SB 572 revises Anne Arundel County’s authority over development impact fees. The bill removes a prior limitation that narrowly defined when the County Council could grant exemptions from or credits against those fees, and instead allows the county, by ordinance, to establish exemptions or credits for a broader set of projects. The bill continues to require the County Council to set the amount of any exemption or credit, define eligibility conditions, and create application procedures.
Under the amended law, the county may consider exemptions or credits for development by qualifying nonprofit entities, moderately priced dwelling units, accessory dwelling units, workforce housing projects, and certain land conveyances or construction accepted by the county or county board of education, including contract school construction, so long as the conveyance or construction meets the same capacity needs that the impact fee is intended to address. The act takes effect October 1, 2025.
Impact
The bill amends a Public Local Law provision specific to Anne Arundel County, Section 17-11-215 of Article 2, by expanding and clarifying the county’s discretion to grant development impact fee exemptions and credits. It affects county development policy, housing-related projects, nonprofit development, and potentially school-related or public-benefit construction arrangements. The change does not eliminate impact fees, but it gives the county more flexibility to tailor fee relief through local ordinance.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill, with unanimous passage in the Senate (47-0) and strong passage in the House (110-27). No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate organized opposition or support beyond the floor votes. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed favorably as a local land-use and housing policy measure.
Contention
The main policy issue is the scope of county discretion: the bill shifts from a narrower set of fee exemptions and credits to a broader menu of eligible projects, which may be seen as promoting housing affordability and public-benefit development but also as reducing fee revenue available for infrastructure. Potential points of contention include whether exemptions for moderately priced dwelling units, accessory dwelling units, workforce housing, nonprofits, and school-related conveyances could weaken the county’s ability to fund growth-related capital costs. The bill text itself does not identify specific opponents, but the House vote indicates some dissent.