Economic Development - Tax Increment Financing - Noncontiguous Areas
HB0135 expands Maryland’s tax increment financing (TIF) law by allowing a political subdivision to designate certain noncontiguous areas as development districts. Under current law, development districts were generally required to be contiguous; this bill adds a new category for noncontiguous blighted areas and makes clear that such areas may be designated by resolution for TIF purposes. The bill also updates related definitions and cross-references in the Economic Development Article to reflect the new authority.
The measure specifically amends the TIF subtitle to define “development district” as a contiguous or noncontiguous area designated by resolution, and it authorizes noncontiguous blighted areas to be used in the TIF framework. It also clarifies that, while the subtitle generally does not apply in Baltimore City, the new noncontiguous blighted-area provisions do apply there. The act takes effect October 1, 2026.
HB0135 changes the Economic Development Article by broadening the geographic scope of tax increment financing districts and by creating an express statutory basis for noncontiguous blighted areas to qualify as development districts. This affects political subdivisions that use TIF to finance redevelopment projects, and it may expand the kinds of distressed properties or parcels that can be included in redevelopment plans. The bill also amends Baltimore City’s treatment under the subtitle so that the new noncontiguous blighted-area authority applies there despite the general exclusion.
The available record shows no committee transcripts or recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge detailed sentiment. The bill’s enactment and gubernatorial approval indicate it was ultimately supported and enacted into law. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to have been framed as a technical but substantive economic development expansion rather than a controversial policy overhaul.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. The main policy issue inherent in the bill is whether local governments should be allowed to use TIF for noncontiguous blighted areas, which could raise questions about the scope of redevelopment authority, the use of public financing tools, and whether such districts should be limited to contiguous areas. The Baltimore City carve-out is also notable, because the bill both preserves the subtitle’s general inapplicability there and creates a targeted exception for the new noncontiguous blighted-area provision.