I came across this information in an email blast from the Howard County Chamber of Commerce:

Citing concerns regarding fiscal analysis, housing affordability, and regional competitiveness among other things, the Howard County Chamber has moved forwarding in opposing legislation aimed at increasing the developer surcharge fee (CB 42) from $1.32 to $6.80. The Chamber is also opposing legislation that restrict development in the Patapsco Lower North Branch Watershed (CB 38) for reasons related redevelopment impact, public infrastructure impact, and future planning. Both of these bills will be heard Monday, September 16 at 7:00 at the George Howard Building. Read on for details.


You can read the full details in the link above…but here are some items you might find interesting:

Council Seeks to Raise Developer Surcharge – CB 42:

Leading the unease is the following:

• Impact on future development and housing affordability which impacts roads and talent attraction when employees are forced to live significant distances from work. Specifically, it impacts those in the middle-income housing bracket ($300K – $500K) as the average new home in the county is $700K.

• Concern that this is a regressive tax in that housing costs increase disproportionately for those on the lower end of the cost spectrum,

• To date, no fiscal analysis has been released. No one knows how the council reached the $6.80 conclusion or what develop figures the $150M anticipated revenue figure is based upon. It would be questionable to base projections on current development trends and not take into consideration the new APFO requirements which are more stringent and lessens the developable areas, and

• Impact on multi-family housing which is more volatile than single-family housing as it is more consumer driven.

CB 38 – Stronger Building Restrictions Proposed for Patapsco Lower North Branch Watershed

The concerns are as a follow:

• The proposed CB 38 legislation prohibits an inordinate amount commercial and residential activities thereby impacting land usage and redevelopment in Route 1, a key commercial thoroughfare,

• There are questions as to whether this legislation would create inconsistencies with previous adopted county policies and plans,

• There are concerns about key public facilities yet to be built in the Elkridge community namely that of HS 14,

• The bill has raised concerns regarding impact on utility and infrastructure expansion,

• Lessens the value of land because of the increase percentage of land now dedicated to easements, and

• Potentially impacts residential homeowners to do basic improvements because of land preservation requirements.

Again…want all of the details…go read everything provided in the document (CLICK HERE).

Have thoughts…let me know in the comments.

Scott E