HB0359 expands and updates Maryland’s local property tax credit for urban agricultural property. The bill broadens the definition of “urban agricultural property” by removing the prior acreage and priority-funding-area limits and instead focusing on whether the land is not assessed as agricultural land and is used for urban agricultural purposes. It also expands the list of qualifying urban agricultural activities to include indoor and outdoor crop production, value-added agricultural products, beekeeping, livestock raising, composting, hydroponics and other controlled-environment growing methods, pollinator habitat work, agricultural education, and agritourism, in addition to existing community, environmental, and economic development uses.
The bill also changes how the credit may be administered and ended by local governments. Counties, Baltimore City, and municipal corporations may still choose whether to offer the credit, set its amount, and establish additional eligibility rules, but if they grant the credit they must evaluate it after three years. If they decide the credit is ineffective and want to terminate it, they must provide at least one year’s advance public notice and an opportunity for comment and appeal. Local governments may also extend the credit for another five years and prioritize renewals based on local priorities. The act takes effect June 1, 2026, and applies to taxable years beginning after June 30, 2026.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s enactment is favorable and supportive of urban agriculture. There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, but the bill was approved by the Governor as Chapter 769, indicating it moved through the legislative process without documented public opposition in the supplied record. The structure of the bill suggests a policy preference for encouraging urban farming while preserving local control over whether and how the credit is offered.
The main point of potential contention is the balance between promoting urban agriculture and preserving local flexibility. Supporters would likely favor the broader eligibility rules and the added procedural protections against abrupt termination of the credit, while local governments may be concerned about the notice, comment, and appeal requirements if they decide the credit is no longer effective. Another possible issue is the expanded scope of qualifying activities, which may raise questions about how broadly the credit can be applied and how jurisdictions will define and verify eligible uses.
HB0359 amends § 9-253 of the Tax-Property Article to broaden eligibility for the local property tax credit for urban agricultural property and to add procedural requirements before a jurisdiction may terminate the credit. It affects county and municipal property tax law by expanding the types of property and activities that can qualify, while leaving the credit optional for Baltimore City, counties, and municipal corporations. Local governments retain authority to set the credit amount, add eligibility criteria, and adopt application procedures, but must provide advance public notice, comment, and appeal opportunities before ending a credit after the required three-year evaluation.
The bill’s apparent sentiment is generally positive toward urban agriculture and local food production. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials, there is no documented opposition or debate to weigh, but the enacted law indicates broad legislative support. The measure reflects an intent to encourage urban farming, environmental mitigation, and related community and economic development activities while keeping the program locally administered.
The likely points of contention are administrative burden and local autonomy. The new requirement that a jurisdiction give at least one year’s notice plus an opportunity for comment and appeal before terminating the credit may be viewed by some local governments as limiting their ability to respond quickly if the credit is ineffective. Another possible area of debate is the expanded definition of qualifying urban agricultural uses, which could be seen as either a helpful modernization of the credit or an overly broad expansion that complicates eligibility determinations and enforcement.