Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Procedures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PHED committee holds bill that would require administrative reconsideration before judicial review
Summary
The Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee held CB-62, which would require petitioners to exhaust reconsideration with administrative hearing units before seeking judicial review in circuit court; sponsors cited alignment with other jurisdictions and potential to reduce litigation costs.
The Prince George's County Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee on July 3 held CB-62 (2025), a bill that would make requests for reconsideration to an administrative hearing unit a mandatory step before a party could seek judicial review in the County Circuit Court.
The measure, introduced to the committee by staff and discussed by budget analysts and agency counsel, would "clarify the administrative hearing process" by requiring that "an application for reconsideration should be exhausted before seeking a petition for judiciary review," according to Shailen Miller Wise of the county Budget and Policy team.
Supporters said the change aligns the appellate pathway for administrative citations with the process for civil citations and could reduce costs associated with defending agency decisions. Miller Wise told the committee enactment "is not likely to have a direct fiscal impact; however, the indirect impact may reduce costs associated with defending decisions subject to judicial review." Lori Paris, chief of staff for the Department of Permitting, Inspections and Enforcement (DPIE), described the bill as "just really, aligning the the appeal process," and reiterated that it would not remove appeal rights but would require exhaustion of administrative remedies first.
Committee members and agency counsel raised legal questions during the session. Chair DeNoga noted members of the county policy team had circulated memos expressing concerns; committee members asked Office of Law staff to review those memos. Office of Law staff indicated the primary drafter was Kalisa Smith and that further review would be needed to respond to the lawyers' memos.
After discussion the committee voted to hold the bill for further review. Chair DeNoga moved to hold; the motion passed on a roll call vote, 5-0.
The committee did not adopt the bill and requested further legal review and clarification of the reconsideration process before taking additional action.
