Ways and Means Committee holds hearings on 15 bills on property tax credits, emergency services funding and election rules

An array of sponsors presented 15 bills to the Ways and Means Committee on March 18, asking the panel for favorable reports on measures ranging from property tax credits for fallen or disabled law-enforcement officers and retail-to-residential conversions to a local enabling tax for emergency services in Somerset County and multiple election-administration and campaign-finance changes. Committee members did not record any votes during the hearing session.

Many bills were presented as requests for a favorable report. Senate Bill 30 was described as fixing an omission in current law so that the surviving spouse of a disabled or fallen law-enforcement officer or rescue worker would be eligible for the existing property tax credit. Senate Bill 344 would allow counties and Baltimore City to grant a property tax credit to property owners who convert retail service stations to convenience or residential uses; the sponsor said the credit could be up to 50% of the taxes that would otherwise be due and that the measure is enabling (a “may” provision) so counties would not be required to adopt it. Senate Bill 502 (cross-filed from the House) was presented as an expansion of property-tax credits to include additional public-safety and judicial officers; the sponsor noted the companion House bill passed this committee and the House floor.

Senate Bill 719 is a local enabling bill for Somerset County that would allow the county commissioners to impose an annual property tax or fee to pay for fire, rescue and emergency medical services after a required public hearing with advance notice; the sponsor said several Maryland counties already use similar funding tools. Senate Bill 131 (Anne Arundel County) would enable county property-tax credits to support grocery-store construction in designated food-desert areas. Senate Bill 178 would revise county property-tax credits associated with Habitat for Humanity projects; the sponsor said it is identical to the companion House bill already passed by the House.

The committee also heard multiple election-administration bills from the State Administrator of Elections and the State Board of Elections staff. Senate Bill 204 would move the deadline for local taxing authorities to set property-tax rates from July 1 to an earlier June 20 (the sponsor said the bill was amended from an earlier June 1 date in consultation with counties). Presenters noted the intent is to give the Department of Assessments and Taxation more time to calculate homeowners’ tax credits so credits appear on tax bills. Senate Bill 259 would consolidate three separate election plans into a single election-related plan and move submission deadlines (for polling-place, early-voting and drop-box plans) later by one month (from six to seven months) to allow more time for feedback and to identify potential litigation risks. Senate Bill 262 would change the period for conducting a special election and allow the state administrator to alter deadlines if county and state codes conflict. Additional election-related bills (including SB 257, SB 267 and SB 88) were presented as cross-files of House measures or as housekeeping measures to facilitate local election operations and interjurisdictional equipment or training sharing.

Committee members asked clarifying questions on a few items. On SB 204, a delegate raised Baltimore City’s request for flexibility because the city sometimes completes its local budget process late; the Department of Assessments and Taxation representative said the statute’s date would be binding under the current bill language and that counties and municipalities would need to meet the new date if the law is changed. On the election-plan bill (SB 259), presenters said the change to seven months for plan submission was intended to give the state and stakeholders more time to review and respond prior to implementation.

Several sponsors noted cross-files and prior action in the House: sponsors said identical or companion House bills had passed this committee and the House floor for multiple items, and presenters frequently asked the committee for a favorable report. The administrators and directors who presented the election and tax-administration measures said amendments had been made in consultation with county and city officials to address timing and implementation concerns.

No formal motions or committee votes were recorded in the transcript of the hearing. Each bill presenter concluded by asking the committee for a favorable report, and the committee chair closed the session after the final presentation.

Next steps: the bills remain at the committee stage pending any future committee actions or votes; sponsors said several measures had already passed their House cross-files or were otherwise advanced in the other chamber.