Special Taxing Districts

[exnodak]

Originally Posted by residentofcre

Special Districts and Special Taxing Districts and Special Roads Districts are completely different types of Districts....

I have explained this before so my guess is you don't want to hear it all from me again [although I was on the task force and had to study these].... I totally understand where you are coming from....

So I would suggest that you contact John Gray at Drum Point... John is very informed.... He knows much more about the Special Taxing District than I do...

Yes, they are different. However, according to information supplied to me by the County and by the State Highway Department by way of Public Information Act, this is the Law that the POACRE Board used to justify the SHUR agreement.

I have seen and heard this rhetoric before from County leaders. It is a shell game they use to confuse less than vigilant persons. The problem that has been created is that, by creating the SHUR, 2 of the shells have been exposed.

Besides Section 9 is the only one that applies anyway. All others have very tight conditions that would not allow them to be applied to an HOA.

And, the other kinds of districts are for areas that cross jurisdictional boundaries and are more often used for water and sewer agreements or mutual road construction projects.

Point is, there is no other law that can now be applied.

[residentofcre (Premo)]

Actually....

The State Highway User Revenue is and should rightfully be... only available for public roads.... i.e. State and County roads....

The Roads in CRE have been known to be private....

Therefore.... in order to consider giving the money back to the people in CRE who contribute the taxes at the pump [instead of sending it to Montgomery or Baltimore Counties] there has to be certain conditions met.

The roads must be public... open to all.... [the gates are gone now and an easement was already issued to the county when the third entrance opened] If the roads are not open to all.... then they are driveways and those who cannot use the roads should not be required to share the funds with us.

The county must not be made responsible for the roads [because they cannot afford them and don't want them under any circumstances] The county commissioners don't want to take our roads into their system. If they were willing, the roads in Drum Point and some of the roads in CRE would have already been brought into the system.

The county cannot just collect taxes for anyone.... under the Special Taxing District... the county collects the taxes for use of paving roads in CRE... then [it was logically argued and agreed by local, state, and federal governments] CRE must be a "quasi government"....

Since CRE is a "quasi government" as well as a "rural village" by designation and the easement was created during the opening of the third entrance... then State Highway User Revenues should be made available for the maintenance of roads.....

The estimated income from State Highway User Revenue for 2009 is estimated to be as much as $397,000. This does not include the whole of or a portion of the vehicle registration fee that the county currently uses and would probably not be very happy about giving up..... this is just money based on mileage of roads....

[exnodak]

Originally Posted by residentofcre

Actually....

The State Highway User Revenue is and should rightfully be... only available for public roads.... i.e. State and County roads....

The Roads in CRE have been known to be private....

Therefore.... in order to consider giving the money back to the people in CRE who contribute the taxes at the pump [instead of sending it to Montgomery or Baltimore Counties] there has to be certain conditions met.

The roads must be public... open to all.... [the gates are gone now and an easement was already issued to the county when the third entrance opened] If the roads are not open to all.... then they are driveways and those who cannot use the roads should not be required to share the funds with us.

The county must not be made responsible for the roads [because they cannot afford them and don't want them under any circumstances] The county commissioners don't want to take our roads into their system. If they were willing, the roads in Drum Point and some of the roads in CRE would have already been brought into the system.

The county cannot just collect taxes for anyone.... under the Special Taxing District... the county collects the taxes for use of paving roads in CRE... then [it was logically argued and agreed by local, state, and federal governments] CRE must be a "quasi government"....

Since CRE is a "quasi government" as well as a "rural village" by designation and the easement was created during the opening of the third entrance... then State Highway User Revenues should be made available for the maintenance of roads.....

The estimated income from State Highway User Revenue for 2009 is estimated to be as much as $397,000. This does not include the whole of or a portion of the vehicle registration fee that the county currently uses and would probably not be very happy about giving up..... this is just money based on mileage of roads....

Even if everything you say here is true, and I don't disagree with it, the fact is that there is a serious question if the STD is legally applied. If it is not, the SHUR agreement is null and void per the State Highway Department.

POACRE and DPPOA should have done a little more homework on their STD standing before they pushed through the SHUR. Let sleeping dogs lie, so to speak.

I have correspondence from the PIA that also set up a huge conflict with the SHUR agreement. One in particular:

Quote: " ...the Special Tax District is not an entity, it is a geographical boundary" (Calvert County Attorney). Therefore the STD cannot, by this opinion, be "quasi" anything.

CRE is not a quasi-government. It is a private corporation operating as an HOA. A quasi-government agency must have a legislative charter either State or Federal, like MES, or MEDCO, or fannie mae, etc.

There is more, but the killer is what the County Attorney wrote to the Commissioners concerning HB 1077 (see attachment).

I also have the worksheets from county finance and county engineering that what they think the SHUR is worth to the County, and what they think they will give to the HOA. There is a big difference. Between them, they only agree on about 20 miles of road which translates to less than $50,000 CRE when it is all said and done. Then, the State Highway gets to cut it up even more.
Given the County Attorney's opinion that it is good for the county, ...well it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where we stand.

The law can be found at:

Maryland Code
ARTICLE 24 POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
TITLE 9. REVENUE AND TAXES.
SUBTITLE 13. SPECIAL DISTRICTS.
§ 9-1301. Special districts.

This is the ONLY law re: Special Taxing Districts that gives any such authority to Calvert County. All other Districts in Calvert must be established by the legislature. Calvert is not code home rule.

[residentofcre (Premo)]

There are in fact a couple if issues here that I would like to bring to your consideration.

State Highway User Revenue is actually comprised of two pots of money. One is based on the mileage of road in the system being considered. The other is the Vehicle Registration Fees....

Up until now, the County has had the use of all the income from the Vehicle Registration Fees from all the vehicles in Calvert County, including the most heavily populated areas of CRE and Drum Point.

The County has not had the ability to collect the mileage for the roads that DDPOA and POACRE have paved and continue to maintain strictly on the backs of the people who own property there.

This money [the mileage money] was collected at the pump, because we all pay at the pump, and went into the State coffers, and was used for state projects.

When SHA agreed [under the work done on HB 1077] to allow Calvert County to collect the SHUR funds for the mileage of roads in Drum Point and CRE, this struck at a source of income that the County Depends on... Registration Fees... and being a good attorney... the county attorney went to work protecting that source of income.

Does it bother me [personally] that the County Attorney came out with this statement? Of course not. It's his job to protect the county.

Do I [personally] agree with his assessment? Of course not. When I pay the vehicle registration fee for my vehicle, I am paying for the maintenance of all of the roads that would qualify in the county [and state]. Should funding that is rightly earned on the backs of those who live in heavily populated sections of the county pay for the maintenance of county roads only outside of the community? I don't think so... I think that funding should be evenly distributed....

Did you know that there has been talk in Drum Point about taking their road back into their system because the County does not properly maintain it?

HOWEVER, while this issue is discussed in the House, Senate, and the County Courthouse, I would like to have my gas taxes available to maintain the roads I have paid so much to resurface.

I'm willing to allow the House and the Senate [General Assembly] discuss this. I happen to know that in Montgomery County this has already been studied and discussed. "Private" Communities do indeed recieve SHUR funds including Registration Fees....

There are people who want to jump up and down now and demand the whole pie. I'm willing to take the slice that I am offered and allow those who are more equiped make the decisions about the rest of it.

The current estimate on the mileage for CRE alone... gas tax only... is about $397,000 and that will go a long way to maintaining our roads.

In my opinion.... we have waited this long for these funds... let's enjoy the pie we have been offered [for one year] and see how it tastes... and let them sort it out....

Who knows... the 2010 SHUR funds easement requirements may not even pass on the ballot at CRE.... the members might decide they don't want any of the pie in the future... [although I rather doubt that will happen]

[exnodak]

I disagree with very little you are saying. However, the $375,000 is not there. That is just an estimate of what could be, not what is. According to the work pages, it boils down to a very small number. Remember, I am looking right now at the county finance and county and state engineer's working papers. I am looking at hard numbers, not theory.

The point I am trying to make here (and your responses that are going back to your dodging ways which is a "tell" in poker terms), is that the STD is on shaky ground if not outright illegal. The State Highway Dept. rules and regs absolutely prohibit the sharing of money with CRE if the STD is not valid.

This goes to the POACRE's penchant for always trying to do the right thing the wrong way which always ends up in a cluster(*&)(^.

I appreciate the effort and intent to get things done, but the laws that apply here took over 200 years of seasoning. Just ignoring them and making things up as you go doesn't work. The law is specific, and there are specific benchmarks set by the law.

Please don't come back until you actually understand the implication of Article 24, 9-1301 and its effect on the SHUR agreement. If you did, you would be at the County demanding an explanation. And when they pull the shell game out, don't play it. You don't have to.

The Local Public law cited in the petition is a Calvert County law that was created by Calvert County by the authority vested in it by Article 24,Section 9-1301 of the Maryland code. The creation and formation of an STD must follow the steps and adhere to the State enabling authority language. It cannot create an internal law designed to change the force of the state law. This is why it is so exasperating working with Calvert. They have this plenary power trip going on, and to hell with what the state law says.

You hit the nail on the head about the County Attorney protecting his client. But understand, his client is the County Commission. His language in the STD and the SHUR documents (he is the primary author of both) is designed to protect them, not you or the membership of POACRE. The same logic applies for the POACRE attorney. Her client is the POACRE Board. She will walk through fire to protect you, but in the long term all she will get is a hotfoot when her client is challenged by the clients bosses (membership).

[residentofcre (Premo)]

My information [on the estimated amount] came from the County as well... through the Roads Committee at CRE

I'm going to suggest once again that you contact John Gray at Drum Point. He is very knowledgable about all of this.

Please let us know what you find out... It's a very interesting conversation... Thanks for discussing this...

[exnodak]

Originally Posted by residentofcre

My information [on the estimated amount] came from the County as well... through the Roads Committee at CRE

I'm going to suggest once again that you contact John Gray at Drum Point. He is very knowledgable about all of this.

Please let us know what you find out... It's a very interesting conversation... Thanks for discussing this...

I have a full set of correspondence from John Gray to the County and vice versa. I think it is pretty clear what his position and what knowledge he has. He and Ed Harvey were the lead proponents of the SHUR agreement. Their fingerprints are all over it. This is the reason I'm asking questions.

If the CRE Board is letting the DPPOA Board do their thinking for them, we are in some really deeeep do-do. Why do you suppose Drum Point is demanding a return of their roads? HMMM? Here is a clue: It isn't because the SHUR gives them a better deal, and it darn well isn't because of County maintenance issues. It has a lot to do with a large condominium builder/developer that has a large parcel of property in the Drum Point area. Consider that.

Then consider that in order for the Drum Point to be in the position he needs to capitalize his condo project, the STD and SHUR have to be in place. Then consider that in order for Drum Point to make this guy happy and get the SHUR, they needed CRE to cooperate and give its considerable leverage for the same deal. So, I ask again: Is the CRE Board taking instructions from DPPOA?

[residentofcre (Premo)]

Originally Posted by exnodak

I have a full set of correspondence from John Gray to the County and vice versa. I think it is pretty clear what his position and what knowledge he has. He and Ed Harvey were the lead proponents of the SHUR agreement. Their fingerprints are all over it. This is the reason I'm asking questions.

If the CRE Board is letting the DPPOA Board do their thinking for them, we are in some really deeeep do-do. Why do you suppose Drum Point is demanding a return of their roads? HMMM? Here is a clue: It isn't because the SHUR gives them a better deal, and it darn well isn't because of County maintenance issues. It has a lot to do with a large condominium builder/developer that has a large parcel of property in the Drum Point area. Consider that.

Then consider that in order for the Drum Point to be in the position he needs to capitalize his condo project, the STD and SHUR have to be in place. Then consider that in order for Drum Point to make this guy happy and get the SHUR, they needed CRE to cooperate and give its considerable leverage for the same deal. So, I ask again: Is the CRE Board taking instructions from DPPOA?

HHHMMMM.... haven't heard this twist.... now I have to go do homework... thank you so much..... will check it out...