Lawmakers moving ahead with plans for fund seeded by legally contested business fee

Prince George’s County Council Chair Krystal Oriadha is seeking public input to determine how to spend revenue from a controversial $5,000 annual fee the county intends to charge liquor stores, tobacco shops, gun retailers and storage facilities.

Oriadha has distributed a digital survey that, according to her office, is “designed to gather insight from residents on what investments, programs, or initiatives would have the greatest impact on overall quality of life.”

The fee is the subject of a lawsuit filed by a group of 50 local businesses that has claimed the council is attempting to “impose unlawful and punitive taxes” on them. The fees are due Jan. 1 of each year, beginning in 2027, but the coalition has asked a judge to block the new law.

Proponents of the fee have claimed that liquor, tobacco, gun and storage businesses are harming local residents and hindering the county’s economic development.

Local lawmakers are hoping to use revenue from the fee to pay for programs supporting childcare, senior wellness, pedestrian safety and economic assistance, among others.

Oriadha said her constituents have consistently advocated for these services.

“I’m committed to finding resources that go to where the community wants them to go, no matter what,” she said in a recent interview.

Attorney Timothy Maloney, who is representing the group of businesses, couldn’t immediately be reached for comment Monday.

Oriadha described the survey as part of a “participatory budgeting” process.

She is also hosting a “Countywide Summer Listening Tour” this week to provide residents with a chance to speak with her and other council leaders about their priorities.

The tour will travel to the Kenhill Center in Bowie on Tuesday, the Rollingcrest-Chillum Community Center on Wednesday and the Suitland Community Center in Forestville on Thursday. Each meeting will run from 6 to 8 p.m.

The survey asks respondents to answer questions about services for young people, seniors, public safety and economic assistance, including by rating those programs currently available in their community.

It also prompts people to weigh in on the debate over the county’s concentration of liquor stores, tobacco shops and storage facilities.

One question asks respondents whether they believe that the county is oversaturated with these businesses.

Others ask whether elected officials should do more “to address the oversaturation” and whether the concentration of these businesses hinders the county’s economic development.

Prince George’s has 17.8 liquor stores per 100,000 residents, which, according to 2023 data from the county’s health department, is lower than most Maryland counties.

Lawmakers in Prince George’s and elsewhere have in recent years passed laws restricting smoke shops, including by placing limits on their hours of operation, locations and signage.

But the new law in Prince George’s, which subjects liquor, tobacco, gun and storage businesses to a $5,000 annual use and occupancy permit fee, is broader and more punitive.

The suing businesses have argued that the law effectively creates a new tax, not a fee, which they contend would violate state law.

County governments cannot impose new taxes without authorization from the General Assembly, the lawsuit states.

Separately, Prince George’s officials are seeking the authority to impose taxes and fees on liquor and tobacco retailers and storage facilities without needing approval from voters.

The County Council voted in June to put a question on ballots in November that will ask voters to allow lawmakers to levy taxes and fees on liquor stores, tobacco stores, storage facilities and more without the requirement for future ballot initiatives.

Under the county charter, local lawmakers cannot raise certain taxes and fees unless voters approve them on the ballot.

The ballot question is expected to state that voting against the measure “will prevent the County from imposing taxes and fees on businesses that negatively impact the quality-of-life of County residents or economic development.”