Howard County hears strong opposition and cautious support on proposed transfer and recordation tax increases

The Howard County Council’s May 21 public hearing on CR 84 (a proposed increase in the county transfer tax) and CR 85 (a tiered, progressive recordation tax) produced lengthy, sharply contested testimony from education officials, real‑estate trade associations, commercial developers and county residents.

Mavis Ellis, chair of the Howard County Board of Education, urged passage of CR 84 and CR 85, saying increased revenues would support school capital and operating needs. "The board... appreciates the opportunity to testify on CR 84 20 20 as an increase in the county's transfer tax rate," she told the council, noting capacity and deferred maintenance needs and a longer‑term capital shortfall.

School finance staff said the proposed transfer‑tax yields could be used for capital and systemic maintenance; Darren Conforti, HCPSS budget director, said the district would analyze how best to apply any new revenue stream to meet both capacity and systemic work.

Opposition came from multiple business groups: Lisa May of the Howard County Association of Realtors warned that combined increases would make Howard County among the most expensive in Maryland for real‑estate transactions, and Angelica Bailey of the Maryland Building Industry Association called the timing "not the time to increase costs for our neighbors" given the pandemic and high local home prices. "With so much unknown and unpredictable, it's just not the time to increase costs for our neighbors," Bailey said.

Commercial real‑estate representatives detailed the impact on large transactions and debt finance. Bruce Harvey and others noted recordation taxes apply to deeds of trust and certain financing documents; they warned the proposed rates could sharply increase costs for construction loans and commercial deals, potentially depressing investment. "This is an anti‑small‑business legislation," one commercial speaker said of higher recordation taxes applied to indemnity deeds of trust.

Speakers urged different approaches: some urged dedicating any new revenue to school capital rather than the general fund; others called for more modest, phased increases or a different allocation between education and other uses. Several witnesses and council members asked for additional analysis of projected yields under pandemic‑era transactional volumes before adopting permanent increases.

Council members acknowledged the competing priorities — addressing a looming general‑fund shortfall and protecting the county’s competitive position for commercial investment — and said they would consider testimony and fiscal analyses before taking action.