Criminal Procedure - Automated Expungement (Clean Slate Act of 2026)
HB0360 is a Prince George’s County local law focused on community association management registration and dispute resolution. It requires community association managers and, separately, community associations in the county to register with the County’s Community Association Registry and renew that registration annually. The bill also authorizes the Prince George’s County Executive to set the annual registration fee, with the fee structure designed to support the county’s administrative hearing process for disputes between community associations and owners.
The bill further ties registration compliance to access to the county dispute process: a person or entity that fails to register, or that makes a false statement on the registration form, may not file a dispute through the county’s administrative hearing process until they comply. It also allows the county to establish additional reasonable fees related to the hearing process and certain developer-related recording charges, and it directs that collected revenues be used to cover the costs of alternative dispute resolution and related technical assistance. The law applies only in Prince George’s County and takes effect July 1, 2025.
HB0360 amends Maryland’s Corporations and Associations and Real Property laws to create or expand registration requirements for cooperative housing corporations, condominiums, homeowners associations, and community association management entities operating in Prince George’s County. It adds new county-specific provisions requiring annual registration, fee payment, and disclosure information, while also authorizing the county to set fees sufficient to fund the administrative hearing process for community association disputes. The bill affects community associations, management companies, owners, and county administrative bodies, and it creates a compliance-based bar on using the county dispute process for unregistered or falsely registered parties.
The available record suggests the bill was treated as a local administrative and funding measure rather than a broadly controversial policy change. Its structure indicates support for strengthening county dispute-resolution capacity and ensuring that the entities using the system help pay for it. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no documented floor debate or recorded opposition in the supplied materials.
The main points of potential contention are the fee authority and the registration mandate. Community associations, managers, or developers could object to the county executive’s ability to set annual and additional fees, especially if those charges are seen as shifting administrative costs onto private parties. Another possible concern is the enforcement mechanism that blocks unregistered or noncompliant parties from filing disputes, which could be viewed as a strong penalty affecting access to the county’s hearing process. The bill also places compliance responsibility on community association governing bodies, which may raise administrative burden concerns.