Floyd v. Baltimore, No. 1588, September Term, 2006.

• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
• Writing for the Court: Hollander
• Citation: 179 Md. App. 394,946 A.2d 15
• Decision Date: 27 March 2008
• Docket Number: No. 1588, September Term, 2006.
• Parties: Joan L. FLOYD v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, et al.

946 A.2d 15 179 Md. App. 394 Joan L. FLOYD
v.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, et al. No. 1588, September Term, 2006. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. March 27, 2008. Reconsideration Denied May 9, 2008.

[946 A.2d 17]

Joan L. Floyd, appellant, pro se.

George A. Nilson, City Solicitor, William R. Phelan, Jr., Principal Counsel, John A. McCauley, Venable LLP, for appellee.

Panel: KRAUSER, C.J., HOLLANDER and BARBERA, JJ.

HOLLANDER, J.

In this appeal, we must consider, inter alia, whether the Board of Directors of the Charles Village Community Benefits District Management Authority (the "Authority"), appellee, properly approved the proposed Fiscal Year 2007 Budget and Supplemental Tax¹ for the Charles Village Community Benefits District at a meeting on April 11, 2006. The Board of Estimates, acting on behalf of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (the "City"), appellee and cross-appellant, subsequently adopted the 2007 Budget when it met on May 17, 2006.

946 A.2d 18

Unhappy with the Supplemental Tax, Joan L. Floyd, pro se, appellant and cross-appellee, along with several others, filed a declaratory action in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on June 5, 2006, against the City and the Authority.² The plaintiffs complained that the Authority's Board of Directors (the "Board") lacked a quorum when it approved the 2007 Budget. They alleged that the Board improperly counted towards its quorum three Board members who were ineligible to vote: Michael Gervais, Richard Burnham, and Eric Friedman. Consequently, the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to prohibit the City "from imposing, collecting, and enforcing any and all Supplemental Tax for fiscal year 2007[.]"

Following a merits hearing on July 18, 2006, the circuit court issued a Declaratory Judgment (the "Judgment") and a "Memorandum Opinion" on July 26, 2006. It upheld the approval of the "FY 2007 budget and property surcharge rate" for the District, and denied plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief. Therefore, the court dismissed the suit, with prejudice.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to amend or alter judgment, which culminated in an Amended Declaratory Judgment ("Amended Judgment"). Making only a minor revision to its ruling, the circuit court again upheld the validity of the 2007 Budget and Surtax.

This appeal followed.³ Appellant poses the following questions:

1. (As to Michael Gervais): Did the outgoing 2005 Board have the authority to elect an at-large Quadrant representative for the 2006 Board, and to do so without a quorum present?

2. (As to Richard Burnham): Did an individual, who was neither a registered voter within the district nor an owner of property within the district, lawfully occupy a voting seat on the Authority's Board?

3. When the total number of authorized voting seats on the Authority's Board is nineteen, and the quorum for the conduct of business is a fixed number, must that number be at least a majority, or ten (10)?

4. When the total number of authorized voting seats on the Authority Board is nineteen, and the affirmative vote of "a majority of all of the voting Board members" is required to adopt a Supplemental Tax rate for the coming fiscal year, must there be 10 votes?

In its cross appeal, the City asks six questions. These include:⁴

1. Did the lower court err by entering a declaratory judgment in the absence of a justiciable controversy?

* * *

6. Did the lower court err by failing to exclude those plaintiffs who failed to

946 A.2d 19

comply with Maryland Rule 1-311 and should this Court dismiss the present appeal as to all appellants except Ms. Floyd?[⁵]

For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

The Authority was established in 1994 by the General Assembly. The Legislature gave the City the power to create up to "six community benefits district management authorities," including the Charles Village Community Benefits District (the "District"). See 1994 Md. Laws, Chap. 732, codified at Baltimore City Charter (the "City Charter"), Art. II, §§ 63(a)(1), (d)(1) (the "Enabling Law").

The purpose of the Authority, is to provide certain services to the "business interests and residents" of the District, an area

946 A.2d 20

encompassing the greater Charles Village neighborhood of Baltimore City. City Charter, Art. II, § 63(a). These services include the provision of "supplemental security and maintenance" as well as "amenities in public areas" and "park and recreational programs...." City Charter, Art. II, § 63(a)(2). The Enabling Law authorized the City to pass an ordinance creating the Authority, subject to approval by the property owners and registered voters of the District. City Charter, Art. II, § 63(k)(1).

Pursuant to the Enabling Law, the City passed Ordinance No. 94-414 (the "Ordinance") on July 1, 1994, codified at Article 14, Subtitle 6 of the Baltimore City Code (the "Code").⁶ It sets forth the powers of the Authority in regard to its operation of the District. In part, the Code states:

§ 6-4. Powers of Authority.

The Authority shall:

(1) not be or constitute or be deemed an agency of the City or the State of Maryland;

(2) to the greatest extent allowable by law, be deemed a special taxing district, and therefore a governmental body, both politic and corporate, exercising only such powers as are provided for in this subtitle;

(3) not exercise any power specifically withheld by the terms of either the Enabling Legislation or, if more restrictive, this subtitle. However, the powers of the Authority shall be broadly interpreted in order to allow the Authority to achieve the goals of the Enabling Legislation, including the provision of supplemental security and maintenance services, the promotion and marketing of the District, and the provision of amenities in public areas;

* * *

(9) adopt an annual budget and impose, charge, and collect the taxes or charges on benefitted properties within the District authorized by the Enabling Legislation and this subtitle; provided, however, that no taxes shall be levied against properties which are exempt under state law from ordinary property taxes;

* * *

(13) subject to approval of the Board of Estimates, adopt, amend, and modify bylaws, consistent with the Enabling Legislation and this subtitle;

* * *

(17) do all things necessary or convenient to carry out its goals, objectives, and powers.

The Ordinance also provided for the assessment and collection of a supplemental tax on real property located in the District to fund the Authority's operations. The Code provides, in part:

§ 6-8. Supplemental Tax.

(a) Board of Estimates to determine assessable base.

* * *

(2) Properties subject to the tax shall include all properties within the District except those exempt under this subtitle, the Enabling Legislation, or other applicable laws.

* * *

(b) Assessment; collection; enforcement.

(1) The funding for operation of the Authority shall be provided by a supplemental property tax (the Supplemental

946 A.2d 21

Tax) on the assessable base of the District as determined in subsection (a).

(2) The Supplemental Tax shall be assessed and collected in conjunction with the property taxes assessed and collected by the City ("Regular Tax"), unless otherwise established by the Board of Estimates.

(3) Enforcement of the Supplemental Tax shall be in accordance with the enforcement of the Regular Tax, and all provisions applicable to the assessments, refunds, credits, collections, and enforcement which apply to the Regular Tax shall apply to the Supplemental Tax unless modified herein.

(c) Determination of tax.

The Supplemental Tax rate shall be determined as follows:

(1) Any increase in the rate of the Supplemental Tax must be approved by a majority of the voting Board members.

(2) For the initial budget year, the rate of the Supplemental Tax shall be set to raise revenues equal to the costs of the Financial Plan but shall not exceed a full year rate of 30¢ per $100 of assessed value.

(3) For the first full budget year, the rate of the Supplemental Tax shall be set to raise revenues equal to the costs of the Financial Plan but shall not exceed 30¢ per $100 of assessed value, except that the rate may be adjusted to produce revenue equivalent to the full year 30¢ yield of the initial budget year.

(4) For any year after the first full budget year, the rate of the Supplemental Tax may be adjusted to yield revenues which are no more than 5% greater than in the prior year.

As noted, the Ordinance did not go into effect immediately upon its passage. Rather, it required approval through a special election. Code, § 6-15 specified the criteria for eligibility to vote in that election.

§ 6-15. Election approval process

(a) List of eligible voters.

The Board of Estimates, with the assistance of the interim Board, the Department of Finance, and the Supervisor of the Board of Elections, shall be responsible for compiling a list of those persons eligible to vote on the establishment of the District and on any question relating to its renewal.

(b) Eligibility criteria.

The following persons are eligible to vote subject to the limitations that no person may have more than 1 vote:

(1) owners of property within the District which is subject to tax under § 6-8; and

(2) voters registered to vote within the District.

(c) Election.

(1) A ballot shall be provided to each eligible voter regarding approval of the establishment of the District and the Authority consistent with this subtitle....

(d) Percentage approval.

* * *

(2) If the Board of Estimates determines that at least 58% of the aggregate votes cast approved the establishment of the Authority, the Board of Estimates shall certify the Authority as approved for operation.

Sandra Sparks, Executive Director of the Greater Homewood Community Corporation, Inc., and the "initial Administrator of the Authority," explained that a total of 7,590 ballots were...