Listen to this articleThe Maryland Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would take up an appeal by a group seeking a ballot referendum to cut Baltimore City’s property tax rate nearly in half.
Renew Baltimore — which boasts the endorsements of several prominent faith leaders, economists and former elected officials — is proposing an amendment to the Baltimore City Charter that would cut the city’s property tax rate from 2.248% of assessed value to 1.2% over seven years.
The group’s bid was rejected last month by the Baltimore City Board of Elections, which argued property tax rates can’t be set by voters via ballot referendum. It appealed to the Baltimore City Circuit Court, which agreed with the election board’s decision on Friday.
The group then appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Maryland, which agreed to fast-track the case due to the Maryland State Board of Elections’ Sept. 2 deadline to certify ballots.
Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Althea M. Handy wrote in an opinion dated Aug. 12 that the petition was “not proper Charter material” because it “allows the citizens of Baltimore to establish the tax rate, leaving nothing for the City Council to legislate because they would be required to lower the tax rate every year.”
Renew Baltimore is required to file its brief by Aug. 20; the city’s deadline is Aug. 26. Oral arguments are scheduled for Aug. 28 at 9 a.m.
The group’s proposal would cut the property tax rate by about 5 cents per $100 of appraised value, to 2.2%, in July 2025. It would drop another 10 cents in 2026, and then 18 cents per year until hitting the permanent 1.2% cap in 2031.
Proponents say the city’s property tax rate — which is by far Maryland’s highest — contributes to the city’s population decline. They say a lower rate would lead more people to move to and invest in the city, offsetting the revenue loss. Baltimore County’s 1.1% property tax rate is less than half of the city’s; Howard County’s is 1.044% and Anne Arundel County’s is .983%.
Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, members of the Baltimore City Council, unions and others oppose the plan, saying it would throw the city’s finances into turmoil. In a June statement, Scott said the cut would “bankrupt” the city, and that its claims are “dubious at best.”
“The Petition, if permitted to appear on the ballot, will impair the City’s ability to fund its current contractual obligations and meet its statutory duties,” city lawyers wrote in a July motion.
A report by the Baltimore City Department of Finance said the plan would “open a massive structural hole in the City’s budget,” reaching nearly $900 million per year by fiscal year 2034.
“The City would not be able to balance the budget with small trims, efficiencies, or new revenues,” the report stated. “Instead, the City would be forced to make massive service reductions across many agencies that would have crippling effects, especially on residents that most rely on City services.”
The Finance Department also said the revenue couldn’t be made up by population increases. It states the city’s population would have to exceed 850,000 to make the proposal revenue-neutral, reversing 50 years of population decline in less than a decade.
Instead, the department recommended an “incremental” approach to rate cuts, establishing a solid waste fee and generating more money from nonprofits by renegotiating PILOT agreements.
That was not the only Baltimore ballot question taken up by the state’s high court on Tuesday.
Separately, the court agreed to hear arguments over a proposed “Baltimore Baby Bonus” amendment to the city charter. If passed, that amendment would require the city to pay families at least $1,000 for the birth of a new child or for an adoption.
The Baltimore City Board of Elections certified that question, but the city Circuit Court ruled it unconstitutional, arguing it “supplants the legislative authority of the City.” Oral arguments are also scheduled for Aug. 28 at 9 a.m.