On February 4, Associate Policy Director Karrington Anderson testified before the Health Committee in support of HB 272 – Food Establishments – Lavatory Requirement and On-Farm Food Service Facility License with amendments.
This bill provides additional flexibility for food establishments by modifying lavatory requirements, caps the on-farm food service facility licensing fee at $100, and directs the Maryland Department of Health (MDH), in consultation with the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) and the Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA), to adopt regulations governing on-farm food service facility licenses.
HB 272 presents an alarmingly broad policy change unrelated to the public health and safety considerations around farm-based food operations. Item (F)(3) in line 26 of page 4 speaks to a regulatory process to consider “how to assess the current or planned physical structures” at the farm location. Not only does this upend a substantial policy matter fully contemplated under the current Tax Property Article, but the bill also suggests that a regulatory process could or should override the guidance adopted by the General Assembly with regard to agricultural use assessments and related law – much of which has been in effect for decades.
The General Assembly has only very recently considered stand-alone legislation to effect very similar goals (most recently HB 592 and SB 418 of 2024) and consistently rejected these changes, multiple times, in the standing committees with proper jurisdiction over property assessments and related procedures. A bill to have the legislature cede such authority to a far more insular regulatory process by an unrelated agency should be very carefully considered and weighed against the potential public health benefits. Counties assert that this change is not necessary and would have unintended consequences.
Counties have concerns with provisions granting broad regulatory authority to the Department without sufficient clarity or safeguards. The bill does not clearly
ensure meaningful local participation in the regulatory development process, despite the substantial impact these regulations could have on local enforcement, operations, and resources. Counties further request clarification to ensure that nothing in the bill preempts local zoning, land use, or other local regulatory authority, and that the issuance of a license remains subject to compliance with all applicable local laws.
More on MACo’s Advocacy: