Criminal Law - Third-Degree Assault
HB0907 alters Maryland’s property tax credit for urban agricultural property. The bill expands and clarifies what qualifies as “urban agricultural property” and “urban agricultural purposes,” replacing the prior acreage and priority-funding-area limits with a requirement that the property not be assessed as agricultural land under the property tax article. It also broadens eligible activities to include indoor and outdoor crop production, value-added agricultural products, beekeeping, livestock raising, composting, pollinator habitat creation and maintenance, agricultural education, and agritourism, while retaining other uses such as produce stands, food donations, and community development activities.
The bill also changes how local governments may administer and end the credit. Baltimore City, counties, and municipal corporations may continue to grant the credit by local law, set the credit amount, add eligibility criteria, and establish application procedures. If a jurisdiction grants the credit, it must evaluate its effectiveness after three years; if it decides to terminate the credit, it must provide at least one year’s public notice and an opportunity for comment and appeal before termination. Jurisdictions may also extend the credit for an additional five years and prioritize renewals based on local priorities. The bill takes effect June 1, 2025, and applies to taxable years beginning after June 30, 2025.
HB0907 would amend § 9-253 of the Tax-Property Article to broaden eligibility for a local property tax credit for urban agricultural property and to add procedural protections before a local government can terminate the credit. It affects county and municipal property tax law, especially in Baltimore City and other jurisdictions that choose to adopt the credit, by expanding the range of qualifying urban farming activities and by requiring notice, comment, and appeal opportunities before ending an existing credit.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be framed positively as a support measure for urban agriculture and local food production. Its structure suggests an intent to encourage broader participation in urban farming and to give local governments flexibility while adding transparency before any termination of the credit. No explicit opposition or recorded vote sentiment is available in the provided context.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the expanded scope of eligible activities and the added procedural limits on local governments. Supporters of urban agriculture may favor the broader definition and the protections against abrupt termination, while local jurisdictions concerned about fiscal impact or administrative burden may object to the requirement for advance notice, public comment, and appeal rights before ending the credit. Another possible issue is the bill’s removal of the prior acreage and priority-funding-area limits, which could be viewed as either a needed modernization or an overexpansion of the credit depending on the stakeholder.