Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Increment Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County and city leaders press for expanded redevelopment tools: TIFs, non‑contiguous districts and modernized development authorities
Summary
Delegates and local officials asked the Ways and Means Committee to approve several bills (notably HB942 and HB97) that would let jurisdictions create non‑contiguous tax increment financing districts and broaden redevelopment/industrial development authority powers. Supporters said the changes would let local governments fund housing and targeted
Two related policy hearings in the committee addressed local redevelopment tools.
HB942 — Noncontiguous Tax Increment Financing (Delegate Matthew Schindler)
Delegate Matthew Schindler testified on House Bill 942, a measure allowing municipalities and counties to create tax increment financing (TIF) districts that are not required to be geographically contiguous. Schindler said non‑contiguous TIFs would permit jurisdictions to target scattered vacant or blighted properties by addressing them individually by address rather than forcing a broad contiguous boundary. Schindler and a panel of witnesses described multiple use cases, including renovating vacant and abandoned single‑family housing, redevelopment of commercial corridors, mixed‑income rental projects and preventing demolition displacement. Testimony from affordable‑housing advocates and finance experts described how non‑contiguous TIF bonds could fund a portion of development costs and combine with other funding tools to make projects feasible.
Questions from delegates focused on implementation details: how properties would be added to a district (by address), whether intervening parcels would continue to remit taxes to the locality (localities retain collection responsibility), and whether the noncontiguous authority would be limited to vacant/abandoned properties or could include occupied properties. Several delegates asked for a clearer statutory definition limiting TIF use to income‑restricted workforce housing; the sponsor said he would accept a friendly amendment to clarify intent.
HB97 — Modernizing industrial/redevelopment authorities (Delegate Lily Qi)
Delegate Lily Qi presented House Bill 97, which would modernize the enabling statutes for local industrial development authorities and expand local economic development tools, including clarifying and broadening uses of bond proceeds and allowing authorities to take on new functions (owning property, partnering with developers, issuing bonds for TIF‑style projects). Qi and a panel of local economic development officials (Frederick County, Charles County), and private sector groups (Greater Baltimore Committee) described the bill as an enabling statute that permits local governments to use IDA/redevelopment entities more proactively for affordable housing, infrastructure and placemaking.
Local officials emphasized that the bill does not remove local oversight — counties/municipalities would still have to approve a development authority and specific project plans — but expands options available to localities that have limited bonding capacity and competing priorities. Frederick County’s economic officer and Charles County officials described how a separate quasi‑governmental entity could issue bonds backed by incremental revenue and leave county bonding capacity intact.
Committee exchanges emphasized local control: delegates asked how long an authority would retain jurisdiction over a project area and how oversight and approval would be exercised (local boards and councils retain approval authority). Delegates also asked whether properties that are occupied could qualify and if notice processes for property owners had been designed; the sponsor described ordinary local procedures but noted further details could be handled at the locality level.
Why it matters: Both bills were positioned as tools local governments can use to address vacant/abandoned housing, support workforce housing and finance infrastructure improvements without relying solely on general‑fund appropriations. Supporters included municipal leaders, affordable housing advocates and finance specialists; concerns centered on details of property selection, owner notification and statutory limits to ensure projects meet workforce‑housing goals.
Next steps: Sponsor said he would consider language clarifying workforce/affordability limits and local procedural safeguards. No committee votes on either bill were recorded in the hearing transcript.
