SB814 requires certain counties to file annual reports on development impact fees, surcharges, and excise taxes. Covered counties include charter counties that impose these charges, code counties with public local laws requiring them, and commission counties that have been authorized and have enacted them. The report must cover the prior calendar year and include the total amount collected from new construction or development projects, the share attributable to the relevant legislative, councilmanic, or commissioner district, the location of the development that generated the revenue, and the portion of those revenues used for capital improvement projects such as transportation improvements, school construction or maintenance, or other funded capital projects.
The bill also requires counties to identify the local laws that authorize the collection and spending of these fees, surcharges, or taxes. By July 1, 2026, each county subject to the bill must submit a report to the Department of Planning listing those laws, and after that date must file an updated report whenever it enacts or amends such a law. Counties must make the annual report publicly available on their websites, or by other reasonable means if they do not maintain a website. The bill takes effect October 1, 2025.
In practical terms, SB814 does not create a new development fee or change the substantive authority to impose one; instead, it adds transparency and reporting obligations for counties that already levy these charges. It affects county governments, the Department of Planning, the Governor, and the General Assembly by creating a new information flow about how development-related revenues are collected and spent, and it may make it easier for policymakers and the public to track whether fee revenues are being used in the districts and for the infrastructure purposes tied to development impacts.
The general sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable. The Senate committee reported it favorably with amendments, and the recorded floor votes were overwhelmingly supportive, including unanimous or near-unanimous passage in both chambers with only one dissenting vote in the House on two readings. The bill’s preamble suggests a policy rationale centered on transparency and on ensuring local development exactions are tied to the impacts of new development, especially in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Sheetz decision.
There is little evidence of major controversy in the available record, but the likely point of tension is administrative burden and local control. Counties subject to the bill may view the new reporting requirements as an added compliance obligation and a greater level of state oversight over locally imposed fees and taxes. Supporters, by contrast, appear to emphasize public accountability, geographic equity in spending, and clearer documentation of how development-related revenues are used.
SB814 adds a new section to the Local Government Article requiring specified counties to report annually on development impact fees, surcharges, and excise taxes, and to identify the local laws authorizing those charges. It creates disclosure duties to the Governor, General Assembly, and Department of Planning, and requires public posting of the reports. The bill does not alter the underlying authority to impose these fees or taxes, but it expands state-level oversight and transparency for county development-related revenue collection and expenditure.
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support and little recorded opposition. It passed the Senate 44-0 and the House by margins of 130-1 and 131-1 on third reading, and the Senate committee reported it favorably with amendments. The available record suggests the measure was viewed as a transparency and accountability bill rather than a controversial policy change.
The main potential point of contention is the added reporting burden on counties and the degree of state scrutiny over locally imposed development fees, surcharges, and excise taxes. Counties may be concerned about administrative costs, data collection, and the need to track revenues and expenditures by district and project location. Supporters likely favor the bill because it improves transparency, helps the public see where development-related revenues go, and aligns local exactions more clearly with infrastructure impacts and the legal standards referenced in the bill’s preamble.