PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, Md. (7News) — A new business fee approved by the Prince George’s County Council is sparking strong debate between local leaders and small business owners who say the policy could increase costs and threaten long-term viability.
The measure, which is now law, imposes a $5,000 “use and occupancy permit” fee on certain categories of businesses, including liquor stores, tobacco shops, firearms dealers, and self-storage facilities. County leaders say the goal is increased oversight and stronger community investment, but opponents argue the policy unfairly targets specific industries.
Under the legislation, affected businesses will be required to pay a $5,000 fee tied to their use-and-occupancy permit. County officials have indicated the structure could be subject to future adjustments over time.
The revenue is expected to support broader county initiatives, including public safety programs, education funding, and child care services.
Supporters say the fee is part of a broader effort to regulate certain business categories more closely while generating additional revenue for community programs.
During a public hearing this week, dozens of business owners filled council chambers to voice opposition, arguing the fee places a disproportionate burden on small and independent operators.
SEE ALSO | Maryland moves to ban ‘dynamic pricing’ statewide
Anil Patel, owner of Astor Wine and Spirits in Laurel, warned that the recurring cost could force price increases and put pressure on already struggling retailers.
“With the growing cost of business constantly on the rise, a recurring fee of $5,000 every year would force already struggling retailers to increase prices which would negatively affect business and in turn make them close eventually,” Patel said.
Several business owners, including immigrant entrepreneurs, also said the policy sends a negative message about how their industries are viewed within the county.
The debate intensified during portions of the hearing when council members questioned business owners about their level of community involvement.
In one exchange, Councilmember Wala Blegay pressed a business owner about local partnerships:
Blegay: “What community members are you working with?”
Owner: “The local churches, obviously our customers.”
Blegay: “Which church?”
Owner: “The church that’s right next to my store.”
Blegay: “What’s the name of it?”
Owner: “I don’t remember the name of the church.”
Blegay: “You are not working with that church.”
The exchange underscored growing tension between county officials seeking to justify the policy and business owners who say they are being unfairly scrutinized.
Opponents of the fee also raised potential legal concerns, arguing the law effectively singles out specific industries and could face future challenges.
County leaders, however, defended the measure, saying it is a policy decision focused on regulation and oversight rather than what critics have described as a “sin tax.” Officials maintain the fee is intended to ensure businesses operating in the county are properly engaged, regulated, and contributing to community goals.
With the measure now enacted, affected businesses will begin preparing for implementation, which could include new compliance requirements and additional costs.
County officials said the policy is part of a broader effort to strengthen oversight of certain commercial sectors, while business owners warn they will continue pushing back as they assess the financial impact.
The debate is expected to continue as the fee moves toward full implementation and potential legal review.
Local Story
