows:
52-16B. Recordation Tax.
(
a)
2
3
4
Rates.
The rates and the allocations of the recordation tax, levied under
Md. Tax-Property Code §§12-101 to 12-118, as amended, are:
5
6
7
(1)
for each $500 or fraction of $500 of consideration payable or of
the principal amount of the debt secured for an instrument of
writing, including the amount of any mortgage or deed of trust
assumed by a grantee;
(A) $2.08, of which the net revenue must be reserved for and
allocated to the County general fund; and
(B) $2.37, of which the net revenue must be reserved for and
allocated to the cost ofcapital improvements to schools; and
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
(2)
if the consideration payable or principal amount of debt secured
exceeds $500,000[,t
(A) an additional [$2.30] $1.55 for each $500 or fraction of$500
of the amount over $500,000 but less than
$I,OOO,OOO[,]~
15
16
17
18
.em
{Q
an additional $2.55 for each $500 or fraction of $500 of the
amount over $1,000,000 but less than $2,000,000; and
an additional $3.55 for each $500 or fraction of$500 of the
amount over $2,000,000.
19
20
21
ill
The net revenue from the premiums payable under paragraph
ill
[of which the net revenue] must be reserved for and allocated
equally to:
(A) the cost of County government capital improvements; and
(B) rent assistance for low and moderate income households,
which must not be used to supplant any otherwise available
funds.
22
23
24
25
26
27
®
f:\law\bills\1710 recordation tax rates - amendments\biIl3.docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 10-17
28
29
(b)
Exemption.
The first $100,000 of the consideration payable on the
conveyance of any owner-occupied residential property is exempt from
the recordation tax if the buyer of that property is an individual and
intends to use the property as the buyer's principal residence by actually
occupying the residence for at least 7 months of the 12-month period
immediately after the property is conveyed.
Sec. 2. Effective Date.
This Act must apply to any transaction which occurs on or after September 1,
2017.
Approved:
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Roger Berliner, President, County Council
Date
39
Approved:
40
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
Date
41
This is a correct copy o/Council action.
42
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk ofthe Council
Date
tD
f:\Iaw\bills\1710 recordation tax rates - amendments\bill 3.docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill 10-17
Recordation Tax
-
Rates
-
Amendments
DESCRIPTION:
Bill 10-17 would modify the recordation tax rates levied under state
law for transactions that are more than $500,000.
The premium rate for transactions that are more than $500,000 but
less than $1,000,000 is high. The revenue loss from lowering this
premium rate can be made up by increasing the premium rate for
transactions that are more than $1,000,000.
The goal is to lower the premium rate for transactions that are less
than $1,000,000.
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
Office of Management and Budget, Finance
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
To be detennined.
N/A
N/A
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
Robert H. Drummer, Senior Legislative Attorney
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIP ALITIES:
applicable
PENALTIES:
N/A
F:\LAW\BILLS\171 0 Recordation Tax Rates - Arnendments\LRR.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
TESTIMONY OF
THE GREATER CAPITAL AREA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®
BEFORE THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL ON
Bill 10-17,
"Recordation Tax-Rates and Amendments"
April 25, 2017
This testimony is on behalf of the Greater Capital Area Association ofREALTORS®. GCAAR
represents nearly 10,000 REALTORS® and real estate professionals. We are also the voice for
thousands
of buyers, sellers and homeowners. GCAAR appreciates the Council revisiting the
issue of possible ways to lower recordation taxes, and we support lowering recordation taxes
from $500k to under $1 m within Bill 10-17.1
Overall, GCAAR maintains a commitment to the inherent value of homeownership and the
consistent positive force
it
has in our communities. We believe homeownership is the best
opportunity for people to securely plant their roots into Montgomery County, maintain stability
and gain financial freedom. In the long term, homeowners across the economic spectmm \\111
contribute immensely to Montgomery County's revenue streams via the taxes they pay andlc:ical
businesses they support. This leads to greater resources for social services, transportation and
schools- to name a few.
Unfortunately, the rising cost of housing in the County have made it unaffordable for most
residents to purchase a home, especially in comparison to other local jurisdictions. GCAAR has
been seriously concerned that instead making homeownership viable, all we have seen over the
past few years are initiatives that move us further from this goal.
GCAAR must emphasize, If the recordation tax rate structure has mOre than the current number of tiers,
this may pose certain technical necessities that would need to be put in place by our industry to properly
administer the rates. GCAAR would like to have a more detailed conversation about ensuring accurate
implementation ora multi-tiered system with the Council and members of the real estate community on tbese
technical issues such as a later implementation date to allow the industry to make any necessary changes.
I
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Specifically, I came before you last when this Council pushed through a nearly $200 million
recordation tax increase on homeownership in less than a month's time. To make matters worse,
the County's recordation taxes were already amongst the
highest in the country.
That surge in
tax rates presented immediate challenges to residents across the County, particularly those first­
time homebuyers who already found themselves having immense difficulty putting together their
final closing costs.
Today, we find ourselves evaluating a Bill whose effect would be to nominally reduce and return
the recordation tax rate to its' previous level prior to last year's increase for transactions more
than $500,000 but less than $1,000,000. We approximate this group the measure would reduce':'
their recordation tax costs by a couple hundred dollars.
As we often stress, while a few hundred dollars may not seem like much for lawmakers dealing-;
with millions of tax dollars, this adds up very quickly for working families. In fact, the down
payment is often the greatest impediment for homeownership. GCAAR is supportive of the part
of Bill 10-17 that lowers recordation taxes from $500k to under $lm because we firmly believe::
this relatively small benefit could have a worthy impact. The folks who are now tapping into the
last of their savings could find relief in saving even a small amount of additional dollars.
Further, we recommend lowering recordation taxes for future homeowners across the board.
GCAAR is able and willing to sit down and work with you and any another other interested
school stakeholders on finding funding mechanisms for our most critical priorities such as
MCPS. If the County needs more revenue, we can all work together on broader solutions.
In conclusion, GCAAR respectfully asks you to lower the high cost of the Montgomery County's
recordation taxes to make homeownership more attainable. Specifically, we believe returning
the rate to what it was previously for/recordation taxes at the $500k to under $lm price point is a
positive start.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
GO Item 1
May 4, 2017
Worksession
MEMORANDUM
May 2,2017
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee
Robert H. Drummer, Senior Legislative
Attomey~
Worksession:
BilllO-17, Recordation Tax - Rates ­ Amendments
Bill 10-17, Recordation Tax - Rates - Amendments, by Lead Sponsor Councilmember
Eirich and Co-sponsor Councilmember Leventhal, was introduced on April 4. A public hearing
was held on April 25.
Bill 10-17 would modify the recordation tax rates levied under state law for certain
transactions.
Background
The "Recordation Tax Premium" went into effect in 2008. Bill 15-16, enacted on May 18,
2016, increased the Premium rate from $1.55 to $2.30/$500. Unlike the two elements of the base
rate paid on all transactions, the Premium applies only to the cost of a property or a refinancing
that is more than $500,000. Half of the proceeds from the Premium are allocated to County
Government capital projects (i.e., capital projects of departments in the Executive Branch); the
other half is for rent assistance for low and moderate income households.
Bill 10-17 would reduce the Premium for transactions that are more than $500,000 but less
than $1,000,000 from 2.30 to $1.55/$500. The Bill would increase the Premium for transactions
that are more than $1,000,000 but less than $2,000,000 from $2.30 to $2.55/$500. The Bill would
also increase the Premium for transactions that are more than $2,000,000 from $2.30 to
$3.55/$500.
Public Hearing
The lone speaker, Peg Mancuso, representing the Greater Capital Area Association of
Realtors, supported the Bill to the extent it lowers the premium recordation
tax
rate on transactions
greater than $500,000 and less than $1 million. See ©5-6. Ms. Mancuso also recommended that
the Bill be amended to lower all recordation tax rates.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Issues
1.
What is the fiscal and economic impact of the Bill?
The goal of the Lead Sponsor, Councilmember EIrich, is to change the premium rates for
transactions valued at more than $500,000 so that transactions valued at more than $1 million
would be charged a higher tax rate than transactions valued at less than $1 million. The intent of
the Bill is to make this change without changing the total amount of recordation tax revenue
received by the County. However, the tax rates in the Bill have not been verified to be revenue
neutral.
Finance has been analyzing these tax rates, but has not yet been able to complete its
analysis. The Department of Finance analysts need to use State assessment records for multiple
years to determine an estimate of the total revenue. They had not completed their analysis when
this packet went to print. Representatives from the Department of Finance are expected to attend
the worksession to explain their work to date.
2. Would the Bill increase the volatility of recordation tax revenue received each year?
Recordation tax is charged on real property transactions. The total revenue depends upon
the total number of transactions completed in each fiscal year. Historically, the number of smaller
transactions below each year varies less than the number oflarger transactions. To the extent that
more revenue is derived from the largest commercial transactions, the total revenue received each
fiscal year is likely to vary more.
3. Is action on this Bill necessary for the Council to complete its budget decisions for FY18?
If the final tax rates adopted in the Bill are estimated to produce the same revenue as the
current tax rates, then there should be no change in the revenue or expenses for FYI8. Therefore,
the Council can delay a decision on Bill 10-17 until Finance completes its analysis of the actual
rates necessary to remain revenue neutral. If the Council decides to increase or decrease the total
revenue received from the recordation tax, the Bill should be acted on prior to finalizing the FYI8
budget.
4. Technical amendment.
The Bill, as introduced, inadvertently left no premium tax for transactions valued at
$1,000,000 or at $2,000,000. Council staff recommends the following technical amendment to
implement the intent of the Bill:
Amend lines 13-20 as follows:
(2)
if the consideration payable or principal amount of debt secured exceeds
$500,000[,t
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
(A)
an additional [$2.30] $1.55 for each $500 or fraction of $500 of the
amount over $500,000 but less than $1,000,000[,];
@
an additional $2.55 for each $500 or fraction of $500 of the amount
equal to or more than [[over]] $1,000,000 but less than $2,000,000;
and
{Q
an additional $3.55 for each $500 or fraction of $500 of the amount
equal to or more than [[over]] $2,000,000.
This packet contains:
Bill
10-17
Legislative Request Report
GCAAR Testimony
F:\LAw\BILLS\171 0 Recordation Tax Rates - Amendments\GO Memo.Docx
Circle
#
1
4
5
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
-:------::::-:------:--.---=1~0-....:.1..:...7=___:-­
Concerning: Recordation Tax - Rates ­
Amendments
Revised: April 7,
2017
Draft No. =.3_ _
Introduced:
April
4, 2017
Expires:
October
4,2018
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: -:------:-:---_ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date:
---.!..!.No~n:?:e=_:_____:~-~---:-_
Ch.
~,
Laws of Mont. Co.
[year]
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
Lead Sponsor: Councilmember EIrich
Co-sponsor: Councilmember Leventhal
AN
ACT to:
(1)
(2)
modify the recordation
tax
rates levied under state law for certain transactions; and
generally amend the law governing the recordation
tax
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 52, Taxation
Section 52-16B
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
* * *
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deletedfrom existing law by original bill.
Added by amendment.
Deletedfrom existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 10-17
1
Sec. 1. Section 52-16B is amended as follows:
52-16B. Recordation Tax.
(
a)
2
3
4
Rates.
The rates and the allocations of the recordation tax, levied under
Md. Tax-Property Code §§12-101 to 12-118, as amended, are:
5
6
7
(1)
for each $500 or fraction of $500 of consideration payable or of
the principal amount of the debt secured for an instrument of
writing, including the amount of any mortgage or deed of trust
assumed by a grantee;
(A) $2.08, of which the net revenue must be reserved for and
allocated to the County general fund; and
(B) $2.37, of which the net revenue must be reserved for and
allocated to the cost ofcapital improvements to schools; and
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
(2)
if the consideration payable or principal amount of debt secured
exceeds $500,000[,t
(A) an additional [$2.30] $1.55 for each $500 or fraction of$500
of the amount over $500,000 but less than
$I,OOO,OOO[,]~
15
16
17
18
.em
{Q
an additional $2.55 for each $500 or fraction of $500 of the
amount over $1,000,000 but less than $2,000,000; and
an additional $3.55 for each $500 or fraction of$500 of the
amount over $2,000,000.
19
20
21
ill
The net revenue from the premiums payable under paragraph
ill
[of which the net revenue] must be reserved for and allocated
equally to:
(A) the cost of County government capital improvements; and
(B) rent assistance for low and moderate income households,
which must not be used to supplant any otherwise available
funds.
22
23
24
25
26
27
®
f:\law\bills\1710 recordation tax rates - amendments\biIl3.docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 10-17
28
29
(b)
Exemption.
The first $100,000 of the consideration payable on the
conveyance of any owner-occupied residential property is exempt from
the recordation tax if the buyer of that property is an individual and
intends to use the property as the buyer's principal residence by actually
occupying the residence for at least 7 months of the 12-month period
immediately after the property is conveyed.
Sec. 2. Effective Date.
This Act must apply to any transaction which occurs on or after September 1,
2017.
Approved:
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Roger Berliner, President, County Council
Date
39
Approved:
40
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
Date
41
This is a correct copy o/Council action.
42
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk ofthe Council
Date
tD
f:\Iaw\bills\1710 recordation tax rates - amendments\bill 3.docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill 10-17
Recordation Tax
-
Rates
-
Amendments
DESCRIPTION:
Bill 10-17 would modify the recordation tax rates levied under state
law for transactions that are more than $500,000.
The premium rate for transactions that are more than $500,000 but
less than $1,000,000 is high. The revenue loss from lowering this
premium rate can be made up by increasing the premium rate for
transactions that are more than $1,000,000.
The goal is to lower the premium rate for transactions that are less
than $1,000,000.
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
Office of Management and Budget, Finance
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
To be detennined.
N/A
N/A
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
Robert H. Drummer, Senior Legislative Attorney
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIP ALITIES:
applicable
PENALTIES:
N/A
F:\LAW\BILLS\171 0 Recordation Tax Rates - Arnendments\LRR.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
TESTIMONY OF
THE GREATER CAPITAL AREA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®
BEFORE THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL ON
Bill 10-17,
"Recordation Tax-Rates and Amendments"
April 25, 2017
This testimony is on behalf of the Greater Capital Area Association ofREALTORS®. GCAAR
represents nearly 10,000 REALTORS® and real estate professionals. We are also the voice for
thousands
of buyers, sellers and homeowners. GCAAR appreciates the Council revisiting the
issue of possible ways to lower recordation taxes, and we support lowering recordation taxes
from $500k to under $1 m within Bill 10-17.1
Overall, GCAAR maintains a commitment to the inherent value of homeownership and the
consistent positive force
it
has in our communities. We believe homeownership is the best
opportunity for people to securely plant their roots into Montgomery County, maintain stability
and gain financial freedom. In the long term, homeowners across the economic spectmm \\111
contribute immensely to Montgomery County's revenue streams via the taxes they pay andlc:ical
businesses they support. This leads to greater resources for social services, transportation and
schools- to name a few.
Unfortunately, the rising cost of housing in the County have made it unaffordable for most
residents to purchase a home, especially in comparison to other local jurisdictions. GCAAR has
been seriously concerned that instead making homeownership viable, all we have seen over the
past few years are initiatives that move us further from this goal.
GCAAR must emphasize, If the recordation tax rate structure has mOre than the current number of tiers,
this may pose certain technical necessities that would need to be put in place by our industry to properly
administer the rates. GCAAR would like to have a more detailed conversation about ensuring accurate
implementation ora multi-tiered system with the Council and members of the real estate community on tbese
technical issues such as a later implementation date to allow the industry to make any necessary changes.
I
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Specifically, I came before you last when this Council pushed through a nearly $200 million
recordation tax increase on homeownership in less than a month's time. To make matters worse,
the County's recordation taxes were already amongst the
highest in the country.
That surge in
tax rates presented immediate challenges to residents across the County, particularly those first­
time homebuyers who already found themselves having immense difficulty putting together their
final closing costs.
Today, we find ourselves evaluating a Bill whose effect would be to nominally reduce and return
the recordation tax rate to its' previous level prior to last year's increase for transactions more
than $500,000 but less than $1,000,000. We approximate this group the measure would reduce':'
their recordation tax costs by a couple hundred dollars.
As we often stress, while a few hundred dollars may not seem like much for lawmakers dealing-;
with millions of tax dollars, this adds up very quickly for working families. In fact, the down
payment is often the greatest impediment for homeownership. GCAAR is supportive of the part
of Bill 10-17 that lowers recordation taxes from $500k to under $lm because we firmly believe::
this relatively small benefit could have a worthy impact. The folks who are now tapping into the
last of their savings could find relief in saving even a small amount of additional dollars.
Further, we recommend lowering recordation taxes for future homeowners across the board.
GCAAR is able and willing to sit down and work with you and any another other interested
school stakeholders on finding funding mechanisms for our most critical priorities such as
MCPS. If the County needs more revenue, we can all work together on broader solutions.
In conclusion, GCAAR respectfully asks you to lower the high cost of the Montgomery County's
recordation taxes to make homeownership more attainable. Specifically, we believe returning
the rate to what it was previously for/recordation taxes at the $500k to under $lm price point is a
positive start.