Delegate Deb Rey [R; District 29B]
Leonardtown, MD — St. Mary’s County has had a county commissioner form of government since 1838. That could change under a proposal now being considering by those very same county commissioners. The first of seven monthly public hearings was held Sept. 17 at the Ridge firehouse to consider a change to Code Home Rule form of government.
Under Code Home Rule most of the local laws which now have to be introduced in and passed by the Maryland General Assembly would be handled locally, with local hearings by the county commissioners acting as a legislative body.
St. Mary’s is only one of six of the 24 government jurisdictions with the county commissioners form of government. Six others, including Charles, are Code Home Rule counties. The third option in Maryland, charter form of government, is embraced by the remaining 12 jurisdictions. Two of them, Talbot and Dorchester, do not have county executives, while the others do.
In an opening presentation at the Ridge public hearing, County Attorney George Sparling showed identical slides of how the governing board would look now and after Code Home Rule, The only difference is that the same commissioners would sit periodically (not to exceed 45 days a year) as a legislative body.
Sparling insisted under code home rule the commissioners would not be able to enact “any type of tax, license fee, franchise tax or new fee.
Although the hearing was well-attended, only four persons spoke: St. Mary’s County Chamber of Commerce President/CEO Bill Scarafia (shown above, left), Delegate Deb Rey [R – District 29B] and two citizens, Roy Fedders, and Keith Harless.
The only support for the change in government came from Scarafia, although he was speaking for the Chamber of Commerce board which in turn represents an organization of hundreds of members.
Scarafia said, “The St. Mary’s County Chamber of Commerce has worked frequently with country government over the years to address items like ordinances, community plans, and economic development and tourism. We have encountered the frustration of building consensus with the commissioners and the community at large on an action to be taken, only to realize that the county commissioners needed the permission or authority of the state legislature to take desired action.”
Scarafia used as an example the issue of dealing with blighted properties. The Chamber convened a task force on the issue, which worked with the Department of Land Use and Growth Management and the county attorney to develop a proposed ordinance. The proposal then needed to go to the legislature and it took two sessions to get it passed eventually. Sparling said under Code Home Rule any legislative proposal could get passed locally in as little as two months.
Rey noted that while no new taxes could be introduced, existing taxes could be increased. Sparling said the commissioners have that authority now for taxes such as the property tax.
Rey specifically challenged Commissioner John O’Connor [R – 4th District] as to his motivation for introducing the idea. Rey was informed that it was a public hearing to get citizen input and not a forum for the commissioners to respond.
Rey also said, “I have concerns about impact fees and excise taxes.” A recent proposal for an excise tax in Charles County, a Code Home Rule County, has been controversial.
Fedders also raised the issues of fees and the establishment of the amount that could be levied for municipal infractions. “I am concerned about it.” Fedders noted that the county citizens had rejected a change in government on two occasions, but those proposals were for charter government not Code Home Rule. The main objection to charter was the additional cost of implementing it, including the salary of a county executive.
Harless said that code home rule put too much power in the hands of county government. He said the legislature added checks and balances to the process.
Sparling pointed out that one advantage of code home rule was the allowance for a referendum on any bill passed by the commissioners. But Harless said the requirement that signatures be collected within 40 days wasn’t enough time. Sparling did note that if half of the required signatures of ten percent of the voters were secured in 40 days, an extra 45 days was given for the remainder to be collected.
The next public hearing will be Oct. 14 at 6:30 p.m. at the Hollywood Volunteer Rescue Squad. For a complete list of the public hearing schedule go to www.stmarysmd.com/pio/codehomerule.asp
The last public hearing is April 12, 2016. If the commissioners decide to proceed the issue would be on the November, 2016 general election ballot and if approved by the voters would become effective a month later.
Contact Dick Myers at dick.myers@thebaynet.com