More taxes, fewer council members? Here’s what Prince George’s charter changes mean.

Prince George’s County voters last week gave local lawmakers more freedom to tax certain businesses while also voting to eliminate two of their seats in four years.

The two charter amendments, each supported by roughly three-quarters of voters, according to unofficial results, could reshape how the county raises money and how residents are represented in local government.

But the changes aren’t as straightforward as they might seem. Questions still remain about the county’s taxing authority, potential savings and what residents could lose.

Question A: Who could face new taxes and fees?

Prince George’s County lawmakers have needed voter approval to impose certain new taxes and fees. Question A removes that requirement for businesses deemed harmful to community health, safety, welfare or economic development.

The amendment specifically names liquor stores, tobacco shops and self-storage facilities but doesn’t define what makes a business harmful. It also leaves open the possibility of targeting other industries.

That doesn’t give the county ultimate discretion, though.

Mark Graber, a law and government professor at the University of Maryland Carey School of Law, said Maryland law determines which taxes and fees counties can impose. Question A simply removes a step in the approval process but doesn’t give Prince George’s new taxing authority.

“Counties can only tax by permission of the state,” Graber told The Banner.

That distinction matters, as Prince George’s County faces a lawsuit over a $5,000 annual fee enacted earlier this year on liquor stores, tobacco shops, gun retailers and self-storage facilities.

More than 50 businesses sued the county in August, arguing the charge — labeled a use and occupancy fee — is actually an unauthorized tax that unfairly targets certain industries. Most businesses pay a one-time $370 fee, while those covered by the new law would pay $5,000 annually beginning in January 2027.

A judge last month denied the county’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, according to the court docket. Attorney Timothy Maloney, who represents the businesses, told The Banner his clients have since filed a motion for partial summary judgment, asking the court to rule on “the legality of the legislation” without a trial.

Maloney said the charter amendment has no bearing on the legal challenge.

“Question A has zero to do with the lawsuit,” he said. “The county wants that authority? They have to go to the General Assembly to get it.”

Some county officials have defended the fee as a way to address certain businesses’ effects on residents’ quality of life. The anticipated revenue is intended to support programs including child care, senior wellness and pedestrian safety.

But at-large council member Jolene Ivey, who opposed the amendment and the business fee legislation, questioned why the county would impose additional financial burdens on industries it has already sought to regulate.

She pointed to legislation she sponsored in 2023 restricting where new self-storage facilities can be built. She argued that zoning laws already give the county tools to address concerns about certain businesses.

“Our business climate is impacted by the perception that the business community has of Prince George’s County, and right now that perception is not strong,” Ivey said.

To impose additional charges, the County Council would still need to pass legislation specifying which businesses must pay and how much. But if state law already permits those charges, lawmakers would no longer need voter approval under Question A.

For now, it’s unclear which other businesses might be affected. County Council Chair Krystal Oriadha, who introduced the amendment and championed the business fee legislation, did not respond to The Banner’s requests for comment.

Question B: Fewer council members, but at what cost?

Prince George’s voters made a seemingly contradictory choice last week: They overwhelmingly supported their two at-large council members at the polls while also voting to eliminate their positions.

Question B will reduce the County Council from 11 members to nine by December 2030, reversing voters’ 2016 decision to create the two at-large seats.

Unlike district representatives, who serve specific geographic areas, at-large members are elected countywide. The ballot measure eliminates the seats as a way to save taxpayer dollars, make elections more cost-effective and strengthen district representation.

Ivey, who has served on the council since 2018 and currently holds one of those seats, argues the potential savings wouldn’t justify losing two countywide representatives.

She told The Banner that residents often contact her office after unsuccessfully seeking help from their district council members.

“If their district council member is unresponsive, oh well,” Ivey said of what could happen once the positions disappear.

She argued that at-large members bring a broader perspective to countywide issues, such as housing affordability, that extend beyond individual districts.

Ivey also questioned the financial argument, saying at-large offices are budgeted at about $202,000 less than district offices following budgetary cuts across the council over the past two years.

For Ivey, the concern isn’t about losing her own position but about what the county stands to lose. She pointed to neighboring Montgomery County and D.C., which have maintained at-large representation.

“I’m not bitter. I’m not crying. I’m totally fine,” she said. “On a personal level, I’m not affected by this. On a level of being concerned for the county as a whole, yeah [I am worried].”