Anne Arundel Council rejects revised rules for special community benefit districts after heated public hearing

The Anne Arundel County Council on June 2 defeated Bill 32-25, an ordinance that would have changed administrative fees and imposed open-meeting and record requirements on special community benefit districts, by a roll-call vote of 0 in favor and 7 opposed.

Sponsor Councilmember Jennifer Radbien introduced the bill and responded at length to public concerns. Radbien said the measure was intended to increase transparency and accountability for SCBDs, mandatory taxing districts that use county tax-bill collection to fund neighborhood services. “No 1 should ever come to testify, in a public meeting and find a bag of dog poop on their front step,” she said during debate, citing testimony about retaliation against residents who raise concerns.

Supporters of the bill—including several residents who described intimidation, withheld records, or refusal to answer questions in their SCBDs—told the council that mandatory tax status makes additional public protections reasonable. Manhattan Beach resident Aaron Jaeger said he believed some neighbors stayed silent out of fear of retaliation and urged the council to pass the measure to provide “a modicum of transparency and accountability.”

Opponents — including leaders and volunteers from many SCBDs — argued the proposal would impose undue burdens on mostly volunteer-run associations, duplicate state law, and discourage service. Multiple speakers and civic association representatives said the Maryland Open Meetings Act does not apply to homeowners and civic associations and warned the bill would be legally problematic or unnecessary. Claire Corcoran, president of Hillsmere Shores, told the council volunteers had completed a multiyear coastal resiliency project “completely volunteer driven” and warned the bill would “drive out volunteers.”

County administration witnesses and staff provided background on how the county administers SCBD funds and why the administration supported only limited changes. Budget officer Chris Trumbauer explained the county currently charges a 5% administrative fee capped at $2,000 and said costs vary widely across districts: some collect millions and others tens of thousands. Office of Finance controller Billy Penley described the county’s role in billing, collection, and disbursement and noted staff time is required for setup and disbursement processes.

Council amendments addressing several community concerns were proposed during the meeting; the council adopted a technical correction but rejected several amendments that would have narrowed penalties, removed a five-business-day email-response requirement, or otherwise limited scope. After final debate the council called the roll and the bill failed.

By failing 0–7, the measure will not change county code; councilmembers who opposed said either the amendments did not go far enough to address volunteer burden or the bill still raised legal and practical issues. Sponsor Radbien said she will consider next steps and noted that gaps in compliance had been raised in county audit findings and public testimony.

The council’s discussion included multiple requests from residents and councilmembers for more stakeholder engagement, additional training for SCBD officers, and clearer cost accounting from county staff. The council did not adopt a substitute or carry the bill forward on June 2.