Agenda Item 6A
March 19,2013
Action
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
~ichael
Faden, Senior Legislative Attorney
Action:
Bill 34-12, Stormwater Management - Water Quality Protection Charge
County Council
Transportation,
Infrastructure, Energy,
and
Environment Committee
recommendation: enact with amendments (2-0-1, Councilmember Floreen abstaining).
Bill 34-12, Stormwater Management - Water Quality Protection Charge, sponsored by
the Council President at the request of the County Executive, was introduced on November 27,
2012. A public hearing was held on January 15 and a Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and
Environment Committee worksession was held on March 11.
Bi1l34-12 would
• subject all properties not otherwise exempt under state law, mainly non-residential
properties, to the Water Quality Protection Charge;
• allow certain property owners to obtain a credit for on-site stormwater management
equal to a percentage of the Charge set by regulation;
• exempt owner-occupied residential property owners that can demonstrate substantial
financial hardship from the Charge; and
• phase-in increases to the Charge.
This Bill would implement a 2012 state law, which is shown on ©17-26. The Bill
appears to be generally consistent with the state law. A summary, prepared by Howard County
Council staff, of steps taken in other Maryland jurisdictions to implement this law is on ©49-50.
As some of the issues discussed below indicate, many relevant policy issues arise in the
context of the implementing regulations, which are not yet formally before the Council but were
submitted in draft form with this Bill. The Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy, and
Environment Committee, at its March 11 worksession on this BilI, also discussed the draft
regulations and the issues they raise.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Issues/Committee recommendations
At its worksession on March 11, the Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy, and
Environment Committee discussed the following issues before voting (2-0-1, Councilmember
Floreen abstaining) to recommend enactment of this Bill with amendments.
1)
Revenue/phase-in As the state law requires, this Bill would expand the scope of the
Water Quality Protection Charge to virtually all non-government properties, including many
non-residential properties that do not currently pay the Charge. (For background and rationale,
see the Legislative Request Report and County Executive memo on ©11-16.) The amount of the
Charge must be based on "the share of stormwater management services" provided by the
County to the property. Most of the details of this expansion are contained in the implementing
regulation.
DEP did not have an overall estimate of how much more net revenue will be generated
annually as a result of the expanded Charge under this Bill, compared to under the current
structure. The fiscal and economic impact statements on ©27-31 do not contain any revenue
estimate. At the worksession DEP staff estimated an annual goal of $25 million, which would be
further refined in the Executive's proposed operating budget.
DEP proposed to phase in over the next 3 fiscal years the increase in the fee to formerly
uncovered non-residential properties. The Committee recommended extending the phase in
period to 5 years (see ©9-1O, lines 205-232).
2) Credits As the state law directs, the Bill allows a property owner to apply for a credit
for on-site SWM systems or best practices. However, the Bill as introduced did not expressly
require that a credit must be granted if the property owner meets certain conditions. The draft
regulation also uses looser "may" language, implying that a property owner's request could be
denied even if it meets the applicable criteria. Council staff questioned whether the credit was
intended to be an entitlement, or could it be subject to availability of funding or an annual cap?
DEP staff confirmed that they intend that the credit must be granted to each eligible applicant,
and the Committee recommended amendments to reflect that intent. See ©7-8, lines 160-170.
To receive a credit in FY14, the Bill originally provided that a property owner would
have to apply to DEP by July 31. Council staff questioned whether this early deadline was
necessary. The Committee recommended moving that deadline to September 30, along with the
deadline to apply for a hardship exemption (see ©10, lines 233-237).
3) Hardship exemption As the state law requires, the Bill allows an exemption in cases
of substantial financial hardship, but the Bill does not define hardship. The Committee
discussed whether "hardship" should be defined in the law, or decided by criteria set by
regulation, and opted for the latter.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The Committee discussed, but left for the final regulation, the following issues regarding
the hardship exemption: The regulation sets the limit at 100% of the USDHHS poverty
guidelines. Is this the best line to draw? Is a better reference already available, such as the
energy assistance program (MEAP) (Le. if the applicant is approved for MEAP, then could they
automatically be eligible for the County credit; which would mean less work for the County)?
Also, should the County use a sliding eligibility scale, rather than a single cutoff under which an
applicant is either 100% eligible or 100% ineligible?
In addition, as introduced the Bill would have limited the hardship exemption to owners
on owner-occupied residential properties, while the state law does not so limit it (see state law
subsection
(j)(1)
on ©26). After discussion the Committee recommended that the hardship
exemption should also
be
available to non-profit organizations under criteria set by regulation
(see ©8, lines 171-179)1.
4) Grant program
The Stonnwater Partners (see testimony, ©37-42, especially ©38-39)
urged the County to expand the credits, publicize them better, and also start a parallel grants
program for non-profit organizations. Similarly, the Montgomery Soil Conservation District
proposed a grant program for rural areas (see testimony, ©43-48). Before the worksession DEP
submitted an amendment to authorize a grant program for non-profit organizations that would
help in water quality protection or improvement activities (see ©6, lines 124-134).
5) Private roads
The Committee briefly discussed how privately owned roads should be
charged under the new law and regulations. Several years ago DEP moved to assess the Charge
to the Montgomery Village Foundation for its privately owned roads, but stopped when the
Foundation protested. The state law does not exempt private roads as a class of property, but
they could be eligible for credits or possibly a hardship exemption. The Committee did not
recommend any amendment on this issue.
6) Federal and municipal facilities
DEP assumes that federal facilities must pay this
Charge (based on an amendment to federal law inserted by Senator Cardin several years ago).
However, the County has not received any payments from any federal facilities. The Bill (see
©2, lines 17-20) includes federal facilities in the law's definition of "person" only "to the extent
allowed by law".
The US Navy recently sent a letter to the Council (but not to Executive staff) arguing that
the Water Quality Protection Charge should not apply to federal agencies. See ©51-52. The
Committee referred this letter to the County Attorney for an appropriate response.
The state law provides that the County cannot charge State and municipal facilities, and
vice-versa. The state law (see state law subsection (e)(2) on ©20) expressly exempts property
owned by the state, a County, a municipality, or a volunteer fire department, from the Charge. In
its testimony (see ©34-36), Rockville urged the County to budget and pay the amounts the City
believes are past due from the County under the City's own stormwater fee, but this part of the
state law would appear to preclude the County from doing so (at least for future charges).
'In that context, see the letter from the Archdiocese of Washington on ©53-55.
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The current County law contains a limited municipal exemption, covering property
in
a
municipality (as distinct from property
owned by
the municipality) with a similar charge. The
Committee agreed that this provision should be modified to conform to the state law's broader
municipal exemption (see state law subsection (g)(2) on ©23). This is done by amending § 19­
35(g) to delete the current language and reflect the state law's process for notice to and from
municipalities (see ©9, lines 190-197).
This packet contains:
Bill 34-12 with Committee amendments
Legislative Request Report
Memo from County Executive
2012 State law
Fiscal and economic impact statements
Public hearing testimony
DEP
Rockville
Stormwater Partners
Soil Conservation District
Summary of other jurisdictions' actions
Letter from U.S. Navy
Letter from Archdiocese of Washington
F:\LAw\B1LLS\ 1234 Stonnwater Management-WQPC\Action Memo,Doc
Circle #
1
11
13
17
27
32
34
37
43
49
51
53
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
34-12
Concerning: Stormwater Management ­
Water Quality Protection Charge
Revised: 3-14-13
Draft No.l
Introduced:
November 27, 2012
May 27, 2014
Expires:
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date:
-'N~o~n:.x.e
_ __:_ _ __
Ch. _ _ Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
I
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Council President at the Request of the County Executive
AN
ACT to:
(1)
(2)
(3)
subject all properties not otherwise exempt under state law to the Water Quality
Protection Charge;
allow certain property owners to obtain a credit equal to a certain percentage of
the Charge;
exempt certain property owners that are able to demonstrate substantial financial
hardship;
provide for a phase-in of certain increases to the Charge; and
generally amend County law regarding the Water Quality Protection Charge.
(4)
(5)
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 19, Erosion, Sediment Control and Storm Water Management
Sections 19-21, 19-28, 19-29, 19-35
By adding
Chapter 19, Erosion, Sediment Control and Storm Water Management
Section 19-29A
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. 34-12
1
2
3
Sec. 1. Sections 19-21, 19-28, 19-29 and 19-35 are amended, and Section
19-29A is added, as follows:
19-21.
Definitions
4
*
*
*
5
6
[Associated nonresidential property: A nonresidential property from which
stormwater drains into a stormwater management facility that primarily
serves one or more residential properties.]
7
8
*
*
*
9
10
Impervious area
or
impervious surface:
Any surface that prevents or
significantly impedes the infiltration of water into the underlying soil,
including any structure, building, patio, [deck,] sidewalk, compacted gravel,
pavement, asphalt, concrete, stone, brick, tile, swimming pool, or artificial
turf.
Impervious surface also includes any area used by or for motor
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
vehicles or heavy commercial equipment, regardless of surface type or
material, including any road, [road shoulder,] driveway, or parking area.
*
*
*
Person:
An individual;[, corporation, firm, partnership, joint venture,
18
19
agency, organization, municipal corporation,]
S!
legal entity; or
S!
department,
agency, or instrument of the County or", [state agency, or any combination of
them] to the extent allowed
Qy
law, federal, state, or local government.
20
21
22
*
*
19-28.
*
*
Inspection and maintenance of stormwater management systems.
23
24
25
*
*
(b)
Maintenance ofnew storm water management systems.
(l)
Before issuing a sediment control permit to develop any
26
27
property that requires implementation of best management
practices, the Department must require the property owner to
F:\~\BILLS\1234
Stormwater Management-WQPC\BiII3 Committee. Doc
e
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 34-12
28
29
30
31
32
execute an easement and an inspection and maintenance
agreement that is binding on each later [owner[s]] owner of the
land to be served by any private stormwater management
system.
(2) The easement must give the County a perpetual right of access
to the stormwater management system at all reasonable times to
inspect, operate, monitor, install, construct, reconstruct, modify,
maintain, clean, or repair any part of the stormwater
management system [within] in the area covered by the
easement as needed to assure that the system remains in proper
working condition under approved design and environmental
standards.
The inspection and maintenance agreement must
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
require the owner to be responsible for all maintenance of any
completed
ESD
treatment
system
and
nonstructural
41
42
maintenance of anyon-site stormwater management facility if
the
development
consists
of residential
property
[[or
43
44
45
46
[associated]
of nonresidential property that contains
£!
stormwater management facility built or retrofitted
Qy
the
County)] .
Otherwise, the
inspection and maintenance
agreement must require the owner to be responsible forever for
all maintenance of the entire on-site storm water management
system, including maintaining in good condition, and promptly
repairing and restoring, each ESD practice, grade surface, wall,
drain, dam and structure, vegetation, erosion and sediment
control measure, and any other protective device [forever].
(3) The owner must record the easement and agreement in the
County land records and deliver a certified copy of each
F:\~ILLS\1234
Storm water Managemenl-WQPC\BiIl 3 Committee. Doc
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
L'3J
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 34-12
55
56
57
58
59
recorded document to the Departments of Permitting Services
and Environmental Protection before the Department may issue
a completion certificate.
(4)
After the Department Issues a completion certificate for
construction of a new stormwater management facility, the
County must perform all structural maintenance on the facility
if the facility serves residential property [[or [associated] is
~
60
61
62
facility built or retrofitted
Qy
the County that serves
nonresidential property]] unless the inspection and maintenance
agreement
require~
63
64
65
66
the property owner to be responsible for
No other person may
structural maintenance of the facility.
perform structural maintenance on a stormwater management
facility that the County is required to structurally maintain
without the County's written consent.
(5)
Any repair or restoration and maintenance performed under this
Section must comply with each previously approved or newly
submitted plan and any reasonable corrective measure specified
by the Director of Environmental Protection.
(c)
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
Maintenance of existing or retrofitted stormwater management
[facilities] systems.
(I)
The owner of a stormwater management facility that is not
subject
to
subsection
(b)
must perform
all
structural
75
76
77
maintenance needed to keep the facility in proper working
condition. The owner of a residential property or [associated]
nonresidential property that contains
~
~
78
79
80
stormwater management
facility built or retrofitted
Qy
the County, or a homeowners'
association that includes the residential property, may execute a
F:\~ILLS\1234
Stormwater Management-WQPOBiIl3 Committee Doc
81
Q
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL NO. 34-12
82
83
stormwater management easement granting the County a
perpetual right of access to inspect, operate, monitor, install,
construct, reconstruct, modify, maintain, clean, or repair any
part of the stormwater management facility [within] in the
easement as needed to assure that the facility remains in proper
working condition under approved design standards.
(2)
If the owner of a stormwater management facility grants a
stormwater management easement to the County, the owner
must make any structural repairs needed to place the facility in
proper working condition, as determined by the Department of
Environmental Protection, before the County enters into an
inspection and maintenance agreement with the owner that
[obligates] makes the County [to assume responsibility]
responsible for structural maintenance of the facility. After the
owner and the County have agreed that the County will [assume
responsibility] be responsible for structural maintenance of the
facility, the owner must record in the County land records the
easement and any other agreement executed in conjunction with
the easement that binds any later owner of the land. The owner
must deliver a certified copy of each recorded document to the
Department of Environmental Protection.
(3)
After the Department of Environmental Protection receives a
certified copy of the easement and agreements, the County must
structurally maintain and inspect the facility as provided in
subsection (b).
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
ill
If
~
property contains [[an ESD treatment]] a stormwater
managel'llillit system that was installed or retrofitted
Qy
the
o
F:~B!LLSII234
Stormwater Management-WQPCIBill 3 Committee. Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 34-12
109
110
County under
f!:
sediment control permit, the inspection and
maintenance agreement may require the County to maintain the
system.
111
112
113
114
*
19-29.
(a)
*
*
Stormwater management loan program.
The Department of Environmental Protection must create a
Stormwater Management Loan Program. The Program must provide
direct loans to eligible homeowners' associations and other residential
[and associated nonresidential] property owners to:
(1)
make structural repairs to restore a stormwater management
facility to acceptable design standards before the owner
petitions the County to assume responsibility for future
structural maintenance of the facility under Section 19-28(d), or
(2)
cover the cost of abandoning a facility under Section 19-28(e).
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
*
19-29A.
*
*
Watershed restoration grants program.
The Director of Environmental Protection may establish a Watershed
Restoration Grant Program. The purpose of the Program is to provide
funds to non-profit organizations to perform water quality protection
or improvement activities that would help the . County satisfy
applicable regulatory requirements of the County's National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination Systems permit.
Lru
(hl
To identify non-profit organizations to perform water quality
protection or improvement activities. the Director of the Department
of General Services may issue a competitive sQlicitation under
Chapter lIB that is limited to non-profit organizations.
132
133
134
135
19-35.
Water Quality Protection Charge.
F:~BILLS\1234
Stormwater Management-WQPC\BiIl3 Committee,Doc
~
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 34-12
136
137
[[*
(a)
*
*]]
As authorized by State law [[(Maryland Code, Environment Art.,
§
204)]], the Director of Finance must annually impose and collect a
Water Quality Protection Charge, as provided in this Section. The
Director must collect the Charge in the same manner as County real
property taxes, apply the same interest, penalties, and other remedies
(including tax sale) if the Charge is not paid, and generally treat the
Charge for collection and administration purposes as if it were a
County real property tax. The Director may treat any unpaid Charge
as a lien on the property to which the charge applies.
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
(e)
(b)
The Charge must be imposed on each [residential property and
associated nonresidential] property, as specified in regulations
adopted by the Executive under Method (1) to administer this Section.
The regulations may define different classes of real property,
depending on the amount of impervious surface on the property,
stormwater
runoff
from
the
property,
and
other
relevant
characteristics, for purposes of applying the Charge.
*
Charge:
*
*
[[The regulations may allow credits against and exemptions from the
(1)
to the extent that credits and exemptions are not
prohibited by State law; and
(2)
if each credit or exemption will enhance water quality or
otherwise promote the purposes of this Article.]]
ill
A property owner may [[request]] apply for. and the Director of
Environmental Protection must grant,
£!
credit equal to
£!
percentage, set
Qy
regulation, of the Charge if the property
F:~BILLS\1234
Stormwater Management-WQPC\BiII3 Committee. Doc
~
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 34-12
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
contains
~
stormwater management system that is not
~
maintained
Qy
the County or if the owner participates in
County-approved water quality management practice or
initiative.
[[submit
~
To receive the credit, the property owner must
request]] apply to the Director of Environmental
~
Protection in
October
form prescribed
Qy
the Director not later than
11
of the year before payment of the Charge is due.
Any credit granted under this subsection is valid for
1
years.
ill
The owner of an owner-occupied residential property, or any
non-profit organization, that [[is able to]] can demonstrate
substantial financial hardship may [[request]] apply for an
exemption from all or part of the Charge for that property"
based on criteria set
Qy
regulation.
The [[owner-occupant]]
owner or organization may apply for the exemption
[[Qy
submitting
~
written request]] to the Director of Environmental
Protection not later than April
1
of the year [[before]] when
payment of the Charge is due.
(f)
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 pay debt service on debt obligations to finance the
construction and related expenses of stormwater management
facilities as approved in the Capital Improvements Program. Funds in
the stormwater management fund must only be used for:
*
*
*
(3) any other activity authorized by this Article or [[Maryland
Code, Environment Art., § 4-204]] state law.
F:~\BILLS\1234
Stonnwaler Management-WQPC\Bill 3 Committee. Doc
Q
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No.
34-12
190
191
(g)
This Charge does not apply to any property located in a municipality
in the County which[[:]] notifies the County that
it
has imposed or
intends to impose
[[
(1 )
192
193
operates a stormwater management program that meets all
applicable federal, State, and County requirements and has
received any necessary federal or State permit; and
194
195
196
197
(2)
imposes]] a similar charge [[or other means of funding]] to fund
its stormwater management program in that municipality.
198
199
200
201
*
(i)
*
*
A person that believes that the Director of Environmental Protection
has incorrectly denied the person's [[request]] application for a credit
or exemption under subsection [[(b)]]
W
may appeal the Director's
decision to the County Board of Appeals within 10 days after the
Director issues the decision.
202
203
204
*
(a)
*
*
205
206
Sec. 2. Implementation; effective date.
This Act takes effect on Julyl. 2013. Notwithstanding County Code
Section 19-35(b), as amended by Section 1 of this Act, the Director of
Finance must phase in the Water Quality Protection Charge as
provided in this Section.
(b)
The Director must phase in over [[3]]
~
207
208
209
210
211
years any increase in the
Charge that results from the application of Section 19-35(b), as
amended by Section 1 of this Act, or any regulation adopted under
that Section, by including:
(1)
only [[one-third]] 20% of the additional impervious surface that
has been added to the calculation of the Charge in the fiscal
year that begins on July 1,2013;
F:\~BILLS\1234
Stonnwater Management-WQPC\BiIl3 Committee. Doc
212
213
214
215
216
~
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
34-12
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
Approved:
(2)
only [[two-thirds]] 40% of the additional impervious surface
that has been added to the calculation of the Charge in the fiscal
year that begins on July 1,2014; [[and]]
ill
only 60% ofthe additional impervious surface that has been
added to the calculation of the Charge in the fiscal year that
begins on July 1.2015;
~
only 800/0 of the additional impervious surface that has been
added to the calculation of the Charge in the fiscal year that
begins on July .hlQI6; and
[[(3)]]
ill
the full amount of the additional impervious surface that
has been added to the calculation of the Charge in the fiscal
year that begins on July 1, [[2015]] 2017.
(c)
The phase-in established in this Section does not apply to any portion
of the Charge that results from the inclusion in the calculation of the
Charge of any impervious surface area that is created after [[this Act
takes effect)] June 30.2013.
(d)
To receive a credit or exemption under Section [[19-35(b)]] 19-35(e)
for the fiscal year that begins on July 1,2013, [[the]]
~
property owner
must [[submit a request]] apply to the Director of Environmental
Protection [[on a form prescribed by the Director]] not later than
[[July 31)] September 30,2013.
239
Nancy Navarro, President, County Council
Date
F~ILLS\1234
Slormwaler Management-WQPOBill 3 Committee. Doc
Q
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill 34-12
Stormwater Management - Water Quality Protection Charge
DESCRIPTION:
Amends the law governing the Water Quality Protection Charge by
requiring all property owners not otherwise exempt under state law to
pay the Charge, allowing property owners to obtain credits for
undertaking certain water quality protection measures on their
'properties, and authorizing financial hardship exemptions for certain
owner-occupants of residential properties.
County law does not currently authorize imposition of the WQPC on
the owner of any nonresidential property unless a portion of that
property's impervious area drains to a residential stormwater
treatment facility. The existing law classifies these properties as
associated nonresidential properties ("ANRs").
The County's
inability to levy the Charge on nonresidential properties other than
ANRs has resulted in a large number of properties whose impervious
surfaces contribute to water quality impairments while their owners
are effectively exempt from paying into the Water Quality Protection
Fund despite benefiting from the County's watershed restoration and
water quality remediation initiatives.
In 2010, the County received its third Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System ("MS4") Permit from the Maryland Department of the
Environment. This permit, which is mandatory under the Federal
Clean Water Act, requires the County to retrofit 4,300 impervious
acres not currently treated to the maximum extent practicable. The
intent of this Bill is to make the WQPC more equitable by spreading
the cost of restoration over all properties contributing to the problem
and whose owners benefit from the County's water quality protection
programs.
The existing law provides credits specifically geared to property
owners that have installed stormwater treatment facilities on their
properties. The credits specified in the bill are intended to reduce the
amount of the Charge paid by property owners whose actions have
reduced stormwater runoff and thereby assisted the County's efforts
to comply with its MS4 Permit.
Finally, state law enacted in 2012 mandates that County law exempt
property owners who can demonstrate that paying the Charge would
create a substantial financial hardship.
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
To make the WQPC more equitable by spreading the cost of
implementing the pollution control measures required under the
County's MS4 Permit to all property owners not otherwise exempt
under state law; create a systems of credits to encourage property
owners to participate in certain water quality management practices;
and bring County law into compliance with state law as it pertains to
locally levied charges to pay for stormwater remediation.
Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Finance
See Fiscal and Economic Impact Statement
See Fiscal and Economic Impact Statement
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
To be determined.
All the stormwater utilities run by other jurisdictions surveyed
throughout the County charge nonresidential properties.
Steven Shofar, Division Chief, Watershed Management Division,
Department of Environmental Protection (7-7736)
Does not apply in Rockville and Takoma Park. The County collects
the Charge for Gaithersburg and provides the funds to the city minus
an administrative fee.
Class A
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
OFFICE Of THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
ROCKV!LLE, MARYLAND 20850
Isiah Leggett
County Executive
MEMORANDUM
October 25,2012
TO:
Roger Berliner
County Council
Presid~ ~
IsiahLeggett
County Executive
FROM:
~~
--
r
0
SUBJECT:
Proposed Legislation: Stonnwater Management - Water Quality Protection Charge
I am transmitting for Council introduction a bill to amend current law governing the
Water Quality Protection Charge (WQPC or Charge). The attached package includes the
biI1~
draft
regulations to implement the bilI which will be published in the November 2012 County Register,
Legislative Request Report, Fiscal Impact Statement, and Economic Impact Statement. Key issues
related to the development of this legislative package are detailed below.
The WQPC, which was first authorized
in
2002, is an excise tax levied against all
residential property owners and a limited number of non-residential property owners. Currently, single­
family residential properties are assessed the same amount, irrespective of size; townhomes are assessed
one third ofthe single family Charge. Non-residential properties are assessed the Charge only to the
extent their property drains to a residential stonnwater management facility.
The WQPC is used primarily to fund the County's stonnwater facility maintenance and
inspection program and the activities necessary to meet the requirements in the Maryland Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. These activities include stream restoration projects,
stormwater pond retrofits, stream monitoring, Low Impact Development techniques, outreach and
education, and others.
At the-end of the 2012 legislation session, the General Assembly passed House Bill 987 -
Stonnwater Management - Watershed Protection and Restoration Program, which requires certain
jurisdictions, including Montgomery
County~
to adopt stormwater utility fees. The new State law
specifically identifies elements that must be. included in the stonnwater utility fee program. The County
Attorney
has
determined that the following key elements of the new State law must be reflected in the
County's stonnwater management programs funded by the WQPC:
1)
All properties, including all non-residential properties, must be assessed the
Charge (whereas currently, the only non-residential properties that are covered
under the WQPC are those draining to a residential stormwater facility).
";"ontgomerycountymd.gov
1311
240-773-3556 TTY
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Roger Berliner
October 25, 2012
Page 2
2)
3)
4)
There must be a credit program providing a reduced charge to property owners
with stormwater systems on their properties (whereas currently there is no credit
program).
There must be a hardship exemption for property owners able to demonstrate
substantial financial hardship (whereas currently there is no hardship exemption).
The amount of the Charge must be based on the share of stormwater management
services related to the property (whereas currently all single family residential
property owners pay the same amount).
In
general, the share ofthe stormwater
management services utilized is a function of the amount of impervious surface
on the property.
To comply with the new State law, the County must amend the WQPC law and the
Executive Regulations that implement that law. All but the fourth item listed above require changes to
the WQPC law. The fourth item requires changes to Executive Regulations.
Specifically, the attached bill amends the WQPC law to:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Expand the types of property that are subject to the Charge to include all non­
residential properties.
Establish a 3-year phase-in for any increase in the Charge that is due to
application of the bill or any regulations adopted under the bilL
Authorize the County to provide credits to property owners that have stormwater
management systems on their properties.
Establish a hardship exemption for residential property owners who can
demonstrate substantial financial hardship.
Authorize the County to perform maintenance on non-residential property when
the County installs a retrofit on that property.
The draft companion Executive Regulations that are attached to this memorandum
establish:
1)
A 7-tier system for assessing the WQPC on residential properties based on the
amount of impervious surface. The tiered system is designed to comply with the
new State law requirement that the Charge must be based on the share of
stormwater management services related to the residential property.
A credit program for eligible property owners with on-site stormwater treatment
facilities. A property owner's eligibility is based on the type of stormwater
management practice and level of treatment that the facility provides. The
maximum credit for non-residential property owners is 50 percent of the assessed
charge for traditional stormwater treatment facilities and 60 percent if the entire
impervious area is treated using environmental site design. There is also a 50
percent maximum credit for residential property owners with stormwater
treatment.
A hardship exemption for residential property owners whose income is below
100% ofthe Federal poverty leveL
2)
3)
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
.\.oger Berliner
October 25, 2012
Page 3
The impact of all these changes to both the County Code and related regulations is set
forth
in
the attached Economic Impact Statement and Fiscal Impact Statement, but to summarize:
1)
Non~residential
property owners will now be charged for the entire impervious
surface on their property, not just for the impervious surface that dmins to a
residential stormwater facility (as is currently the case). The Charge will be
assessed based on the square footage of imperviousness, so the more impervious
surface, the greater the Charge. Since there will be a significant increase in the
Charge for some non-residential property owners, a
three~year phase~in
is being
proposed for any increase in the Charge caused by additional square footage of
imperviousness being included in the calculation of the Charge. Additionally,
the credit program is available to reduce the Charge for properties with
stormwater management systems meeting the proposed criteria.
2)
'Residential property owners will now receive a Charge that is based on the
amount of impervious surface on their property through a 7-tier system. Under
current law, the estimated Charge for all single family residential property
owners for FY14 would be $98. Under the proposed bill and regulations, the
FY14 Charge would vary depending on the amount of imperviousness on the
property, as set forth below:
1.$33.76, for Tier 1 (1,000 sq ft or less)
2.$51.15, for Tier 2 (1,001- 1,410 sq ft)
3.$102.30, for Tier 3 (1,411 - 3,412sq ft)
4.$119.69, for Tier 4 (3,413 - 3,810 sq ft)
5.$136.06, for Tier 5 (3,811 5,815 sq ft)
6.$153.45, for Tier 6 (5,816-6,215 sq ft)
7.$170.84 for Tier 7 (6,216 sq ft and greater)
For residential properties that are subject to an increased Charge under the new
7-tier system, the increase will be
phased~in
over three years. Also, the Charge
could be reduced if properties qualify for credits.
1)
There are administrative and programmatic expenditures associated with
implementing the proposed changes to the WQPC law and companion draft
Executive Regulations. Expenditures resulting from the Bill include: contractual
geographic information system (GIS) personnel for impervious area data
processing; one full-time Planning Specialist III to administer the new credit and
hardship exemption programs; and facility maintenance and inspection costs on
County installed or retrofitted stormwater facilities on non-residential property.
The estimated annual expenditure to implement the proposed legislation and rate
structure changes included in the
draft
Executive Regulation is $184,860. These
costs will be covered by the revenue collected through the proposed fees.
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
ger Berliner
Jctober 25, 2012
Page 4
As the Council works through this legislation and the companion regulations, Executive
Staff is available to provide any infonnation and assistance you may require.
Attachments (5)
c.
Bob Hoyt, Director, Department of Environmental Protection
Joe Beach, Director, Finance Department
Kathleen Boucher, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Marc Hansen, County Attorney
Jennifer Hughes, Director, Office of Management and Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MARTIN O'MALLEY, Governor
Ch.151
Chapter 151
(House
Bill
987)
AN ACT concerning
Stormwater Management - Watershed Protection and Restoration Program
FOR the purpose of requiring
~
.e.
county
ftft4
or municipality subiect to a certain
municipal stormwater permit to adopt
and implement
certain laws or
ordinances to establish a watershed protection and restoration program on or
before a certain date; exempting a certain county or municipality from the
requirements of this Act
if
the county or municipality has enacted and
implemented a certain system of charges in a certain manner by a certain date;
requiring a watershed protection and restoration program to include a
stormwater remediation fee and a local watershed protection and restoration
fund; requiring
~
l!
county
ftft4
or municipality to maintain
ftft4
or
administer a local watershed protection and restoration fund in accordance with
this Act; establishing the purpose of a local watershed protection and
restoration fund; requiring
~
.e.
county
aM
or municipality to
establish and
collect a stormwater remediation fee in accordance with this Act; requiring
~
.e.
county
ftft4
or municipality to set the amount of a
FBsi€l@liti8!l
stormwater
remediation fee in a certain manner;
authorizing a county or municipality to use
certain calculation methods to set a storm water remediation fee;
r@liJliirilig @8!@a 8!
@Stil:lity 8!Ii€l SF
F.Rtil:lii@i~8!lity
ts SBt ta@ 8!F.RStil:lit sf 8! li€lliF@Bi€lBliti8!l stsrF.RW8!t@F
l'@F.R@€li8!tisli lee iii 8! @eN8!ili F.R8!lili@r;
providing that a stormwater remediation
fee is separate from certain other charges;
exempting certain property from
paying the storm water remediation fee,'
8!til:tasl'igilig
requiring a county or
municipality to
establish policies and procedures approved by the Department of
the Environment to
reduce a
certain
stormwater remediation fee
iii 8!€l@€Ir€l8!Ii@e
!}fita @ert8!ili
~sli@i@s
8!Ii€l
~rs@s€ltil:l'@S
for a certain purpose; requiring the policies
and procedures to include certain items;
authorizing a county or municipality to
monitor and verity the effectiveness of certain measures in a certain manner;
prohibiting,
wita @@l't8!ili
@J(@s~ti81i,
a @Stil:lity fr8F.R
iF.R~ssilig
a stsrF.Rwat@p
l'@F.Rs€li8!tisli fEle Sli a
~rs~sl'ty
ls@at@€l \vitain 8!
F.Rtil:fli@i~ality;
alitasrigiflg a
F.Rtil:lii@i~ality
ts atil:ta€ll'ig@ a @€llility
tel
iF.R~€I8B
a st8rF.RWatSl' peF.Rs€liati8n fEl@ Sli a
~f'S~BPty h~@ate€l
witain 8!
F.Rtil:lii@i~ality
iii
~la€le
€If
a
F.Rtil:lii€li~al
st€lf'F.R7later
rSF.RB€liatisn fEl@;
the assessment of a storm water remediation fee on a property by
both a county and a municipality; requiring a county to provide certain notice
and a reasonable time to pass a certain ordinance before the county may impose
a storm water remediation fee on property located within a municipality;
requiring a municipality to provide certain notice and a reasonable time for a
county to discontinue collecting a certain storm water remediation fee under
certain circumstances;
requiring
~
.e.
county
ftft4
or municipality to establish
a procedure for a property owner to appeal the imposition of a stormwater
-1­
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Ch.151
2012 LAWS OF MARYLAND
remediation fee; requiring
~
I!
county
aftft
or municipality to determine the
method, frequency, and enforcement of the collection of the stormwater
remediation fee and to deposit the fee into a local watershed protection and
restoration fund; specifying the money to be deposited in a local watershed
protection and restoration fund and the uses of the money in the fund; providing
that money in a local watershed and restoration fund may not revert or be
transferred to the general fund of any county or municipality; requiring each
county and municipality to make publicly available a report on certain
information; requiring a county or municipality to establish a certain hardship
program; authorizing the Department of the Environment to adopt certain
regulations; defining a certain term; and generally relating to stormwater
management in the State.
BY repealing and reenacting, with amendments,
Article - Environment
Section 4-201.1
Annotated Code of Maryland
(2007 Replacement Volume and 2011 Supplement)
BY adding to
Article - Environment
Section 4-202.1
Annotated Code of Maryland
(2007 Replacement Volume and 2011 Supplement)
SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF
MARYLAND, That the Laws of Maryland read as follows:
Article - Environment
4-201.1.
(a)
(b)
In this subtitle the following words have the meanings indicated.
"Environmental site design" means using small-scale stormwater
management practices, nonstructural techniques, and better site planning to mimic
natural hydrologic runoff characteristics and minimize the impact of land development
on water resources.
(c)
"Environmental site design" includes:
(1)
Optimizing conservation of natural features, such as drainage
patterns, soils, and vegetation;
(2)
Minimizing use of impervious surfaces [, such as paved surfaces,
concrete channels, roofs, and pipes];
-2-
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MARTIN O'MALLEY, Governor
Ch. 151
(3)
Slowing down runoff to maintain discharge timing and to increase
infiltration and evapotranspiration; and
(4)
Using other nonstructural practices or innovative stormwater
management technologies approved
by
the Department.
(D)
(1)
"IMPERVIOUS SURFACE" MEANS A SURFACE THAT DOES NOT
ALLOW STORMWATER TO INFILTRATE INTO THE GROUND.
"IMPERVIOUS SURFACE" INCLUDES ROOFTOPS, DRIVEWAYS,
SIDEWALKS, OR PAVEMENT.
(2)
4-202.1.
(A)
ON
OR BEFORE JU15¥
1, lUna,
A COUP'l'i'Y OR
lUUNICH~:tLI!!'¥
SUAIsIs
A.BOP!!' A:P'IB llUPIsElUEP'YI' IsOCl.1s IsJ...'N8 OR ORBU1AP'WE8 P'lECE88AR¥ !!'O
E8!!'ABIsI8n A 'NP}fER8IIEI) PRO!!'EC!!'IOP'T I1jIB
RE8!!'OR!}fIO~J
PROGRldf.
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
(2)
OF THIS
SUBSECTION, THIS SECTION APPLIES TO A COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY THAT IS
SUBJECT TO A NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PHASE
I MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM PERMIT.
THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A COUNTY OR
MUNICIPALITY THAT, ON OR BEFORE JULY
1, 2012,
HAS ENACTED AND
IMPLEMENTED A SYSTEM OF CHARGES UNDER
§
4-204
OF THIS SUBTITLE FOR
THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING A WATERSHED PROTECTION AND RESTORATION
PROGRAM, OR SIMILAR PROGRAM, IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION.
~
ill
ill
ON OR BEFORE JULY
1,
2013,
A COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY SHALL
ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT LOCAL LAWS OR ORDINANCES NECESSARY TO
ESTABLISH A WATERSHED PROTECTION AND RESTORATION PROGRAM.
(C)
A
WATERSHED PROTECTION AND RESTORATION
ESTABLISHED UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL INCLUDE:
(1)
PROGRAM
00
A
STORMWATER REMEDIATION FEE; AND
A
LOCAL WATERSHED PROTECTION AND RESTORATION FUND.
(2)
-3
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Ch.
151
2012 LAWS OF MARYLAND
(D)
(1)
EAGII
A
COUNTY AND OR MUNICIPALITY SHALL MAINTAIN
AND OR ADMINISTER A LOCAL WATERSHED PROTECTION AND RESTORATION
FUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION.
THE PURPOSE OF A LOCAL WATERSHED PROTECTION AND
RESTORATION FUND IS TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF LOCAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS THROUGH
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND STREAM AND WETLAND
RESTORATION ACTIVITIES.
(E)
(1)
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN
PARAGRAPH
(2)
OF THIS
SUBSECTION AND
SUBSECTION (F) OF THIS SECTION, EAGII A COUNTY AND OR
MUNICIPALITY SHALL ESTABLISH AND ANNUALLY COLLECT A STORMWATER
REMEDIATION FEE FROM PRQPERTY OWNERS
OF PROPERTY LOCATED
WITHIN
THE COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION.
PROPERTY OWNED BY THE STATE, A UNIT OF STATE
GOVERNMENT, A COUNTY, A MUNICIPALITY, OR A REGULARLY ORGANIZED
VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT IS USED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES MAY NOT
BE CHARGED A STORMWATER REMEDIATION FEE UNDER THIS SECTION.
EAGII
A
COUNTY AND OR MUNICIPALITY SHALL SET A
BESI9El'I'F1:At1s STORMWATER REMEDIATION FEE FOR PROPERTY IN AN AMOUNT
THATt IS BASED ON THE SHARE OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SERVICES
RELATED TO THE PROPERTY AND PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY.
GQUN'F¥ QR MUP'UGlPi".:IsITY
1\li\¥
SE'F A S'FQRMVhWER
REMEDIA'FIQN FEE Uf'lDER 'FInS PARAGBliPII IN AN i\!\IQUNT 'FIIA'F IS
GRADUATED. BASED Qf'l 'FilE AMQUf'l'F QF IMPEBVIQUS SURFAGE QN EAGH
PRQPERTY.
(2)
(2)
ill
ffi
f!H:
A
(II)
A COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY MAY SET A STORMWATER
REMEDIATION FEE UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH BASED ON:
L
2.
A FLAT RATE:
AN AMOUNT THAT IS GRADUATED, BASED ON THE
AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ON EACH PROPERTY; OR
ANOTHER METHOD OF CALCULATION SELECTED
BY THE COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY.
3.
-4­
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MARTIN O'MALLEY, Governor
~
Ch.151
Is
l'I1E K'YIIE FOR ALL RESI9E1\Tl't.<\L PROPERIT O\Vl\tERS
l;iVIl'I1IN 1'IlE COU1\f1'Y OR MU1\HCIPALI1'Y;
VARIES BASED ON l'HE l'YPE OF RESIDE1\ll'IA:L
PROPERl'Y,
UtOLUDU1G
SUrGLE FAMILY
OR
MULl'IPLE OCCUW..1\tOY
PROPERl'IES; OR
GRi'xDUi'...l'ED, BASED 01\1 l'I1E
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 01\. EACH RESmENl'w..L PROPER'I'Y.
~
~
AA
Is
i"..M
0 U1\11'
OF
EACH
J...
COUN1'Y
A1\lD
QR
MUNICIPALIl'¥ SHALL SEl' A
1\J01\lRESIDENl'ML Sl'ORM\J{Al'ER REMEDIAl'I01\T FEE IN
A~T
AMOUNl' l'IM/I':
GREAl'ER l'I1J..l\I OR EQUAL 1'0 l'I1E RESIDE1\11'IAL
Sl'ORl\W1Al'ER REME};)Ml'I01\l FEE SEl' U1\T};)ER PARl..GRAPII
(2)
OF l'I1IS
SUBSECl'I01\l~
1'\1\1D
~
Is
AA
~101\lRESI};)E~ll'lI
. .L
C01\lSISl'S OF:
+r
AND
1'...
Ik\SE Al\IOUNl' 1'1UA' IS l'I1E KYlE FOR ALL
PROPER1'Y OMIERS VlIl'lIUl l'I1E COU1\l1'Y OR MU1\HCIPALIl'Y;
AN MIOU1\ll' l'I1Al' IS GRl...};)U:l..l'E};) It\SE};) ON 1'IIE
AMOUNl' OF IMPER¥IOUS SURFACE 01\1 K".tCII
NO)IRESI};)H~rl'I1
..L PROPER1'Y.
STORMWATER REMEDIATION FEE ESTABLISHED
UNDER THIS SECTION IS SEPARATE FROM ANY CHARGES THAT A COUNTY OR
MUNICIPALITY ESTABLISHES RELATED TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FOR
NEW DEVELOPMENTS UNDER
§
4-204 OF THIS SUBTITLE, INCLUDING FEES FOR
PERMITTING, REVIEW OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS, INSPECTIONS, OR
MONITORING.
(F)
(1)
1)1 ACCORDl"iNCE JNIl'lI
A
COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY
MA:¥
SHALL ESTABLISH POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ESl'ABLISIIED BY A COU)I1'Y OR
MU1\fICIPALITY
Ml};).l
APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT, A COUN'I'Y OR
MUNICIPALIl'Y l\MY TO REDUCE ANY PORTION OF A STORMWATER
REMEDIATION FEE ESTABLISHED UNDER SUBSECTION (E) OF THIS SECTION
1'IIAl' IS I1ME};) ON 1'IIE AMOUNl' OF IMPERVIOUS SURFz\CE 0)1
l ..
PROPERl'Y TO
ACCOUNT FOR ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE SYSTEMS, FACILITIES, SERVICES, OR
ACTIVITIES THAT REDUCE THE QUANTITY OR IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF
STORMWATER DISCHARGED FROM THE PROPERTY.
3r
t4+
til
ill
A
-5
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Ch.151
2012 LAWS OF MARYLAND
THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED BY A COUNTY
OR MUNICIPALITY UNDER PARAGRAPH (1) OF THIS SUBSECTION SHALL
INCLUDE:
(I)
GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING WHICH ON-SITE
SYSTEMS, FACILITIES, SERVICES, OR ACTIVITIES MAY BE THE BASIS FOR A FEE
REDUCTION, INCLUDING GUIDELINES:
RELATING TO PROPERTIES
ADVANCED STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES;
(2)
1.
WITH
EXISTING
RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES OR
FACILITIES THAT ARE OTHERWISE EXEMPTED FROM STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS BY THE COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY; AND
THAT ACCOUNT FOR THE COSTS OF, AND THE
LEVEL OF TREATMENT PROVIDED BY, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
THAT ARE FUNDED AND MAINTAINED BY A PROPERTY OWNER;
(II)
FEE REDUCTION; AND
THE METHOD FOR CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF A
2.
3.
(III) PROCEDURES FOR MONITORING AND
l'J2l'rNW.lLL¥
VERIFYING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ON-SITE SYSTEMS, FACILITIES,
SERVICES, OR ACTIVITIES IN REDUCING THE QUANTITY OR IMPROVING THE
QUALITY OF STORMWATER DISCHARGED FROM THE PROPERTY.
FOR THE PURPOSE OF MONITORING AND VERIFYING THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF ON-SITE SYSTEMS, FACILITIES, SERVICES. OR ACTIVITIES
UNDER PARAGRAPH
(2)(III)
OF THIS SUBSECTION. A COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY
MAY:
ill
ill
CONDUCT ON-SITE INSPECTIONS;
(II) AUTHORIZE A THIRD PARTY, CERTIFIED BY THE
DEPARTMENT, TO CONDUCT ON-SITE INSPECTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY
OR MUNICIPALITY; OR
(III) REQUIRE A PROPERTY OWNER TO HIRE A THIRD PARTY,
CERTIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT, TO CONDUCT AN ON-SITE INSPECTION AND
PROVIDE TO THE COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY THE RESULTS OF THE INSPECTION
AND ANY OTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MARTIN O'MALLEY, Governor
Ch.
151
(G)
(1) A
PROPERTY MAY NOT BE ASSESSED A STORMWATER
REMEDIATION FEE BY BOTH A COUNTY AND A MUNICIPALITY.
EKCEP'J'i\'s PB01HI:lEI:l Ul SUBPA&,\CBAPII (II) OF 'J'IIIS
PARACB/iPII, A COUIWFY 1\'1AY NO'J' IMPOSE A COUWFY S'J'OBM\lll...'J'EB
BEMEI:lIA'J'IO~f
FEE
o~r
A PBOPEB'FY LOCA'J'EI:l WI'J'IIUf
Ii
MW'fICIPALI'J'Y.
~
~
#t
A
MU~HCIPALI'J'Y
1\L'z¥ IrU'FIIOBIZE
Ii
COUN'J'Y 'J'O IMPOSE
A
COU~I'J'Y
S'J'ORM?WA'FER BEMEI:lIA'J'ION FEE
O~lli
PBOPEB'J'Y LOCA'FEI:llNI'J'IIUl
'FilE 1\'lUNIClPALI'J'Y
ur
PLACE OF A
MU~HCIPAL
S'J'ORMWA'FEB
REMEI:lIA'J'IO~l'
BEFORE A COUNTY MAY IMPOSE A STORMWATER
REMEDIATION FEE ON A PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN A MUNICIPALITY, THE
COUNTY SHALL:
NOTIFY THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE COUNTY'S
INTENT TO IMPOSE A STORMWATER REMEDIATION FEE ON PROPERTY LOCATED
WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY; AND
PROVIDE THE MUNICIPALITY REASONABLE TIME
TO PASS AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE IMPOSITION OF A MUNICIPAL
STORMWATER REMEDIATION FEE INSTEAD OF A COUNTY STORMWATER
REMEDIATION FEE.
(II) IF A COUNTY CURRENTLY IMPOSES A STORMWATER
REMEDIATION FEE ON PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN A MUNICIPALITY AND THE
MUNICIPALITY DECIDES TO IMPLEMENT ITS OWN STORMWATER REMEDIATION
FEE UNDER THIS SECTION OR
§
4-204
OF THIS SUBTITLE, THE MUNICIPALITY
SHALL:
NOTIFY THE COUNTY OF THE MUNICIPALITY'S
INTENT TO IMPOSE ITS OWN STORMWATER REMEDIATION FEE: AND
PROVIDE THE COUNTY REASONABLE TIME TO
DISCONTINUE THE COLLECTION OF THE COUNTY STORMWATER REMEDIATION
FEE WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY BEFORE THE MUNICIPALITY'S STORMWATER
REMEDIATION FEE BECOMES EFFECTIVE.
m
ill
1.
2.
1.
2.
EACII
A
COUNTY AND OR MUNICIPALITY SHALL ESTABLISH A
PROCEDURE FOR A PROPERTY OWNER TO APPEAL A STORMWATER
REMEDIATION FEE IMPOSED UNDER THIS SECTION.
(3)
-7­
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Ch.151
2012 LAWS OF MARYLAND
(H)
(1)
EJ2CH
A
COUNTY AND OR MUNICIPALITY SHALL DETERMINE
THE METHOD, FREQUENCY, AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE COLLECTION OF THE
STORMWATER REMEDIATION FEE.
EACH
A
COUNTY AND OR MUNICIPALITY SHALL DEPOSIT THE
STORMWATER REMEDIATION FEES IT COLLECTS INTO ITS LOCAL WATERSHED
PROTECTION AND RESTORATION FUND.
THERE SHALL BE DEPOSITED IN A LOCAL WATERSHED
PROTECTION AND RESTORATION FUND:
(I)
REMEDIATION FEE;
FUNDS
RECEIVED
FROM
THE
STORMWATER
(2)
(3)
(II)
INTEREST OR OTHER INCOME EARNED ON THE
INVESTMENT OF MONEY IN THE LOCAL WATERSHED PROTECTION AND
RESTORATION FUND; AND
(III)
ANY
ADDITIONAL MONEY MADE AVAILABLE FROM ANY
SOURCES FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE LOCAL WATERSHED PROTECTION
AND RESTORATION FUND HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
EACH
A
SUBJECT TO PARAGRAPH
(5)
OF THIS SUBSECTION, A
COUNTY
~
OR MUNICIPALITY SHALL USE THE MONEY IN ITS LOCAL
WATERSHED PROTECTION AND RESTORATION FUND FOR THE FOLLOWING
PURPOSES ONLY:
(4)
(I)
CAPITAL
STORMWATER
IMPROVEMENTS
FOR
MANAGEMENT, INCLUDING STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECTS;
(II)
OPERATION AND
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND FACILITIES;
MAINTENANCE
OF
STORMWATER
(III) PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH RELATING TO
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT OR STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION;
(IV)
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING, INCLUDING:
1.
SURFACES; AND
MApPING AND
ASSESSMENT
OF IMPERVIOUS
-8­
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MARTIN O'MALLEY, Governor
Ch. 151
MONITORING, INSPECTION, AND ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITIES TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF THE WATERSHED PROTECTION
AND RESTORATION FUND;
(v)
To THE EXTENT THAT FEES IMPOSED UNDER
§
4-204
OF THIS SUBTITLE ARE DEPOSITED INTO THE LOCAL WATERSHED
PROTECTION AND
RESTORATION
FUND,
REVIEW OF
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT PLANS AND PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT;
(VI) GRANTS TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS FOR UP TO
100%
OF A PROJECT'S COSTS FOR WATERSHED RESTORATION AND
REHABILITATION PROJECTS RELATING TO:
PLANNING,
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES;
2.
2.
1.
DESIGN, AND
CONSTRUCTION
OF
STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION; AND
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH RELATED TO
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT OR STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION; AND
(VII) REASONABLE COSTS NECESSARY TO ADMINISTER THE
LOCAL WATERSHED PROTECTION AND RESTORATION FUND.
3.
ill
A
COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY MAY USE ITS LOCAL WATERSHED
PROTECTION AND RESTORATION FUND AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL FUND, AND MAY
DEPOSIT TO AND EXPEND FROM THE FUND ADDITIONAL MONEY MADE
AVAILABLE FROM OTHER SOURCES AND DEDICATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL USES,
PROVIDED THAT THE FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE STORMWATER REMEDIATION
FEE ARE EXPENDED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES AUTHORIZED UNDER PARAGRAPH
(4) OF THIS SUBSECTION.
THE FUNDS DISBURSED UNDER THIS SUBSECTION ARE
INTENDED TO BE IN ADDITION TO ANY EXISTING STATE OR LOCAL
EXPENDITURES FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.
MONEY IN A LOCAL WATERSHED PROTECTION AND
RESTORATION FUND MAY NOT REVERT OR BE TRANSFERRED TO THE GENERAL
FUND OF ANY COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY.
(I)
BEGINNING JULY
1, 2014,
AND EVERY
2
YEARS THEREAFTER, A
COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY SHALL MAKE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE A REPORT ON:
fi+
ill
-9­
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Ch. 151
(1)
2012 LAWS OF MARYLAND
THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO A STORMWATER
REMEDIATION FEE;
THE AMOUNT OF MONEY DEPOSITED INTO THE WATERSHED
PROTECTION AND RESTORATION FUND OVER THE PREVIOUS
2
FISCAL YEARS;
AND
THE PERCENTAGE OF FUNDS IN THE LOCAL WATERSHED
PROTECTION AND RESTORATION FUND SPENT ON EACH OF THE PURPOSES
PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (H)(4) OF THIS SECTION.
COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY SHALL ESTABLISH A PROGRAM
TO EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION A PROPERTY ABLE TO
DEMONSTRATE SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL HARDSHIP AS A RESULT OF THE
STORMWATER REMEDIATION FEE.
(2)
(3)
ill
ill
A
ill
A
COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY MAY ESTABLISH A SEPARATE
HARDSHIP EXEMPTION PROGRAM OR INCLUDE A HARDSHIP EXEMPTION AS PART
OF A SYSTEM OF OFFSETS ESTABLISHED UNDER SUBSECTION (F)(1) OF THIS
SECTION.
THE DEPARTMENT MAY ADOPT REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT .
AND ENFORCE THIS SECTION.
SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act shall take effect
July
1, 2012.
Approved
by
the Governor,
May
2, 2012.
-10­
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Fiscal Impact Statement
Council Bill XX-12, Stormwater Management - Water Q.uality Protection Charge
1.
Legislative Summary
This Bill applies to all non-residential properties and all residential properties in the County
for purposes of stQrmwater management. The
Bm
would:
a. Extend the Water Quality Protection Charge (WQPC or Charge) to include non­
residential properties, which currently are covered only if they fall under the definition
of an Associated Non-Residential Property
(ANR)l;
b. Extend the WQPC for an
ANR
to include the remainder of the ANR's impervious area
not currently charged;
c. Phase in over three fiscal years any increase in the Charge to non-residential properties
resulting from the expanded scope. of the WQPC as described in a and b above (i.e. any
impervious surface not currently draining to a residential pond);
d. Phase in over three fiscal years any increase in the Charge to residential properties
resulting from the modification of the Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) system;
Establish a credit program that would reduce the Charge to residential and non­
residential properties having a County approved stormwater management system;
e. Provide an exemption for residential property owners who are able to demonstrate
substantial financial hardship; and,
f. Authorize the County to perform maintenance on County installed or retrofitted
facilities on non-residential properties. .
2. An estimate of changes in County revenues and expenditures regardless of whether
the revenues or expenditures are assumed
in
the recommended or approved budget.
Includes source of information, assumptions, and methodologies used.
There are administrative and programmatic expenditures associated with implementing the
proposed changes to the WQPC law and companion draft Executive Regulations, which
would be covered by the proposed WQPC rate. Expenditures resulting from the Bill
include: contractual geographic information system (GIS) personnel for impervious area
data processing; one full-time Plamring Specialist III to administer the new credit and
hardship exemption programs; and facility maintenance and inspection costs on County
installed or retrofitted stormwater facilities on non-residential property.
Contractual GIS personnel are needed to supplement DEP resources to keep impervious
surface layer and associated data updated and accurate. The Contractual GIS personnel
will cost an estimated $45,760 annually. This estimate assumes a rate of $22 per hour and
2,080 work hours for the one contractor.
property
(ANR)
is a non-residential property that drains to a
stormwater facility that primarily serves residential properties. ANRs are charged based on only
the amount of impervious surface that drains to the residential stormwater facility.
1
An
Associate Non-Residential
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The one new Planning Specialist position will coordinate the administration of the credit
and hardship exemption programs, which is authorized in the proposed bill. The annual
cost estimate of $89, 100 assumes a mid-point grade 23 Planning Specialist III position
(salary of $68,531 plus 30 percent for employee benefits). Specific responsibilities for this
position include outreach and education, working with property owners to complete
applications, reviewing applications and engineering drawings, managing the database,
review applications and verify income qualifications.
The credit program itself has no fiscal impact but will reduce the rates for participating
property owners. The WQPC rate will need to generate the offsetting revenue to
implement the program as well as support the
full~time
Planning Specialist
ITr
needed to
administer the program.
The proposed legislation also provides the County with .the authority to perform
maintenance on County installed or retrofitted facilities located on non-residential property.
The additional costs to the maintenance and inspection program are estimated to be less
than $50,000 annually. The exact costs will be detennined on an annual basis and will be
subject to budgetary appropriation covered by the WQPC.
The financial hardship exemption, which is mandated under a recent amendment to the
state's stormwater management law
(see
Md. Code
Ann.,
Envir.
§
4-202.1
G)),
is included
in the proposed legislation. Although the hardship exemption does not have a fiscal
impact, it will impact the WQPC rate, as it will require offsetting revenue to implement.
3. Revenue and expenditure estimates covering at Jeast the next 6 fiscal years.
The estimated first year expenditure to implement the proposed legislation and rate
structure changes included in the draft Executive Regulation is $184,860. The estimated
annual recurring costs are $184,860. Six-year costs would total $1,109,160.
4. An actuarial analysis through the entire amortization period for each bill that would
affect retiree pension or group insurance costs.
Not applicable.
5. Later actions that may affect future revenue and expenditures
if
the bill authorizes,
future spending.
As noted
in
number two above, the proposed legislation authorizes the County to perform
maintenance on County installed or retrofitted facilities on non-residential property. This
may lead to additional maintenance costs ofno more than $50,000 annually.
/'
-.~
,
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
6.
An
estimate of the staff time needed to implement the bill.
DEP will be utilizing existing resources to implement the proposed rate structure changes
effective FY14. Approximately one PTE will be devoted
to
this effort during the current
year.
7.
An
explanation of how the addition of new staff responsibilities would affect other
duties.
There is no effect on other duties assuming additional staffing is provided to administer the
credit system as authorized in the proposed legislation.
8.
An
estimate of costs when an additional appropriation is needed.
See number three above.
9. A description of any variable that could affect revenue and cost estimates.
Variables that could affect the cost estimate include the amount ofwork needed to provide
maintenance to County installed or retrofitted facilities on non-residential property (as
authorized under the proposed legislation), as well as the administration of the credit and
hardship exemption programs.
10. Ranges of revenue or expenditures that are uncertain or difficult to project.
Not applicable.
11.
If
a bill is likely to have no fiscal impact, why that is the case.
Not applicable.
12. Other fiscal impacts or comments.
Not applicable.
13. The following contributed to and concurred with this analysis:
Gladys Balderrama, Department of Environmental Protection
Vicky Wan, Department of Environmental Protection
Steven Shofar, Department ofEnvironmental Protection
Matt Schaeffer, Office of Management and Budget
Amy Wilson, Office of Management and Budget
N aeem Mia, Office of Management and Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impact Statement
CouncD Bill xx-12, Stormwater Management - Water Quality Protection Charge
Background:
This
Bill
applies to all non-residential properties and all residential properties in the
County for
purpose~
of stormwater management. The Bill would:
a.
Extend the Water Quality Protection Charge (WQPC or Charge)
to
include non­
residential properties, which currently are covered only
if
they
fall
unQer the
definition of an associated non-residential
property(ANRi;
b. Extend the WQPC for
wp~oos~aoot~entlych&~
an
ANR to include the remainder ofthe ANR's
c. Phase in over three fiscal ye&S any increase in the Ch&ge to non-residential
properties resulting from the expanded scope ofthe WQPC as described in a and
b above (i.e. any impervious surface not currently draining
to
a residential pond);
d. .
Phase in over
three
fiscal years any increase in the Charge to residential
properties resulting from the modification of the ERU system;
e. Establish a credit program that would reduce the Charge to residential and non- .
residential properties having a County approved stormwater management
system; and
f.
Provide an exemption fur residential property owners who are able to
demonstrate substantial financial hardship.
This
economic impact statement (EIS) provides illustrative examples. The rates used in
this EIS &e preliminary and may be updated to reflect detailed data that are cmrently
being developed by the Department ofEnvironmental Protection (DEP). The ecooomic
impact is determined by comparing the estimated amount
that
a
property
owner would
owe under the current WQPC to the estimated amount that the same property owner
would owe under the proposed WQPC as set forth. in the
Bill.
1.
The
sources ofinfonnation, assumptions, and methodologies used.
The analysis employs a case study approach that analyzes an averaged-sized non­
residential property as an example ofthe economic impact for items a and b. A case
study was used because ofthe variability
in
the number and characteristics ofnon­
residential properties that currently pay the WQPC. The Department ofFinance
incorporated both the data and analysis undertaken by DEP to provide an example ofthe
economic impact ofBill XX-12.
.
2. A description ofany variable that could affect economic impact statements.
There are a number ofvariables that could affect the economic impact for each non­
residential
and
single-family residential property. The variables include the amoUilt of
impervious
surface
on the property, the amount ofthe credit, and the proposed rate.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
4. A single-family residential property with 4,000 square feet ofimpervious surface,
would pay
in
FY14:
a.
$98 or 1 ERU
2
under existing law.
b. The
property
owner would have paid $153.45 under the proposed 1a.V?,
but because ofthe three year phase-in ofimperviousness, the Charge for
the first year would be $119.69.
5. A property 'with 2,000 square feet of impervious surface, which is owned and
occupied by an owner who
has
an annual income
equal
to
or less,
than
100% of
the poverty guidelines would pay
in
FY14:
a. $98.00 under existing law
b. Nothing under the proposed law since this person would
qualify
for an
exemption.
4.
If
a bill
is
likely
to,
have no economic impact, why is that the case?
The Bill does have an economic impact
for
both non-residential and single-family
residential properties as presented in section 3.
5. The following contributed to and concmred
with
this analysis: Bob Hoyt, Steve'
Shofar and Vicky Wan, DEP; David Platt and Mike Coveyou, Finance.
Department ofFinance
An
Associated Non-JesidentiaI
property
(ANa) is
a non-residential
property that
drains
to a stomIWater
facility
that
primarlly'scrves residential properties.
.ANRs
are charged based on only the amount of
impervious sutface
that
drains
to
the residential stoIDlwater facility.
1
A tiered
'approach
is
being
proposed
through
the companion
draft Executive Regulations, and
satisfies
the
state
law
requirement to
base
the
Charge on ..... the share of
the
stormwa:ter management services related to
the property and provided
by
the county .....
[see
Md. Code
An:n..,
Envir.
§
4-202.1(e)(3)(i) (2012)]
The
tiered approach
reduces the
amount
paid
for
residential properties
that fall
into
lower tiers becaus!,
they
ha.ve
less imperviousness
than
one ERU, and
increases it for
those
that
fall
into
higher
tiers because they
have
greater
imperviousness. A residential property
that
would have paid 598 under the existing law would
pay the
following under the proposed law. The amounts below could
be
reduced.
however,
if
it
qualified
for
oredits.
2
$33.76, for
Tied (1,000
sq ftorless)
$51.15.
for Tier 2 (1,001 -1,410
sq ft)
$102.30,
for
Tier
3 (1,41l-3,412sq
ft)
$119.69, for Tier 4 (3,413 -3.810
sq
ft)
$136.06, for Tier 5 (3,811-5.815
sq
ft)
$153.45,
for
Tier
6 (5,816 - 6,2lS
sq
ft)
g.
5110.84
for
Tier
7
(6,216
sq
ft
and greater)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Testimony of Bob Hoyt, Director,
Department of Environmental Protection
on behalf of County Executive Isiah Leggett
Bill 34-12 - Stormwater Management - Water Quality Protection Charge
January 15,2013
Good afternoon. My name is Bob Hoyt. I am the Director of the Department of
Environmental Protection. Thank: you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the County
Executive in support of Bill 34-12, which amends the County's existing Water Quality
Protection Charge program to meet the requirements of a new State Law (HB 987 - Stormwater
Management-Watershed Protection and Restoration Program (2012)).
This new State law requires certain jurisdictions, including Montgomery County, to adopt
a stormwater utility program and sets forth specific criteria that must be included in the program.
Thanks to the County Executive and County Council, Montgomery County is a national leader in
addressing stormwater pollution and, in fact, adopted a utility charge ten years ago that complies
with most of the criteria required by the new State law.
As required by State law, Bill 34-12 amends the County's Water Quality Protection
Charge Law to:
1.
Require all non-residential properties to pay the Charge (under current law, only
those non-residential properties that drain to a residential stormwater facility are
subject to the Charge).
2.
Create a credit program for property owners that have stormwater management
systems on their property.
3.
Establish a hardship exemption for residential property owners who can
demonstrate substantial financial hardship.
10f2
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
In order to mitigate the financial impact of the new law, Bill 34-12 establishes a three
year phase-in for any increase in the Charge caused by the bill or its accompanying regulations.
The bill also allows the County to perform maintenance on facilities on non-residential
properties when the County retrofits those facilities, which will help encourage non-residential
property ovvners to allow retrofits on their property.
In order to implement changes to the County's program by the State deadline of July 1,
2013, draft regulations were published in the County register in November 2012. The proposed
regulations establish:
L
A 7-tier system for assessing the Water Quality Protection Charge on residential
property based on the amount of impervious surface.
2.
A credit program for eligible property owners with on-site stormwater treatment
facilities. The proposed maximum credit for non-residential property is 50% of
the assessed charge for traditional stormwater management practices and 60% if
the entire impervious area is treated using Environmental Site Design (ESD).
3.
A hardship exemption for residential property owners whose income is below
100% of the Federal poverty level.
The revenue from the Water Quality Protection Charge is used to meet the requirements
of the County's stormwater permit, which is formally called the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System Permit - or MS4 Permit. Our permit requires the County to retrofit 4,300 impervious
acres not currently treated to the maximum extent practicable. I appreciate your introduction of
this bill on the County Executive's behalf and respectfully request that Council to adopt it as
expeditiously as possible so the County can comply with the State deadline. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify.
I would be happy to address any questions the Council may have.
Page 2 of2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
/5
City of Rockville
Testimony of Councilmember Tom Moore
Bill 34-12
Stormwater Management - Water Quality Protection Charge
January 15, 2013
Good
afternoon. My name is Tom Moore, and I serve on the Rockville City Council. I want to
thank President Navarro and the members of the Montgome:ry County Council for the opportunity
to provide testimony on Bill 34-12 - Stormwater Management - Water Quality
Protection Charge.
As you know, EPA's mandated "pollution diet" for the Chesapeake Bay requires most Counties and
Cities in Maryland to significantly increase their investment in local stormwater management. It is
nearly impossible to comply with these requirements without establishing a fee structure to provide
dedicated stormwater resources.
Rockville adopted its stormwater management utility fee in FY08. It
is
based on the premise that
all
property owners within the City limits pay the fee which is based on the amount of impervious
surface on their property. Rockville commends the County for updating its Water Quality
Protection Charge per the requirements of HB-987 (2012), by expanding the existing residential
charge to include businesses and other properties not otherwise exempted under state law.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The Rockville Mayor and Council support Bill 34-12. Requiring landowners to pay a fee based on
the level of imperviousness on their property approximates the amount of stormwater runoff they
contribute and is the most equitable arrangement possible. Rockville's stormwater utility fee uses a
credit system and we are pleased to see that Bill 34-12 allows property owners that treat stormwater
on their land to apply for a credit towards the fee. The City has worked with other communities to
provide education and technical assistance related to the implementation of stormwater utility fees,
and we would welcome the opportunity to assist the County "",;th this initiative.
As the County moves forward with this legislation, Rockville respectfully reminds you that that
County has yet to pay our stormwater utility fee for the County's own considerable properties here
in the City. Dating back to FY09, which was the first year the fee was charged to property owners,
and through FY13, the County owes Rockville a total of $329,249. The breakdown of the charges is
as follows:
FY09 $45,200,
FYl0 $55,596,
FYll $69,290,
FY12 $71,164, and
FY13 $87,999
The County's failure to pay its fair share has resulted in other property owners, including residents
and nonprofit organizations, subsidizing the County.
It
also puts one of the best County programs
in Maryland at odds with one of the State's best municipal programs when we should be allies
working together to further stormwater management in the State.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Once this legislation is in place, the County will have ample additional revenue to pay our fee. We
believe
that
the FY14 budget development process should include a mutually agreeable resolution to
this critically important issue.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today, and I wmud be happy to answer any questions
that you may have.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Stermwater Partners' Testimeny and Cemments en Bil134-12 and Regulatien 17-12
Testimeny efDiane Cameren
forthe Montgemery Ceunty Stermwater Partners Netwerk
en Bill 34-12
January 15,2013
1.15.13
1
My name is Diane Cameren and I am the Ceerdinater ef the Mentgemery Ceunty Stormwater Partners
Netwerk. Fenned in 2005 to' suppert an impreved stermwater permit for Mentgemery Ceunty, the
Partners. have worked closely with DEP
and
other County agencies. to protect and restore our streams..
The Stetmwater Partners suppert Bill 34-12 everall, and we effer strengthening changes. We leek
ferward to' sharing mere-detailed cemments en the prepesed Regulatien 17-12 with DEP in the near
future .
. Since 2006, the Stermwater Partners have been guided by a 12-peint censensus agenda fer the county's
stonnwaterpennit and water quality pregram (copy attached).Peint number 12 reads;
Increase program funding while sending a
liprice
incentive" for more-protective
stormwater measures through- bFoadening use of the County's Water
Quality
Protection
Charge.
A
Bill 34-12 and itsregulatien meet both ef these ebjectives: they would increase tetal funding
fer the stormwater permit pregram, while creating incentives (fee reductiens) for landowners
whO' retrofit with trees, rain gardens, and other practices - and who maintain those practices.
. Other key Peints about 34-12 that we support:
A
Prevides increased, necessary funds for stormwater permit implementatien;
Includes a stormwater fee credit for hemeowners whO' commit to maintaining a Green Street or
similar practice located near their heme;
Includes all nonresidential property ewners, correcting a lengstanding inequity in
the
Water
Qualjty Protectien Charge, and
The proposed 7 -tier structure is also more equitable, since it charges landewners based roughly
on the amount ef imperviousness they own.
A
.A
A
Changes still needed to improve the bill:
When landowners - frem any sector - censider doing a green retrofit like a rain garden, tree planting er
green reof, they ask themselves the fellowing:
What's in it for mel my family, company, organization?
What are the benefits to the landowner ofa Conservation Landscape or other green retrofit? What are
the costs and the administrative hassles? And, are the costs and hassles worth the benefits?"
The
challenge th'llt we face is ensuring that the answers to these questiens will motivate owners to shoulder
the burden of retrofitting in erder to' reap the benefits.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Stormwater Partners' Testimony and Comments on Bill 34-12 and Regulation 17-12
1.15.13
2
In
order tocraftthe most successful stormwater fee credits possible, Montgomery County must:
A
A
A
reduce the hassle factor;
increase the credits and the price differential for those adopting "all-green retrofits;"
Market the credits program. As part of this, communicate the benefits of green practices,
and
use social marketing to promote new norms in landscaping;
engage local groups as partners, including through establishing a grants program; and
further increase the Fairness Factor by including all imperviousness owners including aU
governmental landowners in the fee system.
J...
.A.
Today we provide written comments on improvements needed to meet these objectives.
The City ofRockviIIe
has
had a similar stormwater fee credit system in place for several years and thus far
according to City staff, no one has applied for a stormwaterfee credit - because it's easier to simply
write a check. We suspect that this is due to a credit that is too small and a hassle that is too big.
We have worked fruitfully with DEP in furthering the RainScapes program, and the Stormwater Partners
stand ready to work with DEP staff to help shape this program, including the credits and grants, to help
ensure success in cleaning and restoring our streams, creating green businesses and jobs, and meeting
our MS-4 permit mandates. Thank you for this public hearing and for considering our input.
The contributions and support ofthe following Stormwater Partners to these comments are gratefully
acknowledged: Becky Hammer, Natural ResoUrces Defense Council; Susan Eisendrath, Sierra Club;
Anne Ambler, Neighbors ofNorthwest Branch; Kevin Jeffery, Clean Water ActIon; Jim Foster,
Anacostia Watershed Society.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Stormwater Partners' Testimony and Comments on Bill 34-12 and Regulation 17-12
Further written comments on Bill 34-12 and Regulation 17-12.
1.15.13
3
1) Include a
grant~
program to nonprofit organizational partners - Statewide Bill HB987,
enacted in 2012, provides for (some say requires) a grants program to enable nonprofits to
partner with local governments to provide stormwater practice design, planning .and
construction, and public outreach, among otherfunctions. We urge Montgomery County to
include this grants program as an amendment to Bill 34-12, and to set forth details to be added
to the revisions to Regulation 17-12, after consultation with and input from local nonprofits
including member& of the Stormwater
Partners~
2) All landowners must pay their fair share of stormwater fees - Montgomery County should
charge all landowners, including all government entities, their fair share of stormwater fees.
Unfortunately, HB987 exempted state government landowners from paying localstormwater
fees. {We urge Montgomery County to support amending HB987 to correct this problem.}
Including Montgomery County's stormwater payments owed to the City
ofRo~kviUe
Bill 34-12 and Regulation 17-12 should require Montgomery County to pay its own fair share
of stormwater fees to the City of Rockville, since Montgomery County owns pollution- .
generating imperviousness within the City of Rockville. Montgomery has resisted making
. these payments to Rockville which
is
setting a bad e:xample, and needs to
turn
this
situation
aroundimmediateIy to model responsible and fair stormwater payments. (We respectfully
disagree with Maryland's Attorney General on this point.)
3) Stormwater Fee Structure needs to be tweaked - Regarding Regulation 17-12: Though the
7-Tier fee strueture is more equitable than the current billing method,
it
needs to
be
tweaked to
be more equitable and to provide a strong and clear incentive to residential owners to reduce
their imperviousness wherever possible. Especially, the Tier 3 for single family residential sites
is too broad - it would charge the same fee for lots ranging from 1410 square feet to 3412
square feet of imperviousness. This spread is far too great for a single fee level, and creates
little or no incentive for large driveway and roof owners to reduce or mitigate their
imperviousness.
To correct this problem, we suggest breaking this into two Tiers.
4) Credit program headed in the right direction- Overall we think the credit program is headed
in the right direction. We like the ''maintenance credit" offered to landowners who adopt a
Green Street or other green stormwater practice and agree to maintain it. And, we like that
there is a differential with preference for "all green retrofits."
5) Credit system needs
5
improvements - Based on our review of proposed Regulation 17-12,
the credit levels need to be improved in four ways:.
A) Greater clarity needed - the credit system as laid out in Regulation 17-12 is rather
confusing. Example: the term "Adopt a Best Management Practice" in Table 2 (residential
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Stormwater Partners' Testimony and Comments on Bill 34-12 and Regulation 17-12
1.15.13
4
credits) is vague. We understand that this refers only to green infrastructure practices like
Green Street Bioretention facilities - please clarify this. And the non-residential credits are also
somewhat confusing, given that it's hard to tell as now written, whether the 25% credits for sites
that are controlling the water quality volume and the channel protection volume, are additive,
meaning that sites that have stormwater systems controlling both volumes will receive a total of
a 50% credit.
B) The credits for green retrofits need to be increased -
We have talked with DEP staff in
therecent past about the need to create incentives for landowners to adopt green stormwater
retrofits. Our preference is to give credits (fee reductions) only for green infrastructure
practices like rain gardens, trees and conservation landscapes, because these by far carry the
most water quality and other benefits, but DEP sees a need to also give some credit to
landowners who have built stormwater ponds and other non-green practices.
Given the county's desire to give credits to both gray and green practices, we then are looking
for a credit system that creates the strongest incentive to go green, including the credit level
itself-ancl the difference betweengray"3I'l:dgreencreclit levels.
The
current proposeclcredit for
landowners who invest in green stormwater retrofits must be increased. The proposed 60% fee
reduction offered to non-residential owners who invest in an all-green stormwater retrofit, may
-be
too low of an inducement once the "money math" is done for a given site. Instead,
landowners who adopt an all-green retrofit approach should be offered an 85% or greater credit.
C)
Increase the credit differential to benefit those "going all green" -
For non-residential
and multi-family sites, the proposed differential between an all-w-een (all ESD) approach (60%
fee reduction) and a partially green approach (mixed set of green and grey practices - 50% fee
reduction) proposed is too low it's only a 10% difference. The difference should be much
greater.
D} The proposed system far single-family residential awners needs to be revised
to-
create
an effective set of incentives:
*
Table 2 on page 7 of proposed Regulation 17-12 contains a set of residential credits for
various retrofit practices. Overall, the proposed credit levels are too low, with the range
bemg from 10% up to 25% for the credits. Instead, the credit range should
be
more like
25% to 85%. And, tree plantings need to be added. If the credits are not big enough,
and iftheadministrative hassle is too great, this program won't induce the kind of
widespread neighborhood greening that our streams need and that the MS-4 requires.
We understand that DEP is concerned about the potential for lost revenue that could result
from increased credit levels inducing massive increases in participation in this program.
However, lost revenue from increaSed participation is unlikely to be a big problem for
DEP {given
hist-oricaHy
low rates ofl'artieipation
in
similar programs
in
the region and
in the RainScapes Program). Alternatively, perhaps this should be considered a problem
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Stonnwater Partners' Testimony and Comments on Bill 34-12 and Regulation 17-12
1.15.13
5
that DEP would be lucky to have. After all, property owners retrofitting and maintaining
green BMPs are reducing DEP's retrofitting burden. And the bottom line is that
nobody's going to do retrofits if they're not worth enough credit-wise. The point of the
credits is to serve as an incentive for landowners to self-retrofit. The credits need to be
priced right if this program is going to be 'successful.
IfDEP really is concerned about losing too much revenue from retrofits, then we urge them
to
counterbalance those losses by raising fees overalL Virtually every stormwater fee
we've seen has been too low to either (a) encourage retrofits or
(b)
fully cover local
agencies' stonnwater-related costs, much less accomplish both objectives.
We look forward to working with DEP in evolving this WQPC credit and related'programs,
and to reviewing DEP's economic analysis underlying this bill and regulation and
sharing further comments in the future.
E) An Education
&
Awareness Program needs to be built into the credit program --and it
can reinforce other elements of DEP' s MS-4 Per:rnit work as well (RainScapes, promoting
benefits of going green, etc.). The credit program needs to both involve and engage the
community to work towards new solutions and improvements. RainScapes has been
working with this principle to an extent, with a small budget arid staff. We encourage the
expansion ofthe RainScapes program to adopt more social marketing strategies. Social
marketing strategies such as competitions between neighbors can be effective (i.e., utilizing
competition to encourage cooperation and social support, e.g., neighborhood challenges to
get them to compete for having the most neighbors with the most credits.
J
Other strategies
such as promoting examples of people who have successfully gotten credits could help to
beneficially change social nonns around
landsc~ping
and other behaviors.
Since residents and other landowners will look at this credit program from their own '
perspective of
"what
willI
get out ofthis,"
the marketing ofthe credits and the larger
RainScapes program must also take this approach. People are more inclined to take action when
they are faced with what they could or are losing if they don't use the credits. This type of
message is motivating as long as it's coupled with a solution (too much negative messaging can
people off, but a little can motivate them with a bit of challenge, e.g., "I don't ,want to loose the
credit or my drinking water quality or green space, etc. ")
6) Present the administrative protocol and keep it simple, fast and easy. Regulation, 17-12
doesn't specifY the administrative protocol for landowners seeking to apply for the fee reduction
credits. Basically, the protocol will borrow from the RainScapes Rebates program, which has
evolvedover the years. We support DEP's continued evolution towards more user-friendly
RainScapes protocols. It's essential that DEP make the applications as easy and quick as
possible, otherwise
too
few landowners will bother with the hassle
-and
then the credits won't
achieve their intended effect. Unless the paperwork is simple, fast and easy, the program won't
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Stonnwater Partners' Testimony and Comments on Bi1134-12 and Regulation 17-12
1.15.13
6
entIce enough landowners to "go green at
home~
with tree p1antmgs, rain gardens, green roofs,
or conservation landscapes.
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Montgomery Soil Conservation District
18410 Muncaster Road - Derwood, IVID 20855 - Phone (301) 590-2855
www.montgomeryscd.org
January 15, 2013
The Honorable Nancy Navarro
Montgomery County Council President
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, MD 20950
Re:
Bill 34-12, Stormwater Management
Water Quality Protection Charge
Dear Council President Navarro and Council Members:
On behalf of the Montgomery Soil Conservation District (MSCD) I would like to thank you for
the opportunity to provide comments on Bill 34-12, Storm water Management - Water Quality
Protection Charge (WQPC). The staff and Supervisors of the MSCD provide technical
assistance to farmers and rural landowners and assist them
in
implementing conservation
practices that prevent soil erosion and protect water quality.
In
many ways, the best management
practices (BMPs) implemented by farmers accomplish the same goals as stormwater
management efforts
in
urban portions of the County.
The reality is that
in
most areas of the Agricultural Reserve storm water is controlled through
well-managed areas of open fields, forests, and wetlands. The vast amounts of impervious
surfaces that require storm water management in the more urban areas of the County are simply
not a problem in the Ag Reserve. This is evidenced by the fact that the streams in our
agricultural areas have the highest water quality in the County.
Rural landowners and farmers who pay this fee are
in
effect paying for problems associated with
down County development. A better solution would be to reward farmers for managing the
stormwater in their communities, or provide a funding source to increase efforts to implement
BMPs through the work of the Soil Conservation District. We offer the following suggestions for
amendments to the bill to help accomplish this:
1) Agricultural landowners who manage the soil, water, and other natural resources on their
property through a Soil Conservation and Water Quality Plan (SCWQ Plan) should not
be subject to a storm water fee.
2) The credit program outlined in Bill 34-12 should also apply to any landowner that has a
SCWQPlan.
3) Resources from the WQPC should be provided to MSCD for conservation planning and
BMP implementation in the Ag Reserve to demonstrate to the agricultural sector that
their WQPC funds are benefitting rural communities.
All District
sefYices
are offered on
a
nondiscriminatory
basis,
without regard to race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, marital
status
or handicap.
.
CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT - SELF-GOVERNMENT
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Included with our testimony is a proposal MSCD has developed in cooperation with the
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), which would form a partnership to help insure
that funding from the WQPC that comes from rural areas of the County would provide for water
quality benefits within the agricultural communities from which the funds originate. Addressing
stormwater issues on small headwater streams in rural areas is more cost efficient and can be
more effective than using the WQPC fees for down county projects.
While many of the details of this proposal must be worked out, we believe it represents a more
targeted approach to improving water quality in the agricultural portions of the County and
insuring that the agricultural sector is able to meet the stringent requirements of the Chesapeake
Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) restoration plan.
(;$Y' .
Bua~4
Cc:
Council Members
Bob Hoyt, DEP Director
Jeremy Criss, Ag Services Division Manager
Robert
Montgomery SCD Board of Supervisors
.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Partnership for Water Quality in Montgomery County
Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection
Montgomery Soil Conservation District
Cooperative Strategy for Addressing Montgomery County
TMDL Goals for the Agricultural and Urban Sectors
BACKGROUND
The Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Montgomery
Soil c.onservation District (MSCD) both share responsibilities for protecting soil, water, and
other natUral resources and habitats in Montgomery County. While DEP operates
county~wide,
their efforts to improve water quality are often focused on the urban and suburban areas of the
county. This is particularly true as it relates to the County's Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System (MS4) Permit and the Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) II for meeting TMDL
requirements for the developed areas of the County. Operating predominately in the rural
portions of the county, MSCD is the conduit by which agricultural landowners may receive
technical assistance and project design for water quality best management practices. While
DEP's primary focus may be in more urban environments and MSCD's in more rural, a unique
opportunity presents itself for collaborative effort between our two agencies.
There are approximately 500 parcels with over 10,000 acres of Ag Assessed property within the
County's designated MS4 permit area.
In
addition, there are also agricultural properties that are
assessed residential within the MS4 area. We believe a real need exists to provide outreach and
technical assistance to "Agriculturally" assessed properties located outside the Agricultural
Reserve. Unfortunately, the MSCD's ability to reach these landowners and provide an effective
level of assistance is compromised by reduced funding at the Federal,· State, and County level.
It
is for these reasons that the MSCD is requesting fmancial support from the Water Quality
Protection Charge (WQPC) through a partnership with DEP, that will provide resources
necessary to explore the potential for'stormwater control practices on these agricultural parcels
and further augment our existing outreach to agricultural landowners in the agricultural reserve.
JUSTIFICATION
The three main objectives of this proposal are:
I.
Focus soil conservation and water quality planning on the agricultural properties within
the County's MS4 permit area to explore opportunities for installing best management
practices (B:MPs) to reduce stormwater and nutrients, and develop a database and map
layer of these potential restoration sites.
II. Provide WQPC resources to MSCD for conservation planning and B:MP implementation
in the Ag Reserve areas to demonstrate to the agricultural sector that their WQPC funds
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
are benefiting rural communities. Estimates indicate over 4,000 improved properties
. within the Ag Reserve that are assessed the WQPC, for a total of $286,000 per year.
III. Develop a goal oriented, implementation focused outreach initiative to inventory and
document installation ofRMPs on Agricultural Preservation parcels that drain into
County MS4 watersheds, and catalog the potential for additional BMP implementation.
Based on the TMDL Goals and the strategy outlined in the proposed WIP II, challenges exist for
both the agricultural sector and the urban/suburban portions of the County to meet many of the
nutrient reduction targets. Compounding the situation is the 50% reduction in MSCD
Conservation Planning staff funded by the County through the Department of Economic
Development. This dramatic reduction involved the elimination of an experienced Soil
Conservation Planner position in FY201 0, and has negatively impacted the MSCD' s ability to
reach TMDL goals for the agricultural sector.
Urban stormwater retrofits are very expensive, so the County can realize substantial cost savings
by identifying additional sites on agricultural properties within the MS4 area where BMP
implementation will result in water quality improvements and stormwater mitigation. With both
agencies working to protect our environlnent, there is considerable synergy in their approach to
addressing Montgomery County's restoration challenges. This funding partnership will expand
opportunities for the agencies to combine resources and expertise in tackling the County's
TMDL Goals.
DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES
MSCD works v.ith landowners throughout the County to implement BMPs that improve water
quality and reduce storm water impacts. Most conservation practices that farmers install have
stormwater benefits in addition to the associated nutrient and sediment load reductions. (Please
see the attached sheet of practice descriptions.) Through the development of Soil Conservation
and Water Quality (SCWQ) Plans for landowners, MSCD makes recommendations on
conservation techniques that improve soil health and increase infiltration capacity. By allowing
more rain to permeate into the soil rather than running off into streams, these practices prevent
soil erosion and control stormwater flows. Some examples of these practices include crop
rotation,
no~till
farming, cover crops, rotational grazing, and pasture management. There are
also a number of structural BMPs that provide stormwater control in addition to nutrient and
sediment reductions.
Providing resources to MSCD through the WQPC will help DEP insure that the rural landowners
that pay the WQPC will have tangible water quality benefits right in their own communities.
Furthermore, the agencies will collaborate on an outreach campaign to assess the conservation
potential on agricultural properties within the urban/suburban portions of the county. Working
with the owners ofthis 10,000+ acre land base will create a catalog of potential conservation
practices that could be applied to these farms to generate nutrient and stormwater reductions.
Some of these practices may result in nutrient credits that could be used to help the county
achieve their MS4 permit goals at a considerable discount to more expensive urban stormwater
management practices.
Funding from the WQPC will be used to restore the previously eliminated County Conservation
Planner position, create a new Soil Conservation Technician position, and replace deficiencies in
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MSCD's operating budget. A portion will also go toward salary reimbursements MSCD has
been required to provide to DED to compensate for General Fund budget reductions. The new
Conservation Planner will develop an outreach campaign and focus SCWQ Planning efforts on
the agricultural properties within the MS4 permit sections of the county. In addition, a Soil
Conservation Engineering Technician position is necessary to provide technical assistance,
project design, and surveying for the increased level ofBMP implementation required to meet
the TMDL. It is anticipated that many of the operations in the MS4 sections of the county will
be equestrian facilities, horticultural or nursery operations, small vegetable operations, and other
niche agricultural producers. These operations have specialized needs and often require
considerably more staff time than our traditional agricultural clients. MSCD has experienced an
increase in requests from these new and emerging clients over the last couple years, and with
adequate staff, will be well positioned to provide them with technical assistance and ideas for
improving their operations. There are also a number of cost-share programs currently available
to assist these clients with the implementation of conservation practices.
A portion of the proposed funding will also be used to establish a rental equipment program for
conservation practices and encourage SCWQ planning among Cover Crop program participants.
Many landowners are interested in a variety of conservation planting techniques, but may not
have the equipment necessary to carry out these praCtices. This may include no-till planting
practices for cover crop and pasture reseeding, as well other conservation equipment such as
aerators, conservation tillage, and compost spreaders. Although Cover Crop program
participants are not required to have an updated SCWQ Plan, many would benefit from knowing
what other conservation opportunities exist on their farms. By establishing a County incentive
linked to the MDA Cover Crop program, Montgomery County will increase participation in the
program and promote the conservation planning needed to achieve enhanced levels ofBMP
implementation.
PROPOSED BUDGET EXPENDITURES
Funding received by MSCD will be used to cover the following current budget shortfalls:
Re-Instate Resource Conservationist Position
Soil Conservation Engineering Technician
Including benefits, equipment, rent, etc
MSCD Reimbursement to DED
Operating Funds*
Conservation Matters Newsletter
Communications, phones, copiers, etc.
Office supplies, equipment, printing, etc.
Conservation Equipment Rental Program
IT Equipment
Workshops, Seminars, Outreach to small
Agricultural landowners
County Cover Crop Incentive /\
TOTAL REQUEST
$100,000
$60,000
$20,000
$50,000
$5,000
$5,000
$3,000
$20,000
$10,000
$7,000
$280,000
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
*
MSCD receives the lowest operating budget of all Soil Conservation Districts in the state, and
has deferred the purchase of equipment, tools, and IT hardware for years because of this
shortfall. We cannot meet the rigorous goals outlined in the TMDL without proper resources.
1\
An
incentive payment of $5/acre for parcels enrolled in the Cover Crop program that have a
current SCWQ Plan will serve as a statewide model for encouraging conservation planning and
greater participation in the Cover Crop program, which is one of the best mechanisms for
reaching water quality goals.
STRATEGY IDGHLIGHTS
• WQPC funds collected from the Agricultural Reserve areas of the county will be used to
fund water quality projects through DEP fmancial support provided to the MSCD.
• Focused" outreach and technical assistance directed at agricultural property owners within
sections of the County covered under the MS4 permit will demonstrate opportunities for
stormwater control, sediment reduction, and nutrient credit trading potential to achieve
TMDL goals.
• Design and construct conservation best management practices on agricultural parcels
within the MS4 permit areas of the County.
• The cost of Ag BMPs are shared by private citizens - this represents a tremendous
LEVERAGING opportunity, whereby WQPC funds would actually have greater impact
by encouraging private investment in water quality improvements.
• MSCD, in cooperation with DEP, will develop a database and GIS layer for ag prqperties
outside of the Ag Reserve as well as Ag Preservation parcels in watersheds that drain to
the MS4 permit area, and target 20 SCWQ Plans on 1,000 new acres a year within the
urban/suburban areas of the County.
o
This partnership will help to demonstrate a united approach to addressing water quality
challenges in Montgomery County, and provide collaboration between the agricultural
and urban/suburban sectors.
• The "aggressive" nutrient reduction targets established for the ag sector under the WIP II
process cannot be achieved without additional resources. All Montgomery County
agencies must work together to insure that we do everything we can to meet the Bay goals.
• Establish a rental program to provide more farmers access to conservation equipment for
no-till planting, pasture renovation, compost spreading, and other practices that reduce .
stormwater impacts and nutrient and sediment loads. Cover Crops, no-till farming, and
establishing well maintained pastures are some of the most economical and effective
methods of controlling runoff and reducing nutrient loss from agricultural fields.
• Create a Cover Crop incentive payment program that will encourage broader participation
by County farmers and promote the development of SCWQ Plans, which are the genesis of
BMP implementation on agricultural properties.
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Page 1 of2
Faden, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Updated
Meyers, Jeff Omeyers@howardcountymd.gov]
Friday, February 22, 2013 11
:48
AM
Devilbiss, Thomas S.
Faden, Michael
Subject: RE: Stormwater utility fee
Anne Arundel County
The proposal was introduced on January
2013. The Council is still deliberating. As introduced, the legislation
establishes a three-tier payment structure paid annually:
$34 for townhouses and condominiums (R1O, R15, R22 zones)
$85 for single family homes
(R2
and R5 zones)
$170 for rural agricultural
(RA,
RLD, R1 zones)
Council administrator reports
",,-,-ill
likely be amended".
http://www.aacounty.org/CountyCouncil/Resources/2013/2-13.pdf
Baltimore City
Council Bill 12-0155 was introduced in November and is still pending Committee action. The Bill requires the
Board of Estimates to establish a fee schedule. The Department of Public Works has scheduled meetings to educate
and inform residents about the impact stormwater has on their communities, and the proposed legislation for a
stormwater remediation fee.
http://legistar.balrimoredtycouncil.com/ attachments/9843.pdf
Baltimore County
Council administrator:
HI
think this fee
will
be dealt with in the budget process which begins in April."
Carroll County
Carroll having the Brst meeting of advisory group tonight to figure out how to proceed.
Frederick County
The County is in the beginning stages of the process. Staff made a presentation to the County Commissioners
and they (reluctantly) directed staff to continue working on a fee proposal.
Frederick has a bill before the General Assembly to exempt the county
HB407.
Harford County
The County's Department of Public Works held a public information/open house night earlier this month to
provide information to the public regarding the fee. Bill 13-12 is now before the Council.
http://www.harfordcountymd.gov /weblink8/ElectronicFile.aspx?dodd=4070220&dbid=0
3/5/2013
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Page 2 of2
Montgomery County
Bill 34-12, introduced late last year, had a public hearing on January 15, is now pending before the Council's
Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy, and Environment Committee. Under the Bill, the charge for a residential
property would range from $33.76 to $170.84 depending on size and level of imperviousness. Non-residential
properties would be charged by square foot of imperviousness. There will be credits for various stormwater
management elements on the property. The charges
will
be phased in over 3 years. Council staff anticipates progress
in
March.
http://www6.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/bill/2012/Packets/20121127_6B.pdf
Prince George's County
A county workgroup to evaluate the State requirements is
in
its final stages. The workgroup \vill be briefing the
county executive and county council in February. The workgroup
will
hold a public forum in March and expects to
see legislation
in
April.
Charles County
County is currently waiting for technical information from consultants that
will
allow choice of methodology in
calculating the fee. County hopes to have that information sometime in 1-1arch, after which legislation
will
be
proposed implementing that fee.
3/5/2013
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
COMMANDER
NAVY REGION, MID-ATlANTIC
1510 GILBERT ST.
NORFOlK. VA
23511-2737
5~ ~'OL
Y REFER TO'
...
I
EVN40/09/RE092
071708
Montgomery County Council
100 Maryland Avenue, Fifth Floor
Rockville, MD 20850
Ladies and Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
!.J."
FER 2 5
,.1
~..,~-;
..
_
....
,
"1
_;'1
........
-(
'-
..r::
'.?:J
/~~~
r:
~':~rq
-,ii1
W~~ER
MONTGOMERY COUNTY BILL 34-12, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT -
QUALITY PROTECTION CHARGE
"'.1
:~,j
As the Department of Defense (DoD) Regional Environmental
Coordinator (REC) for EPA Region III and on behalf of all the military
services, we are responsible for coordinating responses to various
environmental policies or regulatory matters of interest. The DoD
appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding Montgomery
County Council Bill 34-12, Stormwater Management - Water Quality
Protection Charge.
There are several concerns we would like to discuss. First, in
accordance with guidance/direction from the Maryland Department of the
Environment, federal facilities already submit Erosion and Sediment
Control Plans for land disturbing projects to the State vice County
for approval. Therefore, submitting these plans to the County for a
sediment control permit, as currently proposed, is redundant and
should not pertain to federal facilities.
Second, Bill 34-12 would require property owners to place in
County records an easement and agreement related to BMP inspection and
maintenance. Federal properties, to include DoD installations, are
prohibited from placing easements on federal lands and DoD
installations in Montgomery County would not be able to comply with
this provision. We request that you place specific exemption language
making it clear that federal lands are exempt from this easement
requirement.
Third, we do not believe federal law permits federal agencies to
pay the proposed Water Quality Protection Charge as set out in Section
19-35 of the proposed bill. The Clean Water Act was amended in 2011
to provide for the payment of reasonable service fees by federal
agencies. However, payment is conditioned on several factors. For a
state or local stormwater charge to be payable by a DoD facility, a
stormwater service charge must: (1) relate to the control and
abatement of water pollution; (2) be reasonable; (3) be
nondiscriminatorYi (4) be based on some fair approximation of the
proportionate contribution of the property or facility to stormwater
pollutioni (5) be based in terms of quantities of pollutants, or
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
5090
EVN40/09/RE092
Ft"P
?
~ ~M1
volume or rate of stormwater discharge or runoff from the property or
facility; (6) be used to payor reimburse the costs associated with
any stormwater management program; and (7) may include the full range
of programmatic and structural costs attributable to collecting
stormwater, reducing pollutants in stormwater, and reducing the volume
and rate of stormwater discharge (33 U.S.C.A.
§
1323(c».
There are a number of DoD facilities within Montgomery County.
Most of these are or will be regulated by the Maryland MS4 Phase II
General Permit. In addition, stormwater runoff from a number of these
facilities discharges directly to U.S. waters vice into Montgomery
County's MS4 system. Therefore, the Water Quality Protection Charge
for these facilities with respect to stormwater discharges to the
County MS4 system would not clearly relate to the control and
abatement of water pollution, be reasonable, be based on some fair
approximation of the proportionate contribution of the property or
facility to stormwater pollution, or be based in terms of quantities
of pollutants, volume, rate of stormwater discharge, or runoff from
the property.
If
you
have any questions, please contact Lieutenant Commander
Mark P. Nevitt at mark.nevitt@navy.mil, telephone (757) 322-2938 or
Mr. William Bullard at william.bullard@navy.mil or
telephone (757) 341-0429.
Sincerely,
CHRISTINE H. PORTER
Director for Regional
Environmental Coordination
By direction of the Commander
Copy to:
U.S. Army REC, Region III (Ms. Amy Alton)
U.S. Air Force REC, Regions I, III (Mr. Ron Joyner)
ttt~cJlIJiz~\
/",
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
ARCHDIOCESE OF WASHINGTON
Archdiocesan Pastoral Center: 5001 Eastern Avenue, Hyansville, MD 20782-3447
Mailing Address: Post Office Box 29260, Washington, DC 20017-0260
301-853-4500 TDD 301-853-5300
Office of the Chancellor
Phone: 301-853-4507
Fax:
301-853-7676
March 13,2013
·,,·1.
:;~)
::J
Council Members
Montgomery County Council
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, MD 20850
Re:
--1
--(
l./,}
-~
BILL 34-12 Storm Water Management - Water Quality Protection Charge
Dear Council Members:
On behalf of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, I am wntmg to you
regarding Bill 34-12, a bill that would implement a state mandate enacted in 2012 by the
Maryland General Assembly for local subdivisions to adopt measures to improve the water
quality of the Chesapeake Bay. This bill would impose a "Water Quality Protection Charge"
("WPQC") on all non-residential properties in the County, commencing July 1,2013.
The Archdiocese supports the environmental objective of improving the water quality of
our community's watershed and wishes, as it is able, to contribute a fair share to mitigation
efforts. Nonetheless, as an owner of many religious institutional properties in the County, the
Archdiocese has concerns about the implications of this legislation and accompanying
regulations for its operations.
The Archdiocese's properties in Montgomery County represent a variety of uses. Among
them are 36 parishes that include places of worship, educational facilities, convents and
residences for clergy, soup kitchens, community health clinics, food pantries, and other parish­
based outreach ministries. There are 39 Catholic elementary and secondary schools that emoll
11,880 students, at an estimated annual savings of $168 million to Montgomery County. The
Archdiocese has 16 affordable housing properties that provide independent and assisted living
communities for low and moderate income seniors and affordable workforce rental housing for
families. Finally, the Archdiocese has properties that provide an array of social services,
including medical and dental clinics for uninsured, low-income adults and children, shelter
services, emergency assistance, job training, English language classes, programs for persons with
developmental disabilities, and many other programs and services for those in need in the
County.
These good works undertaken through our ministries of education, health care and social
service, such as Catholic Charities, the Spanish Catholic Center, and Victory Housing, as well as
through our parishes, provide vital and essential services to our citizens regardless of their
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Council Members
Montgomery County Council
March 13,2013
Page 2
religion. Thus it is fair to say that the Archdiocese is deeply rooted in Montgomery County and
invested in the common good.
Many of our properties in the County are large institutional structures with sizeable
parking lots. Many are older buildings, built well before modern storm water management
techniques were put in place. In addition, many of our parishes and parochial schools have tight
or taxes,
operating budgets, budgets which are not able to absorb new, unanticipated
especially on a few months! notice. As yet, we have not learned how much this WPQC will be
on each of our properties, but the estimate for one of our parishes, St. Camillus, is nearly $15,000
annually at full implementation.
In addition to the amount of this new fee applied to all our properties not previously
subject to the charge, it is our understanding that the WPQC is intended not only to charge
property owners for the "untreated" drainage volumes from their own properties but also to fund
storm water mitigation efforts for County buildings and uses, including public schools. This
methodology will have, it seems to me, the inequitable effect of making our Catholic schools,
to a fund that
which save the County millions of dollars each year in per pupil spending, pay
will be used, at least in part, to mitigate runoff from public schools that are themselves exempt
from tIns WPQC. Furthermore, these Catholic schools will have to generate their own funds to
construct and maintain storm water projects necessary to eam credits against the assessed
Given our demonstrated relationship with Montgomery County, the Archdiocese is
hopeful that in its final form this ordinance, and its accompanying regulations, will provide
needed relief to the Archdiocese to soften the economic impact on its properties, particularly its
parishes and schools, some of which would feel the costs created by this legislation more than
others, and that the legislation will share the costs of the mitigation efforts more equitably.
It
is clear that the state law contemplates various means to balance the equities available
to property owners through implementation of a fair local ordinance. For example, exemptions
for any property that can demonstrate substantial hardship resulting from fees imposed are
mandated by state law. Under the state law, counties "may establish a separate hardship
exemption program or include a hardship exemption as part of a system of offsets" once again, to
provide economic relief to properties subject to burdensome fees. Finally, the state law
mandates that the counties establish policies and procedures "to reduce any portion of a storm
water remediation fee to account for on-site and off-site systems, facilities, services or activities
that reduce the quantity or improve the quality of storm water discharge from the property."
There are a variety of ways, I believe, to lessen the economic impact on our properties
and other religious institutions and nonprofits that are similarly situated. You may wish to give
consideration to a possible rate structure that treats institutional, nonprofit properties separately
from general commercial or industrial properties. Perhaps there could be a separate tier for
religious use, either by way of a percentage reduction to the "regular" rate, justified on the basis
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Council Members
Montgomery County Council
March 13,2013
Page 3
of the community contributions of these nonprofit institutions. A delayed start to the imposition
of
or a longer phase-in of the
would help in adjusting budgets. The County itself
could contribute from the general fund to the Bay restoration fund so that County taxpayers as a
whole, and not just property owners, particularly religious institutions, bear the costs of
mitigating the effects from County facilities.
Loans to promote property mitigation efforts and the availability of grant monies to non­
profit organizations to promote the development and implementation of sound storm water
management practices on a propel1y by property basis would be welcomed. Meaningful credits,
beyond the 50%/60% limit in the Bill, ones that are reasonably easy to seek (that is, which do not
require engineering consultants to assist owners in applying) should be available. With these
tools, institutional owners can have the option of installing storm water management facilities in
lieu of the annual charge.
An
increase in the credit percentage beyond 50%/60% seems
particularly compelling given that the property owner who constructs a storm water project will
be required to assume the maintenance responsibilities and costs in perpetuity.
At this stage, there are many unknown factors that make close analysis of the issues
presented in the Bill difficult to ascertain. The amount of the fee and how
it
will be charged
against nonresidential properties and the determination of our properties' impervious areas are
not yet understood. The Archdiocese will be working with the County DEP, as it has offered, to
understand the magnitude of this new charge on all our properties. At this point, however, we
have only to speculate as to the specific dollar impact of implementation of the ordinance before
you. That there is so much unknown about the economic impact of implementation is in itself
disturbing and unsettling. We trust that you will be afforded vital cost information and other
data before you move forward with this ordinance.
Thank: you for your willingness to hear our concerns.
cjue-
Q;~ ~ruJ
Jane Golden Belford
Chancellor
Sincerely,
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Agenda Item 6A
March 19,2013
Action
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
~ichael
Faden, Senior Legislative Attorney
Action:
Bill 34-12, Stormwater Management - Water Quality Protection Charge
County Council
Transportation,
Infrastructure, Energy,
and
Environment Committee
recommendation: enact with amendments (2-0-1, Councilmember Floreen abstaining).
Bill 34-12, Stormwater Management - Water Quality Protection Charge, sponsored by
the Council President at the request of the County Executive, was introduced on November 27,
2012. A public hearing was held on January 15 and a Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and
Environment Committee worksession was held on March 11.
Bi1l34-12 would
• subject all properties not otherwise exempt under state law, mainly non-residential
properties, to the Water Quality Protection Charge;
• allow certain property owners to obtain a credit for on-site stormwater management
equal to a percentage of the Charge set by regulation;
• exempt owner-occupied residential property owners that can demonstrate substantial
financial hardship from the Charge; and
• phase-in increases to the Charge.
This Bill would implement a 2012 state law, which is shown on ©17-26. The Bill
appears to be generally consistent with the state law. A summary, prepared by Howard County
Council staff, of steps taken in other Maryland jurisdictions to implement this law is on ©49-50.
As some of the issues discussed below indicate, many relevant policy issues arise in the
context of the implementing regulations, which are not yet formally before the Council but were
submitted in draft form with this Bill. The Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy, and
Environment Committee, at its March 11 worksession on this BilI, also discussed the draft
regulations and the issues they raise.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Issues/Committee recommendations
At its worksession on March 11, the Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy, and
Environment Committee discussed the following issues before voting (2-0-1, Councilmember
Floreen abstaining) to recommend enactment of this Bill with amendments.
1)
Revenue/phase-in As the state law requires, this Bill would expand the scope of the
Water Quality Protection Charge to virtually all non-government properties, including many
non-residential properties that do not currently pay the Charge. (For background and rationale,
see the Legislative Request Report and County Executive memo on ©11-16.) The amount of the
Charge must be based on "the share of stormwater management services" provided by the
County to the property. Most of the details of this expansion are contained in the implementing
regulation.
DEP did not have an overall estimate of how much more net revenue will be generated
annually as a result of the expanded Charge under this Bill, compared to under the current
structure. The fiscal and economic impact statements on ©27-31 do not contain any revenue
estimate. At the worksession DEP staff estimated an annual goal of $25 million, which would be
further refined in the Executive's proposed operating budget.
DEP proposed to phase in over the next 3 fiscal years the increase in the fee to formerly
uncovered non-residential properties. The Committee recommended extending the phase in
period to 5 years (see ©9-1O, lines 205-232).
2) Credits As the state law directs, the Bill allows a property owner to apply for a credit
for on-site SWM systems or best practices. However, the Bill as introduced did not expressly
require that a credit must be granted if the property owner meets certain conditions. The draft
regulation also uses looser "may" language, implying that a property owner's request could be
denied even if it meets the applicable criteria. Council staff questioned whether the credit was
intended to be an entitlement, or could it be subject to availability of funding or an annual cap?
DEP staff confirmed that they intend that the credit must be granted to each eligible applicant,
and the Committee recommended amendments to reflect that intent. See ©7-8, lines 160-170.
To receive a credit in FY14, the Bill originally provided that a property owner would
have to apply to DEP by July 31. Council staff questioned whether this early deadline was
necessary. The Committee recommended moving that deadline to September 30, along with the
deadline to apply for a hardship exemption (see ©10, lines 233-237).
3) Hardship exemption As the state law requires, the Bill allows an exemption in cases
of substantial financial hardship, but the Bill does not define hardship. The Committee
discussed whether "hardship" should be defined in the law, or decided by criteria set by
regulation, and opted for the latter.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The Committee discussed, but left for the final regulation, the following issues regarding
the hardship exemption: The regulation sets the limit at 100% of the USDHHS poverty
guidelines. Is this the best line to draw? Is a better reference already available, such as the
energy assistance program (MEAP) (Le. if the applicant is approved for MEAP, then could they
automatically be eligible for the County credit; which would mean less work for the County)?
Also, should the County use a sliding eligibility scale, rather than a single cutoff under which an
applicant is either 100% eligible or 100% ineligible?
In addition, as introduced the Bill would have limited the hardship exemption to owners
on owner-occupied residential properties, while the state law does not so limit it (see state law
subsection
(j)(1)
on ©26). After discussion the Committee recommended that the hardship
exemption should also
be
available to non-profit organizations under criteria set by regulation
(see ©8, lines 171-179)1.
4) Grant program
The Stonnwater Partners (see testimony, ©37-42, especially ©38-39)
urged the County to expand the credits, publicize them better, and also start a parallel grants
program for non-profit organizations. Similarly, the Montgomery Soil Conservation District
proposed a grant program for rural areas (see testimony, ©43-48). Before the worksession DEP
submitted an amendment to authorize a grant program for non-profit organizations that would
help in water quality protection or improvement activities (see ©6, lines 124-134).
5) Private roads
The Committee briefly discussed how privately owned roads should be
charged under the new law and regulations. Several years ago DEP moved to assess the Charge
to the Montgomery Village Foundation for its privately owned roads, but stopped when the
Foundation protested. The state law does not exempt private roads as a class of property, but
they could be eligible for credits or possibly a hardship exemption. The Committee did not
recommend any amendment on this issue.
6) Federal and municipal facilities
DEP assumes that federal facilities must pay this
Charge (based on an amendment to federal law inserted by Senator Cardin several years ago).
However, the County has not received any payments from any federal facilities. The Bill (see
©2, lines 17-20) includes federal facilities in the law's definition of "person" only "to the extent
allowed by law".
The US Navy recently sent a letter to the Council (but not to Executive staff) arguing that
the Water Quality Protection Charge should not apply to federal agencies. See ©51-52. The
Committee referred this letter to the County Attorney for an appropriate response.
The state law provides that the County cannot charge State and municipal facilities, and
vice-versa. The state law (see state law subsection (e)(2) on ©20) expressly exempts property
owned by the state, a County, a municipality, or a volunteer fire department, from the Charge. In
its testimony (see ©34-36), Rockville urged the County to budget and pay the amounts the City
believes are past due from the County under the City's own stormwater fee, but this part of the
state law would appear to preclude the County from doing so (at least for future charges).
'In that context, see the letter from the Archdiocese of Washington on ©53-55.
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The current County law contains a limited municipal exemption, covering property
in
a
municipality (as distinct from property
owned by
the municipality) with a similar charge. The
Committee agreed that this provision should be modified to conform to the state law's broader
municipal exemption (see state law subsection (g)(2) on ©23). This is done by amending § 19­
35(g) to delete the current language and reflect the state law's process for notice to and from
municipalities (see ©9, lines 190-197).
This packet contains:
Bill 34-12 with Committee amendments
Legislative Request Report
Memo from County Executive
2012 State law
Fiscal and economic impact statements
Public hearing testimony
DEP
Rockville
Stormwater Partners
Soil Conservation District
Summary of other jurisdictions' actions
Letter from U.S. Navy
Letter from Archdiocese of Washington
F:\LAw\B1LLS\ 1234 Stonnwater Management-WQPC\Action Memo,Doc
Circle #
1
11
13
17
27
32
34
37
43
49
51
53
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
34-12
Concerning: Stormwater Management ­
Water Quality Protection Charge
Revised: 3-14-13
Draft No.l
Introduced:
November 27, 2012
May 27, 2014
Expires:
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date:
-'N~o~n:.x.e
_ __:_ _ __
Ch. _ _ Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
I
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Council President at the Request of the County Executive
AN
ACT to:
(1)
(2)
(3)
subject all properties not otherwise exempt under state law to the Water Quality
Protection Charge;
allow certain property owners to obtain a credit equal to a certain percentage of
the Charge;
exempt certain property owners that are able to demonstrate substantial financial
hardship;
provide for a phase-in of certain increases to the Charge; and
generally amend County law regarding the Water Quality Protection Charge.
(4)
(5)
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 19, Erosion, Sediment Control and Storm Water Management
Sections 19-21, 19-28, 19-29, 19-35
By adding
Chapter 19, Erosion, Sediment Control and Storm Water Management
Section 19-29A
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. 34-12
1
2
3
Sec. 1. Sections 19-21, 19-28, 19-29 and 19-35 are amended, and Section
19-29A is added, as follows:
19-21.
Definitions
4
*
*
*
5
6
[Associated nonresidential property: A nonresidential property from which
stormwater drains into a stormwater management facility that primarily
serves one or more residential properties.]
7
8
*
*
*
9
10
Impervious area
or
impervious surface:
Any surface that prevents or
significantly impedes the infiltration of water into the underlying soil,
including any structure, building, patio, [deck,] sidewalk, compacted gravel,
pavement, asphalt, concrete, stone, brick, tile, swimming pool, or artificial
turf.
Impervious surface also includes any area used by or for motor
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
vehicles or heavy commercial equipment, regardless of surface type or
material, including any road, [road shoulder,] driveway, or parking area.
*
*
*
Person:
An individual;[, corporation, firm, partnership, joint venture,
18
19
agency, organization, municipal corporation,]
S!
legal entity; or
S!
department,
agency, or instrument of the County or", [state agency, or any combination of
them] to the extent allowed
Qy
law, federal, state, or local government.
20
21
22
*
*
19-28.
*
*
Inspection and maintenance of stormwater management systems.
23
24
25
*
*
(b)
Maintenance ofnew storm water management systems.
(l)
Before issuing a sediment control permit to develop any
26
27
property that requires implementation of best management
practices, the Department must require the property owner to
F:\~\BILLS\1234
Stormwater Management-WQPC\BiII3 Committee. Doc
e