By Fredrick Kunkle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 5, 2006; GZ14

Land use once again dominates the issues Frederick County officials are considering as the General Assembly prepares for another session.

The Frederick Board of County Commissioners has asked the county's General Assembly delegation to sponsor a bill that would alter the method of imposing impact fees on new homes, and another that would give developers more latitude to shift the cost of building roads, sewers or other infrastructure to new homeowners.

County officials also have endorsed legislation that would counteract a controversial decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on the use of eminent domain.

The impact-tax proposal would transform into a tax the current impact fee assessed on new homes -- now about $10,000 per home -- which helps defray the costs of building schools and libraries.

Changing the fee into a tax would allow officials to waive it in some cases, such as for affordable housing initiatives, an action that is not permissible under current law. The change also would let county officials make the tax progressive, permitting higher impact taxes on larger and more expensive homes. Both changes would help the county address worsening classroom shortages and help the library system expand to keep pace with demand, according to its sponsor, Commissioner Jan H. Gardner (D).

"The affordable housing folks have been advocating this for more than a decade," Gardner said last week.

But board Vice President Michael L. Cady (R), who joined Commissioner John R. Lovell Jr. (R) in opposing the measure, said the current impact fee is determined by calculating the average number of children expected to live in a new home and the actual cost of providing schools and libraries for them.

Switching to an impact tax could eliminate that cause-and-effect relationship and perhaps allow the surcharge to go well beyond the real costs of development, he said. Cady also suggested that the proposal is a form of class warfare dressed up as an attempt to deal with the affordable housing crisis.

"What we're trying to do is a redistribution of wealth to solve this issue," said Cady. "We have enough progressive taxes."

Another land-use proposal endorsed by a divided board could increase the use of a taxing mechanism that so far has allowed only developers in Lake Linganore and Urbana to shift the expense of infrastructure, such as roads or sewers, to new homeowners.

The mechanism, known as a community development authority, can ease the way for new projects when public authorities are less inclined or unable to shoulder the cost of a new development. All 12 of the county's municipalities already have the ability to approve such districts.

Supporters say the use of community development authorities allows development to pay for itself. Gardner, the only commissioner to vote against the measure, said it amounts to creating a tax that shifts the cost of development from builders to new homeowners. John L. "Lennie" Thompson Jr. (R), the board's president, was not present for the vote.

The board also endorsed, by a 3 to 2 majority, a proposal to amend the state constitution to prohibit government seizure of private property except when such takings, through the process known as eminent domain, are solely for public use. The aim of the measure is to counter a broad reading of "public use" in last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. New London . That ruling endorsed a Connecticut town's decision to take property to clear the way for economic development.

Among other measures, the board also asked the General Assembly delegation to push for a law that would allow the county to create trash-collecting districts and award contracts for trash collection by districts. The measure is intended to reduce the county's trash-hauling costs.

Another proposal would enact a 5-cent charge statewide on nonreturnable beverage containers and return the proceeds to counties to help pay for recycling and waste-reduction programs.

The board is again seeking a law that would penalize drivers who do not move to an open lane away from emergency vehicles stopped on the side of a highway, and another measure that would allow law enforcement officials to charge a minor with alcohol possession if the youth shows signs of intoxication. Previous attempts to pass such a bill have failed.