Two veterans’ property tax credit bills are moving forward with MACo amendments, while a broader mandatory expansion appears dead after crossover.
HB 842, as introduced, repealed the current two-year eligibility requirement for a property tax exemption for specified surviving spouses, expanding a mandatory exemption and directly reducing a primary local revenue source counties rely on to fund core services.
MACo supports providing meaningful relief to eligible residents, and many counties already offer locally adopted property tax relief, but requested amendments to avoid creating a significant unfunded mandate on county governments. The amendments to HB 842 shift the bill away from expanding a mandatory property tax exemption and instead create a new local-option property tax credit.
As amended and passed by the House, the bill authorizes local governments to grant, by local law, a property tax credit for the dwelling of a surviving spouse who does not qualify for the existing exemption under Tax–Property § 7–208. Counties may set the amount and duration of the credit, establish additional eligibility requirements, and adopt procedures to administer the program.
SB 980, as introduced, altered the income limitation and disability rating thresholds for a local-option property tax credit for disabled veterans and surviving spouses. By changing those eligibility standards, the bill increased the number of qualifying properties and created a greater fiscal impact on counties that have structured this credit under current law.
As passed by the Senate, the bill includes MACo’s amendments to ensure counties retain full authority to define and apply eligibility standards through local law and avoid automatic changes to locally adopted programs.
HB 1482: Mandatory Expansion Stalls After Crossover
A separate proposal, HB 1482, would have converted the existing local-option property tax credit for disabled veterans and surviving spouses into a mandatory statewide requirement and expanded its scope by altering eligibility criteria and increasing the required benefit.
The fiscal note indicated local revenue losses could exceed $100 million annually, creating a significant unfunded mandate. MACo opposed the bill, which appears unlikely to advance after failing to meet the crossover deadline.
Stay tuned to Conduit Street for more information.
