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