Government Relations Committee THE MARYLAND HORSE COUNCIL
by Jane Seigler, MHC Government Relations Committee Co-Chair Mid-March in Annapolis brings an annual ritual in which the legisla-
tors are in a mad dash, careening toward “Crossover Day” - this year, Crossover Day was March 18. After March 18, any bill that has not been passed by its chamber of origin and “crossed over” to the opposite cham- ber is very highly (although not necessarily) dead for this session. By the time you read this, Crossover Day will have come and gone, the marbled halls of the State House Complex will be figuratively littered with the tatters of bills that didn’t make it across, and the legislative machine will be full steam ahead toward getting the remaining bills passed before “sine die,” the last day of the session. Any bill not passed by both chambers by midnight on sine die (April 8 this year), will also fail for this session. Stay tuned for the the May issue for the final results! Te Government Relations Committee has been working hard to lobby
on bills of particular import, and monitoring other bills of interest. Much of our work requires testifying at bill hearings during session, either in person in Annapolis, virtually, or in writing. But a big part of what we do involves the year-round work of establishing relationships of respect, credibility and trust with the legislators. Over many years, MHC has steadily worked to establish and grow those relationships. Several bills this session demonstrate the practical effect of those good relationships.
HB 640/SB 869 was intended to address a concern that buildings used for “value-added agriculture” (think winery and brewery tasting rooms, etc.) were being wrongly classified as “commercial” rather than “agricul- tural” for purposes of property tax assessments. Tis year’s bill included buildings used for equine activities on the list of “value added agricul- tural” buildings. Tat was something we got put in last year. But - it prescribed that while most buildings used in value added ag would be assessed at 25% of their full cash value, indoor riding arenas would be as- sessed at 50% of their full cash value. We immediately contacted the bill’s sponsors and asked for an explanation of this discriminatory treatment. Subsequently, the bills were withdrawn by the sponsors, so they are dead.
HB 1443 would allow possession and sale of consumer fireworks (cur- rently prohibited). We were concerned that although the bill would pro- hibit use of fireworks within 300 feet of a “structure,” that distance is still quite close to a barn, and would not apply at all to a pasture or other animal enclosure. We contacted the sponsor, who agreed to amend the bill to add protections for livestock in the event that the bill passed. We also initiated a grass roots campaign alerting people to the bill and that it did not have protections for livestock. Te bill received an unfavorable report in the committee and is dead.
HB 113/SB 42 would require minors to wear helmets when riding on public land or the grounds of a facility that solicits the public for recre- ational, educational or competitive activities, with certain exceptions. We have worked closely with the sponsors on this bill, helping to craft the legislative language and to find witnesses. As of press, the House bill has
passed out of the House and moved over to the Senate. Te bills are cur- rently stalled in the Senate over possible amendments.
Te exception to the “bills that fail to cross over are dead” rule is HB 1524, which would establish the framework to implement the recom- mendations of the Maryland Racetrack Operating Authority to consoli- date racing at Pimlico, reconfigure and rebuild Pimlico, discontinue rac- ing at Laurel Park, establish a training track at a TBD location, provide for the licensing of the rights to the Preakness from the Stronach Group (which would continue to own them), etc. Tis bill became active just be- fore cross over and was scheduled for a hearing just a few days after cross over. At the hearing, legislators expressed commitment to preserving Toroughbred racing in Maryland, although some legislators expressed concerns about funding sustainability in future years. Proponents of the bill stated that the plan was structured so that no state money would be needed to support racing operations in the future. Also at the hearing, representatives of the Standardbred racing segment expressed concerns about the provision that would take racetrack renewal funds from Rose- croft, to be used instead toward paying the debt service for the bonds issued for the Pimlico rebuild.
Another bill that surfaced late is HB 162/SB 452. Tis bill would declare provisions in routine liability disclaimers/waivers of negligence claims, as well as clauses relating to indemnification and hold harmless agreements, such as are found in lesson, boarding, and competition documents null and void as against public policy.
Other bills we are active on include:
HB 234/SB 278 would allow the MD Horse Industry Board to set late fees for stable license renewals. Te House version has passed and crossed to the Senate. We support this bill.
HB 511/SB 826 would authorize a person operating a bicycle that is ap- proaching a stop sign at an intersection on a highway with two or fewer lanes for moving traffic to “cautiously” make a turn or proceed through the intersection without stopping if the person reduces the speed of the bicycle to a “reasonable rate” and yields the right-of-way to vehicles in the intersection and vehicles near enough to the intersection “to pose an immediate danger.” We oppose the bill. Our testimony pointed out the vague terms in the bill, which make compliance and enforcement problematic and potentially dangerous, especially for people pulling horse trailers on rural roads. Te House bill has passed and moved to the Senate.
HB 530/SB 645 would establish a Maryland Office of Trails in the De- partment of Transportation to develop and maintain a Maryland Trails Network, and advance the development, maintenance, and use of trails
MHC does not endorse political candidates. We support incumbents who are in a position to support, or have already supported, the horse industry on general policy issues and in specific pieces of legislation.
40 | APRIL 2024 | THE EQUIERY YOUR MARYLAND HORSE COUNCIL PUBLICATION 800-244-9580 |
www.equiery.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
