AGENDA ITEM 3.4
March 23, 2010
Introduction
MEMORANDUM
March 23,2010
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
County Council
Amanda Mihill, Legislative AnalystcdwaJ.jJJ
Introduction:
Expedited Bill 11-10, Stormwater Management - Water Quality
Protection Charge -Debt Service
Expedited Bill 11-10, Stormwater Management - Water Quality Protection Charge -Debt
Service, sponsored by the Council President at the request of the County Executive, is scheduled
to be introduced on March 23, 2010. A public hearing is tentatively scheduled for April 20 at
1:30 p.m.
Bill 11-10 would authorize the County to pledge the water quality protection charge as
security for certain debt obligations.
This packet contains:
Expedited Bill 11-10
Legislative Request Report
Memo from County Executive
Circle
#
1
3
4
F:\LAW\BILLS\I 0 II Water Quality Protection Charge\Intro Memo.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Expedited Bill No.
11-10
Concerning: Stormwater Management ­
Water Quality Protection Charge ­
Debt Service
Revised: 3-22-10
Draft No. 1
Introduced:
March 23,2010
Expires:
September 23, 2011
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date:
~No~n..!.!:e~
_ _ _ _ __
Ch. _ _, Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Council President at the Request of the County Executive
AN EXPEDITED ACT
to:
(1)
authorize the County to pledge the water quality protection charge as security for
certain debt obligations; and
(2)
generally amend County laws related to stonnwater management.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 19, Erosion, Sediment Control and Stonnwater Management
Section 19-35, Water Quality Protection Charge
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface bracketsD
* * *
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deletedfrom existing law by original bill.
Added by amendment.
Deletedfrom existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by bill. .
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
EXPEDITED BILL No.
11-10
1
Sec. 1. Section 19-35 is amended as follows:
19-35. Water Quality Protection Charge.
2
3
*
(t)
*
*
4
5
The Director must deposit funds raised by the Charge, and funds for
this purpose from any other source, into a stormwater management
fund. Funds in the stormwater management fund may be applied and
pledged to
lli!Y
debt service on debt obligations to finance the
construction and related expenses of stormwater management
facilities as approved in the Capital Improvements Program. [The]
Funds
in the
stormwater management fund
must only
be
6
7
8
9
10
11
[appropriated] used for:
(1) construction,
operation,
financing,
and
maintenance
of
12
13
14
15
16
stormwater management facilities, and related expenses.2.
including debt service payments related to construction and
related expenses of stormwater management facilities;
*
*
Sec. 2. Expedited Effective Date.
*
17
18
19
20
The Council declares that this legislation is necessary for the immediate
protection of the public interest. This Act takes effect on the date when it becomes
law.
Approved:
21
22
23
Nancy Floreen, President, County Council
Date
24
25
26
Approved:
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
Date
F:\Law\BiIIs\1 011 Water Quality Protection Charge\BiII1.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Expedited Bill 11-10
Stormwater Management Water Quality Protection Charge
DESCRIPTION:
Debt Service
This Bill would authorize the County to pledge the water quality
protection charge as security for certain debt obligations; and generally
amend County laws related to stormwater management.
In order to meet current fiscal challenges facing the County, the· County
must increase the amount of revenue available to maintain core
Government programs and services.
To enhance the amount of revenue available to support core government
programs and services.
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
Office of Management and Budget; Department of Finance
FISCAL IMPACT:
To be requested.
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
To be requested.
Subject to the general oversight of the County Executive and the County
Council.
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCES OF
INFORMATION:
Joseph Beach, Director of Management and Budget
Kathleen Boucher, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Marc Hansen, Acting County Attorney
APPLICATION
To be researched.
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
N/A.
F:\Law\Bills\\O\\ Water Quality Protection Charge\Lrr.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
lsiah Leggett
County Executive
MEMORANDUM
March 18,2010
\
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Nancy Floreen, Council President
Isiah Leggett, County
Executive~~;;:t?3
/7
"
"
-::
FY 2011 Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act
I am attaching for Council's consideration a Budget Reconciliation and Financing
Act (BRFA) which makes changes to the County Code that are necessary to reconcile my
recommended FY 2011 operating budget with projected FY 2011 revenues. This bill will help
the County address its current fiscal challenges by increasing the amount of revenue available to
maintain and enhance core government programs and services. I am also attaching a Legislative
Request Report for the bill. A Fiscal Impact Statement will be transmitted to Council soon.
The BRFA consists of five primary components. First, it increases the energy tax
rates. Second, it temporarily redirects the portion of recordation tax revenues that are currently
reserved for County Government capital projects and rental assistance programs to the general
fund for general purposes. Third, it allows revenues generated by the Water Quality Protection
Charge to be used to pay debt service on bonds that fund stonnwater management infrastructure
projects. Fourth, it transfers responsibility for administering equal employment opportunity
programs from the Office of Human Resources to the Office of Human Rights. Fifth, it
authorizes the Fire and Rescue Service to impose an Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
Transport Fee.
As the Council knows, the County's energy tax is actually a tax on fuel oil,
natural gas, and electric utility providers which is passed on to all utility customers. Because the
energy tax is a broad-based tax, its impact on families is reduced by the fact that it is paid by
businesses and households, and all levels of govemment, including federal agencies located in
the County (that currently do not pay any other major County tax). Additionally, the energy tax
is a consumption tax based on energy usage.
It
is not based on the overall size of the utility bill
or the cost per unit of energy used as billed to the consumer. Therefore, the amount of the tax
can be lessened by reduced energy usage. Based on existing usage patterns for the average
homeowner, my recommended FY 2011 budget assumes an average increase in the energy tax of
approximately $2.90 per month. I have also recommended additional funding in the Health and
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Nancy Floreen, Council President
March 18,2010
Page 2
Human Services budget for the County's Energy Assistance Program to minimize the impact to
low-income households.
My recommended FYll budget contains several efforts to restructure County
Government to improve responsiveness and efficiency. One of these changes is the transfer of
the Equal Employment Opportunity program from the Office of Human Resources to the Office
of Human Rights. This shift takes advantage of existing staff resources to reduce costs and
leverage the efforts of County staff to produce better outcomes for the community. This bill
modifies the County code provisions relating to the responsibilities of the Office of Human
Resources and Office of Human Rights to reflect this change.
The EMS Transport Fee is needed to fund fire and rescue services in the County.
Without this fee, emergency response to residents will be impaired. EMS Transport Fees are
widely employed throughout the nation and by local governments throughout the Washington
region. These jurisdictions have not experienced any indication that people decline to use
emergency transports as a result of the imposition of an ambulance fee. By creating a prepaid
fund for uninsured County residents, the legislation that I am transmitting imposes a fee only on
County residents with health insurance which covers EMS Transports. This arrangement more
equitably distributes the economic burden of providing EMS transport services in the County
between residents and nonresidents. The legislation provides for a hardship waiver for
nonresidents who fall below 300 percent of federal poverty guidelines.
To provide the Council with a complete picture of the EMS Transport Fee
program created by this bill, I am attaching a copy of the proposed Executive Regulation to
implement the fee. This proposed regulation will be published in the April 2010 County Register
and submitted to Council after the 30-day public comment period ends on April 30.
Finally, I note that the BRFA is consistent with Bill 31-09, Consideration of
Bills - One Subject (enacted on September 29,2009), which requires that a bill "contain only
one subj ect matter".' As noted in the Council staff packet for Bill 31-09, that bill was intended to
adopt the "one subject rule" of the Maryland Constitution, which requires all laws enacted by the
General Assembly to contain only one subject. The Maryland Attorney General has repeatedly
concluded that budget reconciliation and financing bills do not conflict with the one subject rule.
For example, in 2005, the Attorney General noted that "[f]or the past fourteen years, 15 budget
reconciliation, budget reconciliation and financing acts or variations thereof, have been used to
balance budgets, raise revenue, make fund transfers, redistribute funds, cut mandated
appropriations and authorize or mandate appropriations."] The Attorney General concluded that
all of those bills were consistent with the one subject rule because the provisions of the bills were
"clearly germane to the single subject of financing State and local government".
See Panitz
v,
Comptroller a/the Treasury,
247 Md. 501 (1967) (Omnibus supplemental appropriation bill
comprised a single subject for purposes of
§
29 of
Art
III of the State Constitution even though
See May 19,2005 memorandum from Attorney General J. Joseph Curran, If. to Governor Robert Ehrlich regarding
House Bi11147 (2005).
I
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Nancy Floreen, Council President
March 18,2010
Page 3
the bill combined such diverse elements as police aid to local government; teacher salaries and
pensions; and general unrestricted grants to local government).
Attachments (3)
cc:
Joseph Adler, Director, Office of Human Resources
Jennifer Barrett, Director, Finance Department
Joseph Beach, Director, OMB
Kathleen Boucher, ACAO
Richard Bowers, Fire Chief, MCFRS
Marc Hansen, Acting County Attorney
Robert Hoyt, Director, DEP
Richard
Y.
Nelson, Jr., Director, DHCA
James Stowe, Director, Office of Human Rights