WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 289

Sales tax; exemptions for governmental and nonprofit entities; modifying period of exemption for certain museums. Emergency.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Scott Fetgatter and 1 co-sponsor

SB 289 would remove Baltimore debt referendums, shifting bond approval to the Maryland General Assembly (or its Baltimore reps) via a constitutional amendment.

Recommendation to the full committee; Do Pass Appropriations and Budget Finance Subcommittee
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 289

SB 289 — Baltimore City — Removal of Debt Ballot Questions

Status: Withdrawn by sponsor (withdrawn 2025‑01‑27)
Introduced: January 10, 2025 (assigned to Budget & Taxation)

Main purpose

SB 289 proposes to amend Maryland’s Constitution and Baltimore City charter/local laws to remove the longstanding requirement that certain municipal debt proposals of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore be submitted to and approved by the city’s voters. Instead, the bill would authorize those debt measures by state‑level legislative approval mechanisms.

Key provisions

  • Proposes an amendment to the Maryland Constitution (Article XI, §7) to eliminate the clause requiring that most debt or credit proposals of the Mayor & City Council of Baltimore be “submitted to the legal voters of the City of Baltimore … and approved by a majority of the votes cast.”
  • Replaces the local referendum requirement with two alternative paths for authorization:
    • Approval by a majority of the members of the General Assembly representing Baltimore City; or
    • Authorization by an act of the General Assembly.
  • Revises Baltimore City Charter provisions (Article II, §§62 and 62A) to remove cross‑references requiring voter submission/approval for ordinances that (for example) designate special taxing districts, authorize bonds, or levy special taxes — requiring compliance instead with the revised Article XI, §7.
  • Amends Public Local Laws provisions (Art. 4 — sections such as 25‑7 and 25‑16) to remove voter‑approval language and to make issuance of specified local debt effective “in accordance with Section 7 of Article XI of the Constitution of Maryland.”
  • Retains certain procedural protections in the charter (e.g., requirement for public hearings before special taxing district ordinances are finally enacted).
  • The bill text is drafted as a constitutional amendment (prefaced by the legislative concurrence clause).

Who would be affected

  • Baltimore City government (Mayor, City Council, finance officers): changes how they obtain legal authorization for borrowing and certain development financing.
  • Baltimore voters: removes direct referendum control over many city borrowing measures.
  • State legislators representing Baltimore City and the full General Assembly: gain a decisive formal role in authorizing certain local debt.
  • Credit markets, bond counsel, developers and project partners: procedural and timing changes for bond issuance and project financing may affect structuring and risk allocation.
  • County/state fiscal oversight bodies and taxpayers (statewide implications limited, but political oversight shifts to state legislature).

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Effect on local control: Moves authorization power from direct voter referendum to the state legislative process, reducing direct voter input on whether Baltimore may take on certain forms of debt.
  • Speed and flexibility: Could shorten or simplify the approval path for major projects and financing that previously required a citywide referendum, potentially enabling faster project timelines.
  • Political accountability: Shifts accountability for debt approvals from local electorate to state legislators (those representing Baltimore City) or the General Assembly.
  • Fiscal and legal implications: May change the dynamics of municipal finance, public scrutiny, and bond market perceptions; would require alignment between city and state procedures (and possible new administrative practice for reporting/oversight).
  • Constitutional amendment process: Because the proposal amends the state constitution, final implementation would require completion of Maryland’s constitutional amendment process (legislative proposal followed by voter ratification per Maryland rules). SB 289 was withdrawn by its sponsor on 2025‑01‑27 and therefore did not advance.

Procedural / timeline notes

  • Introduced January 10, 2025 and assigned to the Senate Budget & Taxation Committee.
  • Drafted as a constitutional amendment (text begins with the required legislative concurrence language).
  • Withdrawn by the sponsor on January 27, 2025 (current status: withdrawn; not enacted).

If revived, the measure would proceed as a proposed constitutional amendment—requiring the applicable legislative votes and, under Maryland practice, subsequent voter ratification to take effect.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.