Agenda Item 5B
April 16, 2013
Action
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
County Council
~Michael
Faden, Senior Legislative Attorney
J!j.!5-eith Levchenko, Senior Legislative Analyst
Action:
Bill 34-12, Storm water Management
SUBJECT:
Water Quality Protection Charge
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, a Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and
Environment Committee worksession was held on March 11, and an initial Council worksession
was held on March 19.
Bill 34-12 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 as
introduced appears to be generally consistent with the state law. A summary of steps taken in
other Maryland jurisdictions to implement this law, prepared by Jeff Meyers of the Howard
County Council staff, is on ©68-72.
As some of the issues discussed below indicate, many relevant policy issues arise in the
context of the implementing regulation, Regulation 17-12, which was submitted in draft form for
review by the Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy, and Environment Committee and later
formally submitted to the Council on April 4. The Committee, at its March 11 worksession on
this Bill, also discussed the draft regulation and the issues it raised.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Background: Water Quality Protection Charge
In 2001, the Council approved
Bill
28-00, which created the stormwater management
fund (called the Water Quality Protection Fund). This fund is supported by the annual Water
Quality Protection Charge. The charge is based on an equivalent residential unit (ERU), defined
as 2,406 square feet (which was the calculated statistical median of the total horizontal
impervious area of developed single-family detached residences in the County at the time the
fund was established).
The ERU rate is the amount each property owner of a single-family detached home
currently pays annually for each property owned. Townhouse owners pay 113 of an ERU, under
the assumption that townhouses on average have less impervious area per unit than detached
homes. Condominiums and apartments are assessed based on actual imperviousness that is
converted to an ERU number. "Associated" non-residential properties (Le., properties that drain
into facilities that also serve residential properties) are also charged based on actual
imperviousness.
The Council is required to set the ERU rate each year by resolution. The FY13 rate is
$92.60. For FY13, the County billed an estimated 248,930 ERU's. The net annual revenue
l
generated per dollar charged per equivalent residential unit (ERU) is approximately $233,000.
Overall, for FY13, the Water Quality Protection Fund is assumed to raise about $23 million from
the charge.
Revenue from the County's excise tax on disposable shopping bags also goes to the
Water Quality Protection Fund. The FY13 budget assumes $561,640 in revenue from this
source.
Background: NPDES MS4 Permit
Revenue from the Water Quality Protection Fund is used to fund the activities required
under the County's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System (NPDES MS4) permit.
DEP is the lead agency for Montgomery County with regard to the NPDES MS-4 permit.
The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) is the State agency responsible for
approving NPDES permits, which are required as part of the Clean Water Act enforced by the
Environmental Protection Agency. The current 5-year permit was issued by MDE on
February 16,2010.
The major requirements of the County's NPDES-MS4 Permit are:
[The charge is paid by Gaithersburg residents, but the revenue received is passed back (minus an administrative fee)
to the City of Gaithersburg, which spends the revenue on storm water management-related projects in the City.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
1. Complete restoration efforts for an additional 20 percent of the County's impervious,
urban surfaces not currently restored to the maximum extent practicable. This is the
primary driver of CIP costs under the permit.
2. Support regional strategies to reduce trash and increase recycling, as set forth in the Trash
Free Potomac Watershed Initiative 2006 Action Agreement, to eliminate trash in the
Anacostia and Potomac Rivers.
3. Implement TMDL limits to restore impaired waterways in the County by developing and
implementing plans to reduce nonpoint source pollutant loads (e.g., from stormwater).
Ensure anti-degradation measures for high quality waters (Tier II waters) within the
County, including appropriate reviews prior to approval of capital projects, water/sewer
plan amendments, and any development with the potential to affect water quality and
downstream water quality.
4. Establish long-term schedules for identifying sources of pollution and water quality
improvement opportunities for all watersheds in the County.
5. Use environmental site design/low-impact development as a method to capture
stormwater by improving the County's stormwater management laws/regulations and
modifying the County's planning and zoning codes as needed. Environmental Site Design
(ESD), as outlined in Chapter 5 of the Maryland Stormwater Management Act, is
required to be implemented to the maximum extent practicable.
6. All new construction in the County must follow the State stormwater controls as defined
in the Stormwater Management Act of 2007. Chapter 5 of the Stormwater Management
Act on Environmental Site Design requires developers to maintain after development, as
nearly as possible, the predevelopment runoff characteristics to the maximum extent
practicable.
7. Detect and eliminate illegal, non-stormwater discharges into the storm drain.
8. Involve and engage the public in the process of stormwater control.
A portion of the Water Quality Protection Fund is also appropriated to the Montgomery
County side ofM-NCPPC for its water quality activities required to meet separate permits.
The cost implications for implementation of the current permit are substantial. In the fall
of 2011, DEP estimated the permit costs at about $305 million through 2015 and nearly
$1.9 billion through 2030.
Issues/Committee recommendationsrrentative Council decisions
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. The Council
discussed these issues at its first worksession on March 19 and tentatively agreed with most of
the Committee recommendations, except as noted below.
1) Revenue
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
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
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, and how the Charge will be
applied to residential and non-residential properties, are contained in Regulation 17-12 and are
discussed below in the Remaining Issues.
The original fiscal and economic impact statements on ©27-31 do not contain any
revenue estimate. (For revised statements, see ©51-57.) The Executive's proposed operating
budget included a revenue estimate of $22.34 million from the Water Quality Protection Charge.
2) Credits As the state law directs, the Bill allows a property owner to apply for a credit
for on-site stormwater management 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 used 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 the credit must be granted to each
eligible applicant, and the Committee recommended amendments to reflect that intent.
(See ©7-8, lines 160-170.) Amendments recently submitted by the County Attorney include
more specific requirements to receive these credits (see ©102).
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) 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 Committee worksession DEP submitted an amendment to authorize a
grant program for non-profit organizations that would help in water quality protection or
improvement activities. The Committee accepted this amendment (see ©6, lines 124-134).
4) 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 (for the
Foundation only) when the Foundation protested. The state law does not exempt private roads as
a class of property, but they could be eligible for stormwater management credits. The
Committee did not recommend any amendment on this issue. After the first Council
worksession, the Foundation proposed an amendment to remove their private roads from the
definition of "impervious surface" (see ©2, lines 9-15). In Council staff's view, this approach
would effectively amount to an exemption from the Charge, which the state law does not allow.
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
5) Federal and municipal facilities
DEP assumes that federal facilities must pay this
Charge (based on an amendment to the federal Clean Water Act 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 ©49-50. 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 storrnwater fee, but this part of the
state law would appear to preclude the County from doing so (at least for future charges).
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 § 19-3 5(g) to delete the current language and reflect the state law's process for notice
to and from municipalities (see ©9, lines 190-197).
Remaining Issues/Amendments
6) Residential properties Charge
The existing Charge for single-family residential
properties has only two tiers: one for detached homes, which pay 1 Equivalent Residential Unit
(ERU); and one for townhouses, which pay 113 of an ERU. As proposed, Regulation 17-12
would create 7 tiers, based on the actual amount of the property's impervious surface. DEP
would calculate each property's impervious surface by GIS mapping. These tiers are defined in
the regulation (see ©60-61 and the tables on ©15 and ©90). Tier 1 properties would pay 33
percent of an ERU (the same charge currently paid by townhouses). Tier 7 properties would pay
300 percent of an ERU.
Under this tier structure, 90% of residential properties would pay the same or less than
they are paying now. Council staff considered whether Tier 3 (which includes about half of all
residential properties) should be split so that the properties in each tier would be more equitably
distributed. DEP staff calculated that this approach would increase the proportion of properties
paying more to about 53%.
The tier structure recommended in Regulation 17-12 is far more progressive than
the current charge, since residential properties with larger impervious areas will pay more
than other residential properties.
Under the current structure, for example, a 25,000 square
foot mansion with long driveways, a guest house, and a tennis court pays the same annual charge
5
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
(1
ERU) as a small bungalow.
For this reason, Council Staff believes the new tiered
approach is far superior to the existing rate structure.
7) Phase-in 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 ©9-10, lines 205-232). DEP continues to propose a 3­
year phase-in.
The effect of a longer phase-in period, assuming a constant revenue target yield, is
to transfer more of the Charge to small-to-medium sized residential properties, to which
the phase-in would not apply because they already pay the Charge.
8) Residential hardship exemption The state law directs counties to establish an
exemption for "a property able to demonstrate substantial financial hardship" (see state law
subsection
0)(1)
on ©26). The State law leaves it to the jurisdiction to determine the eligibility
criteria for this exemption. As the state law requires, Bill 34-12 would allow 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.
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) -- i.e. 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?
Regulation 17-12, as transmitted to the Council, includes two separate hardship
exemption tests: one for owner-occupied residential properties and one for non-profit
organizations. For the residential hardship exemption, hardship is defined as the property
owner's gross household income not exceeding 100% of the poverty guidelines published by the
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Council Staff concludes that the 100 percent of the poverty guideline threshold is too
low. For a family of3, the threshold is $19,530. The County and State often use multiples of the
poverty guideline to determine eligibility for various programs. For example, the Maryland
Energy Assistance Program (MEAP) eligibility guidelines are 170% of the Federal poverty
guideline. The state limit for pre-kindergarten services is 185% of the federal guideline. The
County emergency medical services fee law sets the waiver limit at 3 times (300% of) the federal
poverty guideline.
Council Staff Recommendation: Increase the residential hardship exemption ceiling
to at least 170% of the poverty guidelines.
6
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
9) Treatment of non-profit organizations
As introduced
Bill
34-12 would have limited
the hardship exemption to owners of o\\'ner-occupied residential properties, while the state law
does not so limit it.
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). Amendments submitted by the County Attorney include
a definition for non-profit organization that would limit the term to organizations that are
exempt from federal income taxes under Internal Revenue Code §501(c)(3) (see ©102);
Council staff concurs with this amendment.
For non-profit organizations, the regulation would set a threshold of 0.4 percent of gross
income. If the charge would exceed this percentage, the organization would be fully exempted.
The table below shows what the cap would be based on gross income at a .2% .3%, and .4% cap:
for Non-Profits Based on Gross Revenues
100,000
200,000
500,000
1,000000
2,000,000
3,000000
5000000
10000000
200
400
1 000
2,000
4
6,000
10,000
20,000
·Based on Equivalency for 100% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for a Family of 3 Compared to 1 ERU
....Based on Equivalency for 170% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for a Family of 3 Compared to 1 ERU
"""Based on Equivalency for
2500/0
of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for a Family of 3 Compared to 1 ERU
The .4% cap recommended by the County Executive is roughly equivalent to the
residential cap at 100% of the poverty guideline for a family of
3
paying 1
ERU. Council staff
believes that a cap set at .4% of revenues appears high and suggests either a .2% or .3%
cap level.
Since Council staff recommended increasing the residential cap to 170% of the
poverty guideline, an equivalent rate for the non-profit exemption would be .3 percent.
Council Staff Recommendation: Reduce the gross percentage of income cap from
.4% to .3% of gross revenues. This amount maintains some parity with the residential
exemption ceiling (which Council Staff would increase as well).
Since non-profit organizations are assessed as non-residential properties and charged
based on actual imperviousness for what could be large amounts of surface areas, the stakes of
whether the organization pays the Charge or not can be quite high.
In this context, Council
Staff recommends that the hardship exemption should be a partial exemption (for the
amount of the charge that exceeds the cap) rather than a full exemption.
The table below
7
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
highlights how the Regulation could lead to far greater inequities in what similar sized non­
profits would pay, compared to the Council Staff recommendation.
Gross Revenues
0.3 Percent Cap
.Imperviousness (in sq feet)
.ERU Divisor
l#ofERUs
'Current ERU Rate
Assessment
Greater than Cap?
,Exemption Amount
•Amount To Be Paid
500,000
1,500
40,000
2,406
17
92.60
1,539
YES
1,539
500,000
1,500
38,500
2,406
16
92.60
1,482
NO
500,000
1,500
40,000
2,406
17
92.60
1,539
YES
39
1 500
500,000
1,500
38,500
2,406
16
92.60
1,482
NO
In the example shown above, Non-Profit #1 under the Regulation would get a full
exemption from the $1,539 charge. Non-Profit #2, whose property has slightly less impervious
area, would pay the full amount since its charge falls just below the cap. Under the Council staff
recommendation, the two non-profits would pay a similar charge.
All assumptions being equal, the Council staff approach would also raise more revenue,
and thus possibly offset the impact of reducing the cap percentage from .4% to .3%. However, at
these margins, Council staff does not believe the hardship exemption recommended would have
a major impact on the underlying base rates, since non-profits make up only about 5 percent of
all ERU's under the new Charge.
Council staff Recommendation: Require each non-profit organization to pay the
Charge up to a percentage of gross revenues. This approach is more equitable because all
non-profits would pay the lower of the full charge or the cap amount, rather than those over the
cap paying nothing and those under the cap paying the full Charge. In any case, the phase-in for
non-residential properties would, of course, apply to properties of non-profit organizations.
The Archdiocese of Washington objects to both paying the full Charge and having to
qualify for a hardship exemption. They would prefer a flat limit on the amount any non-profit
organization would pay (see Archdiocese letter and memo, ©76-83). The state Attorney
General's Office has informally concluded that this kind of limit would not conflict with either
the state law or, if limited to religious organizations, the U. S. Constitution (see Attorney General
letter, ©84-86). Our County Attorney and Council legal staff are not convinced that a flat limit
of this sort would conform to the state law, and the legislature recently declined to pass a bill
with that kind of provision.
10)
Expedited
Bill
Since the state law requires the revised Charge to take effect no later
than July 1,
2
this
Bill
should be converted to an Expedited Bill. This can be done by inserting
the following subsection on ©9, line 206, replacing the first sentence, and relettering the later
subsections:
2An amendment to delay the law's effective date did not pass in the 2013 state legislative session. See HB508.
8
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
W
The Council declares that an emergel'1<:Y exists and that this legislation is
necessary for the immediate protection of the public health and safety. This Act
takes effect on July). 2013.
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
Letter from U.S. Navy
Revised fiscal and economic impact statements
Implementing regulation
Summary of other jurisdictions' actions
Center Maryland article
Letter from Archdiocese of Washington
Memo from attorneys for Archdiocese of Washington
Attorney General letter re Anne Arundel County Bill
DEP Powerpoint materials
Hardship criteria
Residential tier data and examples
Non-residential data and examples
Amendment from County Attorney
F:\LAw\BILLS\1234 Stormwater Management-WQPC\Action Memo.Doc
Circle
#
1
11
13
17
27
32
34
37
43
49
51
58
68
73
76
79
84
87
90
99
102
9
 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
Expires:
May 27,2014
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective:
_~
_ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date:
....:N-'-'o=n=e~---::--
_ __
Ch. _ _, Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Council President at the Request of the County Executive
AN
ACT to:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
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.
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
Managemen~
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
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
3
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
* *
*
Impervious area or impervious surface:
Any surface that prevents or
10
11
12
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
13
14
15
16
vehicles or heavy commercial equipment, regardless of surface type or
material, including any road, [road shoulder,] driveway, or parking area.
* *
Person:
An
individual~[,
*
17
18
corporation, firm, partnership, joint venture,
agency, organization, municipal corporation,] fllegal entity; or fl 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.
19
20
21
22
*
*
19-28.
*
*
Inspection and maintenance of stormwater management systems.
23
24
25
* *
(b)
Maintenance ofnew stormwater management systems.
(1) Before issuing a sediment control permit to develop any
property that requires implementation of best management
practices, the Department must require the property owner to
F:\~\BILLS\1234
Stormwater Management-WQPC\Bill 3 Committee. Doc
26
27
G
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 34-12
28
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 storm water 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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
require the owner to be responsible for all maintenance of any
completed
ESD
treatment
system
and
nonstructural
maintenance of anyon-site stormwater management facility if
the
development
consists
of residential
property
[[or
~
[associated]
of nonresidential
property that contains
stormwater management facility built or retrofitted
Qy
the
County)).
Otherwise, the
inspection and maintenance
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
agreement must require the owner to be responsible forever for
all maintenance of the entire on-site stormwater 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:\~\BILLS\1234
Stonnwater Management-WQPCIBiIl3 Committee. Doc
53
54
L0
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 34-12
55
56
57
58
59
60
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
~
61
62
63
facility built or retrofitted
.!2y
the County that serves
nonresidential property]] unless the inspection and maintenance
agreement requires the property owner to be responsible for
structural maintenance of the facility.
No other person may
64
65
66
67
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)
68
69
70
71
72
73
Maintenance of existing or retrofitted stormwater management
UacilitiesJ systems.
(1)
The owner of a stormwater management facility that is not
subject to
subsection (b)
must perform
all
structural
~
74
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
81
stormwater management
facility built or retrofitted
.!2y
the County, or a homeowners'
association that includes the residential property, may execute a
~
F:WIfHLLS\1234 Storm
water Management-WQPc\BiU
3
Committee.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
34-12
82
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).
83
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
management system that was installed or retrofitted
Qy
the
F:~BILLS\1234
Stormwater Management-WQPC\Bill 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
115
*
19-29.
*
*
Stormwater management loan program.
(a)
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).
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
*
19-29A.
*
*
Watershed restoration grants program.
W
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.
!hl
To identify non-profit organizations to perform water quality
protection or improvement activities. the Director of the Department
of
G~neral
132
133
134
135
Services may issue a competitive solicitation under
Chapter lIB that is limited to llon-profit organizations.
19-35.
Water Quality Protection Charge.
F:~BILLS\1234
Storm water Management-WQPC\BiII3 Committee. Doc
~
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 34-12
136
[[*
*
*Jl
137
138
139
(a)
As authorized by State law [[(Maryland Code, Environment
Art.,
§ 4­
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.
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
(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.
*
(e)
Charge:
(1)
*
*
[[The regulations may allow credits against and exemptions from the
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 grantz
~
credit equal to
~
percentage, set
Qy
regulation, of the Charge if the property
F:~BILLS\1234
Stormwater Management-WQPC\Bill 3 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
~
stonnwater 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
fonn prescribed
Qy
the Director not later than
October
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:RtQfit 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
payment of the Charge is due.
(f)
1
of the year [[before]] when
The Director must deposit funds raised by the Charge, and funds for
this purpose from any other source, into a stonnwater management
fund. Funds in the stonnwater management fund may be applied and
pledged to pay debt service on debt obligations to finance the
construction and related expenses of stonnwater management
facilities as approved in the Capital Improvements Program. Funds in
the stonnwater 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
Storm water Management-WQPC\BiII3 Committee. Doc
(8J
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 34-12
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
(g)
This Charge does not apply to any property located in a municipality
in the County which[[:]] notifies the County that it has impQsed or
intends to impQse
[[( 1) operates a stormwater management program that meets all
applicable federal, State, and County requirements and has
received any necessary federal or State permit; and
(2)
imposes]] a similar charge [[or other means of funding]] tofund
its stormwater management program in that municipality.
*
(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.
*
(a)
*
*
Sec. 2. Implementation; effective date.
This Act takes effect on July
1.
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]]
~
years any increase in the
211
212
213
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;~B[LLS\1234
Stormwater Managemenl-WQPC\Bill
3
Committee.Doc
214
215
216
4\
 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
(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% 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;
ill
only 80% of the additional impervious surface that has been
added to the calculation of the Charge in the fiscal year that
begins on July
1,
2016: 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.
233
234
235
236
237
238
(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]] al22lY to the Director of Environmental
Protection [[on a form prescribed by the Director]] not later than
[[July 31]] September 30,2013.
Approved:
239
Nancy Navarro, President, County Council
Date
F~ILLS\1234
Stormwater Management-WQPC\BiII3 Committee. Doc
~
 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 20 10, 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 storm water 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
ROCKVlLLE, MARYLAND 20850
Isiah Leggett
County Executive
MEMORANDUM
October 25, 2012
TO:
Roger Berliner
County Council Presid?J
~
IsiahLeggett
County Executive
FROM:
~~
-r
([ -­
SUBJECT:
Proposed Legislation: StoIIDwater 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 bill, draft
regulations to implement the bill 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 of the single family Charge. Non-residential properties are assessed the Charge only to the
extent their property drains to a residential stoIIDwater management facility.
The WQPC is used primarily to fund the County's stoIIDwater 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,
stoIIDwater 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 -
StoIIDwater Management - Watershed Protection and Restoration Program, which requires certain
jurisdictions, including Montgomery County, to adopt stoIIDwater utility fees. The new State law
specifically identifies elements that must be, included in the stormwater 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 stormwater 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).
montgomerycountymd.gov/311
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 ofthe 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)
S)
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
stonnwater 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
SO
percent of the assessed
charge for traditional stormwater treatment facilities and 60 percent ifthe 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% of the Federal poverty level.
2)
3)
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Roger 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 drains to a
residential stormwater facility (as is currently the case). The Charge will be
assessed based on the square footage of imperviousness,
80
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 ofthe Charge. Additionally,
the credit program is available to reduce the Charge for properties with
stormwater management systems meeting the proposed criteria.
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.
2)
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Roger Berliner
October 25, 2012
Page 4
As the Council works through this legislation and the companion regulations, Executive
Staff is available to provide any information 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
~
f!
county
~
or municipality subject 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
~
f!
county
~
or municipality to maintain
~
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
~
f!
county
~
or municipality to
establish and
collect a stormwater remediation fee in accordance with this Act; requiring
~
f!
county
~
or municipality to set the amount of a
F88i88lltisJ
stormwater
remediation fee in a certain manner;
authorizing a county or municipality to use
certain calculation methods to set a storm water remediation fee;
p@EtMipillg Ela@i! a
@8Mllty all8 8F ftlttlli@if}ality t8 8Elt ti!@ aftl8ttllt 8f a fl8flPEl8i8Ellltial 8t8PftlWatEli'
p@ftlEl8iati€Jll fee ill a @Ell'taill ftlallfl8P;
providing that a stormwater remediation
fee is separate from certain other charges;
exempting certain property from
paying the storm water remediation fee;
aMti!€lriziflg
requiring a county or
municipality to
establish policies and procedures approved by the Department of
the Environment to
reduce a
certain
stormwater remediation fee
ill a@@€Jf'8all€lEl
witi! @ElFtaill f'€Jli@i@8 alle. f}r€l@Ele.ttl'El8
for a certain purpose; requiring the policies
and procedures to include certain items;
authorizing a county or municipality to
monitor and verify the effectiveness of certain measures in a certain manner;
prohibiting,
witi! l@rtaill @Jf@@}3ti8ll, a @8ttllty fl'€Jftl iftlf'€J8illg a 8t€J!'ftlVlat@l'
!'Elftl@mati8fl fe@ Ill a }3f'€J}3@rty h'l@at@8 witi!ill a ftlttlli@i}3ality; aMti!8rizillg a
ftlttlli@i}3alitor t8 attti!€Jriz@ a @€lttllty ti€J iftlf'€J8El a 8t€Jf'ftlWat@f' l'@ftl@e.iati€Jll fe@ Ill a
}31'8f'Ell'ty l€llatEl8
withill a ftlttlli@i}3ality ill f'la@El If a ftlMlli@i}3al 8t€ll'ftl1';VatEll'
r@ftl@e.iati€lll is@:
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 stormwater remediation fee on property located within a municipality;
requiring a municipality to provide certain notice and a reasonable time for a
countv to discontinue collecting a certain storm water remediation fee under
certain circumstances,'
requiring
~
f!
county
~
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
t¥ft€l
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.
ON OR BEFORE JUL¥
1, 2013,
A COIJNT¥ OR
MIJ~HCII\\LI'I'Y
SIk\LL
l.lDOPT
i\JfD
IMPLEME~lT
LOCAls LA'IlS OR
ORDntA~tCES
tIECESSAR¥ TO
ESTABLISH A\VATERSHED PROTECTION AtfD
RES'I'ORATIO~I
PROGRAM.
(A)
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.
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
~
ill
ill
.au.
A
STORMWATER REMEDIATION FEE; AND
(2)
A
LOCAL WATERSHED PROTECTION AND RESTORATION FUND.
-3­
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Ch. 151
2012 LAWS OF MARYLAND
(D)
(1)
EACH
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, EACH A COUNTY AND OR
MUNICIPALITY SHALL ESTABLISH AND ANNUALLY COLLECT A STORMWATER
REMEDIATION FEE FROM PROPER'I'¥ OWNERS
OF PROPERTY LOCATED
WITHIN
THE COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION.
(2)
(2)
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.
EACH
A
COUNTY AND OR MUNICIPALITY SHALL SET A
RESIDEP'l'l'Mh 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.
ill
ffi
fHt
A
COUP'l1'Y OR MUP'HCIPAhI1'Y l\WkY SE'I'
l\
S'I'ORM\IlA'I'ER
REMED:I!iFlON FEE UP'lDER THIS PiYRl1"kGRlkPH IN AN MIOUP'fT TH,:tiF IS
GRADUliFED. WiSED ON TIlE AMOUN'I' OF IMPER'ROUS SURF/kCE ON Elicn
PROPER'I'Y.
(II) A COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY MAY SET A STORMWATER
REMEDIATION FEE UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH BASED ON:
1.
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.
2.
3.
-4­
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MARTIN O'MALLEY, Governor
Ch. 151
Is TilE SAME FOR ALL
RESInE~tTIIIL
PROPERTY WJJNERS
'}!:ITIIUl TilE OOUN'F¥ OR MUNIOIPALITY;
VARIES BASEn ON TilE TYPE OF RESInENTIAL
PROPERTY,
INOLUnUte
SUteLE FAMILY
OR
MULTIPLE
OOOUPA:~tOY
PROPERTIES; OR
GRllnUlll'En, BASEn
o~r
TilE
IMPERVIOUS SURFAOE
O~t
El'ICII
RESInE~rTIlIL
PROPER'FY.
Is
~
fit
~
~
AMOUNT
OF
EACII
l.A...
OOU)l'FY ANn OR
MU~UCIP:t\LITY
SIIALL SET A
)JO)lRESlnE~lTIAL
STORM\VATER REMEnMTION FEE
UllIN
AMOU)lT Tlllll':
Is GREATER TIk\N OR E(;lUAL TO TIlE RESInENTIAL
S'FORAIWllI'ER
REMEnIA'l'IO~l
FEE SET
u~mER
PARllGRAPII
(2)
OF 'FIllS
SUBSEO'FIO~,;
ANn
~
CO~lSISTS
OF:
~
fit
)rO~lRESlnE)ITIAL
TIIllT IS TIlE SAME FOR i\:LL
PROPER'FY O\W'lERS INlTIIUJ TIlE OOUN'FY OR MU)UOIPALIT¥;
1'...
BASE
AMOU~lT
:AND
~
Mt
A;l\iOUN'F TIIM IS GMnUlll'En BllSEn O.N TilE
~tONRESlnENTIA:L
AMOUN'F OF IMPERVIOUS SURFI\CE OtT EACII
~~w
PROPERTY.
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)
IN A:CCORnl\NCE WITII
A
COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY
M!A¥
SHALL ESTABLISH POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ESTlzBLISIIEn BY A
COU~tTY
OR
MUNICIPlILI'FY
i~tn.1
APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT, A COUNTY OR
MU~lIQIPALI'FY
MlI¥
TO REDUCE ANY PORTION OF A STORMWATER
REMEDIATION FEE ESTABLISHED UNDER SUBSECTION (E) OF THIS SECTION
TIIA'F IS BASEn
01'1
'FIlE
AMOU~t'F
OF IMPERVIOUS
SURFI~J:CE
ON A PROPERTY 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.
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
i'\l't~fUi\LL¥
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)(111)
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.
-6­
 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.
}&.",(;CEP'F bS PROVIDED
OT
SUllW..,BbG &\PII (II) OF 'FillS
PARPiCBi'.tPII,
11
COU~ITY
J.lr\Y
~lOT
I1\{POSE
2\
COU~fT¥
STOBl\Plll'J:TEB
REMEDM'FION FEE ON /'1: PROPER'FY LOC/'1:'FED VII'FllnT A l\IUNICIPt}..LIH.
~
~
~
A
MUl\lICIPbLIH MAY bU'FIIORIZE b COUl\l'F¥ 'FO IMPOSE
b COUN'FY S'FORM\lll..'FER REMEDM'FIOl\l FEE ON
II
PROPERTY LocmED VII'Fllnl
'FilE MUNICIW..15I'l'Y IN PLbCE OF b MUl\lICIP,t\L S'FORl\IWNFER REMEDIlJllION
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.
:EACH
A
COUNTY AND OR MUNICIPALITY SHALL ESTABLISH A
PROCEDURE FOR A PROPERTY OWNER TO APPEAL A STORMWATER
REMEDIATION FEE IMPOSED UNDER THIS SECTION.
ill
ill
L.
2.
1.
2.
(3)
7
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Ch.151
2012 LAWS OF MARYLAND
(H)
(1)
EACH
A
COUNTY AND OR MUNICIPALITY SHALL DETERMINE
THE METHOD, FREQUENCY, AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE COLLECTION OF THE
STORMWATER REMEDIATION FEE.
(2)
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
(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.
(4)
El.tCH
A
SUBJECT TO PARAGRAPH
(5)
OF THIS SUBSECTION, A
COUNTY
A:ND
OR MUNICIPALITY SHALL USE THE MONEY IN ITS LOCAL
WATERSHED PROTECTION AND RESTORATION FUND FOR THE FOLLOWING
PURPOSES ONLY:
(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.
1.
DESIGN,
AND
CONSTRUCTION
OF
2.
3.
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.
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:
~
ill
A
ill
-9­
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Ch. 151
2012 LAWS OF MARYLAND
(1)
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.
(2)
(3)
ill
ill
A
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.
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)(l) 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 Quality 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 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 under the definition
of an Associated Non-Residential Property
(ANRi;
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 ch!1nges
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 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.
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.
Associate Non-Residential 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
,::
::>
@
 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
ill
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 determined 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
CD),
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 least 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 FTE 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 of work 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 Managementand Budget
Amy Wilson, Office of Management and Budget
Naeem Mia, Office ofManagement and Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impact Statement
Council 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~
ofstormwater management The Bill would:
a.
Extend the Water Quality Protection Charge (WQPC or Charge) to include non­
residential properties, which currently are covered only
ifthey
fall under the
definition of an associated non-residential property(ANR)l;
b. Extend the WQPC for ANR to include
the
remainder ofthe ANR's
impervious area not currently charged;
c. Phase in over three
fiscal
years any increase in the Charge to nOll-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 ofthe 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
t:
Provide an exemption for residential property owners who are able to
demonstrate substantial financial hardship.
an
This economic impact statement (BIS) provides illustrative examples. The rates used in
this EIS are preliminary and may
be
updated to reflect detailed data that are currently
being dtryeloped by the Department ofEnvironmental Protection (DEP). The economic
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 nmnber 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 of
the
economic impact ofBill XX-12.
.
2. A description of any 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 amo1l1'1t of
impervious surface on the property, the amount of the 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 lavV2,
but because ofthe
three
year
phase~in
ofimperviousness, the Charge
for
the first
year
would be $119.69.
··:'0
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
too
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 concurred
with
this
analysis: Bob Hoyt, Steve'
Shofar and Vicky Wan, DEP; David Platt and Mike Coveyou, Finance.
i-J--1-/L
Date
Department ofFinance
An
Associated Non-ltesidential
property
(ANR)
is
a non-residential property that
drains
to
a stoImwater
facility
that
primarily°Serves residential properties.
ANRs
are charged based on only the amount
of
impervious
surface that drains to the
residential
stonnwater facility.
1
A tiered
'approach
is
being proposed
through
the
compBDion
draft
Executive Regulations. and satisfies the
state
law
requirement
to
base
the Charge on .....
the
share
oftbe
stormwater management services related to
the property and provided
by
the county.....
[see
Md. Code
Ana,
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
have less imperviousness
than
one BRU, and increases
it
for those
that
fall into higher tiers because
they
have greater imperviousness. A residential
property
that would have paid $98
under
the existing
law
would
pay
the following under the proposed law. The amounts below could
be
reduced. however.
if
it
qualified
for
credits.
2
a.
$33.76, for
Tierl
(1,000 sq
it
or less)
b. $51.15,
for
Tier 2
(1,001 -1,410 sq
it)
c.
$102.30, for Tier 3 (l,41l-3,412sqit)
d.
$119.69,
fur
Tier
4 (3,413
-3,810 sq ft)
e. $136.06,
for Tier
5 (3,811- 5,815
sq ft)
f.
$153.45. for Tier 6 (5,816-6,21S sqft) .
g.
$170.84 for Tier 7 (6.216 sq ft and greater)
 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 isa 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.
Page 1 of2
 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 owners 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:
1.
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
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 Montgomery County Council for the opportunity
to provide testimony on Bill 34-12
Protection Charge.
Stormwatet Management Water Quality
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 with 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,
FY10 $55,596,
FY11 $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 would be happy to answer any questions
that you may have.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Stormwater Partners' Testimony and Comments on Bil134-12 and RegUlation 17-12
Testimony of Diane Cameron
forthe Montgomery County Stormwater Partners Network
on Bill 34-12
January 15, 2013
1.15.13
1
My name is Diane Cameron and I am the Coordinator of the Montgomery County Stormwater Partners
Network. Formed in 2005 to support an improved stormwater permit for Montgomery County, the
Partners have worked closely with DEP
and
other County agencies to protect and restore our streams.
The Stormwater Partners support
Bill
34-12 overall, and we offer strengthening changes. We look
forward to sharing more-detailed comments on the proposed RegUlation 17-12 with DEP in the near
future.
2006, the Stormwater Partners have been gUided by a 12-point consensus agenda for the county's
stormwater .permit and water quality program (copy attached). Point number 12 reads;
Increase program funding while sending a "price incentive" for more-protective
stormwater measures through. broadenin9 use of the County's Water Quality Protection
Charge.
A
Sinc~
Bill 34-12 and its regUlation meet both of these objectives: they wouldinctease total funding
for the stormwater permit program, while creating incentives (fee reductions) for landowners
who retrofit with trees, rain gardens, and other practices - and who maintain those practices.
OtherkeyPoints about 34-12 that we support:
A
A
Provides increased, necessary funds for stormwater permit implementation;
Includes a stormwater fee credit for homeowners who commit to maintaining a Green Street or
similar practice located near their home;
Includes all nonresidential property owners, correcting a longstanding inequity in the Water
Quality Protection
Char~e,
and
The proposed 7-tier structure is .also more equitable, since it charges landowners based roughly
on the amount of imperviousness they own.
A
A
Changes still needed to improve the bill:
When landowners - from any sector consider doing a green retrofit like a rain garden, tree planting or
green roof, they ask themselves the following:
What's in it for mel myfamily, 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 that we face is ensuring that the answers to these questions will motivate owners to shoulder
the burden of retrofitting in order 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 to craft the 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, communkate the benefits of green practkes, 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 all
governmental landowners
in
~e
fee system.
A
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 Stonnwater Partners
stand ready to work
with
DEP staff to help shape this program, induding 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 followmg Stonnwater 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 other functions. 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 members. of the Stonnwater 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 local stormwater
fees. (We urge Montgomery County to support amending HB987 to correct this problem.)
Including Montgomery County's stormwater payments owed to the City of Rockville­
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 example, and needs to
tum
this
situation
around immediately to model responsible and fair storm water 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 structure is more equitable than
the
current billing method, it needs tQ be tweaked tQ
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 ormitigate 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
l
Testimony and Comments on Bi1134-12 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 clanfy 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 -eontrollingthe 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
the.recent 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
ttselfand thedifferenee between gray
and
green credit levels.
The
current proposed credit f"Or
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-green (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 fGr single-family residential Gwners needs tG 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
being from 10% up to 25% for the credits. Instead, the credit range shoUld be more TIke
25% to 85%. And, tree plantings need to be added.
If
the credits are not big enough,
and if the administrative 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 historically low rates ofparticipation in similar programs
in
the regionaild
in the RainScapes Program). Alternatively, perhaps this should be considered a problem
 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
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 ofthe
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' stormwater-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 Permit 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 of the RainScapes program to adopt more social marketing strategies. Social.
marketing strategies such as competitions between neighbors can be effective (Le., 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.) Other strategies
such as promoting examples of people who have successfully gotten credits could help to
beneficially change social norms around landscaping and other behaviors.
)
Since residents and other landowners win look at this credit program from their own
perspective
ofUwhat will
I
get out a/this,"
the marketing ofthe credits and the larger
RainScapes program must also take this approach. People are more inclined t6 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., IiI 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 lando'wners seeking to apply for the fee reductiol1
credits. Basically, the protocol will borrow from the RainScapes Rebates program, which has
evolved over 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 Bill 34-12 and Regulation 17-12
1.15.13
6
entice enough landowners to "'go green at
home~
with tree plantings, raIn gardens, green roofs,
or conservation landscapes.
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Montgomery
Soil Conservation District
18410 Muncaster Road • Derwood. MD 20855 • Phone (301) 590·2855
W'NW.montgomeryscd.org
January 15,2013
The Honorable Nancy Navarro
Montgomery County Council President
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, MD 20950
Re:
Bil134-12, StormwaterManagement - 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 Bi1134-12, 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
SCWQ Plan.
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 services 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.
(;flY' .
Butz1c~
.
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 Gonservation 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 (BMPs) 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 BMP 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 of BMPs 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 FY2010, 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 environinent, 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 with 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 of this 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 ofthese 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 \\111 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 ofthe 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 landovmers 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 1tIDA 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, Outreaqh to small
Agriculturallandovmers
County Cover Crop Incentive;\
$100,000·
$60,000
$20,000
$50,000
$5,000
$5,000
$3,000
$20,000
$10,000
$7,000
$50,000
TOTAL REQUEST
$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 TJ\tIDL without proper resources.
/\ 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 HIGHLIGHTS
• 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 l,OOO new acres a year within the
urban/suburban areas of the County.
• 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
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
COMMANDER
NAVY REGION. MID-ATLANTIC
1510 GILBERT ST.
NORFOLK. VA 23511-2737
.
51~ ~'OLY
REFER TO
!..
..
"'.,'
EVN40/09/RE092
071708
Montgomery County Council
100 Maryland Avenue, Fifth Floor
Rockville, MD 20850
Ladies and Gentlemen:
....
,
~"'.
;1
FE
D
2
r'
. [1
..
~!1'!~
... }
,I."
.. 'I
-(
-~_
".-:
......l
"");11
'-"~
SUBJECT: MONTGOMERY COUNTY BILL 34-12, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT -
QUALITY PROTECTION CHARGE
W~~ER
:',j
'".1
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 easemer-t
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
nondiscriminatory; (4) be based on some fair approximation of the
proportionate contribution of the property or facility to stormwater
pollutionj (S) be based in terms of quantities of pollutants, or
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
5090
EVN40/09/RE092
FEP
?
~
,,(1<1
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.
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)
2
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Fiscal Impact Statement
Executive Regulation 17-12, Stormwater Management - Water Quality Protection Charge
1.
Executive Regulation Summary.
This regulation amends Executive Regulation 6-02 AM which establishes the procedure to
set rates for and implement The Water Quality Protection Charge (WQPC) and applies to
all residential and all non-residential properties in the County based on contribution to
runoffto the County's stormwater management system. This regulation would allow for
the implementation of the following:
a. A seven-tier method for assessing the Water Quality Protection Charge (WQPC or
Charge) on residential properties based on the amount of impervious surface.
b. Assess the Charge to all non-residential properties, including commercial properties
and not-for-profit organizations.
c. A credit program for eligible property owners with on-site stormwater treatment
facilities. Eligibility for the credit program is based on the type of stormwater
management practice and level of treatment that the facility provides.
d. A hardship exemption for residential property owners whose household income is
below 100% of the Federal poverty level, which is mandated under a recent amendment
to the state's stormwater management law
(see
Md. Code Ann., Envir. § 4-202.1
0)).
e. A hardship exemption for any categorized 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization provided
that the Charge exceeds 0.4 percent of the organization's total revenue.
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 new administrative and program costs associated with implementing the
proposed changes to Bill 34-12 and Executive Regulation 17-12 and include: contractual
services for geographic information system (GIS) impervious area data processing;
contractual resources to administer the credit and hardship exemption programs.
In
addition, approximately one workyear is devoted to this effort in the current year. Costs
funded by the WQPC, already included in the Department Environmental Protection's
FY14 Recommended Budget include:
• $45,760 annually for contractual GIS services to maintain impervious surface layer
and associated data updated, and
• $89,100 annually for contractual resources to coordinate and administer the new
credit program.
Additional costs not reflected in the FY14 CE Recommended Budget are contractual
resources needed to coordinate and administer the Hardship program for residential and
501(c)(3) non-profit organizations in the Department of Finance. The estimated cost for
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
these contractual resources is also $89,100 annually, and the WQPC rate will need to be
increased by $0.40 to cover this additional cost.
The financial hardship exemption program for residential properties and non-profit
50 1(c)(3) organizations as well as the credit program do not affect total revenues because
the WQPC rate would be adjusted to generate sufficient revenue to fund the operating and
capital programs supported by the WQPC.
3. Revenue and expenditure estimates covering at least the next 6 fiscal years.
The estimated first year cost to implement Executive Regulation 17-12 is $223,960, of
which $134,860 is included in the March 15 Executive Recommended Budget.
The estimated six-year cost ofthese expenditures is $1,343,760.
4. An actuarial analysis through the entire amortization period for each regulation that
would affect retiree pension or group insurance costs.
Not applicable.
5. Later actions that may affect future revenue and expenditures if the regulation
authorizes future spending.
Not applicable.
6. An estimate of the staff time needed to implement the regulation.
DEP will utilize existing resources to implement the proposed rate structure changes
effective July 1,2013. Approximately one workyear is devoted to this effort during the
current fiscal year.
7. An explanation of how the addition of new staff responsibilities would affect other
duties.
There should be no effect on other duties assuming additional resources are provided to
administer the credit system authorized in the proposed legislation.
8. An estimate of costs when an additional appropriation is needed.
Appropriation in the amount of $223,960 is needed in FYI4.
9. A description of any variable that could affect revenue and cost estimates.
The assumptions for the hardship and credit programs which require offsetting revenue
may differ depending on the number of qualifying applicants. The cost estimates
associated with administering these new programs may also differ depending on the
number of applicants and review of the applications.
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
10. Ranges of revenue or expenditures that are uncertain or difficult to project.
Not applicable.
11.
If
a regulation 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
Steven Shofar, Department of Environmental Protection
Vicky Wan, Department of Environmental Protection
Alex Espinosa, Office of Management and Budget
Matt Schaeffer, Office of Management and Budget
ghes, Director
ce of Management and Budget
Date
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impact Statement, Bill 34-12,
Stormwater Management - Water Quality Protection Charge
Background:
The original Economic Impact Statement for Bill 34-12 was submitted to Council on October 25,2012, as
part of the County Executive's transmittal package for Bi1l34-l2. Since then, discussions about Bill 34­
12 at Council and preparation of the County Executive's Recommended FY14 budget have resulted in
decisions that provide greater clarity for some of the underlying assumptions in the original EIS.
The County Executive's Recommended FY14 budget includes projected revenues and expenditures for
the Water Quality Protection Charge (WQPC) Program and a proposed Equivalent Residential Unit rate
("WQPC rate") to support the program, which is a key factor in determining the amount of the WQPC for
all properties. The Transportation, Environment and Infrastructure (T&E) Committee recommended that
Bi1134-l2 be amended to include: (1) a financial hardship exemption for non-profit organizations; and (2)
a grant program that allows DEP to contract with non-profit organizations to provide watershed protection
and improvement activities. The County Executive supports both of these recommendations and they are
reflected in the proposed Executive Regulation 17-12 (attached), which the County Executive has
transmitted to Council prior to adoption of Bill 34-12, at Council's request, in order to provide a full
picture of how the bill will be implemented. This Revised BIS reflects the assumptions outlined in the
County Executive's Recommended FY14 budget, the creation of a financial hardship exemption for non­
profit organizations, the creation of a grant program, and all of the requirements of proposed Executive
Regulation 17-12.
This Bill (with the recommended amendments discussed above) applies to most! non-residential
properties and all residential properties in the County for purposes 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 under the defmition of an associated
non-residential property
(ANR)2;
Extend the WQPC for an
ANR
to include the remainder of the ANR's impervious area not
currently assessed;
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 (Le. any
impervious surface not currently draining to a residential pond);
Phase in over three years any increase in the Charge to residential properties resulting from the
changes to the Charge caused by the bill and accompanying regulations (attached);
Establish a credit program that would reduce the Charge to residential and non-residential
properties having a County approved stormwater management system; and
Provide a Hardship Exemption for residential and non-profit SOl(c) 3) property owners who are
able to demonstrate substantial financial hardship.
Provide a grant program for non-profit organizations to perform water quality improvement
activities
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
1.
The sources of information, assumptions, and methodologies used.
The economic impact is determined by comparing the amount of a property's FY13 WQPC to the amount
of the property's FY14 WQPC under Bil134-12 based on the WQPF rates outlined in the County
Executive's Recommended FY14 budget and the program requirements outlined in proposed Executive
Regulation 17-12.
1
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
2. A description of any variable that could affect economic impact statements.
The variables that will affect the economic impact to any given property include the amount of
impervious surface on that property, the amount ofthe credit that the property owner is entitled to and
whether the property owner qualifies for a hardship exemption. Program costs have been budgeted to
meet the MS4 Permit requirements.
An
expanded hardship program will cause a WQPC rate increase to
cover the expanded hardship costs, which would increase the overall WQPC to property owners.
3. The bill's positive or negative effect, if any on employment, spending, saving, investment,
incomes, and property value in the County.
This revised EIS reflect an updated WQPC rate of $86.90 from $85.40 (WQPC rate in CE Recommended
FY 14 Budget) caused by the inclusion of a hardship for non-profits, the cost of administering non-profit
exemption, and to cover the lost revenues for exempting non-profits.
In
FYI4, when using the revised
WQPC rate (see table below) and the proposed amendments included in the attached Executive
Regulation, the bill's effect will be positive to 90% of single family residences and townhomes (meaning
the Charge will be less than it was in FY13) and the impact will be negative to 10% of the single family
residences and townhomes (the Charge will be greater in FY14 than it was in FY13). For 29% of
nonresidential properties the effect will be positive (the Charge will be less than it was in FY13). The bill
will have a negative effect on the remaining non residential properties. The percentages assume no
reductions in the Charge for credits or hardship exemptions.
For the residential property owners the breakdown of the
Re~ommended
FY 14 Charge compared to the
FY13 Charge is as follows:
1. Single-jamily residential property owners:
a. There are an approximately 163,000 single-family residential properties.
b. Approximately 145,000 residential properties (or 89%) will pay less.
c. Approximately 18,000 residential properties (or 11 %) will see an increase in the Charge.
d. The differences in the Charge and the economic effects by tier group for single-family
residential properties are presented in the table below. The total economic effect due to
the changes in the Charge for single-family residences is a savings of only $102,000.
Therefore, overall there is little economic effect due to the proposed changes in the
Charge. However, for single-family residential properties in tier groups 1 through 3, the
total savings is approximately $1.598 million which is offset by the increase of $1.496
million for properties in tier groups 4 through 7.
I
Tier GrouE
!
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
I
I
i
I
i
Tier 4
Tier 5
: Tier 6
i
i
i
FY13
Charge
$92.60
$92.60
$92.60
$92.60
$92.60
$92.60
$92.60
I
I
I
I
FY14