Washington County Wants an 8% Hotel Tax. If It's for School Safety, Show Us the Receipts.

Washington County Public Schools is talking about raising the hotel rental tax from 6% to 8%, with the extra money split between school security and other public-safety needs. Listen, keeping kids safe is something I'm always gonna take seriously. But if we're talking about a new tax, I want to see the actual damn plan before anybody starts celebrating.

Superintendent Dr. Gary Willow raised the idea as part of the school system's proposed legislative priorities for Maryland's 2027 General Assembly. According to LocalNews1's coverage of the October work session, one percentage point of the proposed increase would be set aside for school safety; the other could support police, fire and rescue.

Two percentage points sounds small until somebody has to explain the money

Today's hotel rental tax in Washington County is 6%, as Maryland law specifically states. An increase to 8% is not in effect. The proposal would require action through the state legislative process and then local implementation. Nobody should walk away from a headline thinking the tax already passed.

For context, on a $150 hotel room before other taxes and fees, 6% works out to $9. At 8%, it's $12—an extra $3 a night. That's a simple example, not a revenue forecast. Total collections would depend on occupied room nights, prices, exemptions and how the final law distributes receipts.

And here's the less-obvious piece: Washington County's fiscal 2026 budget says existing hotel-tax proceeds support tourism marketing, municipalities and county cultural, recreational and economic-development purposes. So legislators need to explain exactly how new dollars would be allocated without misleading people about the rules already governing the original 6%.

What would actually make our schools safer?

Willow mentioned better cameras on school buses, safer building entrances and more surveillance around athletic facilities. Those could be useful. But they don't all cost the same, and a camera isn't automatically a complete safety plan.

If we're replacing outdated entrance hardware, show me the schools that need it most. If it's buses, tell families how the equipment is meant to work and how privacy is protected. If it's staffing, say so. I don't want a vague 'safety' line that gets used to justify money with no way to measure results.

There's also a timeline to watch. The board's 2027 legislative priorities were still at the discussion stage in early October, and the official budget and tax statute don't show a new 8% rate. We should follow any board vote, the legislative bill text, the final allocation and annual spending reports—not just the announcement.

The question nobody should skip: who pays and who benefits?

Visitors renting rooms might pay much of the tax directly, but hotels and local tourism businesses can still be affected if prices change. The county should estimate how much one extra percentage point actually brings in, rather than asking everybody to imagine a pile of free money.

And if the other half of the proposal goes toward law enforcement and emergency services, I want to know which agencies get it, what purchases qualify, and whether that comes with reporting requirements. You can't just call both buckets 'public safety' and expect residents not to ask any more questions.

My take

I don't mind people trying to find money outside the usual property-tax conversation. Washington County already spends a lot on infrastructure, and kids should not be walking into schools with obvious security problems.

But Hub City families deserve more than a promise that 'it's for the children.' List the buildings, the projects, the expected prices and when work will get done. Then publish the annual receipts and let the public see if anything actually improved.

You want us to support the tax for the kids? Cool. Show us the schools, the numbers, and exactly where every extra dollar goes.6ix / 6ixtv

This is a proposal, not an enacted tax change. I'll be watching the legislative process instead of giving anybody credit for security cameras they haven't bought yet.

Primary law and local reporting