St. Mary’s County holds third public hearing on adopting code home rule

St. Mary’s County commissioners held the third of seven scheduled public hearings on Nov. 10, 2015 at the 7th District Volunteer Fire Department in Leonardtown to explain a proposal to adopt “code” home rule and to solicit public comment.

The hearing covered how code home rule would change where and how purely local laws are made, the limits of local authority under the proposal, a recent local example of the difference in timelines under the current system, and public questions and concerns. Commissioners said no final decision to place a resolution on the ballot will be made until after the hearing series and that the voters would make the ultimate decision in a referendum if the board moves forward.

Commission President Randy Guy opened the meeting and told attendees, “We’re here to answer what we know. And if we don’t know the answer to your questions, we’ll find out and get you the answers.” Commissioner Mike Hewitt summarized the meeting’s purpose: “The purpose of this open house is to hear what the public has to say.” Commissioner John O’Connor thanked residents for attending and said the board would weigh public input heavily before deciding whether to place a question on the ballot.

Presenters and staff described the mechanics of code home rule as explained in the county’s handouts and a video shown at the meeting. Under the version presented, St. Mary’s would retain its five elected commissioners, but the commissioners would be able to enact, amend or repeal public local laws that affect only St. Mary’s County without first seeking enabling legislation from the Maryland General Assembly. The presenters said that process for a purely local law could be completed in roughly two months: introduction, a public hearing scheduled at least seven days after introduction, a vote on an assigned legislative date, local publication of the enacted law at least three times in the following four weeks, and a 45-day waiting period before it could take effect. The county would also gain a statutory referendum power: a petition signed by at least 10 percent of registered voters, filed within 40 days after enactment, would put a local law to a countywide vote.

Speakers used a blight/property-maintenance ordinance adopted in 2014 as a concrete example of how the current system required the county’s proposal to go through the state delegation and the General Assembly, delaying local enactment. County staff and the county attorney said the enabling legislation process at the state level can take many months (the presenters described timelines of up to 21 months in some cases) whereas the local process under code home rule would be shorter. The county attorney also emphasized limits on local authority under code home rule, stating that commissioners would not gain authority to create new taxes or fees or to alter matters that the state intends to regulate statewide.

Public commenters raised both support and concerns. Some residents said code home rule would allow faster, more transparent local policymaking and greater accountability because the sponsor’s name would appear on local bills. Others said they were concerned about concentrating legislative authority in a five-member board and losing the multilayered review provided by the General Assembly. Examples discussed by residents included a proposed local change to the personal property tax and a frequently cited local desire to permit golf-cart operation on county roads — both used as illustrations of matters some residents want decided locally rather than in Annapolis.

Legal and implementation limits came up repeatedly. County Attorney George Spalding answered questions about specific agencies and statutes and warned that some matters would remain subject to state law and state-level approvals. Presenters and the county attorney said METCOM (the county’s water/sewer/radio authority), bonding arrangements and certain state regulatory programs would likely require cooperation with state authorities and could not be unilaterally transferred into county control simply by adopting code home rule.

Commissioners reiterated process safeguards the proposal would include: the county would publish a schedule of legislative dates, record roll-call votes in a journal, provide local notice and reprinting of amended proposals, and hold public hearings. Commissioners also said the board is deliberately conducting seven hearings across the county (the Nov. 10 meeting was the third) to increase public outreach. If the board votes to place a resolution on the ballot it would appear to voters in the November 2016 general election; presenters said the proposed timetable in materials would make code home rule effective in December 2016 if voters approve. Commissioners noted they are not deciding to adopt code home rule at the Nov. 10 meeting — the purpose was information and comment.

The meeting ended with staff reminding attendees that documents and frequently asked questions are posted on the county website and with instructions on how to submit written comments and questions; commissioners asked residents to use the web materials and to contact delegates and senators in Annapolis with their views as well. No formal motions or votes were taken at the Nov. 10 public hearing.

Because the proposal would change the venue and timeline for purely local laws but would leave statewide taxation and statewide regulatory schemes to the Maryland General Assembly, county officials said the proposal is designed to shift local decisionmaking to Leonardtown while preserving state authority where the law intends it.