Community Testimony on AA County Bill 32-25

Testimony from Cape St. Claire regarding AA County Bill 32-25

Date: Mon, May 19, 2025 at 1:32 PM

Subject: Opposition to Bill 32-25

To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,  <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>

Dear County Council Members,

The Cape St. Claire Improvement Association (CSCIA) is opposed to County Bill 32-25 in its present form. We believe the bill in its present form will impose burdensome and unnecessary requirements on Community, Condominium, and Homeowners Associations with regard to managing their special tax districts. 

While the bill aims to increase accountability by modifying administrative charges, imposing penalties, and mandating training and compliance with the Maryland Open Meetings Act and the Homeowners Association Act, the current draft overreaches and creates unintended consequences for well-functioning communities like ours.

·  The bill requires that all community associations administer a special tax district, there were 97 as of fiscal year 2025 per the County Budget we found, to hold meetings open to the general public, including attorneys, members of the press and invitees of members in accordance with some codes of the Maryland Open Meetings Act. While we believe in transparency, this may violate the rights some associations have under state law that are held as specific exclusions permitted with the Open Meetings Act and in some cases in the Real Property Code, in Title 11 & 11b known as Condominium Association Act and Homeowners Association Act. We believe that this will likely bring new and unnecessary challenges while possibly undermining the purpose of local self-governance. 

·  While we understand the need to increase the long stagnant administrative charge collected to cover the County staffing efforts, we believe a more gradual increase would be appropriate. The 5%, 7%, 9% over fiscal years 2027-2029 is an 80% increase at minimum. This coupled with increasing the cap with the Baltimore Consumer Price Index (CPI) annually is aggressive and punitive to those communities who wish to care for their own districts. 

o The current 5% fee ranging from $500 minimum to $2,000 maximum could be increased simply by applying CPI fixed dollar amount over three to five years.

o More than 40% of the communities collect more than $40,000, thus the cap impact will be felt in year one.

o Only 15 districts collect fees less than the minimum $500 currently on the books and all would be impacted in year two with a proposed 40% fee increase to a 7% administrative fee.

o The simple proposal of increasing the cap fivefold in year one will impact all communities by year two. 

o In Cape St Claire, the CSCIA administers one special tax district on behalf of roughly 2,350 homes, but is a member of a second district, Little Magothy River SCBD with 5 tax lots of the roughly 101 tax lots included. 

o This is true of many communities, where they may have an SCBD, a Water Improvement District and/ or Shore Erosion District, our research indicates about 20% of the communities could be adversely impacted by duplicative administration of multiple districts. 

o The proposed cap increase from $2,000 to $10,000 impacts our CSCIA administered district at minimum by $3.50 per tax account in year one alone.

o The Little Magothy River District will see a year two fee increase of 41% based on 2025 funding levels, which will necessitate annual increases to reach savings needed for necessary dredging. 

o  The 17 largest districts alone will pay more than $136,000 in new fees in year one reaching the new cap of $10,000.

·  We have serious concerns regarding the lack of due process proposed in this bill. The bill without parameters includes comprehensive and severe penalties for non-compliance, which is rife for future litigation in cases between communities and the county. The inclusion of withholding of the community’s tax money, dissolution of a tax district without an outlined process for appeals is poor judgement at minimum or punitive and in the worst of cases could lead to a means of future political retribution by an elected officials and County staff. 

o Updating current code under 4-7-203, 4-7-302, 4-7-404 and 405 where appropriate to include dissolution and abolition with each type of district having a stated appeals process. Amending the bill, the Council should propose an outline of the Appeals Process before this bill moves forward. The County Council should consult the Office of Law, Budget and Auditor’s office, and include who can appeal, the timeline for appeal of a decision, what decisions could be appealed, how to file an appeal, along with where to file an appeal.

o The inclusion of aspects of the guidelines produced by the Office of Budget, last updated September 2024, regarding audit language included within 16-308 of County Code to include any Special Taxing District or a lower stated dollar threshold is already available to the County Council. The Council could simply request a more frequent audit of any Special Taxing District where appropriate, if they feel non-compliance is an issue necessitating fee increases because of the county staff workload.

Other questions within the draft bill are, but not limited to:

o The bill requires at least one officer to receive Open Meetings training from the Attorney General, something the HOA Act does not include at this time, because some are exempt. There is no training fee mentioned, but it did not mention it was free either. Can an employee of the Association (Town Manager) function as the “officer” or must it be an elected board member/ officer of the association? There is no clarity on this matter in this bill. 

o This bill prohibits meeting in closed session unless at least one officer has received Open Meetings Training, this is in contradiction to the state law afforded by MD HOA Act regarding Legal and Personnel Matters, which includes sensitive business or negotiating contracts that could be detrimental to the outcome of projects in a community. This should be removed from this bill altogether. 

o The section regarding Contact Information for an association in this bill states an email be provided for each member of the association. If both paid employees and unpaid volunteers, elected volunteers, the simple lack of clarity will lead to varying degrees of compliance and must be addressed before the bill passes.

§ The cost of administration in our case will increase our technology costs by at least $1,000 per year with Google Workspace providing us with our small business plan to administer the business of the association.

o The mandatory 5 day response time to an email should first in trial be applied to all elected officials and appointed persons at the County level, then to all County staff and finally after its policy implementation, review and successful use maybe, then you can require a volunteer to respond to incoming emails. We believe this should be removed from the bill. 

·  If the County is so concerned with association administration, we suggest the County get serious and invest in a division of government similar to Montgomery County and develop an Office of Common Ownership and lead the way. The means in which the County traditionally holds associations, bylaws, covenants, and declarations especially in permitting, land use, and zoning cases with such disregard, would be money and time well spent, in our opinion. It would help oversight, improve processes, increase education about MD and County laws that impact associations, potentially reduce legal disagreements and provide resources to advocate for successful outcomes for residents.

o For instance for the last 7 years, we have asked the office of budget and finance annually to host a class on the expectations of budget submissions, accompanying documents, and the best practices to help limit confusion and work. This has yet to happen by the way.

In conclusion, bill 32-25 needs a lot of work and the bill attempts to address a few bad apples among the 97 taxing districts. While the intent behind the bill may be to improve oversight, in practice, it adds a significant regulatory burden on community associations that are already following best practices—particularly those like CSCIA that have demonstrated consistent compliance, transparency, and fiscal responsibility. Over Regulation often results in a disproportionate impact on well-run organizations, while failing to address the real root of issues that stem from isolated bad actors.

Mandating new reporting structures, public meeting requirements, and training obligations—many of which contradict or exceed state law—effectively punishes the majority of associations that are operating in good faith. It introduces unnecessary legal gray areas, increases administrative costs, and creates confusion for volunteer-led boards who are simply trying to serve their communities. For us, these changes will not result in better service or governance, they will only make it harder to do what we already do well.

Finally, a reminder: associations like CSCIA are not seeking to avoid transparency or accountability. We welcome both. But this bill as written imposes sweeping rules with no realistic implementation plan and no acknowledgement of the burden it places on local, unpaid stewards of their communities.

Submitted on behalf CSCIA Executive Committee

Beau Breeden
VP, CSCIA
Resident Cape St Claire

Testimony submitted by Bay Ridge Civic Association

From: Lily Openshaw, PE, BRCA Outreach Chair <[email protected]>

Subject: Bay Ridge Civic Association opposition to Bill 32-25 – County Hearing on May 19th

Bay Ridge Civic Association (BRCA) Position on County Bill 32-25

The Bay Ridge Civic Association (BRCA) expresses our strong opposition to County Bill 32-25. We believe the bill imposes burdensome and unnecessary requirements on Community Associations and Homeowners Associations managing Special Tax Districts, potentially leading to unintended consequences for volunteer-run boards.

•    The bill mandates that all community meetings be open to the general public, including attorneys, members of the press, and invitees of members. While we support transparency within the community association, we believe that opening all meetings to the general public may introduce unnecessary complications and undermine the purpose of local self-governance.

•    We fully support the County’s need to increase administrative charges to cover staff-level efforts. However, it is unclear what charges are included.  BRCA has requested a copy of the County Audit report where the charges were evaluated and the new rates determined to conduct due diligence as representatives of our taxed constituency. No Fiscal Note was included as part of Bill 32-25.

•    The bill includes severe penalties for non-compliance, including withholding of the communities’ tax money and dissolution of special tax districts, without an outlined appeal process.  We recommend the addition of an Appeals or Review Mechanism Section, which could outline:

o    Who can appeal (e.g., affected parties, organizations, etc.).

o    What decisions are appealable (e.g., notices, penalties, dissolution orders).

o    How to appeal (e.g., file a notice of appeal, timing requirements, documentation needed).

o    Where to appeal (e.g., administrative tribunal, court, or oversight body).

o    Timeline and process for review and resolution.

Conclusion

Community association meetings should be open and transparent to local taxpayers and residents but should not be required to be open to the general public. By remaining restricted to community property owners