Excise

From: W. F. CoyleSimpsonsvilleAn open letter to the Howard County delegation:Please supportthe proposed legislation for an excise tax (impact fee) that is badly needed in Howard County.With uncontrolled growth and the world economic conditions forcing needs for additional revenues, its coverage should be expanded.It would make the proposal more realistic to include schools, public safety, etc., not just roads. . . .Additionally, please change or delete the portion of the proposal callingfor matching funds at a 2-1 ratio from the county.

The Maryland Senate will take up a proposed increase in the state's gas tax Friday, and Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller is expected to push it to a final vote before Sunday. According to Senate staff, Miller will try to bring the transportation revenue bill through preliminary approval and a final vote in a single day. But Miller told senators they might have to work Saturday of Easter weekend -- a not-so-subtle incentive to forestall delay. The gas tax bill was appoved Thursday by the Budget & Taxation Committee.

Would-be travelers received a New Year's bonus yesterday when several more airlines stopped collecting a federal excise tax, slashing the cost of domestic air tickets by 10 percent at a time when some prices were already lower because of a winter fare war.But travel industry officials urged people to move quickly to take advantage of the savings, since Congress is expected to reinstate the tax, which expired on New Year's Eve. The tax, along with a $6...

How is it possible that boat registrations in Maryland are stagnant even as boating sales and registrations across the rest of the country are bouncing back from the national recession? I think that Gary Jobson hit the answer squarely by pointing out the impact of Maryland's excessively high boat excise tax ("Bring the boats back," March 8). By not being competitive with our neighboring states up and down the Atlantic Coast, it's clear that Maryland boat owners are choosing to register their vessels in other states to avoid our tax. And that means that all of the local spending and local jobs that typically are created to service local boats are going to other states.

Peter A. Sola's garage didn't bring any more traffic into the county or make room for more schoolchildren. So why, he asked county officials, does he have to pay $346 in excise tax to improve county roads?Their answer: because a county law says so.But if a pending decision by the county Board of Appeals isn't challenged in court by county lawyers, Mr. Sola will get his money back.The two-car garage was built on Mr. Sola's one-acre lot, which is sandwiched between the Longfellow and Beaverbrook neighborhoods near Route 108.Mr.

Shane Pendergrass is seeking to save a school addition, change state law and make sure that Howard County's new growth ordinance is being enforced.Ms. Pendergrass, the County Council chairwoman, isn't happy that the school board has announced it will put off a $1.6 million addition to the Bollman Bridge Elementary School in her district. She also isn't happy with a state law that prevents the county from sharing excise tax revenues with the school board to help pay for new school construction.

The Howard County Council voted unanimously last night to make developers pay an excise tax on all residential and commercial construction and to require builders to pass both a schools test and a roads test before starting their projects.The so-called adequate facilities legislation will take effect in 60 days. Councilwoman Shane Pendergrass, D-1st, had sought to make the bill take effect immediately, but was outvoted, 4-1.The five-bill, five-resolution legislative package has three main features:* A roads test to determine if intersections can accommodate traffic generated by a proposed development;* A schools test to determine if nearby schools will be overcrowded when new residents move into a proposeddevelopment;* An excise tax imposed on all new residential and commercial construction.

HARFORD COUNTY legislators are considering a proposal by their county executive, Eileen M. Rehrmann, to create an excise tax on construction that would help pay for road improvements. Ms. Rehrmann hopes the version is more palatable than one her county's General Assembly delegation shot down a few years ago. A similar tax in Howard County is the model for it, she says.That being the case, Harford legislators may want to take a look across the Patapsco River. They would see that Howard's program is not responding the way Howard's executive promised his delegation a few years ago.The Howard excise tax was born of a committee that Howard County Executive Charles I. Ecker formed in 1991.

Reacting to public concern about crowded schools and congested roads, a Howard County commission unveiled legislation yesterday requiring new development to pay an excise tax for road improvements and to meet standards on road and school capacity.It took the 12 commissioners -- representing developers, civic associations, the PTA Council and county government -- a year to agree on the legislative package, which must be approved by the state General Assembly and the Howard County Council."I am 100 percent behind it," said County Executive Charles I. Ecker, who appointed the commission to draft new adequate public facilities proposals after the former administration's recommendations failed to get the previous council's approval.

The county's General Assembly delegation last week tentatively agreed to sponsor legislation that would allow the county to collect excise taxes from developers and use the money to build or improve major roads.The tax is tied to a complex adequate facilities plan that County Executive Charles I. Ecker intends to bring before the County Council in January.The tax, which Ecker expects will bring in $6 million annually, would be put into a "development road improvement fund."It would be withdrawn only if the county matches it at a rate of 2 to 1. Use ofthe money would be restricted to major capital projects.

The General Assembly has an opportunity this year to give a big boost to Maryland's struggling marine industry while also generating additional tax revenues for the fund responsible for upkeep and improvements to the region's waterways. It's time us to place a cap on the state's boat excise tax. Over the past few years, Maryland has fallen behind our competitor states up and down the East Coast when it comes to how much of a boat's value should be subject to an excise tax. Neither Delaware nor Rhode Island has a tax. Virginia has long had a cap, limiting boat owners to paying no more than $2,000 in an excise tax, and Florida passed a cap three years ago. Not surprisingly, Marylanders who own bigger and more expensive boats are increasingly choosing to register them in other states.

Maryland's boating industry suffered badly in the economic downturn and has yet to fully recover, so it's no surprise that many in the boat business are once again looking for help from Annapolis. Unfortunately, the latest proposal - to cap the vessel excise tax at $10,000 - could do more harm than good. That's not just some knock against millionaires and their yachts - although they would be the primary beneficiaries of such a tax policy. Since the excise tax is set at 5 percent, that means only boats worth more than $200,000 would be affected.

One of the great summer pleasures that comes with living in Maryland is the opportunity to get on a boat and paddle, motor or sail your way around the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Few places in the U.S. are better suited for boating, and the state's geographic blessing has produced economic rewards for its citizens - an estimated 35,000 jobs produced by a $2 billion industry. But these are not the best of times for those in the boating industry. The economic recession of 2007 hit hard, and the recovery has been slow.

When the opponents of an increase in Maryland's alcohol tax got an opportunity to make their case before the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee last week, their message was clear: Anything that increases the price of beer, wine and liquor will cause consumers to buy less of it, and that will cost the state jobs. But what was curious about their argument was that they admitted that if the tax increase were enacted, they would effectively exacerbate the impact by increasing the final retail price by much more than the extra tax they pay. Here's why: The proposed tax increase, advertised by advocates as a dime a drink, works out to about $2.41 for a case of beer, about 50 cents for a bottle of wine (though, curiously, the industry reports this as $1.01 in its advocacy materials, as if people typically bought magnums)

Wait 'til next year. That's the theme of this year's General Assembly session when it comes to contentious possible solutions to the fiscal mess Maryland - like all other states - finds itself in. The theme bothers Republicans. They worry that higher taxes might be pushed through Annapolis next year by a Democratic majority fretful about making such moves before November's elections. "They are trying to use smoke and mirrors and Band-Aids to get through this year," said Senate Minority Leader Allan H. Kittleman, a Howard County Republican.

M aryland collects a measly $15 million a year in excise taxes on distilled spirits. Whiskey drinker Thomas Meighan Jr. might have costthe state that much all by himself in court, police and jail costs and general mayhem. Meighan had at least nine drunken-driving convictions as well as convictions for battery, disorderly conduct and theft before being charged with traffic offenses and manslaughter in the hit-and-run death of a Johns Hopkins University student last fall, The Baltimore Sun reported.

A BILL proposed by Del. Elizabeth Bobo that could divert money from road construction to school construction has not been embraced by other members of the Howard County legislative delegation, but it merits consideration.The Bobo bill would amend 1992 legislation that placed an excise tax on certain county construction projects and set aside the revenue for road improvements.Ms. Bobo believes a portion of the excise tax revenue ought to be available for school construction, which also is often needed to accommodate development.

Even as the Howard County Board of Education is working to raise enough money to support $99.975 million in capital projects, members are projecting a harder time looking for future funds when a dedicated tax source is expected to run out. By the 2007-2008 school year, revenue will start to run dry from a short-term excise tax that has funneled more than $60 million into capital projects over three years. That means the school system will be in the uncomfortable position of battling other county government departments for capital requests, leaving some to warn that crucial renovation projects at Worthington Elementary School and Clarksville Middle School could be delayed.

Alcohol tax would hurt business, not help budget Your recent editorial "It's Miller Time?" (Dec. 18) severely misrepresented the impact that raising the tax on beverage alcohol will have on the state of Maryland and its hospitality industry. As a Maryland resident and employee of Diageo, which employs more than 300 Maryland residents at our local bottling plant in Relay, I'm concerned that you are downplaying the potential damage of this tax. It's the hardworking citizens - like those who work on our bottling line - who will bear the brunt of this tax. Raising taxes on consumer products always means job losses.