Varsity Inv. Grp., LLC v. Prince George's Cnty.
| Decision Date | 08 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 887,887 |
| Parties | VARSITY INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, ET AL. v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Prince George's County
UNREPORTED
Fader, C.J., Nazarian, Wilner, Alan M. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Fader, C.J.
*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.
We must decide whether the appellants, Varsity Investment Group and 6009 Oxon Hill Road, LLC (collectively, "Varsity"), were required to pay Prince George's County's school facilities surcharge in connection with their conversion of a derelict office building into rental residential apartments. Varsity sued the appellee, Prince George's County (the "County"), in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, seeking injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that Prince George's County Code § 10-192.01 () and § 4-352(n) () did not authorize collection of the surcharge. Varsity also argued that, even were the surcharge authorized, the County was estopped from collecting it because of an agreement entered by a County official. The circuit court rejected both of Varsity's arguments and entered judgment in favor of the County. We agree that the school facilities surcharge applies to Varsity and that the County was not estopped from collecting it. We will, therefore, affirm.
Because the issues in this case implicate the County's home rule powers, we begin with a brief overview of the relationship between Maryland's State and local governments. In Maryland, "[c]ounties are the principal unit of local government." 6 Md. Dep't Legis. Servs., Legislative Handbook Series, Maryland Local Government 5 (2018) (hereinafter Maryland Local Government). Along with Baltimore City, Maryland's 23 counties "have traditionally exercised wide governmental powers in the fields of education, welfare, police, taxation, roads, sanitation, health and the administration of justice." Md. Comm.for Fair Representation v. Tawes, 229 Md. 406, 412 (1962), rev'd on other grounds, 377 U.S. 656 (1964). Notwithstanding their important role in government, however, Maryland's counties—unlike the State—"are not sovereign bodies, having only the status of municipal corporations." Id. Historically, "counties were considered to be mere administrative instrumentalities of state government, . . . subject at all times to the plenary control of the Legislature and possessing only those limited powers which had been delegated by the General Assembly." Ritchmount P'ship v. Bd. of Supervisors of Elections, 283 Md. 48, 54-55 (1978). As a result of that limited autonomy, throughout Maryland's early history, the General Assembly devoted "significant time" to predominantly local matters. See Maryland Local Government 60.
By the early twentieth century, that structure had produced an "enormously inefficient system of performing local law-making functions at the state level." Chesapeake Bay Found. v. DCW Dutchship Island, 439 Md. 588, 600 (2014) (quoting Ritchmount P'ship, 283 Md. at 56). In response to that inefficiency—as well as "public indignation over excessive legislative interference with and insensitivity toward local problems and concerns"—a "'Home Rule' movement" arose to demand that local governments be "giv[en] . . . the power to legislate as to local matters free from undue encroachment by state legislatures." DCW Dutchship Island, 439 Md. at 600 (quoting Ritchmount P'ship, 283 Md. at 55-56). The reformers soon persuaded Marylanders to make the State the second (after California) to enact a constitutional amendment that granted counties home rule powers. See M. Peter Moser, County Home Rule: Sharing the State's Legislative Power with Maryland Counties, 28 Md. L. Rev. 327, 331 (1968).Article XI-A of the State Constitution, ratified on November 2, 1915,1 "enabled counties, . . . which chose to adopt a home rule charter, to achieve a significant degree of political self-determination." Tyma v. Montgomery County, 369 Md. 497, 504 (2002). "Its purpose was to [ ] transfer the General Assembly's power to enact many types of county public local laws to the Art. XI-A home rule counties." Id. (quoting McCrory Corp. v. Fowler, 319 Md. 12, 16 (1990), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Wash. Suburban Sanitary Comm'n v. Phillips, 413 Md. 606 (2010)).
Section 2 of Article XI-A directs "the General Assembly to provide a grant of express powers" that the charter counties could exercise without the need for particularized authorization by the State. See Tyma, 369 Md. at 505. The General Assembly complied by enacting the Express Powers Act (currently, Title 10 of the Local Government Article), which "endows charter counties with a wide array of legislative and administrative powers over local affairs." DCW Dutchship Island, 439 Md. at 600 (quoting Ritchmount P'ship, 283 Md. at 57). Under the Express Powers Act, charter counties may, among other things: (i) issue bonds, Md. Code Ann., Local Gov't § 10-203 (2013 Repl.; 2019 Supp.); (ii) purchase, lease, or dispose of property, id. § 10-312; (iii) levy a property tax, id. § 10-313; (iv) enact zoning and land use ordinances, id. § 10-324; and (v) "provide for the prevention, abatement, and removal of nuisances," id. § 10-328. In addition, chartercounties "may pass any ordinance, resolution, or bylaw not inconsistent with State law that: (1) may aid in executing and enforcing any power in [the Express Powers Act]; or (2) may aid in maintaining the peace, good government, health, and welfare of the county." Id. § 10-206(a).
Section 3 of Article XI-A authorizes a charter home rule county, "[f]rom and after the adoption of a charter," to exercise "full power to enact local laws . . . including the power to repeal or amend local laws . . . enacted by the General Assembly, upon all matters covered by the express powers granted." See also Local Gov't § 10-202(a) (). A "local law" "applies to only one subdivision" of the State "and pertains only to a subject of local import." Tyma, 369 Md. at 507. Thus, "the county council of a chartered county has full power to enact local laws and to repeal or amend local laws of the General Assembly applicable solely to the county, so long as the county legislation is covered by one or more of the express powers enumerated in [the Express Powers Act]." Ritchmount P'ship, 283 Md. at 57.
The flip side of the authorization provided in § 3 to counties is § 4 of Article XI-A, which prohibits the General Assembly from legislating with respect to a single charter county "on any subject covered by the express powers granted." But the General Assembly may still "pass local legislation not within the express powers." Castle Farms Dairy Stores v. Lexington Mkt. Auth., 193 Md. 472, 485 (1949). In addition, the General Assembly may "enlarge, diminish or change the express powers," id., and may enact "public generallaws"—that is, laws that "pertain[] to two or more geographical subdivisions within the State, and 'deal[] with the general public welfare,'" Tyma, 369 Md. at 507 (citing Md. Const. art. XI-A, § 4) (quoting Cole v. Sec'y of State, 249 Md. 425, 435 (1968))—that are applicable to charter counties.
Following ratification of Article XI-A, Baltimore City adopted a home rule charter almost immediately (in 1918), but the counties were slow to follow suit. Maryland Local Government 61. By the mid-1960s, only four counties had adopted home rule: Montgomery County (in 1948), Baltimore County (in 1956), Anne Arundel County (in 1964), and Wicomico County (in 1964). Id. To encourage more counties to adopt home rule, the General Assembly proposed two additional constitutional amendments. The first, ratified in 1966 as Article XI-F, created a second class of home rule, known as "code home rule," which was easier for counties to adopt. See Dan Friedman, Magnificent Failure Revisited: Modern Maryland Constitutional Law from 1967 to 1998, 58 Md. L. Rev. 528, 579 (1999); Moser, 28 Md. L. Rev. at 336. Under the Express Powers Act, code counties enjoy most of the same home rule powers as charter counties, though not the "police power" granted to the latter by § 10-206(a) of the Local Government Article. See Local Gov't §§ 10-102(b) & 10-201. The second constitutional amendment, ratified in 1970 as § 1A of Article XI-A, simplified the process through which counties could enact a home rule charter. See Dan Friedman, The Maryland State Constitution 309 & n.1082 (2011). Following those changes, many more counties have embraced home rule. As relevant here, Prince George's County did so in 1970. See Maryland Local Government 65.
As "a chartered home rule county under Article XI-A," Prince George's County possesses home rule powers under the Express Powers Act. See Edwards Sys. Tech. v. Corbin, 379 Md. 278, 287-90 (2004). The Express Powers Act "does not, however, grant general taxing powers to charter counties." E. Diversified Props. v. Montgomery County, 319 Md. 45, 50 (1990). Apart from the property tax permitted by § 10-313 of the Local Government Article, any other tax imposed by Prince George's County must be authorized specifically by the General Assembly.2 See id. at 49 (). That requirement includes excise taxes characterized as "development impact fee[s]," ...
To continue reading
Request your trial