AGENDA ITEM 16
January 18,2011
Public Hearing
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
County Council
.~Michael
Faden, Senior Legislative Attorney
Public Hearing: Bill
60-10, Erosion and Sediment Control - Violations
Bill 60-10, Erosion and Sediment Control - Violations, sponsored by Councilmember
EIrich, was introduced on December 14, 2010. A Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and
Environment Committee worksession is tentatively scheduled for January 27, 2011 at 2:00 p.m.
Bill
60-10 would increase the maximum civil penalty for a violation of the County
sediment control law from $500 (initial offense) or $750 (later offense) to $1000.
This packet contains:
Bill 60-10
Legislative Request Report
Fiscal Impact Statement
Circle
#
1
3
4
F:\LAW\BILLS\1060 Erosion And Sediment Control-Violations\Public Hearing Memo.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
60-10
Concerning: Erosion
and
Sediment
Control - Violations
Draft No.
1
Revised:
12-9-10
Introduced:
December
14, 2010
Expires:
June
14, 2012
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date:
----'-.!.No::<.!n.!.!:e:...-----:~----
Ch. _ _, Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Councilmember EIrich
AN
ACT to:
(1)
(2)
increase the maximum civil penalty for violations of the County sediment control
law; and
generally amend the law regarding enforcement of sediment control requirements.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 19, Erosion, Sediment Control, and Storm Water Management
Section 19-69
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
* * *
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
BILL
No.
60-10
1
2
Sec.
1.
Section 19-69 is amended as follows:
19-69.
Violations.
3
4
5
Any violation of this Chapter is a Class A violation.
However,
notwithstanding Section 1-19, the maximum penalty for
f!
civil violation of Article
I
is $1000 for an initial or repeat offense. Each day a violation continues is a separate
offense.
Approved:
6
7
8
Valerie Ervin, President, County Council
Date
9
Approved:
10
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
11
Date
This is a correct copy ofCouncil action.
12
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council
Date
0f:\laW\biIlS\1060 erosion and sediment control-violations\bill1.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill 60-10
Erosion and Sediment Control
-
Violations
DESCRIPTION:
Bill 60-10 would increase the maximum civil penalty for a violation
of the County sediment control law from $500 (initial offense) or
$750 (later offense) to $1000..
Inadequate level of civil fines to deter violations of the County
sediment control law.
Increase compliance with the County sediment control law.
Department of Permitting Services, Planning Board
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be researched.
Michael Faden, Senior Legislative Attorney, 240-777-7905
To be researched.
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIEN CE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
Currently Class
A.
f:\law\bills\1060 erosion and sediment control-violations\lrr,doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
(PO -
\0
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Isiah Leggett
County Executive
Joseph
F.
Beach
MEMORANDUM
January 11, 2011
Director
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Joseph F. Beach, Dire
.
t
060032
fManasement and Budget
Council Bill 60-] 0, Erosion and Sediment Control - Violations
The purpose ofthis memorandum
is
to transmit
a
fisca1 and economic impact statement to the
Council on the subject legislation.
LEGISLATION
SUMMARy
Bill
60-1 0
would increase the maximum civil penalty for
a
violation ofthe County sediment
control law from
$500
(initial offense) or
$750
(repeat offense) to
$1,000.
FISCAL AND ECONONUC SUMMARy
As proposed, the bill will not have a significant fiscal impact to the County. Violators ofthe
Sediment Control law have the right to a hearing
in
District Court and the proposed increase
in
fines could
result in more violators opting for a hearing as opposed to paying the fine. The Judge may render a verdict of
guilty and will set the fme from
$0
to the a1lowable maximum.
In
most sediment control cases resolved in
court, the Judge sets the fine well below the maximum permitted. Any additional revenues that may result
from the higher assessed fines could be offset or diminished if the number of cases heard in court increases
and the Jndge were to impose a reduced fme. lfthe number ofhearings increase, the Office ofthe County
Attorney and the Department ofPermitting Services have indicated that they would reallocate existing
resources to cover costs associated with the increase in the number of hearings and will absorb any additional
costs within the current budget appropriation.
The Department ofFinance concludes that the proposed increase for the maximum penalty
would not have an economic impact as the increase in fines is not so significant that construction or
development would be deterred.
The following contributed to and concurred with this analysis: Michael Reahl, Department of
Permitting Services; Marc Hansen, County Attorney; Mike Coveyou, Department of Finance; and
Amy Wilson, Office of Management and Budget.
3:
o
Z
JFB:aw
-i
c: Kathleen Boucher, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Dee Gonzalez, Offices ofthe County Executive
Carla
Rei~
Director, Department of Permitting Services
Marc Hansen,. County Attorney
Mike Coveyou, Department of Finance
John Cuff, Office ofManagement and Budget
Amy Wilson, Office ofManagement and Budget
Office of the Director
101 Monroe Street, J4th Floor' Rockville, Maryland 20850 • 240-777-2800
www.montgomerycountymd.gov
''J
3: ('")
p:JJ
:..,0fT\
:=~fT1
:=
("')fTI
'Z
:J-«
~...v-
a
00
c
-;
-<
V1
W