T&E Item IA
March 11,2013
Worksession
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee
~Michael
Faden, Senior Legislative Attorney
Worksession:
Bill 34-12, Stormwater Management - Water Quality Protection
Charge
SUBJECT:
Bill 34-12, Storm water 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.
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 ©15-24. The Bill
appears to be generally consistent with the state law. A summary, prepared by Howard County
Council staff, of steps takes in other Maryland jurisdictions to implement this law is on ©47-48.
As some of the questions discussed below indicate, many relevant policy issues arise in
the context of the implementing regulations, which are not yet formally before the Council but
were submitted in draft form with this Bill. This memo primarily focuses on policy issues raised
by the Bill itself. A separate packet for today's worksession by Senior Legislative Analyst Keith
Levchenko will cover the draft regulations and the issues they raise.
Legislative Issues
1) Revenue/phase-in
As the state law requires, this Bill would expand the scope of the
Water Quality Protection Charge to virtually all non-government properties, including many
non-residential properties that do not currently pay the Charge. (For background and rationale,
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
see the Legislative Request Report and County Executive memo on ©9-14.) The amount of the
Charge must be based on "the share of stormwater management services" provided by the
County to the property. Most of the details of this expansion are contained in the implementing
regulation.
Does DEP have an overall estimate of how much more net revenue will be generated
annually as a result of the expanded Charge under this Bill, compared to under the current
structure? The fiscal and economic impact statements on ©25-29 do not appear to contain any
revenue estimate.
Setting aside the operating costs associated with managing the new process, and any
credits that are granted to property owners, would the new tier system proposed in the regulation
bring in the same, less, or more, revenue than the current ERU structure?
DEP would phase in over the next 3 fiscal years the increase in the fee to formerly
uncovered non-residential properties (see ©7-8, lines 144-168). How would this revenue
reduction, compared to full implementation, affect DEP's stormwater management (SWM)
programs?
2) Credits
As the state law directs, the Bill allows a property owner to apply for a credit
for on-site SWM systems or best practices. See ©6-7, lines 127-136. However, the Bill does not
expressly require that a credit must be granted if the property owner meets certain conditions.
The draft regulation also uses looser "may" language, implying that a property owner's request
could be denied even if it meets the applicable criteria. Is the credit intended to be an
entitlement, or could it be subject to availability of funding or an annual cap? DEP staff have
confirmed that they intend that the credit must be granted to each eligible applicant. In that case,
Council staff recommends
that ©6, lines 127-128 be amended as follows:
A property owner may [[request]] apply for, and the Director must grant
~
credit equal to
~
percentage, ...
Council staff also
recommends
that the Bill's credit and exemption provisions be moved
to
§
19-35(e) to replace current provisions
I
that the state law has made outdated.
To receive a credit in FY14, a property owner would have to apply to DEP by July 31
(see ©8, lines 165-168). Is this early deadline necessary? The Committee may want to discuss
with DEP how the County plans to notify potential applicants of this deadline.
The
Stonnwater Partners
(see testimony, ©35-40, especially ©36-37) 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
ICurrent §19-35(e):
(e)
The regulations may allow credits against and exemptions from the Charge:
(l)
to the extent that credits and exemptions are not prohibited by State Jaw; and
(2)
if each credit or exemption will enhance water quality or otherwise promote the purposes
of this Article.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
rural areas (see testimony, ©41-46). The Committee could ask DEP for its views on these
suggestions.
3) Hardship exemption
As the state law requires, the Bill allows an exemption in cases
of substantial financial hardship (see ©7, lines 136-142), but the Bill does not define hardship.
Should "hardship" be defined in the law, or decided by criteria set by regulation? 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?
In addition, the Bill would limit the hardship exemption to owners on owner-occupied
residential properties (see ©7, lines 136-139), while the state law does not so limit it (see state
law subsection 0)(1) on ©24). A representative of the Archdiocese of Washington has requested
an exemption from this charge. Should the hardship exemption be available to them and other
non-residential property owners?
4) Private
roads How should privately owned roads be charged under the new law and
regulations? Several years ago DEP moved to assess the Charge to the Montgomery Village
Foundation for its privately owned roads, but stopped when the Foundation protested. The state
law does not exempt private roads as a class of property, but they could be eligible for credits or
possibly a hardship exemption.
5) Federal and municipal facilities
DEP assumes that federal facilities must pay this
Charge (based on an amendment to federal law inserted by Senator Cardin several years ago).
However, the County has not received any payments from any federal facilities. The Bill (see
©2, lines 16-19) includes federal facilities in the law's definition of "person" only "to the extent
allowed by law". Should the County law be more clear that federal facilities are not exempt?
The County law also could be clearer that the County cannot charge State and municipal
facilities, and vice-versa. The state law (see state law subsection (e)(2) on ©18) expressly
exempts property owned by the state, a County, a municipality, or a volunteer fire department,
from the Charge. In its testimony (see ©32-34), Rockville urged the County to budget and pay
the amounts the City believes are past due from the County under the City's own stormwater fee,
but this part of the state law would appear to preclude the County from doing so (at least for
future charges).
The current County law contains a limited municipal exemption
2,
covering property
in
a
municipality (as distinct from property
owned by
the municipality) with a similar charge. This
2See County Code
§
19-35(g), which provides:
(g)
This Charge does not apply to any property located in a municipality in the County which:
,
(l)
operates a stormwater management program that meets all applicable federal, State, and
County requirements and has received any necessary federal or State permit; and
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
provIsIOn probably should be modified to confonn to the state law's broader municipal
exemption (see state law subsection (g)(2) on ©21). This can be done by amending §19-35(g) to
delete the current language and reflect the state law's process for notice to and from
municipalities.
The County Attorney should be prepared to discuss the limits on the extent to which the
County can charge other jurisdictions and is obligated to those jurisdictions.
This packet contains:
Bill
34-12
Legislative Request Report
Memo from County Executive
2012 State law
Fiscal and economic impact statements
Public hearing testimony
DEP
Rockville
Storm water Partners
Soil Conservation District
Summary of other jurisdictions' actions
F:\LAW\BILLS\1234 Stormwater Management-WQPC\T&E Memo 3-11-13.Doc
Circle
#
1
9
11
15
25
30
32
35
41
47
(2)
imposes a similar charge or other means of funding its stormwater management program
in that municipality.
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
34-12
Concerning: Stormwater Management ­
Water Quality Protection Charge
Revised: 11-20-12
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
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.
Deleted from 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
Sec. 1. Sections 19-21, 19-28, 19-29 and 19-35 are amended as follows:
19-21.
Definitions
2
3
* *
*
4
5
[Associated nonresidential property: A nonresidential property from which
storynwater drains into a stormwater management facility that primarily
serves one or more residential properties.]
6
7
8
*
*
*
Impervious area
or
impervious surface:
Any surface that prevents or
significantly impedes the infiltration of water into the underlying soil,
including any structure, building, patio, [deck,] sidewalk, compacted gravel,
pavement, asphalt, concrete, stone, brick, tile, swimming pool, or artificial
turf.
Impervious surface also includes any area used by or for motor
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
vehicles or heavy commercial equipment, regardless of surface type or
material, including any road, [road shoulder,] driveway, or parking area.
*
*
Person:
An
individual~[,
*
corporation, firm, partnership, joint venture,
agency, organization, municipal corporation,] glegal entity; or
~
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.
*
*
19-28.
*
*
21
Inspection and maintenance of stormwater management systems.
22
*
*
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
execute an easement and an inspection and maintenance
F:~\BILLS\1234
Stormwater Management-WQPC\BiIl2 Correeted.Doc
26
27
L2J
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 34-12
28
29
30
31
32
33
agreement that is binding on each later [owner[
s]]
owner of the
land to be served by any private storrnwater management
system.
(2)
The easement must give the County a perpetual right of access
to the storrnwater management system at all reasonable times to
inspect, operate, monitor, install, construct, reconstruct, modify,
maintain, clean, or repair any part of the storrnwater
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
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
require the owner to be responsible for all maintenance of any
completed
ESD
treatment
system
and
non structural
maintenance of anyon-site storrnwater management facility if
the development consists of residential property or [associated]
of nonresidential
property
that
contains
~
42
43
44
45
stormwater
management facility built or retrofitted
Qy
the County.
Otherwise, the inspection and maintenance agreement must
require the owner to be responsible forever for all maintenance
of the entire on-site storrnwater 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
III
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
the
County land records and deliver a certified copy of each
recorded document to the Departments of Permitting Services
F:~w\BILLS\1234
Stonnwater Management-WQPC\BiI12 Corrected. Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 34-12
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
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
!!
facility built or retrofitted
Qy
the County that serves
nonresidential property.
No other person may perform
structural maintenance on a stormwater management facil ity
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)
Maintenance ofexisting stormwater management lfacilitiesJ systems.
(1)
The owner of a stormwater management facility that is not
subject to
subsection (b) must perform
all
structural
maintenance needed to keep the facility in proper working
condition. The owner of a residential property or [associated]
!!
nonresidential property that contains
!!
stormwater management
facility built or retrofitted
Qy
the County, or a homeowners'
association that includes the residential property, may execute a
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
~
F\tiw\B1LLS\1234 Stonnwater Management-WQPOBiII2 Corrected. Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill
No.
34-12
82
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
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
storm water 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).
ill
If
~
property contains an ESD treatment system that was
installed or retrofitted
121
the County under
~
sediment control
permit, the inspection and maintenance agreement may require
the County to maintain the system.
*
19-29.
*
;:5-\
*
Stormwater management loan program.
F~BILLS\1234
Stonnwater Management-WQPC\BiII 2 Corrected. Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No, 34-12
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
(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 storm water 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
132
133
134
135
*
19-35.
*
*
*
*
Water Quality Protection Charge.
*
(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.
A property
owner may request g credit equal to g percentage, set
Qy
regulation, of
the Charge if the property contains g stormwater management system
that is not maintained
Qy
the County or the owner participates in g
County-approved water quality management practice or initiative. To
receive the credit, the property owner must submit g request to the
Director of Environmental Protection in g form prescribed
Qy
the
Director not later than October
n
of the year before payment of the
J.
Charge is due. Any credit granted under this subsection is valid for
F~V\BILLS\1234
Stormwater Management-WQPc\BiIl2 CorrectedDoc
L6J
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 34-12
136
137
138
years. The owner of an owner-occupied residential property that is
able to demonstrate substantial financial hardship may request an
exemption from the Charge for that property based on criteria set Qy
regulation.
submitting
The owner-occupant may apply for the exemption Qy
~
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
written request to the Director of Environmental
Protection not later than April
Charge is due.
1
of the year before payment of the
*
Sec. 2.
Implementation.
(a)
*
*
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 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 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;
(2)
only two-thirds 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
(3)
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.
(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
ZiJ
F\r;{W\BILLS\1234 Storrnwater Management-WQPC\BilI2 Corrected,Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 34-12
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
Charge of any impervious surface area that is created after this Act
takes effect.
(d)
To receive a credit under Section 19-35(b) for the fiscal year that
begins on July 1, 2013, the property owner must submit a request to
the Director of Environmental Protection on a form prescribed by the
Director not later than July 31, 2013.
Approved:
170
Nancy Navarro, President, County Council
171
Date
Approved:
172
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
173
Date
This is a correct copy ofCouncil action.
174
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council
175
Date
l0
FM\BILLS\1234 Stormwater Management-WQPC\Bili 2 Corrected. 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
The County's
associated nonresidential properties ("ANRs").
inability to levy the Charge on nonresidential properties other than
ANRs has resulted in a large number of properties whose impervious
surfaces contribute to water quality impairments while their owners
are effectively exempt from paying into the Water Quality Protection
Fund despite benefiting from the County's watershed restoration and
water quality remediation initiatives.
In 2010, the County received its third Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System ("MS4") Permit from the Maryland Department of the
Environment. This permit, which is mandatory under the Federal
Clean Water Act, requires the County to retrofit 4,300 impervious
acres not currently treated to the maximum extent practicable. The
intent of this Bill is to make the WQPC more equitable by spreading
the cost of restoration over all properties contributing to the problem
and whose owners benefit from the County's water quality protection
programs.
The existing law provides credits specifically geared to property
owners that have installed stormwater treatment facilities on their
properties. The credits specified in the bill are intended to reduce the
amount of the Charge paid by property owners whose actions have
reduced stormwater runoff and thereby assisted the County's efforts
to comply with its MS4 Permit.
Finally, state law enacted in 2012 mandates that County law exempt
property owners who can demonstrate that paying the Charge would
create a substantial financial hardship.
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
To make the WQPC more equitable by spreading the cost of
implementing the pollution control measures required under the
County's MS4 Permit to all property owners not otherwise exempt
under state law; create a systems of credits to encourage property
O\\-l1ers to participate in certain water quality management practices;
and bring County law into compliance with state law as it pertains to
locally levied charges to pay for stormwater remediation.
Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Finance
See Fiscal and Economic Impact Statement
See Fiscal and Economic Impact Statement
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
To be determined.
All the stormwater utilities
run
by other jurisdictions surveyed
throughout the County charge nomesidential 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
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
Isiah Leggett
County Executive
MEMORANDUM
October 25, 2012
TO:
Roger Berliner
County Council
Presid~ ~
IsiahLeggett
County Executive
FROM:
~~
-r
([ -­
SUBJECT:
Proposed Legislation: Stormwater 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 stormwater management facility.
The WQPC is used primarily to fund the County's stormwater facility maintenance and
inspection program and the activities necessary to meet the requirements in the Maryland Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. These activities include stream restoration projects,
stormwater pond retrofits, stream monitoring, Low Impact Development techniques, outreach and
education, and others.
At the-end ofthe 2012 legislation session, the General Assembly passed House Bill 987 -
Stormwater Management - Watershed Protection and Restoration Program, which requires certain
jurisdictions, including Montgomery County, to adopt stormwater utility fees. The new State law
specifically identifies elements that must be, included
in
the 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:
I)
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).
montgomerycountvmd.gov
1311
240-773-3556 TTY
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Roger Berliner
October 25, 2012
Page 2
2)
3)
4)
There must be a credit program providing a reduced charge to property owners
with stormwater systems on their properties (whereas currently there is no credit
program).
There must be a hardship exemption for property owners able to demonstrate
substantial financial hardship (whereas currently there is no hardship exemption).
The amount ofthe 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 of the stonnwater
management services utilized is a function of the amount of impervious surface
on the property.
To comply with the new State law, the County must amend the WQPC law and the
Executive Regulations that implement that law. All but the fourth item listed above require changes to
the WQPC law. The fourth item requires changes to Executive Regulations.
Specifically, the attached bill amends the WQPC law to:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Expand the types of property that are subject to the Charge to include all non­
residential properties.
Establish a 3-year phase-in for any increase
in
the Charge that is due to
application of the bill or any regulations adopted under the bill.
Authorize the County to provide credits to property owners that have stormwater
management systems on their properties.
Establish a hardship exemption for residential property owners who can
demonstrate substantial financial hardship.
Authorize the County to perform maintenance on non-residential property when
the County installs a retrofit on that property.
The draft companion Executive Regulations that are attached to this memorandum
establish:
1)
A 7-tier system for assessing the WQPC on residential properties based on the
amount of impervious surface. The tiered system is designed to comply with the
new State law requirement that the Charge must be based on the share of
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 50 percent of the assessed
charge for traditional stormwater treatment facilities and 60 percent if the entire
impervious area is treated using environmental site design. There is also a 50
percent maximum credit for residential property owners with stormwater
treatment.
A hardship exemption for residential property owners whose income is below
100% 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, so the more impervious
surface, the greater the Charge. Since there will be a significant increase in the
Charge for some non-residential property owners, a three-year
phase~in
is being
proposed for any increase in the Charge caused by additional square footage of
imperviousness being included in the calculation of the Charge. Additionally,
the credit program is available to reduce the Charge for properties with
stormwater management systems meeting the proposed criteria.
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
es:M
f!.
county
aM
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
aM
municipality to maintain
aM
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
aM
or municipality to
establish and
collect a stormwater remediation fee in accordance with this Act; requiring
~
f!.
county
aM
or municipality to set the amount of a
F8Bi8:8tlti8:1
stormwater
remediation fee in a certain manner;
authorizing a county or municipality to use
certain calculation methods to set a stormwater remediation fee,·
l'@€tNiritlg @8:@h 8:
@eNtlty 8:tla €U'
mNtli@i~8:lity
te s@t the am€lNM €If 8: tl€ltl1"@8iastltial 8t€lI'mwat@I'
I'emeai8:ti€ltl
fee
itl a @srtaitl matltleI';
providing that a stormwater remediation
fee is separate from certain other charges;
exempting certain property (rom
paying the storm water remediation fee;
aNth€ll'iBitlg
requiring a county or
municipality to
establish policies and procedures approved by the Department of
the Environment to
reduce a
certain
stormwater remediation fee
itl a@@81'8:atl@@
r.vith @eri8:itl
~€Ili@ie8
atla
~I'€l@eaNl"eS
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,
with @eFtaitl
e!f@@~ti€ltl,
8: @€lNtlty fl"€lm
im~€l8itlg
8: st€l1"mW8:ts1"
l'emsai8:ti€ltl fes 8tl a
~1"€l~srty
l€l@atea withitl a
mNtli@i~ality;
8:Nth8!'iilJitlg 8:
mNtli@i~8:lity
t€l 8:Nth81'iHS a @8Ntlty t€l
im~€Ise
a st81"mVl8:te1" reme8:iati8tl fee €Itl 8:
~1"€l~el"ty
l€l@ate8: withitl 8:
mNtli@i~8:lity
itl
~la@s
€If a
mNtli@i~al
st€lrmW8:teI'
l'eme8:iati8tl fee;
the assessment of a storm water remediation fee on a property by
both a county and a municipality; requiring a county to provide certain notice
and a reasonable time to pass a certain ordinance before the county may impose
a storm water remediation fee on property located within a municipality;
requiring a municipality to provide certain notice and a reasonable time for a
county to discontinue collecting a certain storm water remediation fee under
certain circumstances:
requiring
~
f!.
county
aM
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
~
f!
county
aM
or municipality to determine the
method, frequency, and enforcement of the collection of the stormwater
remediation fee and to deposit the fee into a local watershed protection and
restoration fund; specifying the money to be deposited in a local watershed
protection and restoration fund and the uses of the money in the fund; providing
that money in a local watershed and restoration fund may not revert or be
transferred to the general fund of any county or municipality; requiring each
county and municipality to make publicly available a report on certain
information; requiring a county or municipality to establish a certain hardship
program: authorizing the Department of the Environment to adopt certain
regulations; defining a certain term; and generally relating to stormwater
management in the State.
BY repealing and reenacting, with amendments,
Article - Environment
Section 4-201.1
Annotated Code of Maryland
(2007 Replacement Volume and 2011 Supplement)
BY adding to
Article - Environment
Section 4-202.1
Annotated Code of Maryland
(2007 Replacement Volume and 2011 Supplement)
SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF
MARYLAND, That the Laws of Maryland read as follows:
Article - Environment
4-201.1.
(a)
(b)
In this subtitle the following words have the meanings indicated.
"Environmental site design" means using small-scale stormwater
management practices, nonstructural techniques, and better site planning to mimic
natural hydrologic runoff characteristics and minimize the impact of land development
on water resources.
(c)
"Environmental site design" includes:
(1)
Optimizing conservation of natural features, such as drainage
patterns, soils, and vegetation;
(2)
Minimizing use of impervious surfaces [, such as paved surfaces,
concrete channels, roofs, and pipes];
-2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MARTIN O'MALLEY, Governor
Ch.
151
(3)
Slowing down runoff to maintain discharge timing and to increase
infiltration and evapotranspiration; and
(4)
Using other nonstructural practices or innovative stormwater
management technologies approved
by
the Department.
(D)
(1)
"IMPERVIOUS SURFACE" MEANS A SURFACE THAT DOES NOT
ALLOW STORMWATER TO INFILTRATE INTO THE GROUND.
"IMPERVIOUS SURFACE" INCLUDES ROOFTOPS, DRIVEWAYS,
SIDEWALKS, OR PAVEMENT.
(2)
4-202.1.
(A)
ON OR "DEFORE JUIX
1, 2Q13,
/'"z
OOU~ItI'Y
OR
l\I[U~HOlp,.AzIsI:P¥
SIIAIsIs
lII:)OP:P ANI:)
Il\iPIsEl\iE~Iq;'
1s001'\:I:.
UN'S
OR
OBl:)nlA~JGES
NEOESSAR¥ :PO
ESUBIsISII
/'"Z
\lli\:PEBSIIEI:)
PRO:PEO:PIO~I A~ll:) BES:PORA:PIO~1
PBOGRMi,
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:
PROGRAM
~
ill
ill
00
(1)
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,
R"zCH
A COUNTY AND OR
MUNICIPALITY SHALL ESTABLISH AND ANNUALLY COLLECT A STORMWATER
REMEDIATION FEE FROM
PROPER'r¥
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
RESIBEN'I'ML
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.
m
.00.
fHt
A
COUP'ftFY OR MUP'lICIPALI':F¥
l\"¥
SE':F A S':FORMWA':FER
REMEBM':FION FEE UP'lBER 'l'IIIS
P±A..
RlJ:GR:t'....PII Ul
l ..N
AiMOUN':F 'l'HA':F IS
GIUdillh\':FEB. DlltSEB
OP'l
':FIlE lYl'lOUP'l'I' OF IMPEWnOUS SURFl"J:CE ON El.lCII
PROPERtFY.
(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.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MARTIN O'MALLEY, Governor
~
Ch.151
Is
Cl'HE KYlE FOR AbL RESI:9E!'lCl'Y..L PROPERCl'Y O'fW'lERS
WICl'IH:N Cl'HE COlJ!'lCl'Y OR MlJ!'llCIW..LICl'Y;
VA.RIES OASE:9 ON Cl'HE Cl'YPE OF RESI:9E!'fCl'It"..L
SUlGLE R<\l\IILY
OR
MYLCl'IPLE OCClJPt"'..NCY
PROPERCl'Y,
INCLlJ:9ING
PROPERCl'IES; OR
GRA:9lJt3E:9, OASE:9 0!'1 Cl'HE
Il\IPERVIOlJS SYRFA:CE 0!'1 EACH RESI:9ENCl'It\L PROPERCl'Y.
~
~
W
Is
MIOlJNCl'
OF
EACH
~
COlJ!'lCl'Y A!'l:9
~
MlJ!'HCIPALICl'Y SHALL SECl' A
!'lO!'lRESI:9E!'ICl'1.5Ms SCl'ORM\VA'I'ER REME:9IACl'ION FEE
Ul
AN 1YIOU!'l(}' Cl'11t<\Cl':
GRE!..Cl'ER Cl'IWl OR EQlJAL cl'0 Cl'HE RESI:9E!'fCl'Y..L
SCl'ORl\IWACl'ER REME:9It"'3IO!'l FEE SECl' lJ!'l:9ER PARACRz<\PII
(2)
OF Cl'IIIS
SlJRSECCl'ION; 1\1'1:9
~
Is
W
CONSISCl'S OF:
RI..SE AMOU!'l(}' Cl'HACl' IS Cl'IIE Sl..ME FOR ALL
NO!'lRESI:9E!'fCl'ML PROPERCl'Y OJ;I}!'fERS IN:ICl'IIIN Cl'IIE COlJNCl'Y OR MlJNICIPALICl'¥;
~
+r
..' \
..\!,1 AMOlJ!'lCl' Cl'IIM IS
G~lJz"..Cl'E:9
Ol\BE:9 O!', Cl'IIE
AMOlJ!'lCl' OF IMPEIPnOlJS SlJRR.t.tCE ON EACH
!'IONRESI:9E~lCl'ltt.tL
PROPERCl'Y.
3r
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)
I~l ACCOR~lCE
INICl'II
A
COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY MA¥
SHALL ESTABLISH POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
ESCl'l'..OLISIIE:9 OYA
COU~tCl'Y
OR
l\llJ!'HCIPALICl'Y A:N:9,.
APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT,
A
COlJ~tCl'Y
OR
MlJ~HC;IPALICl'Y
MAY
TO REDUCE
ANY
PORTION OF A STORMWATER
REMEDIATION FEE ESTABLISHED UNDER SUBSECTION (E) OF THIS SECTION
Cl'IIACl' IS BI...SE:9
O~T
Cl'IIE
iY.fOlJ~lCl'
OF IMPERVIOUS SlJRFACE
O!'ll...
PROPERCl'Y
TO
ACCOUNT FOR ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE SYSTEMS, FACILITIES, SERVICES, OR
ACTIVITIES THAT REDUCE THE QUANTITY OR IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF
STORMWATER DISCHARGED FROM THE PROPERTY.
f41~W
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)
L
WITH
EXISTING
RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES OR
FACILITIES THAT ARE OTHERWISE EXEMPTED FROM STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS BY THE COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY; AND
THAT ACCOUNT FOR THE COSTS OF, AND THE
LEVEL OF TREATMENT PROVIDED BY, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
THAT ARE FUNDED AND MAINTAINED BY A PROPERTY OWNER;
(II)
FEE REDUCTION; AND
THE METHOD FOR CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF A
2.
3.
(III) PROCEDURES FOR MONITORING AND
l~lP'lUALL¥
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.
REMEJ.;HY"'fFIO~J
FEE ON A PROPERTY LOCATEI) W'-ITIIUllz
MU~IICIP:l\LITY.
~
A
MUl'HCIIVrLITY
J.'k\Y
AUTIIORI~E
A COUP'lTY TO IMPOSE
A COUP'lTY STORl\IWATER REMEI)IATIOP'1 FEE 01'1 A PROPERTY LOClfFEI) J/JITIIUJ
TilE MUNICIPttrLIT¥
nl
PLACE OF
A
MUI'HCIPt"'zL STORM\JlATER REMEI)WfFIOP'l
BEFORE A COUNTY MAY IMPOSE A STORMWATER
REMEDIATION FEE ON A PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN A MUNICIPALITY, THE
COUNTY SHALL:
NOTIFY THE MUNICIPALITY OF THE COUNTY'S
INTENT TO IMPOSE A STORMWATER REMEDIATION FEE ON PROPERTY LOCATED
WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY; AND
PROVIDE THE MUNICIPALITY REASONABLE TIME
TO PASS AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE IMPOSITION OF A MUNICIPAL
STORMWATER REMEDIATION FEE INSTEAD OF A COUNTY STORMWATER
REMEDIATION FEE.
(II) IF A COUNTY CURRENTLY IMPOSES A STORMWATER
REMEDIATION FEE ON PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN A MUNICIPALITY AND THE
MUNICIPALITY DECIDES TO IMPLEMENT ITS OWN STORMWATER REMEDIATION
FEE UNDER THIS SECTION OR
§
4-204
OF THIS SUBTITLE. THE MUNICIPALITY
SHALL:
NOTIFY THE COUNTY OF THE MUNICIPALITY'S
INTENT TO IMPOSE ITS OWN STORMWATER REMEDIATION FEE; AND
PROVIDE THE COUNTY REASONABLE TIME TO
DISCONTINUE THE COLLECTION OF THE COUNTY STORMWATER REMEDIATION
FEE WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY BEFORE THE MUNICIPALITY'S STORMWATER
REMEDIATION FEE BECOMES EFFECTIVE.
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
f1l
1.
2.
L.
2.
(3)
-7­
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Ch.151
2012 LAWS OF MARYLAND
(H)
(1) EtzCH
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)
EliCH
A
SUBJECT TO PARAGRAPH
(5)
OF THIS SUBSECTION, A
COUNTY AND 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.
ill
A
COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY MAY USE ITS LOCAL WATERSHED
PROTECTION AND RESTORATION FUND AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL FUND, AND MAY
DEPOSIT TO AND EXPEND FROM THE FUND ADDITIONAL MONEY MADE
AVAILABLE FROM OTHER SOURCES AND DEDICATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL USES,
PROVIDED THAT THE FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE STORMWATER REMEDIATION
FEE ARE EXPENDED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES AUTHORIZED UNDER PARAGRAPH
(4) OF
THIS SUBSECTION.
THE FUNDS DISBURSED UNDER THIS SUBSECTION ARE
INTENDED TO BE IN ADDITION TO ANY EXISTING STATE OR LOCAL
EXPENDITURES FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.
MONEY IN A LOCAL WATERSHED PROTECTION AND
RESTORATION FUND MAY NOT REVERT OR BE TRANSFERRED TO THE GENERAL
FUND OF ANY COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY.
(I)
BEGINNING JULY
1, 2014,
AND EVERY
2
YEARS THEREAFTER, A
COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY SHALL MAKE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE A REPORT ON:
~
ill
-9­
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Ch.151
2012 LAWS OF MARYLAND
THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO A STORMWATER
REMEDIATION FEE;
THE AMOUNT OF MONEY DEPOSITED INTO THE WATERSHED
PROTECTION AND RESTORATION FUND OVER THE PREVIOUS
2
FISCAL YEARS;
AND
THE PERCENTAGE OF FUNDS IN THE LOCAL WATERSHED
PROTECTION AND RESTORATION FUND SPENT ON EACH OF THE PURPOSES
PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (H)(4) OF THIS SECTION.
(1)
(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)O) OF THIS
SECTION.
THE DEPARTMENT MAY ADOPT REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT
AND ENFORCE THIS SECTION.
SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act shall take effect
July
1, 2012.
Approved
by
the Governor,
May
2, 2012.
-10­
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Fiscal Impact Statement
Council Bill XX-12, Stormwater Management - Water Q.uality Protection Charge
1.
Legislative Summary
This Bill applies to all non-residential properties and all residential properties in the County
for purposes of st9nnwater 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 (ANR)l;
b. Extend the WQPCfor an 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 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~nges
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.
property (ANR) is a non-residential property that drains to a
stormwater facility that primarily serves residential properties.
ANRs
are charged based on only
the amount of impervious surface that drains to the residential stormwater facility.
1
An
Associate Non-Residential
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The one new Planning Specialist position will coordinate the administration of the credit
and hardship exemption programs, which is authorized in the proposed bill. The annual
cost estimate of $89,100 assumes a mid-point grade 23 Planning Specialist III position
(salary of $68,531 plus 30 percent for employee benefits). Specific responsibilities for this
position include outreach and education, working with property owners to complete
applications, reviewing applications and engineering drawings, managing the database,
review applications and verify income qualifications.
The credit program itselfhas 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 ITl 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.,
Bnvir.
§
4-202.1 G), is included
in the proposed legislation. Although the hardship exemption does not have a fiscal
impact, it will impact the WQPC rate; as it will require offsetting revenue to implement.
3. Revenue and expenditure estimates covering at 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
perfonn
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 ofwork needed to provide
maintenance to County installed or retrofitted facilities on non-:-residential property (as
authorized under the proposed legislation), as well as the administration ofthe credit and
hardship exemption programs.
10. Ranges of revenue or expenditures that are uncertain or difficult to project.
Not applicable.
11.
If
a bill
is
likely to have no fiscal impact, why that
is
the case.
Not applicable.
12. Other fiscal impacts or comments.
Not
applicable.
13. The following contributed to and concurred with this analysis:
Gladys Balderrama, Department of Environmental Protection
Vicky Wan, Department of Environmental Protection
Steven Shofar. Department ofEnvironmental Protection
Matt Schaeffer, Office of Management and Budget
Amy
Wilson, Office ofManagement and Budget
Naeem Mia, Office ofManagement and Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impact Statement
CouncH BiD xx-12, Stormwater Management - Water Quality Protection Charge
Background:
This Bill applies to aU 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 ifthey fall under the
definition ofan 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 non-residential
properties resulting from
the
expanded scope ofthe WQPC as described
in
a and
b above (i.e. any impervious sUIface not currently draining to a residential pond);
d. .
Phase
in
over
three
fiscal years any increase
in
the Charge to residential
properties resulting from the modification of the
ERU
system;
e. Establish a credit program that would reduce the Charge to residential and non- .
residential properties having a County approved stormwater management
system; and
£
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 de\:'eloped 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 ofinformation, assumptions, and methodologies used.
The analysis employs a case study approach that analyzes an averaged-sized non­
residential property as an example ofthe economic impact for items a and b. A case
study was used because ofthe variability
in
the number and characteristics ofnon­
residential properties
that
currently pay the WQPC.
The
Department ofFinance
incorporated both the data and analysis undertaken by DEP to provide an example 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 amount of
impervious surface oil 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 lawa,
but
because ofthe three year
phase~in
ofimperviousness, the
Charge
for
the first year would be $119.69.
5. A property 'with 2,000 square feet of impervious surface, which is owned and
occupied by an owner who
has
an annual income equal to or less. than 100% of
the poverty guidelines would pay
in
FY14:
a.
$98.00 under existing law
b. Nothing under the proposed law since this person would
qualify
for an
exemption.
4.
If
a
bill
is
likely to, have no economic impact, why is that the case?
The
Bill
does have an economic impact for both non"residential and single-family
residential properties as presented
in
section
3.
5.
The following contributed to and concurred witli
this
analysis: Bob Hoyt, Steve'
Shofar and
Vicky
Wan, DEP; David
Platt
and Mike Coveyou, Finance.
f-
2r1-fL
Date
Department ofFinance
An
Associated Non-!tesidential
property
(ANR)
is
a non-residential property
that drains
to a stoJlll'W8.ter
facility
that
primarilyserves residential properties.
.ANR.s
are
charged
based on only the amount of
impervious SUIface that drains
to
the
residential stonnwater facility.
1
A tiered 'approach
is
being proposed
tbrough
the companion
draft
Executive Regulations.
and
satisfies the
state law requirement
to
base the Charge on " .•.the share ofthe stormwate.r
mamgement
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
~
they
have less imperviousness
than
one ERU. and increases
it
for those
that
fall
into higher
tiers
because they
have greater imperviousness. A residential property that would
have
paid $98
under
the
existing
law
would
pay
the
following
under
the proposed law.
The
amounts below could
be
reduced. however,
if
it
qualified
:fur
credits.
1
a.
$33.76,
for
TierI
(1,000
sq
ft
or less)
b. $51.15,
for Tier 2 (1,001-1,410 sq
ft)
c.
$10230.
for Tier 3
(1,411- 3,412sq
ft)
d. $119.69, for 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 - 6,215
sq
ft)
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 o\Vners that have stormwater management
systems on their property.
3.
Establish a hardship exemption for residential property owners who can
demonstrate substantial financial hardship.
Page 10f2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
In order to mitigate the financial impact of the new law, Bill 34-12 establishes a three
year phase-in for any increase in the Charge caused by the bill or its accompanying regulations.
The bill also allows the County to perform maintenance on facilities on non-residential
properties when the County retrofits those facilities, which will help encourage non-residential
property ovvners to allow retrofits on their property.
In order to implement changes to the County's program by the State deadline of July 1,
2013, draft regulations were published in the County register in November 2012. The proposed
regulations establish:
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 ovvners 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% ofthe Federal poverty level.
The revenue from the Water Quality Protection Charge is used to meet the requirements
of the County's stormwater permit, which is formally called the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System Permit - or MS4 Permit. Our permit requires the County to retrofit 4,300 impervious
acres not currently treated to the maximum extent practicable. I appreciate your introduction of
this bill on the County Executive's behalf and respectfully request that Council to adopt it as
expeditiously as possible so the County can comply with the State deadline. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify.
I would be happy to address any questions the Council may have.
Page 2 of2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
/5
City of Rockville
Testimony of Councilmember Tom Moore
Bill 34-12 Stormwater Management - Water Quality Protection Charge
January 15, 2013
Good afternoon. My name is Tom Moore, and I serve on the Rockville City Council. I want to
thank President Navarro and the members of the Montgomery County Council for the opportunity
to provide testimony on Bill 34-12 - Stormwater Management Water Quality
Protection Charge.
As you know, EPA's mandated "pollution diet" for the Chesapeake Bay requires most Counties and
Cities in Maryland to significandy 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 ofHB-987 (2012), by expanding the existing residential
charge to include businesses and other properties not othenvise 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 IT09, which was the first year the fee was charged to property owners,
and through IT13, the County owes Rockville a total of $329,249. The breakdown of the charges is
as follows:
IT09 $45,200,
IT10 $55,596,
IT11 $69,290,
IT12 $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 Bi1l34-12 and Regulation 17-12
Testimony of Diane Cameron
for the Montgomery County StormwaterPartners Network
on Bill 34-12
January 15,2013
1.15.13
I
My name is Diane Cameron and
I
am the Coordinator ofthe 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 .
. Since 2006, the Stormwater Partners have been guided by a 12-pointconsensus agenda for the county's
stormwaterpennit and water quality program (copy attached). Point number
12reads~
Increase program funding while sending a
.II
price incentive" for more-protective
stol'mwatel' measures thl'ougb bFoadening use of the County's Watel' Quality Pl'otection
Charge.
A
Bill 34-12 and its regulation meet both of these objectives: they would increase 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.
Other key Points 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;
,
.
A
Includes all nonresidential property owners, correcting a longstanding inequity in the Water
Quality Protection Charee, and
The proposed 7-tier structure is .a1so more equitable, since it charges landowners based roughly
on the amount of imperviousness they own.
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 my family, company, organization?
What are the benefits to the landowner ofa Conservation Landscape or other green retrofit? What are
the costs and the administrative hassles? And, are the costs and hassles worth the benefits?"
The
challenge thl;tt 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 Bi1l34-l2 and Regulation 17-12
1.15.13
2
In
order to craft the most successful stormwater fee credits possible, Montgomery County must:
A
reduce the hassle factor;
increase the credits and the price differential for those adopting "all-green retrofits;"
Market the credits program. As part of this, communicate the benefits of green practices, and
use social marketing to promote new norms in landscaping;
engage local groups as partners, including through establishing a grants program; and
further increase the Fairness Factor by including all imperviousness owners including all
governmental landowners in the fee system.
A.
A
...l
A
Today we provide written comments on improvements needed to meet these objectives.
The City ofRockville 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 stormwater fee credit because it's easier to simply
write a check. We suspect that this is due to a credit that is too small and a hassle that is too big..
We have worked fruitfully with DEP in furthering the RainScapes program, and the Stormwater Partners
stand ready to work with DEP staff to help shape this program, including the credits and grants, to help
ensure success in cleaning and restoring our streams, creating green businesses and jobs, and meeting
our MS-4 permit mandates. Thank you for this public hearing and for considering our input.
The contributions and support of the following Stormwater Partners to these comments are gratefully
acknowledged: Becky Hammer, Natural ResoUrces Defense Council; Susan Eisendrath, Sierra Club;
Anne Ambler, Neighbors ofNorthwest Branch; Kevin Jeffery, Clean Water ActIon;
Jim
Foster,
Anacostia Watershed Society.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
.
.
Stormwater Partners' Testimony and Comments on Bil134-12 and Regulation 17-12
Further written comments on Bill 34-12 and Regulation 17-12.
1.15.13
3
1) Include a grants 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, planninganQ
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 Stormwater Partners.
2) All landowners must pay their fair share of stormwater fees - Montgomery County should
charge all landowners, including all government entities, their fair share of stormwater fees.
Unfortunately, HB987 exempted state government landowners from paying 10cal.stormwater
fees.('!N e 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
exRmple~
and needs to
turn
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
1-Tier
fee structw:e is more equitable than the current billing method, it needs to-
be
tweaked to­
be more equitable and to provide a strong and clear incentive. to residential owners to reduce
their imperviousness wherever possible. Especially, the Tier
3
for single family residential sites
is too broad - it would charge the same fee for lots ranging from 1410 square feet to 3412
square feet of imperviousness. This spread is far too great for a single fee level, and creates
little or no incentive for large driveway and roof owners to reduce or mitigate their .
imperviousness.
To correct this problem,
we
suggest breaking this into two Tiers.
4) Credit program headed in the right direction- Overall we think the credit program is headed
in the right direction. We like the "maintenance credit" offered to landowners who adopt a
Green Street or other green stormwater practice and agree to maintain it.
And,
we like that
there is a differential with preference for "all green retrofits."
5) Credit system needs 5 improvements - Based on our review of proposed Regulation 17-12,
the credit levels need to be improved in four ways:
A) Greater clarity needed - the credit system as laid ol.!t in Regulation 17-12 is rather
confusing. Example: the term "Adopt a Best Management Practice" in Table 2 (residential
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Stormwater Partners' Testimony and Comments on Bill
34-12
and Regulation
17-12
1.15.13
4
credits) is vague. We understand that this refers only to green infrastructure practices like
Green Street Bioretention facilities - please chmfy 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 areeontrolling the watbr quality volume and the channel prDtection vDlume, 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
it-selfand
the
difference between gray 1IJ1d green credit
-levels.
The
current proposed credit for
landowners who invest in green stormwater retrofits must
be
increased. The proposed
60%
fee
reduction offered to non-residential owners who invest in an all-green stormwater retrofit,may
be too low Df an inducement once
the
"money math" is done· fDr 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 for single-family residential o.wners needs to. be revised to. create
an effective set of incentives:
'" Table
2
on page
7
of proposed Regulation
17-12
contains a set of residential credits for
various retrofit practices. Overall, the proposed credit levels are too low, with the range
being from 10% up to
25%
for the credits. Instead, the credit range should be more like
25% to 85%. And, tree plantings need to be added.
If
the credits are not big enough,
and iftheadministrative hassle is too great, this program won't induce the kind of
widespread neighborhood greening that our streams need and that the MS-4 requires.
We understand that DEP is concerned about the potential for lost revenue that could result
from increased credit levels inducing massive increases in participation in this program.
However, lost revenue from increased participation is unlikely to be a big problem for
DEP {given historically low rates ofpartieipation in similar programs in the region and
in the RainScapes Program). Alternatively, perhaps this should be considered a problem
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
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 HMPs are reducing DEP's retrofitting burden. And the bottom line is that
nobody's going to do retrofits if they're not worth enough credit-wise. The point of the
credits is to serve as an incentive for landowners to self-retrofit. The credits need to be
priced right if this program is going to be successful.
IfDEP really is concerned about losing too much revenue from retrofits, then we urge them
to counterbalance those losses by raising fees overalL Virtually every storrnwater 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 andrelated'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 ofDEP'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 will look at this credit program from their own·
perspective of
"what will I get aut ofthis,"
the marketing ofthe credits and the larger
RainScapes program must also take this approach. People are more inclined to take action when
they are faced with what they could or are losing if they don't use the credits. This type of
message is motivating as long as it's coupled with a solution (too much negative messaging can
people off, but a little can motivate them with a bit of challenge, e.g., "I don't want to loose the
credit or my drinking water quality or green space, etc.")
6)
Present the administrative protocol- and keep it simple, fast and easy.
Regulation! 7-12
doesn't specify the administrative protocol for landowners seeking to apply for the fee reduction
credits. Basically, the protocol will borrow from the RainScapes Rebates program, which has
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 atbome"" with tree p1antmgs, rain gardens, green roofs,
or conservation landscapes.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Montgomery Soil Conservation District
18410 Muncaster Road - Derwood, MD 20855 - Phone (301) 590-2855
'NWW.montgomeryscd.org
January 15,2013
The Honorable Nancy Navarro
Montgomery County Council President
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, MD 20950
Re:
Bi1134-12, Stormwater Management - Water Quality Protection Charge
Dear Council President Navarro and Council Members:
On behalf of the Montgomery Soil Conservation District (MSCD) I would like to thank you for
the opportunity to provide comments on Bill 34-12, Storm water Management - Water Quality
Protection Charge (WQPC). The staff and Supervisors of the MSCD provide technical
assistance to farmers and rural landowners and assist them in implementing conservation
practices that prevent soil erosion and protect water quality.
In
many ways, the best management
practices (BMPs) implemented by farmers accomplish the same goals as stormwater
management efforts in urban portions of the County.
The reality is that in most areas of the Agricultural Reserve storm water is controlled through
well-managed areas of open fields, forests, and wetlands. The vast amounts of impervious
surfaces that require storm water management in the more urban areas of the County are simply
not a problem in the Ag Reserve. This is evidenced by the fact that the streams in our
agricultural areas have the highest water quality in the County.
Rural landowners and farmers who pay this fee are in effect paying for problems associated with
down County development. A better solution would be to reward farmers for managing the
stormwater in their communities, or provide a funding source to increase efforts to implement
BMPs through the work of the Soil Conservation District. We offer the following suggestions for
amendments to the bill to help accomplish this:
1) Agricultural landowners who manage the soil, water, and other natural resources on their
property through a Soil Conservation and Water Quality Plan (SCWQ Plan) should not
be subject to a storm water fee.
2) The credit program outlined in Bill 34-12 should also apply to any landowner that has a
SCWQPlan.
3) Resources from the WQPC should be provided to MSCD for conservation planning and
BMP implementation in the Ag Reserve to demonstrate to the agricultural sector that
their WQPC funds are benefitting rural communities.
All Ol,trict
,,,","
sco off,,,,d on s ooo,""rimiostwy bs,•• wUhout
"",,,d
to "". ""'"
",,110001 origlo. 'aiig"o.
sa,
sga. m_'
,,,.,,
handl,fj!J
0'
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.
TJ/;IlY, .
RObertBUI2~C
(Jl .
sci
~~2
Montgomery
Cc:
Council Members
Bob Hoyt, DEP Director
Jeremy Criss, Ag Services Division Manager
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
~onservation
District (MSCD) both share responsibilities for protecting soil, water, and
other
~atural
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 forstormwater 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 (BJ\.1Ps) 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 BJ\.1P 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 ofpractice 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 stormwaterflows. Some examples ofthese practices include crop
rotation, no-till farming, covet 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 of these practices may result in nutrient credits that could be used to help the county
achieve their MS4 permit goals at a considerable discount to more expensive urban stormwater
management practices.
Funding from the WQPC will be used to restore the previously eliminated County Conservation
Planner position, create a new Soil Conservation Technician position, and replace deficiencies in
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MSCD's operating budget. A portion will also go toward salary reimbursements MSCD has
been required to provide, to DED to compensate for General Fund budget reductions. The new
Conservation Planner will develop an outreach campaign and focus SCWQ Planning efforts on
the agricultural properties within the MS4 permit sections of the county. In addition, a Soil
Conservation Engineering Technician position is necessary to provide technical assistance,
project design, and surveying for the increased level ofBMP implementation required to meet
the TMDL. It is anticipated that many of the operations in the MS4 sections of the county will
be equestrian facilities, horticultural or nursery operations, small vegetable operations, and other
niche agricultural producers. These operations have specialized needs and often require
considerably more staff time than our traditional agricultural clients. MSCD has experienced an
increase in requests from these new and emerging clients over the last couple years, and with
adequate staff, will be well positioned to provide them with technical assistance and ideas for
improving their operations. There are also a number of cost-share programs currently available
to assist these clients with the implementation of conservation practices.
A portion of the proposed funding will also be used to establish a rental equipment program for
conservation practices and encourage SCWQ planning among Cover Crop program participants.
Many landowners are interested in a variety of conservation planting techniques, but may not
have the equipment necessary to carry out these practices. This may include no-till planting
practices for cover crop and pasture reseeding, as'well other conservation equipment such as
aerators, conservation tillage, and compost spreaders. Although Cover Crop program
participants are not required to have an updated SCWQ Plan, many would benefit from knowing
what other conservation opportunities exist on their farms. By establishing a County incentive
linked to the MDA Cover Crop program, Montgomery County will increase participation in the
program and promote the conservation planning needed to achieve enhanced levels ofBMP
implementation.
PROPOSED BUDGET EXPENDITURES
Funding received by MSCD will be used to cover the following current budget shortfalls:
Re-Instate Resource Conservationist Position
Soil Conservation Engineering Technician
Including benefits, equipment, rent, etc
MSCD Reimbursement to DED
Operating Funds*
Conservation Matters Newsletter
Communications, phones, copiers, etc.
Office supplies, equipment, printing, etc.
Conservation Equipment Rental Program
IT Equipment
Workshops, Seminars, Outreaqh to small
Agriculturallandowners
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
$280,000
TOTAL REQUEST
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
*
MSCD receives the lowest operating budget of all Soil Conservation Districts in the state, and
has deferred the purchase of equipment, tools, and IT hardware for years because of this
shortfall. We cannot meet the rigorous goals outlined in the TMDL without proper resources.
1\
An incentive payment of $5/acre for parcels enrolled in the Cover Crop program that have a
current SCWQ Plan will serve as a statewide model for encouraging conservation planning and
greater participation in the Cover Crop program, which is one of the best mechanisms for
reaching water quality goals.
STRATEGY 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 ofthe 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 pro,perties
outside of the Ag Reserve as well as Ag Preservation parcels in watersheds that drain to
the MS4 permit area, and target 20 SCWQ Plans on 1,000 new acres a year within the
urban/suburban areas of the County.
• This partnership will help to demonstrate a united approach to addressing water quality
challenges in Montgomery County, and provide collaboration between the agricultural
and urban/suburban sectors.
• The "aggressive" nutrient reduction targets established for the ag sector under the WIP II
process cannot be achieved without additional resources. All Montgomery County
agencies must work together to insure that we do everything we can to meet the Bay goals.
• Establish a rental program to provide more farmers access to conservation equipment for
no-till planting, pasture renovation, compost spreading, and other practices that reduce .
stormwater impacts and nutrient and sediment loads. Cover Crops, no-till farming, and
establishing well maintained pastures are some of the most economical and effective
methods of controlling runoff and reducing nutrient loss from agricultural fields.
• Create a Cover Crop incentive payment program that will encourage broader participation
by County farmers and promote the development of SCWQ Plans, which are the genesis of
BMP implementation on agricultural properties.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Page 1 of2
Faden, Michael
From:
Meyers, Jeff Umeyers@howardcountymd.gov]
Friday, February 22, 201311:48AM
Devilbiss, Thomas S.
Faden, Michael
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Updated
Subject:
RE: Stormwater utility fee
Anne Arundel County
The proposal was introduced on January 22, 2013. The Council is still deliberating. As introduced, the legislation
establishes a three-tier payment structure paid annually:
$34 for townhouses and condominiums (R10, R15, R22 zones)
$85 for single family homes
(R2
and R5 zones)
$170 for rural agricultural
(RA,
RLD, R1 zones)
Council administrator reports
"will
likely be amended".
http://www.aacounty.org/County-Council/Resources/2013/2-13.pdf
Baltimore City
Council Bill 12-0155 was introduced in November and is still pending Committee action. The Bill requires the
Board of Estimates to establish a fee schedule. 'The Department of Public Works has scheduled meetings to educate
and inform residents about the impact stormwater has on their communities, and the proposed legislation for a
stormwater remediation fee,
http://legistar.baltimorecitycouncil.com/attachments/9843.pdf
Baltimore County
Council administrator: "I think this fee
will
be dealt with in the budget process which begins in April."
Carroll County
Carroll having the
first
meeting of advisory group tonight to figure out how to proceed.
Frederick County
The County is in the beginning stages of the process. Staff made a presentation to the County Commissioners
and they (reluctantly) directed staff to continue working on a fee proposal.
Frederick has a bill before the General Assembly to exempt the county
HB407.
Harford County
The County's Department of Public Works held a public information/open house night earlier this month to
provide information to the public regarding the fee. Bill 13-12 is now before the CounciL
http://www.harfordcountymd.gov/weblink8 /ElectronicFile.aspx?docid =407 0220&dbid=O .
3/512013
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Page 2 of2
Montgomery County
Bill 34-12, introduced late last year, had a public hearing on January 15, is now pending before the Council's
Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy, and Environment Committee. Under the Bill, the charge for a residential
property would range from $33.76 to $170.84 depending on size and level of imperviousness. Non-residential
properties would be charged by square foot of imperviousness. There
will
be credits for various stormwater
management elements on the property. The charges
will
be phased in over 3 years. Council staff anticipates progress
in March.
http://www6.montgomerycountymd.gov / content/council/pdf/bill/2012/Packets/20121127_6B.pdf
Prince George's County
A county workgroup to evaluate the State requirements is in its final stages. The workgroup \\;111 be briefing the
county executive and county council in February. The workgroup
will
hold a public forum in March and expects to
see legislation in April.
Charles County
County is currently waiting for technical information from consultants that
will
allow choice of methodology in
calculating the fee. County hopes to have that information sometime
in
March, after which legislation
will
be
proposed implementing that fee.
3/5/2013
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
T&E Item lA
March 11,2013
Worksession
Supplementary packet
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee
~
Michael Faden, Senior Legislative Attorney
Worksession: Bill 34-12, Stormwater Management
Charge
Water Quality Protection
SUBJECT:
After this packet went to print, Council staff received or noticed several relevant
documents:
• Executive branch staff submitted a set of amendments to this Bill, some of which
responded to issues raised by Council staff. See ©AI-A9.
• Executive branch also submitted a memo explaining those amendments. See ©B 1­
B2.
• The US Navy sent a letter to the Council (but apparently not to Executive staff)
arguing that the Water Quality Protection Charge should not apply to federal
agencies, as discussed in Issue 5 of the original packet. See ©C I-C2.
• DEP staff submitted answers to questions posed by Council staff, mainly about the
implementing regulations. See ©DI-D3.
We will be prepared to discuss all these documents at the worksession.
This packet contains:
Bill 34-12 with Executive branch amendments
Memo re Executive branch amendments
Letter from
US
Navy re federal facilities
DEP answers to Council staff questions
F:\LAW\B ILLS\ 1234 Stormwater Management-WQPC\T&E Supp Memo 3-11-I3.Doc
Circle
#
Al
Bl
Cl
Dl
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
34-12
Concerning: Stormwater Management ­
Water Quality Protection Charge
Revised: 11-20-12
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:
subject all properties not otherwise exempt under state law to the Water Quality
Protection Charge;
(2)
allow certain property owners to obtain a credit equal to a certain percentage of
the Charge;
(3)
exempt certain property owners that are able to demonstrate substantial financial
hardship;
(4)
provide for a phase-in of certain increases to the Charge; [[and]]
ill
establish a Watershed Management
Grant~
Program; and
([(5)]](Qlgenerally 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
(1)
BYMiqill,g
Section 19-29A
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
* * *
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deletedfrom existing law by original bill.
Added by amendment.
Deletedfrom existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act;
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 34-12
1
2
3
Sec.
1.
Sections 19-21, 19-28, 19-29 and 19-35 are amended, and Section
19-29A is added, as follows:
19-21.
Definitions
4
*
*
*
5
6
7
[Associated nonresidential property: A nonresidential property from which
stormwater drains into a stormwater management facility that primarily
serves one or more residential properties.]
8
9
10
*
*
*
Impervious area
or
impervious surface:
Any surface that prevents or
significantly impedes the infiltration of water into the underlying soil,
including any structure, building, patio, [deck,] sidewalk, compacted gravel,
pavement, asphalt, concrete, stone, brick, tile, swimming pool, or artificial
turf.
Impervious surface also includes any area used by or for motor
11
12
13
14
15
vehicles or heavy commercial equipment, regardless of surface type or
material, including any road, [road shoulder,] driveway, or parking area.
16
17
18
19
20
*
Person:
An
individual~[,
*
*
~
corporation, firm, partnership, joint venture,
legal entity; or
~
department,
agency, organization, municipal corporation,]
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.
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
-2­
C:\Uscrs\Fadcnm\Appdata\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\OLKD307\Bili 34-12rvsd030813.Doc
26
27
AZ
 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 stormwater management system at all reasonable times to
inspect, operate, monitor, install, construct, reconstruct, modifY,
maintain, clean, or repair any part of the stormwater
management system
[within]
in the area covered by the
easement as needed to assure that the system remains in proper
working condition under approved design and environmental
standards.
The inspection and maintenance agreement must
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
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
a
[associated]
of nonresidential property that contains
45
46
stormwater management facility built or retrofitted
Qy
the
County]).
Otherwise, the
inspection and maintenance
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
-3­
C:\Users\Fadenm\Appdata\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\OLKD307\Bill 34-12rvsd030813 .Doc
53
54
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL NO. 34-12
55
56
57
58
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
!!
facility built or retrofitted
Qy
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
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
perform structural maintenance on a storm water management
facility that the County is required to structurally maintain
without the County's written consent.
(5)
Any repair or restoration and maintenance performed under this
Section must comply with each previously approved or newly
submitted plan and any reasonable corrective measure specified
by the Director of Environmental Protection.
(c)
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
Maintenance of existing or retrofitted stormwater management
ffacilitiesJ systems.
(l)
74
75
The owner of a stormwater management facility that is not
subject to
subsection (b) must perform all
structural
76
77
78
79
maintenance needed to keep the facility in proper working
condition. The owner of a residential property or [associated]
!!
nonresidential property that contains
!!
storm water management
facility built or retrofitted
Qy
the County, or a homeowners'
association that includes the residential property, may execute a
-4­
C:\Users\Fadenm\Appdata\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\OLKD307\BiII 34·12rvsd030813 Doc
80
81
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
34-12
82
83
84
85
86
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).
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
-5­
management system that was installed or retrofitted
Qy
the
C:\Users\Fadenm\Appdata\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\OLKD307\BiIl34-12rvsd0308J3.Doc
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 34-12
109
110
111
County under
~
sediment control permit, the inspection and
maintenance agreement may require the County to maintain the
system.
112
113
114
115
116
*
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).
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
*
19-29A.
*
*
124
125
Watershed restoration grants program.
W
The Director of Environmental Protection may establish a Watershed
Restoration Grants Program. The purpose ofthe program is to
provide grant funding to non-profit organizations to perform water
quality protection or improvement activities that are demonstrably
beneficial to the County's efforts to satisfy the regulatory
requirements of the County's National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination Systems permit.
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
au
The County Executive may adopt regulations under method (2) that:
l33
l34
l35
ill
Describe the eligibility criteria and identifies the types of
organizations anq activities that may qualify for a grant under
the program;
-6­
C:\Users\F adenm\Appdata\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\OLKD307\BiII 34-12rvsd030813 .Doc
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
SILL
No.
34-12
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
ill
ill
Specify the procedures to apply for and receive a grant--and
Include any additional program criteria. standard§, and
procedures that are consistent with the County's watershed
management policies.
*
19-35.
*
*
Water Quality Protection Charge.
*
(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.
[[A property
owner may request
£!
credit equal to
£!
percentage, set
Qy
regulation, of
the Charge if the property contains
£!
stormwater management system
that is not maintained
Qy
the County or the owner participates in
£!
County-approved water quality management practice or initiative. To
receive the credit, the property owner must submit
£!
request to the
Director of Environmental Protection in
£!
form prescribed
Qy
the
Director not later than October
II
of the year before payment of the
Charge is due. Any credit granted under this subsection is valid for
J.
years.]] The owner of an owner-occupied residential property that is
able to demonstrate substantial financial hardship may request an
exemption from the Charge for that property based on criteria set
Qy
regulation.
The owner-occupant may apply for the exemption
Qy
-7­
C:\Users\Fadenm\Appdata\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\OLKD307\BilI34-12rvsd030813.Doc
submitting
£!
written request to the Director of Environmental
@
 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
Protection not later than April
Charge is due.
1
of the
year before payment of the
*
(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.]]
A property owner may request a credit equal to a percentage. set by
regulation. of the Charge if the property contains a stormwater
management system thatjs not maintained by the County or the owner
participates in a County-approved water quality management practice
or initiative. To receive the credit. the property owner must submit a
request to the Director of Environmental Protection in a form
prescribed by the Director not later than October 31 of the year before
payment of the Charge is due. Any credit granted under this
subsection is valid for 3 years.
*
Sec. 2.
Implementation.
(a)
*
*
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 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:
-8­
C:\Users\F adenrn\Appdata\LocaJ\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\OLKD307\B
ill
34-1 2rvsd0308 13.Doc
189
 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
211
Approved:
~
(1)
only one-third 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;
(2)
only two-thirds 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
(3)
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.
(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.
(d)
To receive a credit under Section 19-35(b) for the fiscal year that
begins on July 1, 2013, the property owner must submit a request to
the Director of Environmental Protection on a form prescribed by the
Director not later than July 31, 2013.
To receive an exemption under Section 19-35 (b) for the fiscal year
that begins on July
l,
2013, the property owner must submit a request
tQ
the Director of Environmental Protection in a form prescribed by
the Director not later than September 1, 2013.
212
Nancy Navarro, President, County Council
Date
-9­
C:\Users\Fadenm\Appdata\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\OLKD307\B
ill
34-12rvsd0308 13.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Proposed Edits to WQPC Legislation 34-12
Department of Environmental Protection
March 7,2013
Page and line numbers refer to the document in the file titled "Bill 34-12rvsd030813.doc"
Page 3 lines 43-46.
Remove "or nonresidential property that contains a stormwater management facility built
or retrofitted by the County".
Reason: The language was added to allow DEP to perform structural maintenance on a
facility on a nonresidential property ifDEP installed a stormwater retrofit. Based on
discussions with the County Attorney's Office, it was determined that Section 19-28(b)
refers to stormwater management systems installed as part of new development or
redevelopment, and 19-28(c) refers to stormwater management systems that are existing
or retrofitted. Any retrofit would, therefore, occur under subsection (c). So the reference
to retrofit was under subsection (b) is removed.
Page 4 lines 63-65.
Add "unless the inspection and maintenance agreement requires the property owner to be
responsible for structural maintenance of the facility".
Reason: Currently any new residential facility must be placed in the County's structural
maintenance program.
In
order for a residential property owner to receive a credit, the
property owner must perform all maintenance on its stormwater facility. The language
change will give residential property mvners the option of keeping all maintenance
responsibilities (i.e., structural and non-structural) so that they can receive the credit.
Page 4 line 73.
Add "or retrofitted"
Reason: This clarifies that Section 19-28 (c) is the provision that addresses stormwater
management systems built or retrofitted by the County.
Page 5 lines 107-108.
Replace "an ESD treatment" with "a stormwater management".
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The original language limited the types of stormwater management systems that DEP
could maintain to ESD treatment systems. Revised language allows DEP to build any
type of stormwater management system on private property and perform maintenance.
Pages 6-71ines 124-139.
Add new Section
19-29A.
Reason: The new section creates a grant program for non-profit organizations in
accordance with Md. Code Ann., Envir. § 4-202.1 (h) (4) (vi). This was requested by
some stakeholders, and it supports outreach requirements of the County's MS4 Permit by
authorizing DEP to issue grants directly to non-profit organizations.
Pages 7-8 lines 149-158 and 172-180.
Remove the language concerning credits from Section 19-35 (b) and replace the language
concerning credits and exemptions under subsection (e).
Reason: The added provisions on credits and exemptions under Section 19-35 make the
current language under subsection (e) unnecessary.
Page 9 lines 207-210
Add language concerning the implementation of the hardship exemption for the first year.
Reason: Due to timing, the WQPC will have been billed to eligible property owners
before they have had the opportunity to apply for a hardship exemption in the first year of
implementation. We added language to allow for the application period to extend until
September 1.
2
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
r. ('
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
COMMANDER
NAVY REGION. MID-ATLANTIC
1510 GILBERT ST.
NORFOLK. VA 23511-2737