Havre de Grace appeals board dismisses Mike Jones’ challenge to refund interest

The Havre de Grace Board of Appeals dismissed an appeal by petitioner Mike Jones on July 2, 2020, concluding the board did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to resolve disputes over the city’s calculation of statutory interest and requests for attorney fees.

The board’s action ends a multi-year dispute over a capital cost recovery fee and a later administrative refund. Mike Jones, who identified himself as living at 625 South Washington, told the board the city returned the principal but withheld what he says is statutory interest and that the delay had caused him to incur roughly $2,661 in pursuit costs and a claimed interest shortfall of about $5,700. "After issuing the refund, the city should not be permitted to treat this matter as fully resolved while leaving unpaid interest and unreimbursed costs on the table," Jones said at the hearing.

City Attorney April Ishak told the board the matter involves a refund decision and the calculation of interest that falls outside the board’s land-use and zoning authority. "We believe that this board is a land use and zoning board of appeals and does not have jurisdiction to hear decisions made by the director of finance concerning interest payments or refunds," Ishak told the panel, arguing that the city’s refund and the legal route for challenging it are governed by statutory refund procedures and by the Tax General provisions the parties had cited.

Ishak also disputed Jones’s figures and noted differences in how statutory interest is calculated, citing the Tax General Article provision that can govern the start date for interest (the transcript cited the 45th-day rule). She told the board the city voluntarily paid the refunded principal and 6% interest and said that, even if the higher statutory rate applied, the interest owed would be considerably lower than Jones asserted because of the timing rules that govern when tax interest begins to accrue.

Board members exchanged questions with both sides about the procedural history: Jones had filed earlier proceedings in different forums and then pursued an administrative refund with the city in November 2019 (the petitioner testified the claim was submitted Nov. 30). Counsel and a board legal participant noted there are other forums for resolving contested municipal refund and interest calculations — the Maryland Tax Court or the circuit court — and that city administrative processes (the tax collector/treasurer) are the usual route for an internal administrative review.

After discussion, Board member Jeff Gorhardt moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the motion was seconded and a voice vote of 'Aye' was recorded. The chair closed the hearing without ordering recalculation of interest or awarding costs.

What happened next: the dismissal leaves Jones free to pursue other remedies identified at the hearing (administrative review through the tax-collection procedures, the Maryland Tax Court, or circuit court review), but the Board of Appeals did not rule on the merits of the competing legal interpretations of which interest rate governs the refund. The board’s formal action was limited to dismissing the appeal as outside its jurisdiction.

The hearing record shows the dispute centers on (1) whether the local government refund provisions incorporate the Tax General Article’s interest rate, (2) when interest begins to run under the Tax General Article’s timing rules, and (3) whether a zoning/land-use appeals body may award attorney fees or reorder a municipal refund. The board’s dismissal ends this proceeding but did not resolve those substantive legal issues.