Maryland Attorney General Opinion 97 OAG 019

Gen. 19] 19

HOUSING

PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITIES – OUT-OF-STATE ENTITIES –

ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL SECTION 8 PROGRAM

May 31, 2012

Raymond Skinner, Secretary

Maryland Department of Housing

and Community Development

You have asked for our opinion as to whether an out-of-state

public housing agency, or an instrumentality thereof, may operate

as a public housing agency in Maryland. More specifically, you

have presented the following facts and question: A state or local

government outside of Maryland creates a legal entity to act as an

instrumentality of that government. In the state where the legal

entity is created, it has authority to act as a “public housing

agency,” as that term is defined by the United States Housing Act

of 1937. See 42 U.S.C. § 1437a(b)(6)(A) (2006). The legal entity

has also registered or qualified to conduct business in Maryland.

See Md. Code Ann., Corps. & Ass’ns §§ 7-202, 7-203 (2011

Supp.). Does Maryland law authorize the out-of-state public

housing agency or its legal instrumentality to act as a “public

housing agency” within Maryland?

In our opinion, an out-of-state public housing agency or its

legal instrumentality may not operate as a public housing agency

within Maryland. The administration of public housing programs

within Maryland constitutes an essential governmental function

that only the Department of Housing and Community Development

(“DHCD”), established under Division I of the Housing and

Community Development Article of the Maryland Annotated Code

(the “Housing Act”), and “public housing authorities” (“PHAs”)

established under Division II of the Housing Act, may perform.1

1

We caution the reader not to confuse the terms “public housing

agency,” which is a federal statutory term that relates to eligibility to

administer the Section 8 program generally, and “public housing

authority,” which is a Maryland statutory term that relates to the

(continued. . .)

20 [97 Op. Att’y

An out-of-state public housing agency or its instrumentality,

regardless of whether the instrumentality was properly formed

under the general corporate laws of Maryland or another state,

cannot qualify as a public housing authority under Maryland law.

We also address a second question that, although not

specifically asked in your request for our opinion, relates to the

requirements of federal law, namely, whether DHCD and PHAs

authorized to act as “public housing agencies” within Maryland

may exercise their authority on a statewide basis, as opposed to

being limited to certain political subdivisions of the State. On this

point, we conclude that only DHCD and PHAs created by

Baltimore City or a Maryland municipality are empowered to act as

“public housing agencies” on a statewide basis throughout

Maryland. A PHA established by a Maryland county may

administer rent subsidy payments and housing assistance programs

only within its county.

I

Background

This request arises out of the U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development (“HUD”) 2011 solicitation of applications

from entities wishing to serve as the administrator of the federal

Section 82 project-based housing assistance program (the

“Program”) for one or more of the states, including Maryland. See

HUD, Invitation of Submission of Applications: Contract

Administrators for Project Based Section 8 Housing Assistance

Payments (“HAP”) Contracts (March 23, 2011), available at

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=invitationfor

appsfinal.pdf (last visited May 23, 2012) (the “Solicitation”). The

entities selected by HUD to administer the Program within the

states are referred to as “Performance Based Contract

Administrators” or “PBCAs.” A PBCA disburses federal funds

allocated for rental assistance to low income residents at approved

authority to administer federal rental assistance programs within

Maryland.

2

“Section 8” refers to § 8 of the Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C.

§ 1437f, but generally refers to a number of statutory provisions, 42

U.S.C. §§ 1437a, 1437c, 1437f, 3535(d), 12701, and 13611-19, and the

regulations promulgated thereunder at 24 C.F.R. §§ 880-888 (2012).

Gen. 19] 21

housing projects. In order to fund the administration of the

Program, the PBCA retains a percentage—agreed upon by the

PBCA and HUD—of the federal funds it disburses. Under the

terms of the Solicitation, the PBCA would serve for a term of three

years.

In order to be eligible to administer the Program, an entity

must qualify as a “public housing agency,” which is defined under

federal law as “any State, county, municipality or other

governmental entity or public body (or agency or instrumentality

thereof) which is authorized to engage in or assist in the

development or operation of public housing.” 42 U.S.C. §

1437a(b)(6)(A). Traditionally, the applicant pool for qualification

as a PBCA was dominated by state housing agencies, like DHCD,

that have state-law authority over housing-related matters within

their own state. DHCD has served as the PBCA for Maryland

continuously since 2000.

In response to the Solicitation, however, certain “out-of-state”

public housing agencies or their legal instrumentalities applied to

administer the Program in states other than the states in which they

were formed. HUD acknowledged this type of applicant in the

Solicitation, and required an applicant who proposed to serve as a

PBCA in a state other than the state of its organization to provide a

“supplemental letter” from an attorney containing a “reasoned (i.e.

non-conclusory) analysis establishing that the laws of the State in

which the applicant proposes to serve as PBCA do not prohibit the

applicant from acting as a [public housing agency] throughout the

entire State.” Solicitation, §§ 2.1, 2.6. The Solicitation also

required that the supplemental letter contain “a clear statement that

such laws neither explicitly nor implicitly prohibit the applicant

from acting as a [public housing agency] throughout the entire

State.” Id.

In 2011, DHCD submitted a bid in response to the

Solicitation, but was not selected as the PBCA for Maryland.

Instead, HUD selected Summit Multi-Family Housing

Corporation—a non-profit instrumentality of the Akron (Ohio)

Metropolitan Housing Authority—to serve as the PBCA for

Maryland. It is our understanding that out-of-state entities were

selected to serve as PBCAs in several other states as well.

DHCD, along with numerous other state housing agencies

involved in the Solicitation, filed protests to the awards on several

different grounds, including that awards were made to out-of-state

22 [97 Op. Att’y

instrumentalities. In response, HUD cancelled the disputed awards

and issued a Notice of Funding Availability on February 29, 2012,

re-opening the application process for the PBCAs in certain states,

including Maryland. See HUD’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Notice of

Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Performance-Based Contract

Administrator (PBCA) Program for the Administration of Project-

Based Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Contracts (Feb. 29,

2012), available at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/

huddoc?id=pbcanofafinal.pdf (last visited May 23, 2012)

(“NOFA”). HUD stated in the NOFA that it would “consider

applications from out-of-State applicants only for States for which

HUD does not receive an application from a legally qualified in-

State applicant.” NOFA § D.

HUD included within the NOFA separate eligibility

provisions for in-state applicants (i.e., a governmental entity, or

instrumentality thereof, “formed under the laws of the same State

for which it proposes to serve as a PBCA,” NOFA § E.1) and out-

of-state applicants (i.e., an instrumentality “formed under the laws

of a State other than the State for which it proposes to serve as a

PBCA,” NOFA § E.2).3 Under these eligibility provisions, in-state

applicants must demonstrate that they have “the legal authority to

operate throughout the entire State.” NOFA § E.1.b. An out-of-

state applicant, by contrast, must demonstrate that it “has the legal

authority, both under the law of the State of its creation and under

the law of the State for which it is applying to act as PBCA, to

operate throughout the entire State for which is applying.” NOFA

§ E.2.b. All applicants must demonstrate that they satisfy the

definition of “public housing agency” set forth in the federal

housing act.

HUD has subsequently indicated that, in evaluating whether

an out-of-state entity has the authority to operate as a public

housing agency in the state for which it is applying, it will consider

the opinion of the Attorney General of the applied-for state and

3

According to HUD, out-of-state applicants typically consist of an

instrumentality of an out-of-state public housing agency because the

governmental entities themselves “are typically limited in their area of

operation under the law of the State of their creation to the locality or to

the State that they were established to serve.” NOFA § E.2. Because

the conclusions reached in this opinion apply equally to out-of-state

governmental agencies and the instrumentalities they may form, we will

use the term “out-of-state entity” to refer to both entities.

Gen. 19] 23

that, “[t]o the extent that the Attorney General’s opinion is on-point

and has considered all the relevant facts about any potential in-state

applicants (e.g., instrumentalities), HUD will rely on a state’s

Attorney General’s opinion.” HUD, NOFA for PBCAs and ACC

for NOFA Q&A (Update as of 05/11/2012), Response to Question

No. 163, available at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/

huddoc?id=pbcanofaaccqandasumm.pdf (last visited May 22,

2012) (“NOFA Q&A”). You have asked for this opinion in

anticipation of HUD’s reliance on the same.

II

Analysis

A. Whether an Out-of-State Public Housing Agency or its

Instrumentality May Serve as a Public Housing Authority in

Maryland

An out-of-state public entity may not serve as a public

housing authority in Maryland even if it has registered to do

business in Maryland and is authorized by its state of origin “to

engage in or assist in the development or operation of public

housing,” as allowed under federal law, 42 U.S.C. §

1437a(b)(6)(A). As set forth below, only DHCD or a PHA created

by a Maryland political subdivision may administer federal rental

assistance programs within Maryland. This conclusion flows from

the Housing Act, which establishes a comprehensive legal

framework for the administration of public housing in Maryland.

The Housing Act is the result of the merger of two previously

existing statutes. Article 44A of the Maryland Annotated Code

(the “Housing Authorities Act”) was enacted in 1937 “in

anticipation of, and in order to take advantage of, the provisions of

the United States Housing Act of 1937. . . .” Jackson v. Hous.

Opportunities Comm’n of Montgomery Cnty., 289 Md. 118, 121

(1980), overruled in part by Brooks v. Hous. Auth. of Baltimore

City, 411 Md. 603 (2009); see also 1937 Md. Laws, ch. 517. The

Housing Authorities Act established a housing authority in each

city having a population of more than 1,000 and in each Maryland

county. Jackson, 289 Md. at 121. Each authority was deemed “a

public body corporate and politic” and given “all the powers

necessary or convenient to carry out and [effectuate] the purposes

and provisions of [the Act]. . . .” Id., 121-22; see also Brooks, 411

Md. at 617-18.

24 [97 Op. Att’y

The second of the merged statutes was enacted in 1970, when,

finding that “a need exists to coordinate and concentrate federal,

state, regional and local public and private community

development efforts and resources,” the Maryland General

Assembly created the Community Development Administration

(“CDA”) as a division within the newly-created Maryland

Department of Economic and Community Development

(“DECD”)—a “principal department of the State Government,”

1970 Md. Laws, ch. 527 at 1215, and the predecessor to the

present-day DHCD. CDA was tasked with, among other things,

the responsibility to oversee the administration of community

assistance programs in Maryland. Id. at 1241-48. Maryland State

government was reorganized in 1987, at which time DECD was

abolished, and CDA and its functions were transferred, along with

other housing and community development programs, to the then

newly-created DHCD. 1987 Md. Laws, ch. 311. The statutory

provisions relating to DHCD were later re-codified as Division I of

the Housing Act in 2005, 2005 Md. Laws, ch. 26, with the Housing

Authorities Act re-codified as Division II of the Housing Act the

next year. 2006 Md. Laws, ch. 63; see Mitchell v. Hous. Auth. of

Baltimore City, 200 Md. App. 176, 187 (2011). Thus, the Housing

Act now contains two divisions: Division I, Housing and

Community Programs, which provides for the establishment,

powers, and duties of DHCD, Md. Code Ann., Hous. & Comm.

Dev. §§ 1-101 to 11-106,4 and Division II, Housing Authorities,

which provides for the establishment, powers and duties of PHAs,

§§ 12-101 to 23-101.

Division I: Maryland Department of Housing and

Community Development

Division I gives DHCD broad authority to engage or assist in

the development or operation of housing, including public housing,

in Maryland. As a “principal department of State government,” the

Department has the authority to operate and exercise the authority

of the State throughout Maryland. See § 2-101; Md. Code Ann.,

State Gov’t § 8-201 (2009 Repl. Vol.) (enumerating the principal

departments of State government); see also §§ 2-102(1), 2-102(5),

2-102(8) (requiring DHCD to assist “political subdivisions”

throughout the State) and § 4-211(a)(1) (requiring DHCD to “assist

4

All statutory references refer to the Housing and Community

Development Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, unless

otherwise provided.

Gen. 19] 25

the Governor in coordinating the activities of governmental units of

the State that affect the solution of community development

problems and the implementation of community plans”). DHCD is

responsible for working with political subdivisions to develop

solutions to common problems, serves as a clearinghouse for

information and materials on sound community assistance,

provides consultative, training and education services to political

subdivisions and local public agencies, and accepts gifts, grants,

contributions or loans of money. See generally § 2-102.

DHCD has the statutory authority to “administer federal

programs” relating to community assistance in Maryland, §§ 2-

102(9), 1-101(b), and, through its Community Development

Administration, has a broad range of other powers related to

affordable housing, including the authority to “do all things

necessary to qualify for assistance . . . as a public housing agency

under a federal housing or renewal program.” § 4-211(a)(8).

These statutorily conferred powers qualify DHCD as a public

housing agency within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1437a(b)(6)(A),

and confer on DHCD the authority to operate and act as a public

housing agency throughout the entire State. DHCD has served as

the PBCA for Maryland since 2000 and at no point has HUD or

any party questioned DHCD’s qualifications to serve as a PBCA by

virtue of its status as a public housing agency capable of acting

throughout Maryland.

Division II: Local Public Housing Authorities

Division II of the Housing Act relates to public housing

authorities established at the local level. Like Division I, Division

II was established to further the “public interest,” § 12-102(9),

based on findings of the Maryland legislature that there is a

“shortage of safe or sanitary housing that is available at rents that

individuals of low and moderate income can afford,” § 12-102(2),

and a public need to eliminate unsafe, unsanitary, and overcrowded

living conditions in Maryland. See generally § 12-102. Division II

provides for the establishment of a PHA for each “county or

municipal corporation of the State” and gives each PHA the

authority to “do all that is necessary or desirable to secure the

financial aid or cooperation of political subdivisions, State

government or federal government to help the authority undertake,

construct, maintain or operate a housing project.” § 12-103. It

provides for the establishment of two types of public housing

authorities: “code authorities,” which are defined to mean “an

authority activated on or after July 1, 1990,” § 12-101(f), and “pre-

26 [97 Op. Att’y

existing authorities,” which are those authorities “activated before

July 1, 1990.” § 12-101(r). Each PHA—whether code or pre-

existing—is a “public body corporate and politic” that “exercises

public and essential governmental functions.” § 12-501(1).

Although the Housing Act “enabl[es]” a “political subdivision

to authorize an authority to operate,” § 12-202, a Maryland

political subdivision must “breathe life into each otherwise

dormant agency by declaring the need for a housing authority to

function in their city or county.” Jackson, 289 Md. at 121; see also

Hous. Auth. of College Park v. Macro Housing, Inc., 275 Md. 281,

282 n.1 (1975). In addition to declaring the need for a local

housing authority, a Maryland political subdivision “breathe[s]

life” into an authority by approving the formation of the authority,

appointing its commissioners, and overseeing the finances of the

PHA. A code authority (i.e., an authority created after July 1,

1990) “may not do business or exercise its powers unless its

articles of organization have been recommended in writing by the

chief elected official, adopted by a resolution or ordinance of the

legislative body, and filed with the Secretary of State,” who must

then “issue[] a certificate of organization to the code authority.” §

12-203.5 The chief elected official also must “appoint the required

number of commissioners of the authority,” whether the authority

is a code authority or a pre-existing authority. § 12-302(a).

The “chief elected official” and “legislative body” that must

approve the creation of the authority and appoint its commissioners

are officials of the “political subdivision.” § 12-101(e), (l).

Although out-of-state public housing agencies or their

instrumentalities may also have been created by political

subdivisions, the term “political subdivision” in the Housing Act is

defined as a “county or municipal corporation of the State.” § 12-

101(q) (emphasis added). Case law and common sense confirm

that the phrase “of the State” conveys the meaning that the county

or municipality be “locat[ed] . . . within State borders.” Bausch &

5

A pre-existing authority may continue to operate without having a

local government adopt articles of organization, but only if it was

“activated” by the local government subdivision prior to July 1, 1990. §

12-101(r). Although the term “activated” is not defined by statute, we

interpret it consistently with Jackson to mean that the local political

subdivision must “breathe life” into the authority by “declaring the need

for a housing authority to function in their city or county.” Jackson, 289

Md. at 121.

Gen. 19] 27

Lomb, Inc. v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 330 Md. 758, 786 (1993).

Accordingly, an out-of-state public housing agency or its

instrumentality formed to serve as a PBCA would not qualify under

Maryland law as a public housing authority, and therefore would

not be capable of serving as a PBCA in Maryland.

This conclusion is consistent with other statutory provisions

and court decisions confirming that housing authorities in

Maryland carry out “essential governmental functions” and are

treated as governmental entities for a number of purposes. Section

12-501 establishes the principle that a housing authority within

Maryland “is a public body corporate and politic that . . . exercises

public and essential governmental functions.” § 12-501 (internal

enumeration omitted); Mayor of Baltimore v. BGE, 232 Md. 123,

131 (1963) (same); see also Gibson v. Hous. Auth. of Baltimore

City, 142 Md. App. 121, 128, cert. denied, 369 Md. 182 (2002),

vacated on other grounds sub nom Hous. Auth. of Baltimore City v.

Smalls, 369 Md. 224 (2002); Brooks, 411 Md. at 611 n.3

(describing procedural posture of Gibson). PHAs in Maryland are

specifically included within the definition of “local government”

for purposes of the application of the Local Government Tort

Claims Act (“LGTCA”), see Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-

301(d)(15), and are exempt from State taxes and assessments. §

12-104(b)(2); see also 55 Opinions of the Attorney General 391

(1970) (concluding that housing authority is exempt from

recordation tax on the same grounds as a “political subdivision,”

based on the determination that the decision to the contrary in

Pittman v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City, 180 Md. 457

(1942), had been legislatively overridden by 1945 Md. Laws, ch.

253). While the Court of Appeals has yet to decide whether the

operation of a housing project, as opposed to its construction,

qualifies as a governmental activity for purposes of immunity

under the LGTCA, see Jackson, 289 Md. at 120 n.2, “[i]t has been

generally held that housing projects are governmental.” Baltimore

v. BGE, 232 Md. at 132.6

6

This is not to say that an out-of-state instrumentality, duly

organized under the laws of its state, cannot be involved in housing

development projects in Maryland. For example, a nonprofit housing

corporation formed under the laws of another state and registered to do

business here in Maryland may be able to develop and operate low-

income housing projects and, if carried out effectively and exclusively

for a charitable purpose, may qualify for certain property tax exemptions

(continued. . .)

28 [97 Op. Att’y

It is a standard legal principle that a government entity is a

creature of statute and has only that authority expressly granted, or

reasonably implied, by the governing statute. See Frederick Cnty.

v. Page, 163 Md. 619, 631 (1932); Birge v. Town of Easton, 274

Md. 635, 639 (1975). No Maryland statute authorizes another

state’s agency, or an instrumentality thereof, to perform

governmental functions with respect to public housing in

Maryland. Rather, the Maryland Legislature has carefully

established a state-wide approach to the public housing pursuant to

which DHCD functions as the State’s housing finance agency with

broad authority pursuant to Division I of the Housing Act, and

Maryland counties and municipalities are empowered to create

public housing authorities pursuant to Division II of the Housing

Act to, among other things, “administer rent subsidy payments and

housing assistance programs for both eligible landlords and

tenants.” § 12-105(a)(2)(i), (b)(1)(i). The statutory scheme is

expressly based on the Legislature’s “concern” that “many

residents of the State are living in substandard housing,” § 3-

202(a)(3)(i), and the declaration that housing authorities “exercise[]

public and essential governmental functions” when addressing that

concern. § 12-501(1). This comprehensive approach leaves no

room for out-of-state public housing agencies or their

instrumentalities to exercise the governmental functions the

Maryland Legislature has chosen to entrust to DHCD and

Maryland public housing authorities. In sum, Maryland law does

not authorize an out-of-state public housing agency or its legal

under § 7-202 of the Tax-Property Article. See Supervisor of Assess. of

Baltimore City v. Har Sinai W. Corp., 95 Md. App. 631 (1993). A

nonprofit housing corporation may also “provide[] safe and sanitary

housing to persons of eligible income in such a way that the corporation

works essentially like an authority,” § 12-104(b)(1) (emphasis added),

which would entitle the nonprofit housing corporation to a further tax

exemption. § 12-104(b)(2)(i). However, nothing in the Housing Act

authorizes such nonprofit housing corporations—whether in-state or out-

of-state—to administer governmental subsidy programs, as it does with

respect to DHCD and PHAs created by Maryland subdivisions. And

because DHCD and PHAs in Maryland are government-created, subject

to executive oversight, and essentially governmental in nature, the full

faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution does not come into play.

See, e.g., Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 422-23 (1979) (concluding that

“the full faith and credit clause” does not “override the constitutional

authority” of the state to legislate on matters “appropriately the concern

of the state”).

Gen. 19] 29

instrumentality to act as a “public housing agency” within

Maryland.7

B. Whether DHCD is the Only PHA Authorized to Administer

the Section 8 Program Throughout the State

The second question we address—whether DHCD is the only

entity that is authorized to serve as the PBCA for the Section 8

program throughout Maryland—is presented by the NOFA. NOFA

§ E.1. The answer to this question is dictated by statute. Section

12-105 establishes the areas of operation for PHAs in Maryland.

The area of operation varies by the level of government which

creates the PHA and with the type of activity the PHA is

conducting.

A PHA created by Baltimore City or a municipal corporation

(hereinafter, a “municipally-created PHA”)8 has the authority to

“operate within its territorial boundaries” and, “without regard to

location . . . administer rent subsidy payments and housing

7

This conclusion necessarily rests on an evaluation of current law,

which is unlikely to change prior to the June 11, 2012 deadline for

submitting applications in response to the NOFA. Maryland’s regularly

scheduled 2012 legislative session ended on April 9, 2012, and a special

session, devoted to certain budgetary refinements, concluded on May 16,

2012. Although media outlets have widely reported that a second

special session will be convened in July, 2012, such a session has not

been scheduled and, it is reported, would be focused on expanding slot

machine gambling within Maryland. There is no reason to believe that

the General Assembly will use a second special session, if held, to take

up the criteria for qualifying as a public housing authority in Maryland.

8

Under Maryland law, Baltimore City is governed by Article XI-A

of the Constitution, which is the same constitutional provision that

applies to charter counties, rather than Article XI-E, which applies to

municipal corporations. See 94 Opinions of the Attorney General 161,

168 n.13 (2009); Pressman v. D’Alesandro, 211 Md. 50, 57 (1956). The

Housing Act, however, includes Baltimore City within its provisions

relating to both municipal corporations and counties. Compare § 12-

105(a) (setting forth provisions relating the “authority of a municipal

corporation or Baltimore City”) with § 12-101(g) (defining “county” to

mean “a county of the State or Baltimore City”). Given that the Housing

Act gives a Baltimore City housing authority the same powers it gives to

authorities created by municipal corporations, we consider a PHA

created by Baltimore City to be a municipally-created PHA for purposes

of this Opinion.

30 [97 Op. Att’y

assistance programs,” own or manage pre-1990 housing projects,

and “develop, own, or operate” a housing project within another

political subdivision. § 12-105(a) (emphasis added). This pro-

vision enables a municipally-created PHA to perform any function

of a PHA within the boundaries of the municipality that creates it,

and act throughout the State to, among other things, “administer

rent subsidy payments and housing assistance programs.” Id.

(emphasis added). Accordingly, a municipally-created PHA is

eligible to serve as the PBCA and administer the Program

throughout Maryland.

The same does not hold true for a PHA established by a

Maryland county, which may only administer rent subsidy

payments and housing assistance programs “[a]nywhere in its

county.” § 12-105(b)(1). Accordingly, a county-created PHA

would be able to administer the Program within the boundaries of

the county that created it, but it cannot serve as the PBCA

throughout Maryland.9

III

Conclusion

In our opinion, neither an out-of-state public housing agency

nor its legal instrumentality may operate as a public housing

agency within Maryland. The administration of public housing

programs within Maryland constitutes an essential governmental

function that only DHCD and public housing authorities

established under Division II of the Housing Act may perform. An

out-of-state public housing agency or its instrumentality, regardless

of whether the instrumentality was properly formed under the

general corporate laws of Maryland or another state, cannot qualify

as a public housing authority under Maryland law. With respect to

9

In addition to the general provisions establishing and granting

specific powers to local PHAs in §§ 12-101 through 12-705, Division II

of the Housing Act provides jurisdiction-specific provisions relating to

the PHAs within individual political subdivisions. See, e.g., §§ 13-101

to 13-111 (City of Annapolis); §§ 14-101 to 14-103 (Anne Arundel

County). In enacting each of these jurisdiction-specific provisions, the

Legislature preserved the applicability of the general provisions of Title

12 to the jurisdiction at issue, “except where it is inconsistent with this

title.” See, e.g., §§ 13-102, 14-101, 15-102. None of the jurisdiction-

specific provisions is inconsistent with the requirements of § 12-105

relating to the scope of operations of municipal and county PHAs.

Gen. 19] 31

in-state entities, only DHCD and municipally-created PHAs are

empowered to administer public housing programs on a statewide

basis throughout Maryland. A PHA established by a Maryland

county may only administer rent subsidy payments and housing

assistance programs in its county.

Douglas F. Gansler

Attorney General

Anthony J. Mohan

Assistant Attorney General

Adam D. Snyder

Chief Counsel

Opinions and Advice