Self-Storage Operators Challenge Maryland County's $5K Annual Tax

According to an Aug. 24 newsletter from the Self Storage Association (SSA), self-storage operators are among more than 50 business owners challenging a new Prince George’s County, Md., tax that would require certain businesses to pay $5,000 annually.

The “Quality of Life Improvement Fund” singles out four business categories for the annual fee: self-storage facilities, firearms dealers, liquor stores and tobacco shops. Most other businesses in the county pay a one-time $370 use-and-occupancy fee.

For self-storage operators alone, the SSA, which represents around 6,000 members and 22,000+ member-affiliated facilities, estimates the new tax would have an annual impact of approximately $500,000.

The lawsuit, which includes ESS Storage Acquisition: Fifty Two LLC and U-Haul Co. of Maryland Inc. among its plaintiffs, challenges the county council’s authority to impose the fee. Plaintiffs argue that the council has characterized the $5,000 assessment as a “use and occupancy” fee even though such fees are ordinarily imposed once following a building inspection and approval of its authorized use.

According to the SSA, the council determined that the four targeted business categories have a “particularly detrimental impact upon Prince George’s County’s quality of life.” County officials cited concerns about self-storage facilities that include the improper storage of hazardous materials, poor sanitation and the potential for illegal, unsafe and criminal activities.

Councilwoman Krystal Oriadha, who sponsored the legislation, defended the measure during an April 26 public hearing and vote.

“Your free ride of proliferating this County [sic] without contributing to all to the residents of this County is over,” Oriadha said.

Revenue generated by the tax would be used to fund universal childcare and programming for senior citizens.

The lawsuit argues that county officials have “no inherent authority to impose an impact fee unless the power has been expressly granted” by the Maryland General Assembly. Plaintiffs further allege that the council “grossly exceeded the legislative authority delegated to it by the general assembly and the Maryland Constitution.”