LEONARDTOWN, Md. — The St. Mary’s County Commissioners at the Feb. 10 meeting reviewed a draft framework for distributing Community Reinvestment and Repair Fund (CRRF) dollars, with Deputy County Attorney John Houser presenting what he described as a work in progress.
“Two weeks ago, the commissioners directed staff to provide a framework for the community repair and reinvestment fund, and what rollout of that might look like in St. Mary’s County,” Houser said. “This is by no means a final product.”
Houser told commissioners the draft ordinance is intended to “fill in a lot, but not all of the gaps that are out there, with this law, or this program, and how it could work in St. Mary’s County.”
“The point of this is to walk through the draft ordinance with the commissioners, take your temperature on what you think about it, and if we’re close or close enough, or we can probably get the rest of the distance done to a final ordinance, leave here, figure out which department is going to administer this and bring it forward,” he said, adding that staff could return “in about a month, month and a half time” with a final version for public hearing.
Awaiting State Clarification
Commissioners asked whether additional guidance had been received from the state.
“Nope,” Houser responded.
He said staff had reached out to confirm a primary point of contact at the state level in anticipation of the county moving forward.
Defining “Community-Based Initiative”
A significant portion of the discussion focused on how the county should define eligible projects and target areas.
Houser said the draft ordinance adopts the state statute’s list of acceptable uses for CRRF funding under the definition of “community-based initiative,” including behavioral health crisis response services, after-school and truancy intervention programs, housing and homelessness prevention initiatives, transportation improvements in high-density areas with public transportation, workforce development programs and programs benefiting individuals and families impacted by incarceration.
“The state’s language says that examples include. It doesn’t explicitly say include, but not limited to it. It says ‘includes,’” Houser said. “Usually when it has words like that, you are supposed to take the list that follows as illustrative, not exhausted.”
“I repeat that, the way I would take this language, these are examples,” he added. “If you propose a program that fits squarely in one of these seven examples, you’re in the running, or you’re certainly in safe territory, does not entirely exclude another proposal that serves your low income or disproportionately impacted area, but doesn’t quite exactly fit within the definitions of one of these seven areas.”
Commissioners voiced general agreement with that approach and moved the discussion to the more complex issue of defining a “low income community.”
Drawing The Lines
State law allows CRRF funds to be spent in a “low income community” but does not define the term, Houser said.
The draft ordinance proposes defining a low-income community as a U.S. Census tract with either a poverty rate exceeding 20% or a median household income not exceeding 80% of the countywide median.
Houser said the proposal was modeled after another state investment program that incorporates a federal definition, with modifications to use county median household income rather than area median income.
According to data from the American Community Survey, he said, the countywide median household income is $119,446, making 80% of that figure $95,556.80.
“According to this American Community Survey, the five years from 2020 to 2024 is $119,446,” Houser said. “Is your countywide, and that would put if 80% is where we want to land this, $95,505, $95,556.80 is your 80% mark.”
If commissioners lowered the threshold to 60%, Houser said, “there’s not a single census tract that would qualify in St. Mary’s County.”
He cautioned that moving away from census tracts could create administrative challenges.
“The one caution flag, and it’s a caution flag, not a red flag … is that, if we don’t have clear, bright lines on the map, that is going to lead to some confusion and more of an administrative burden on staff,” Houser said.
He recommended that if commissioners choose not to lock in specific geographic areas, they should at least adopt objective standards such as the 20% poverty rate or a percentage of county median income “to at least give a definite objective standard and some goals for them to meet and to tell us how and why they think they meet that.”
Commissioners discussed lowering the income threshold from 80% to 70% of county median income to “tighten that window up a little bit,” with one commissioner saying, “I would be more comfortable at 70.”
Houser summarized the emerging consensus as maintaining a percentage-based standard, potentially at 70%, and allowing applicants to demonstrate how their specific community meets the criteria.
Project Preferences And Guardrails
The board also discussed whether to prioritize one-time or capital projects over recurring expenses.
When asked whether such a limitation should be a prohibition or preference, one commissioner responded, “Preference,” and another added, “Be flexible.”
Houser noted the ordinance reserves final decision-making authority to the commissioners.
“What this one does is reserves all ultimate decision making, all ultimate, who gets funded approval on the commissioners of St. Mary’s County,” he said.
The draft also incorporates state-mandated restrictions, including prohibitions on funding law enforcement agencies or activities and on supplanting previously planned local government spending.
“The idea is you should be using this to do things you otherwise would not be doing or would not be funding,” Houser said.
Commissioners indicated interest in giving preference to projects with cost-sharing components and in potentially setting minimum grant amounts to ensure awards are substantial enough to justify administrative work.
Administration And Next Steps
Houser outlined a proposed process in which the county would publish and advertise an application, hold informational meetings, review submissions and bring recommendations before the commissioners for final decisions.
The ordinance leaves details of post-award assurances such as audits, insurance or nonprofit status requirements to be developed administratively, with flexibility for smaller “micro grants” that may not require the same level of documentation as larger awards.
“The big things today were, again, low income community, community based initiatives, and the overall kind of look and feel structure,” Houser said.
With general direction provided, staff will refine the draft ordinance and return with a revised version for further consideration and, ultimately, a public hearing.
Watch this discussion for the draft plan below at 2:01:06
Related Articles: Commissioners Weigh How To Spend $1.4M In Cannabis Reinvestment Funds As State Guidance Lags
Got a tip or photo? Text us at 888-871-NEWS (6397) or email news@thebaynet.com.
Join The BayNet Membership for exclusive perks and zero ads.
Don’t miss a story—sign up for our newsletter!
