Charles County reviews slate of proposed 2026 local‑code changes; commissioners debate attendance rules, disclosure and data‑center measures

Danielle Mitchell, acting deputy county administrator, opened a work session to follow up on a public hearing on suggested changes to the Charles County code and asked commissioners to indicate which proposals they wanted staff to draft into legislation or research further. “This is our follow‑up work session… we’re really looking for the commissioners to discuss any of the proposals that you're interested in pursuing in the form of legislation,” Mitchell said.

Staff walked the board through major proposals and commissioners asked questions on legality, cost and enforcement. On a clerk‑office proposal to remove the Heritage Commission from county code, Mitchell said records could be housed at the College of Southern Maryland and staff would prepare legislation if directed. A public proposal on attendance requirements (proposals 2 and 11) suggested deeming a commissioner to have forfeited office if attendance fell below a threshold; counsel and staff advised creating a removal procedure with an opportunity to be heard and discussed alternatives such as tying noncompliance to compensation policies rather than invoking forfeiture.

On a proposed requirement to disclose investigations of elected officials (proposal 3), staff and counsel said parts of the request overlap with existing ethics‑code disclosure and that retroactive disclosure raises ex‑post‑facto concerns; counsel noted the inspector general bill (considered later in the agenda) would publish investigative reports within legal privacy limits. Jason Graw, director of planning and growth management, briefed commissioners on traffic‑calming and vacant‑property registration ideas and said planning will return with program changes and cost estimates. Graw said staff had hired a third‑party consultant and plan to bring changes to the county’s traffic‑calming program this summer to help more neighborhoods qualify.

Proposals addressing data centers (moratoriums, bans above a given tier, quarterly oversight meetings and bans on nondisclosure agreements) drew sustained legal and policy discussion. An agency legal advisor stated the county currently lacks local authorization to permit large data centers, that a moratorium would be a temporary policy tool, and cautioned that a broad ban on NDAs could hinder economic‑development negotiations. Counsel also denied claims that commissioners had signed NDAs with a company named Terawolf, clarifying that tour NDAs in other jurisdictions are distinct from formal contractual NDAs tied to local decisionmaking.

Why it matters: the proposals range from procedural governance (attendance, training, disclosure) to land‑use and economic development (traffic calming, vacant property registries, data‑center regulation). Several items have potential legal, staffing and budget implications; staff offered to return with legislative drafts, legal analysis and cost estimates. The board took no final votes and directed staff to prepare follow‑up materials.