Agenda Item 5E
June 28, 2016
Action
MEMORANDUM
June 24, 2016
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
County Council
AmandaMihill, Legislative
Attomey(~lkj
U
Action: Expedited Bill 11 -16, Stormwater Management- Water Quality Protection
Charge Grants - Credits
Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee recommendation (3-0):
enact Bill 11-16 with an amendment to make properties with a stormwater management system
built as part of a stormwater management participation project eligible for a credit, to be calculated
according to the implementing regulation.
Expedited Bill 11-16, Stormwater Management - Water Quality Protection Charge - Grants
Credits, sponsored by Lead Sponsor Council President on behalf of the County Executive, was
introduced on April 5, 2016. A public hearing was held on April 26 (see correspondence at
©32-52) and Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee worksessions
were held on May 5 and June 23.
Expedited Bill 11-16 would:
• authorize establishment of a watershed restoration grant program for certain owners of
improved aircraft landing areas to offset the cost of the Water Quality Protection Charge;
• clarify the eligibility criteria for a property owner to receive a Water Quality Protection
Charge credit;
• expand the timeframe for a property owner to appeal the denial of a request for a credit or
adjustment of the amount of the Water Quality Protection Charge billed to the property
owner; and
• generally amend County law regarding the Water Quality Protection Charge.
The Council is scheduled to act on the companion regulation to this Bill, Executive Regulation
12-16, immediately after action of this Bill.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Background: Water Quality Protection Charge
In 200 I, the Council approved Bill 28-00, which created the stormwater management fund (called
the Water Quality Protection Fund). This fund is supported by the annual Water Quality Protection
Charge.
In
2013, the Council enacted Expedited Bill 34-I2, which subjected all properties not
otherwise exempt under State law to the Water Quality Protection Charge (including, for the first
time, many commercial properties); allowed property owners to obtain credits for undertaking
certain water quality protection measures on their properties; and authorized financial hardship
exemptions for certain owner-occupants of residential properties. The charge is based on an
equivalent residential unit (ERU), defined as 2,406 square feet (which was the calculated statistical
median of the total horizontal impervious area of developed single-family detached residences in
the County at the time the fund was established). Beginning in 2013, DEP implemented the rate
structure described in the chart below.
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
Tier 5
Tier 6
Tier 7
I 00% of an ERU
I 50% of an ERU
200% of an ERU
250% of an ERU
300% of an ERU
Agricultural
Impervious area includes only houses See single family residential
and is assessed as single family tier classification above.
residential tier classification
The Council sets the ERU rate each year by resolution. The FYI 7 rate is $95.00. Overall, for
FYI 7, the Water Quality Protection Fund is assumed to raise about $34 million from the charge.
Revenue from the County's excise
tax
on disposable shopping bags also goes to the Water Quality
Protection Fund. The FYI 7 budget assumes $2.3 million in revenue from this source.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
In addition to stormwater facilities inspections, maintenance and repair the WQPC covers many
other Countywide costs, such as storm drain maintenance, street sweeping, education and outreach,
water quality monitoring, billing/account maintenance, office lease costs, DEP staffing, the Park
and Planning chargeback, and many other charges. These costs are recovered through Water
Quality Protection Fund revenues and are built into the ERU rate set by the Council each year. To
the degree some properties pay a partial charge or perhaps even no charge a slightly higher charge
must be spread across all other properties which do pay into the Fund.
Background: NPDES MS4 Permit
Revenue from the Water Quality Protection Fund is used to fund the activities required under the
County's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System (NPDES MS4) Permit. A portion of the Water Quality Protection Fund is also appropriated
to the Montgomery County side of M-NCPPC for its water quality activities required to meet
separate permits. As the Committee knows, the cost implications for implementation of the current
permit are substantial. Two years ago, DEP estimated the permit costs to be about $305 million
through 2015 and nearly $1.9 billion through 2030. Additional background information on the
NPDES MS4 Permit can be found in a memorandum from Senior Legislative Analyst Keith
Levchenko on ©16-31.
Issues/Committee Recommendations
1.
Credit program
-
structural maintenance.
As introduced, Bill 11-16 would clarify the
eligibility criteria for a property owner to receive a credit. Current law requires the Director of
DEP to grant a credit if "the property contains a stormwater management system that is not
maintained by the County". Bill 11-16 would clarify that a property owner can receive a credit for
a stormwater management system only if the County does not perform
structural
maintenance
(©2, lines 32-42).
As Councilmembers will remember, Paul Chad, on behalf of himself, and Diane Feuerherd, on
behalf of Minkoff Development Corporation, object to this portion of Bill 11-16. Mr. Chad and
Ms. Feuerherd both spoke in reference to stormwater management ponds located on property
known as the Shady Grove Development Park. Mr. Chad believes that his property should not be
precluded from receiving a credit because he performs non-structural maintenance (landscaping,
grass cutting, and trash removal) and his stormwater facilities treat runoff from surrounding
properties. Particularly since, from
Mr.
Chad's perspective, the County has only had to perform
structural maintenance once (©34-39).
At the Committee's first worksession, Committee members indicated interest in reviewing options
to resolve this issue. After careful consideration, the Executive recommended amending Bill 11-16
to allow a property owner to receive a credit for a property that contains a "stormwater
management system built as part of a County-approved stormwater management participation
project" (©3, lines 43-45). A "stormwater management participation project" would be defined as
"a capital improvement project in which both the County and the property owner jointly fund the
construction of a regional stormwater management facility intended to benefit properties m
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
addition to those belonging to the property owner" (©2, lines 6-9). The Stormwater Management
Participation Project was a CIP project that contains a finite number of properties that would be
eligible to receive a credit under this proposal, including the Shady Grove Development Park. (See
©60-61 for further financial analysis from DEP on the effect of this amendment). Council staff
notes that under this language, eligible property owners would be eligible to receive a credit, which
would be calculated according to the regulation in effect. Committee recommendation (3-0):
support this amendment.
2.
Credit program
-
common ownership communities.
As Committee members will also recall,
the Council heard from Devin Battley, on behalf of the Lindbergh Park Owners Association. As
Council staff understands the issue raised by Mr. Battley, there are stormwater management
facilities within this community. Those facilities are considered "onsite stormwater management
systems" only for the properties in which the systems are located and therefore only those specific
properties receive a credit. However, all of the members of the common ownership community
invest in the facilities and
Mr.
Battley believes that the credit should therefore be dispersed
throughout all of the owners in the common ownership community (©41-50). Council staff notes
that there is nothing in the law or regulation that would prevent a condominium association from
addressing the dispersal of a credit received. Committee members may wish to discuss with DEP
staff what implementation or administrative issues would arise if the County dispersed the credit
to all owners of a condominium association. The Committee did not recommend amending Bill
11-16, but did ask the Department continue to work with
Mr.
Battley to see
if
there is a way to
accommodate his concerns.
3.
Additional issue raised
by
Minkoff.
After the Committee worksession on Bill 11-16, Ms.
Feuerherd, on behalf of Minkoff Development Corporation, submitted additional language for the
Council's consideration (©62-63). As Ms. Feuerherd noted, under current law and Bill 11-16 as
introduced, a property owner could obtain a credit if the property had a stormwater management
system or was located in the same drainage area as a property with a stormwater management
system and the properties had the same owner (see ©3, lines 32-41). Under the Committee's
recommended bill, a property owner would also be eligible for a credit if a property has a
stormwater management system built as part of a stormwater management participation project.
This language does not take into consideration that some of these projects, such as the Shady Grove
Development Park, are not single properties, but actually a collection of contiguous properties with
a single owner.
In
the case of the Shady Grove Development Park, as Ms. Feuerherd notes, the 2
ponds are located on 2 of the 9 properties that make up the Park. The intent ofDEP's recommended
language transmitted on June 16 is for the entire Park to be eligible for a credit. Therefore, Council
staff concurs with Ms. Feuerherd and recommends tlie following amendment on ©3, after 45 (new
language is highlighted):
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Circle#
This packet contains:
1
Expedited Bill 11-16
6
Legislative Request Report
8
Memo from County Executive
11
Fiscal and Economic Impact statements
16
Levchenko memorandum
Select correspondence
32
Lisa Feldt, County Executive
34
Paul Chod
38
Diane Feuerherd, Minkoff Dev. Corp.
40
Alicia Stanley, Davis Aiport
41
Devin Battley, Lindbergh Park Owners Assoc.
51
Lisa Alexander, Audubon Naturalist Society
52
Stormwater Partners Network
53
Executive amendments
DEP Stormwater Management Participation Projects Analysis
60
62
Proposed amendment by Minkoff Dev. Corp.
F:\LA W\BILLS\1611 Stormwater Management-WQPC\Action Memo.Docx
5
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Expedited Bill No.
----'-1-'--1-_,_16=------
Concerning: Stormwater Management-
Water Quality Protection Charge-
Grants-Credits
Revised:
6/23/2016
Draft No.
2
Introduced:
April 5,
2016
Expires:
October 5.
2017
Enacted: - - - - - - - - - -
Executive: - - - - - - - - -
Effective: - - - - - - - - - -
Sunset Date: ......N...;.;;o=n=e_ _ _ _ __
Ch.
Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
Lead Sponsor: Council President at the Request of the County Executive
AN EXPEDITED ACT
to:
authorize establishment of a watershed restoration grant program for certain
( 1)
owners of improved aircraft landing areas to offset the cost of the Water Quality
Protection Charge;
(2)
clarify the eligibility criteria for a property owner to receive a Water Quality
Protection Charge credit;
(3)
expand the timeframe for a property owner to appeal the denial of a request for a
credit or adjustment of the amount of the Water Quality Protection Charge billed
to the property owner; and
(4)
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. 19-29A"'
and
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
EXPEDITED BILL NO.
11-16
1
Sec. 1. Sections 19-21, 19-29A:! and 19-35 are amended as follows:
19-21. Definitions.
In this Article, the following words and phrases have the following
meanings unless the context indicates otherwise:
2
3
4
5
*
*
*
A capital improvement
6
7
Stormwater management participation project:
project in which both the County and the property owner jointly fund the
construction of a regional stormwater management facility intended to
benefit properties in addition to those belonging to the property owner.
8
9
10
*
*
(c)
supplemental
*
*
*
11
19-29A. Watershed restoration grants program.
12
13
*
[to
eligible
The Director of Environmental Protection may also establish a
grant program to offset the cost
14
15
16
homeowners' associations] of paying the Charge assessed under
Section 19-35 [for those private roads which are:
(1)
(2)
(3)
open to the public without restriction;
not parking lots; and
eligible to receive State highway user revenue] to an owner of
an improved aircraft landing area that is exempt from County
property taxes under Maryland Code, Tax-Property Art.
§8-302.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
19-35.
(e)
Water Quality Protection Charge.
*
(1)
*
*
A property owner may apply for, and the Director of
Environmental Protection must grant, a credit equal to a
percentage, set by regulation, of the Charge if:
27
@
F:\LAW\BILLS\1611StormwaterManagement-WQPC\Bill2 Committee.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
EXPEDITED BILL NO.
11-16
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
[(A) the property contains a stormwater management system
that is not maintained by the County;
(B)
the owner participates in a County-approved water
quality management practice or initiative;]
[(C)] (A)
the property contains
~
stormwater management system
for which the County does not perform structural
maintenance that either treats on-site drainage only or
both on-site drainage and off-site drainage from other
properties located within the same drainage area; [[or]]
[(D)]
ill}
the property does not contain a stormwater management
system, but is located in the same drainage area as
another that contains a stormwater management system
for which the County does not perform structural
maintenance and both properties have the same
or
owner~
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
(kl
the propertv contains a stormwater management system
built
as
part
of a
County-approved
stormwater
management participation project.
(2)
To receive the credit, the property owner must apply to the
Director of Environmental Protection in a form prescribed by
the Director not later than September 30 of the year that
payment of the Charge is due. Any credit granted under this
subsection is valid for 3 years.
47
48
49
50
51
ill
The Director of Environmental Protection may revoke
granted under paragraph
~
credit
52
53
54
ill
if the property owner does not
continue to take the measures needed to assure that the
stormwater management system remams m proper working
F:~ILLS\161
I Stonnwater Management-WQPC\Bill 2 Committee.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
EXPEDITED BILL NO. 11-16
55
56
57
condition
.Qy
correcting any deficiencies discovered
.Qy
the
Director during
not reinstate
~
~
maintenance inspection. The Director must
revoked credit until the property owner has
58
59
60
61
sufficiently corrected the deficiencies to fully satisfy the
property owner's maintenance obligations under Section 19-28.
[(3)]
ffi
The owner of an owner-occupied residential property, or any
non-profit organization that can demonstrate substantial
financial hardship may apply for an exemption from all or part
of the Charge for that property, based on criteria set by
regulation. The owner or organization may apply for the
exemption to the Director of Finance not later than September
30 of the year that payment of the Charge is due.
62
63
64
65
66
67
*
(h)
*
*
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
A person that believes that the Director of Environmental Protection
has mistakenly assigned a Charge to the person's property or
computed the Charge incorrectly may apply to the Director of
Environmental Protection in writing for a review of the Charge, and
request an adjustment to correct any error, not later than September 30
of the year that payment of the Charge is due.
An
aggrieved property
owner may appeal the Director's decision to the County Board of
Appeals within [10] 30 days after the Director issues the decision.
75
76
77
(i)
A person that believes that the Director of Environmental Protection
has incorrectly denied the person's application for a credit or
exemption under subsection (e) may appeal the Director's decision to
the County Board of Appeals within [10] 30 days after the Director
issues the decision.
78
79
80
81
*
~
~
*
*
F:\LAW\BILLS\1611 Stormwater Management-WQPC\Bill 2 Committee.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
EXPEDITED BILL NO.
11-16
82
83
84
Sec. 2.
Expedited Effective Date:
The Council declares that this
legislation is necessary for the immediate protection of the public interest. This
Act takes effect on the date on which it becomes law.
Approved:
85
86
Nancy Floreen, President, County Council
87
Date
Approved:
88
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
89
Date
This is a correct copy of Council action.
90
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council
Date
@
F:\LAW\BILLS\1611 Stonnwater Management-WQPC\Bill 2 Committee.Doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST
REPORT
Expedited Bill 11-16
Stormwater Management- Water Quality Protection Charge-Grants--Credits
DESCRIPTION:
Expedited Bill 11-16 would
clarify
the eligibility criteria for a property
owner to receive a credit against the Water Quality Protection Charge
and extend the property owner's time:frame to appeal a Director's
decision.
It
would also authorize establishment of a watershed
restoration grant program for the owners of certain improved aircraft
landing areas used by the public to offset the cost of the Charge.
The owners of some properties
that
contain stormwater management
systems maintained by the County have become eligible to receive
credits against the Water Quality Protection Charge based on criteria
that do not require
the
property owner to maintain the system. Also,
the time:frame
within
which a property owner must request a credit or
to challenge the amount of the Charge billed to that property owner is
inadequate.
The Montgomery County Airpark cannot divert
additional air traffic to the County's only nearby private airport
without the private airport expanding its airstrip. The private airport
does not charge a fee for landing of aircrafts but is assessed the Charge
for the impervious surface area of the airstrip, which the owner wishes
to expand to receive the additional diverted traffic.
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
To incentivize property owners to treat stormwater runoff from their
properties by using and maintaining the most effective stormwater
management systems for reducing the discharge of pollutants to the
maximum extent practicable; to allow property owners more time to
appeal the denial of a request for a credit or adjustment of the amount
of the Water Quality Protection Charge billed to the property owner;
and to offset the cost of paying the Charge through a watershed
restoration grant program for certain owners of improved aircraft
landing areas that are used by the public.
Department of Environmental Protection
See Fiscal Impact Statement.
See Economic Impact Statement
To be researched.
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMP
ACT:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
~)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
ExPEDITED BILL NO.
11-16
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
Vicky Wan, Department of Environmental Protection, 240-777-7722
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
NIA
NIA
F:\LAW\BILLS\1611 Stormwat.er Management-WQPOLRR Stonnwater Management - WQPC.Docx:Management- WQPC.Docx
-2-
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
;;
,.,..:,:: ·: :':":..
:~ ·:·::.-~···
:' :·: : "::
·-~
:-1,
!
OFFICEOFTHBCOUNTYEXECUTIVE
ROCKVILLE. MARYLAND 20850
Isiah Leggett
County Executive
MEMORANDUM
March 24, 2016
TO:
Nancy Floreen, President
Montgomery County Council
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Isiah Leggett, County
E=utiv.fl'~,Jl;f
;./'/
Proposed Legislation Regarding Storm
Protection Charge
The purpose of this memorandum is
to
transmit for introduction an expedited bill
that modifies the Water Quality Protection Charge grant and credit programs. I am also
attaching a Legislative Request Report and Fiscal and Economic Impact Statements for the bill.
Because the changes are also included in the Executive Regulations governing the Charge
program, I
am
also transmitting for informational purposes, the proposed regulations which
makes conforming changes consistent with this bill.
Tue bill amendments are as follows:
1. Establish a watershed restoration grant program for certain owners of
improved aircraft landing areas to offset the cost of the Water Quality
Protection Charge - The only private airport in Montgomery County that is
exempt from county property taxes under Section 8-302 of the Tax-Property
Article, Maryland Code, allows for the public use of its airstrip for aircraft
landing free of service charges and that airstrip is assessed a Water Quality
Protection Charge. To offset the cost of paying the Charge, a property that
meets the above definition can apply for a grant through the watershed
restoration grant program.
2. Clarifies the eligibility criteria for a property owner
to
receive a credit - This
section previously
was
ambiguous. Clarifying language has been added to
clarify the intent that a credit will only be provided to property owners that
montaomeryc:ount:ymcl.gov/311
;
'
®
'
240--773-3556 TIY
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
..
.::.
......·:·.>.':··-."!
. ··., ·. ·.·.· · ·. ·.;· . ··:I
..
... '·· .
····1.
!.
1.
i-
Nancy Floreen, Council President
March 24, 2016
Page2
maintain stormwater management systems which the County does not have
cost liabilities in performing structural maintenance.
3. Credit revocation-Currently a property owner can still be granted a credit
even if a stonnwater management system is found to
be
in non-working
condition under Section 19-28, Inspection and Maintenance ofStormwater
Management Systems. Language is added to allow DEP the ability
to
revoke
a credit if the property owner does not correct deficiencies
to
satisfy the
property owners' maintenance obligations under Section 19-28.
4. Extend the property owner's timeframe to appeal a Director's decision-
Currently a property owner has 10 days after a Director issues the decision to
appeal. 1bis extends the timeframe
to
30 days to give those property owners
additional time to properly prepare a response.
The amendments to the accompanying Regulations are as follows:
1.
Eligibility - Creates a credit eligibility section
that
clearly states that the
I
!
!
I.
I
!
j.
I
f
i
j:
L
stormwater management system must be maintained by the property owner
exclusively and in accordance to the maintenance requirements under Section
19-28 of the Code for the property owner to be eligible to receive a credit.
2. Credit
A
wards -
i.
Changes the credit award from being dependent on the type of stormwater
!
I
I
I
i
I
!
management facility to now be bas-ed on the proportion of the volume of
water treated by the stormwater management system.
ii. Increases the maximum credit for a nonresidential or multifamily
residential property to 100 percent for treatment of adjacent properties.
i.
'
111.
Change the maximum credit for oomplete onsite treatment of stormwater
to 60 percent based on the county's impervious surface of 60 percent
privately owned and 40 percent publically owned.
· 3. Credit revocation-Adds language to allow DEP the ability to revoke a credit
if the property owner does not correct deficiencies to satisfy the property
owners' maintenance obligations under Section 19-28.
4. Timeframe to appeal a Director's decision-Increases the timeframe for a
property owner to appeal a Director's decision from 10-days to 30-days.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
:
•;
·
..
~
·.·.
-.
Nancy Floreen, Council President
March 24, 2016
Page3
!
I.
5. Watershed Restor11tion Grant - Adds language
to
allow a grant program for
certain owners of improved aircraft landing
areas
to offset
the
cost of the
WQPC.
If
you have
any
questions about
this
bill, please contact Lisa Feldt, DEP Director
at 240-777-7781.
Attachments: (5)
BiJl
XX-16
Legislative Request Report
Fiscal Impact Statement
Economic Impact Statement
Draft Executive Regulation XX-16
c:
Joseph Beach, Director, Department of Finance
Jennifer Hughes, Director, Office of Management and Budget
Marc Hansen, County Attorney
Lisa Feldt, Director, Department of Environmental Protection
Bonnie Kirkland, AssistantChief Administrative Officer
:
.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
·.·.··.-. .. · ···1
......
:;
·.·.1
..
:
. : ::
~:.
. .
. 1
.
··.:
~-
-~·
..
Economic Impact Statement
Expedited Bill XX-16, Stormwater Management
Water Quality Protection Charge Grants and Credits
Background:
This legislation would make the following changes
to
the Water Quality Protection
Charge (WQPC):
1) Provide a grant
to
offset the cost of the WQPC
to
the owners of improved aircraft
landing areas exempt from County property taxes under Section 8-302 of the Tax.-
Property ("TP") Article, Maryland Code;
2) Clarify the eligibility criteria for a property owner
to
receive a WQPC credit; and
3) Expand the timeframe for a property owner
to
appeal the denial of a request for a
credit or adjustment of the amount of the WQPC billed
to
the property owner.
1. The sources of information, assumptions, and methodologies used. ·
The source of information is the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
2015 Water Quality Protection Charge Billing database. DEP revenue reduction
assumes that the airport's runway configuration does not change.
2. A description of
any
variable that could affect the economic impact estimates.
Revenue-reduction estimates related
to
the
WQPC grant program may fluctuate in
future fiscal
years
depending on the amount of impervious surface
area
and the
amount of the WQPC. However, even
with
an increase in impervious surface area,
the revenue impact is expected
to
be minimal. Any revenue reductions due to grants
are offset by .adjustments to the WQPC in order
to
generate sufficient revenues to pay
for the
required
stormwater management expenditures and to meet the debt service
coverage ratio. Based on
data
provi(ied by DEP, estimates of the revenue reduction
related
to
the grant program increase from $3,800
in
FYl
7 to $5,600 by
FY22 .
. 3. The Bill's positive or negative effect,
if
any
on employment, spending, saving,
investment, incomes, and property values
in
the County.
DEP estimates
that
the cost of the WQPC incurred by the airport is approximately
$4,500 in FYl 7. Therefore, the estimated difference in the cost of the WQPC and the
grant of $3,800 is $700 costs borne by the aircraft landing area. Because of
the
small
difference between the cost and the grant, Expedited Bill XX-16 would have no
economic impact on employment, spending, saving, investment, incomes, and
property values in the County.
4. Ha Bill
is
likely to have no economic impact, why
is
that the case?
Expedited Bill XX-16 would have no economic impact as stated
in
paragraph 3.
®
Page 1 of2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impact Statement
Expedited Bill XX-16, Storm.water Management
Water Quality Protection Charge Grants and Credits
5. The following contributed to or concurred with this analysis: David Platt and Rob
Hagedoom, Department of Finance; Vicky Wan and Patty Bubar, Department of
Environmental
Protection. ·
~:~
Department of Finance ·
Date
Page2 of2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
·.:·:. -· 1
·.· · ·1
'.:·.,.:.:.
·· ·
_
,.,'·>:'I
..
.
-·~
....
··
- 1 ;;_. .·. ....
Fiscal Impact Statement
Expedited Council Bill :XX-16, Stormwater Management
Water Quality Protection Charge Grants and Credits
1. Legislative Summary•
.This
legislation would make the following changes
to
the Water Quality Pro:tection
Charge (WQPC):
a) Provide a grant
to
offset the cost of the WQPC to the owners of improved aircraft
landing areas
exempt
from County property taxes under Section 8-302 of the
Tax-Property ("TP") Article, Maryland Code;
b)
Clarify the eligibility
criteria
for a property owner
to
receive a WQPC credit; and
c)
Expand the timeframe for
a
property owner
to
appeal the denial of
a
request for
a
credit or adjustment of the amount of the WQPC billed
to
the property owner.
2.
An
estimate of changes
in
County revenues and expenditures regardless of whether
the revenues or expenditures are assumed
in
the recommended or approved budget.
Includes source of information, assumptions, and methodologies used.
For Item la: Bill :XX-16 is limited
to
owners of improved aircraft landing
areas
exempt from County property taxes under Section 8-302 of the Tax-Property
("TP'')
Article, Maryland
Code.
Currently there
is
one property
in
the county
that.meets
this
definition.
The
proposed bill would reduce the WQPC revenues by
40 equivalent residential
units
(ERUs), or approximately
$3,600
in
FY16.
For Item 1b: No fiscal impact
as a
result of
this
change as
this
is
inserting .
clarifying
language for eligibility criteria.
This
change does not alter the current policy of providing a credit only to those
properties with facilities that are
in
proper working condition for which the
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) does not have responsibility
to
repair or generally manage.
The updated language also allows DEP
to
revoke
a credit application
if
a facility
was found to
be
deficient during the normal inspection process.
For Item
le:
No fiscal impact as a result of
this
change.
Tliis
is expanding the
current timeframe from
10
days to 30 days
for a
property owner
to
appeal the
denial of
a
request for
a
credit or an adjustment.
This
bill
does not have
a
fiscal impact on expenditures.
3. Revenue and expenditure estimates covering at least the next 6 fiscal
years.
For Item la: Assuming the airport's runway remains the same, the
revenue reduction estimates related
to
the grant program is:
FY16: $3,600
FY17: $3,800
FY18: $4,200
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
FY19: $4,600
FY20: $5,000
FY21: $5,500
FY22: $5,600
Any revenue reductions due to credits and/or grants is offset by adjustments
t.o
the
WQPC
in
order
t.o
generate sufficient revenues
to
pay for the
required
storm.water
management expenditures and
t.o
meet the debt service coverage ratio.
4. An actuarial analysis through the enµre amortization period for each regulation that
would affect retiree pension or group insurance costs.
Not applicable.
5. An estimate of expenditures reJated to County's information technology
(IT)
systems,
including Enterprise Resource PJanning (ERP) systems.
·
Not applicable.
6. Later actions that may affect
future
revenue and expenditures
if
the regulation
authorizes future spending.
Not applicable.
7. An estimate of the staff time needed to implement the regulation.
The additional time
is
not expected
t.o
be significant and
can
be
absorbed
by existing
DEP
staff.
8.
An
explanation of how the addition of new staff responsibilities would affect other
duties.
Not Applicable.
9.
An
estimate of costs when an additional appropriation
is
needed.
Additional appropriation is not
needed.
10. A description of any variable that could affect revenue and cost estimates.
Not Applicable.
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
. ···1
•1
••· '
.•
.·:1
.::::;·.·.·'. ..........·:::·:',·.·..
!
... .
.:
:_
~
-.·.
11.
Ranges of
revenue or expenditures
that are ·uncertain
or
difficult
to
project.
Not Applicable.
12.
If
a bill
is
likely
to
have no fiscal impact, why
that
is the case.
Not applicable.
13.
Other
fiscal impacts or comments.
Not applicable.
14. The
following
contributed
to
and concuired with this analysis:
Vicky Wan, Department of Environmental Protection
Patty Bubar, Department of Environmental Protection
Matt
Schaeffer, Office Management and Budget
Alex Espinosa, Office of Management and Budget
of
Hughes, Directo
Management and Budget
Date
·!
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
T&E COMMITTEE #1
January 21, 2016
Update
MEMORANDUM
January 19, 2016
TO:
Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment (T&E) Committee
..
FROM:~
Keith Levchenko, Senior Legislative Analyst
SUBJECT:
Discussion: Update-
MS4 Permit
Attachments:
• Excerpt: Restoring Our Watersheds - Montgomery County's 2010-2015 MS4 Watershed
Restoration Achievements (August 2015) (Executive Summary Only ©A-11)
Meeting Participants:
Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
• Lisa Feldt, Director
• Patty Bubar, Deputy Director
S~ven
Shofar, Chief of Watershed Management
• Jim Stiles, Manager, Watershed Construction and Contract Management
• Pam Parker, Manager, Watershed Planning and Monitoring
• Amy Stevens, Manager, Stormwater Facility Inspection and Maintenance
T&E Committee Chair Berliner asked DEP to provide an update on the County's National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Discharge (NPDES-
MS4) Permit
DEP
has
been aSked to discuss its accomplishments and lessons learned
1
over the past five years
under
the
most recent permit (which expired
in
February 2015), some approaches it plans to pursue
under the next permit, and the
status
of the next permit and DEP's negotiations with Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE). DEP's presentation slides were not available as of the time of
this memorandum but
will
be provided to Committee members as soon as they are available.
most recent NPDES-MS4
Annual
Report (covering FY14 and dated March 2015)
is
available on the DEP website
at:
https://www .montgomervcountymd.eov/DEP/Resources/Files/downloads/water-reports/npdes/AnnualReoort-FY
14-3-13-1
5-
Final.pdf. DEP also prepared a supplement
to
the
Annual
Report (dated August 2015) focusing on
its
watershed restoration
achievements to date. This
repent
is
available
is
available on the DEP website
at:
https://www.montgomervcountvmd.gov/DEP/Resources/Files/downloads/water-reoorts/npdes/MoCo-
RestorationAchievements-080715REV2.pdf
1
DEP's
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
NPDES-MS4 Permit Status
DEP is the
lead
department coordinating a multi-department/agency effort to meet the
requirements of
th~
five-year MS4
pennit2
issued to the C.ounty by MDE on February 16, 2010.
This
permit expired in February 2015. However, expired permits are assumed to remain
in
effect pending
issuance of
a
succeeding permit by
MDE.
··
However, clouding this issue somewhat is the fact
that
this now expired permit
has
been under
legal challenge. In April 2015, the
Court
of Special Appeals
affirmed
a Circuit Court decision to
remand the permit back to the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE).
3
The Court of Special
Appeals agreed with the Circuit
Court
that the permit did not
"afford
an appropriate opportunity for
public notice and comment and because it lacks crucial details
that
would explain ·the County's
stormwater management obligations." Pending the outcome of
this
court case, MDE is appealing the
case to the Court of Appeals and
has
not moved forward
with
a next
generation permit for Montgomery
County, pending the outcome of this
case.
Some background information on the now
expired
MS4
Permit and its funding is provided
below.
NPDES-MS4 Permit Requirements
The County's Coordinated Implementation Strategy (CCIS)
4
(dated January 2012) provides the
planning basis for the C.ounty to meet the following goals, as
required
in the County's (now expired)
NPDES-MS4 Permit:
1.
Meet Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Wasteload Allocations
(WLAs)
approved by EPA.
2. Provide additional storm.water runoff management on impervious acres
equal
to 20 percent of the
impervious area for which runoff is not currently managed, to the maximum extent practicable
(MEP).
This
requirement continues to be the primary driver of DEP
1
s CIP expenditures, and
progress in meeting
this
goal
is
discussed in more
delllil
below.
3. Meet commitments in the Trash Free Potomac Watershed Initiative 2006 Action Agreement,
which include support
for
regioruu strategies
aild
collaborations aimed at reducing trash,
increasing recycling,. and increasing education
and
awareness of trash issues throughout the
Potomac Watershed.
4. Educate and involve residents, businesses, and stakeholder groups in achieving measurable water
quality improvements.
County's MS4
permit
is
available on
the
DEP website
at:
https://www.montiomeJYcountvmd.gov/DEP/Resources/Files/downloads/water-reports/npdes/MOCO MS4 Pennit.pdf
3Maryland
Department
of
the
Environment,
et
al.
v. Anacostia Riverkeeper,
et
al..
222 Md. App. 153 (2015).
4
The
County's
Coordinated
Implementation Strategy
(January 2012)
is
available on the DEP website
at:
https://w'Ww.montgome.rycountvmd.gov/DEP/Resources/Files/Reportsand.Publications/\Vater/Countywide%20lmplementatio
no/o20Strategy/Countywide-coordinated-implemented-strategy-12.pdf
2
The
-2-
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
5.
Establish a reporting framework
that
will be used for annual reporting, as
required
in
the
County's NPDES-MS4 Permit
6. Identify necessary organizational
infrastructure
changes needed to implement the Strategy.
While DEP has made substantial progress over the past five years, DEP has not achieved
the
20 percent impervious area control goal (#2 above).
Watershed Restoration Reguirements
The most recent pennit's 20% requirement for stonnwater management noted above translates to
an additional 3,777 acres of impervious area.restoration to be completed by the County. As noted in the
County's August 2015 Watershed Restoration Achievements report:
at the end of the third generation MS4 permit term (February 16, 2015), the County had,
completed restoration treating 1, 726 acres ofimpervious area or its equivalent, with restoration
work treating another 197 acres under construction (acres .or projects refe"ed to as
"inconstruction"). Restoration projects to treat an additional 2,431 acres were under contract
for design (acres or projects refe"ed to as "in-design").
While the County
had
not completed work on
the
entire 3,777 acre goal
in
the permit, it had
4,354 acres at some stage of work (in design,
in
construction, or completed). About 70 percent (3,085
acres) is being
addressed
through capital projects
(such
as stream restoration projects
and
stonnwater
management retrofits).
The
next biggest categories are: agency partnerships (642 acres), new
development/redevelopment {305 acres),
and
management programs (such as
street
sweeping and catch
basin cleaning (249 acres).
This effort represents a major ramp-up
in
work {and costs) over the
past
five years. While the
work with MDE on the next generation permit is stalled (pending the outcome of the legal case noted
above), DEP will be proceeding with this ongoing work.
What will be interesting
to
see
in
the coming years is whether
(and
by how much) water quality
improvements occur in the
project
areas
(and
whether the associated TMDLs are met). These results,
in
tum, can inform
future permit
priorities to eri.sure the County's large investment
in
funding
is allocated
where it can have the biggest impact on water quality.
Cost Implications
As
previously discussed by the
Committee,
the cost implications for implementation of the MS4
permit are substantial. Two years ago, DEP estimated the permit costs to be about $305 million through
2015 and nearly $1.9 billion through 2030.
Over the
past
decade, the DEP budget (not counting the Divisibn of Solid Waste Services)
has
become dominated by
water
quality-related efforts.
In
FYI
6, the Water Quality Protection Fund budget
is $23.3 million compared to $2.2 million
in
the
General
Fund, or 91 percent.
-3-
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Water Quality Protection Fund and Charge
DEP's MS4 work (both operating and capital) is budgeted
within
the County's Water Quality
Protection Fund. This self-supporting fund
draws
its revenue primarily from the Water Quality
Protection Charge (WQPC) (an
estimated
$32.6 million
in
FY16)
as
well
as
revenue from the County's
bag tax (an estimated $2.4 million
in
FY16).
The Fund and charge were created
in
200 l,
when the Council approved
Bill 28-00.
ago, the Council enacted Bill 34-12 and approved Executive Regulations 17-12AM
and
10-13. The bill
and
regulations included a number of changes to the charge, such as: broadening
the charge to include all non-residential properties, establishing a 7 tier rate
structure
for residential
properties, establishing credits for on-site stormwater management practices, and establishing
a
hardship
. exemption for residential properties and non-profit organizations.
A
three-year phase-in period for those
properties that experienced an increase in assessments as a result of the legislation
was
also included.
This past November, at the County Executive's request, the Council enacted legislation
(Bill
45-15, Stormwater Management - Water Quality Protection Charge - Curative Legislation) to
designate the Water
Quality
Protection Charge
as
an excise
tax
(rather than a
fee)
to address concerns
raised in a Circuit Court opinion (currently under appeal by the County).
5
DEP is also considering additional substantive changes to the Water Quality Protection Charge
itself. Legislation is expected to
be
transmitted to the Council within the next
few
months.
~years
Attachment
KML:f\levchenko\dep\npdes pennit\t&e discussion 121 npdes ms4 update\t&e update ms4
pennit
1 212016.doc
5
PaulN. Chod v. Board
of
Appeals
for Montgomery County (CivilNo.35398704-V, enteredJuly23, 2015).
.
.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files  PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Executive
summary
Executive Summary
Stormwater discharges from Montgomery County's storm drain system are regulated under a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES} Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System (MS4) permit.
The
purpose
of
this document is
to
be a final summary
of
Montgomery
County's (the County) progress towards meeting the M54 permit's watershed restoration
requirement through the end
of
the third generation permit term on February 15, 2015. This
document is a supplement to the fiscal year 2014 M54 annual report Montgomery County
Department
of
Environmental Protection (DEP) has primary responsibility for the majority
of
the
permit requirements, including watershed assessment and restoration managed by DEP's
Watershed Management Division (WMD).
In addition to completing implementation of restoration efforts to fulfill the second generation
MS4 permit restoration requirement, under the third generation M54 permit the County
was
also
tasked with restoring an additional 20%
of
impervious surface area that
was
not treated to the
maximum extent practicable (MEP}.
This restoration requirement translated to an additional 3, 777 acres of impervious area
restoration to be completed by the County. Progress towards meeting this requirement was
achieved by tracking impervious acres treated by restoration projects, and impervious acre
equivalent credit for alternative urban BMPs, as allowed by Maryland Department
of
the
Environment (MOE). Alternative urban BMPs include practices such as street sweeping, stream
restoration, and catch basin cleaning.
Progress Towards the Restoration Requirement
At the end
of
the third generation MS4 permit term (February 16, 2015),
the
County had
completed restoration treating 1,726 acres of impervious area or its equivalent, with restoration
work treating another 197 acres under construction (aaes or projects referred to as •in-
constructiorij. Restoration projects to
treat
an additional 2,431 acres were under contract for
design (acres or projects referred to as Hin-design"). The County's progress in relationship to the
restoration requirement is illustrated in Figure 1.
Progress Towards Restoration Requirement {Acres)
5000·
4000
---
Restoration Requirement3,777 Acres
3000
2000
1000
0
•Complete • In-Construction •In-Design
Figunt 1 Montgomery
County
Progress towan:ls the MS4 Pennit Watershed Restoration Requirement
August
7, 2015
Montgamerr County
Department of
Envlron1111H1tal
Protection
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Executive
Summary
DEP's accomplishment of restoring 1,726 acres of impervious area or
its
equivalent represents
completing 46% of the IVIS4 pennifs restoration requirement Once the in-construction projects
are complete this percentage will increase to 51%. Of the projects in-design, 1,854 acres,
representing 76% of the 2,431 acres in-design, will need
to
be
realized in order to meet the 20%
restoration requirement. The remaining projects will continue to be developed for the next
generation MS4 Pennit, or can serve as back up inventory for projects in design that may not be
feasible to construct.
DEP's progress towards meeting the restoration requirement demonstrates the County's strong
commitment to improving water quality and conservation of the environment. The restoration
requirement of the third generation MS4 permit represented a significant inaease over the
second generation IVIS4 permit requirement. In response, DEP developed a proactive adaptive
management approach to take on the intensive and diverse efforts needed for success. The
following sections provide context and summarize the efforts undertaken by DEP to progress
towards the restoration requirement.
MS4 Permit Background and Accelerating the
Watershed Restoration Program
PERMIT BACKGROUND
The County has been subject to an MS4 permit since 1996. The
first
generation MS4 permit
requirements (1996-2001) focused on assessing local watersheds, on identifying locations and
extent of stormwater management and receiving stream problems, compiling an inventory of
projects to address those problems, and stream physical and biological monitoring. The second
generation permit (2001-2006, continued in effect until 2010 due to permit negotiations and
legal challenges) included an impervious area restoration requirement to restore 10% of
impervious areas not already treated to the MEP. The second generation permit also saw the
addition of five municipalities and one special tax district as co-permittees. The third generation
MS4 permit (2010-2015)
1
increased the restoration requirement to restore an additional 20% of
the impervious areas not already treated to the MEP and added Montgomery County Public
·
Schools (MCPS) as a co-permittee.
In order to comply
with
the IVIS4 permit requirements, DEP collaborates with numerous County
agencies. These include the Division of Solid Waste Services (DSWS}, Department of
Permitting Services (DPS}, Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of General
Services (DGS), and MCPS. DEP also has an established Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with OGS and is finalizing an MOU with MCPS to increase opportunities for watershed
restoration.
STRATEGY DOCUMENTS
DEP had a well-established watershed restoration program in place prior to the third permit
cycle; however,
the
third generation MS4 permit required expansion and acceleration of that
existing program. To address the new requirements, the County developed the Implementation
Plan Guidance Document that detailed the recommended methods and techniques for
preparing individual watershed implementation plans and documented the best available
science underlying the technical assumptions used in developing the plans to allow the County
it
officially
expired on February 15,
2015,
the permit is administratively continued pending final
action, if
any, by MOE
in response to a decision
by
the Maryland Court
of
Special Appeals in Maryland
Department of the Environment,
et
al. v. Anacostia Riverkeeper,
et
al. to remand the permit to MOE for further
proceedings.
1
Although
August
7' 2015
Montaomerr
County
Department
of
l!nvlronmental
Protection
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Executive
Surnrnmy
to make cost-effective implementation decisions and achieve MDE regulatory approval. The
Implementation Plan Guidance Document also prompted the refinement of a BMP coding
process, the MS4 permit area, and impervious cover subject to the MS4 permit.
Following the Guidance, watershed implementation plans were developed for most of the
County's watersheds where a full range
of
restoration opportunities were identified and
quantified in terms of planning level implementation cost and anticipated pollutant load reduction
potential.
DEP then developed the Montgomery County Coordinated Implementation Strategy (the
Strategy) in June
2009
that considered implementation across all of the watersheds in an
integrated and phased manner. The Strategy laid out a framework for meeting the watershed
restoration requirements, Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) restoration
goals, and setting cost-effeciive approaches which reflected direct stakeholder input. Finally, the
Strategy facilitated project identification and implementation planning by setting priorities among
potential projects.
BUDGET, CAPACITY, AND FUNDING
Implementation of the plan laid out in the
Strategy required an increased Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) budget for
funding watershed restoration projects. From
2009 to the latest CIP budget passed
for
FY15·20,
the amount of funding for
the
watershed restoration program has increased
by a factor of ten (Figure 2).
The budget increases translated to a direct
increase in number of Water Resources
Engineering (WRE) vendors and tasks orders
issued for design of restoration projects. In
addition, DEP also augmented
its
project
management capacity via a consultant
contract coupled with doubling internal staff
capacity.·
400
CIP Budget for 5-year Periods
(Millions of Dollars)
350
300·
250
200
150
100
50
0
FY09-14
FY11-16
FY13-18
FY15-20
Figure 2 Capital Improvement Program Budgets
The main funding mechanism for the CIP is the
Water Quality Protection Charge (WQPC), which went into
effect
in
2002
and is included as part
of the Montgomery County property tax bill. In
2011,
the County issued bonds secured by the
WOPC to finance the construction and related expenses of
watershed
restoration projects as
approved in the CIP. The issuance of the bonds allowed the capital costs of complying with the
increased restoration requirement to be spread over the fifetime of the bonds (and the useful life
of the facilities).
Data Management and the Restoration Requirement
DATA MANAGEMENT
The increased restoration requirement of the third generation MS4 permit and increased level of
effort to implement watershed restoration projects created a critical need for enhanced data
management. In response, DEP has undertaken numerous data management initiatives to
specifically support meeting the additional
20%
watershed restoration requirement. These
efforts include starting a SharePoint site, using Microsoft Project Server (MPS), developing a,
Business Intelligence System and Dashboard, maintaining and updating
the
Restoration Sites
August
7' 2015
Montgomery County Department
of
Environmental
Protectloft
h9fif
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Executive
Summary
Database and developing a
new
structured query language (SQL database), improving and
updating the storm drain layer, and streamlining the drainage areas delineation process.
The County MS4 permit SharePoint site facilitates file hosting and sharing between DEP,
project management contractors, WRE contractors, and construction contractors. The
SharePoint currently stores content such as task orders, schedules, plans, budgets, designs
and reports creating a single repository for restoration project documents. In 2012, DEP .began
implementing an MPS to monitor CIP project schedule performance. The MPS provides
projections of when projects will be ready for construction and completion. Information from the
MPS is linked with the Business Intelligence (Bl) system and Dashboard. The Bl system is
designed to analyze data from multiple tables and databases relating to the County's MS4
program to measure and report on specific programmatic performance metrics. The Bl system
reports six metrics specific to the restoration program including: schedule performance,
impervious area restoration progress, program costs, and construction cost estimation
accuracy. The metric reports generated by the Bl system are easily accessed through an
internet-based dashboard interface (the Dashboard).
The Dashboard provides DEP staff and
project managers
with
up-to-date insight into
the restoration program's progress towards
meeting the 20% restoration requirement
(Figure 3). The Bl system and the Dashboard
have played an important role in continuing
adaptive management of the program. The
Dashboard can
be
used
to quickly find
inefficiencies and identify problems early,
serving as a platform for open communication
and resource management. Enhanced
capabilities are also currently under
development by DEP to allow for resource
modeling and restoration scenario evaluation
using the Dashboard.
f-~·-
Figure 3 Planning and Compliance Dashboard Screen
DEP also maintains an ESRI ArcGIS Restoration Sites Database that tracks all potential
restoration opportunities. In addition to the Restoration Sites Database, the County initiated
efforts to create a new SQL database in response to increasing reporting needs and anticipated
future permit needs.
The
purpose of developing the new SQL database is to increase capacity,
function, stability and quality of the existing data and improve data organization. The new SQL
database represents a significant effort in improving data functionality intended to contribute to
the success of the restoration program.
Data management has also involved processing data for storm drain mapping and drainage
area delineations. Mapping storm drains is a challenge due to data inconsistency; however, in
2014, DOT began coordinating a large
effort
to
make extensive improvements to the County's
storm drain data and to aggregate all the disparate datasets in one central location. DEP
maintains open lines of communication with DOT on this effort On-going construction of new
storm drain systems and BMPs requires drainage area delineations to
be
constantly updated.
During the third generation MS4 permit, DEP increased its efforts to delineate drainage areas
for newly inventoried BMPs
and
to perform data quality assurance and control for existing
drainage delineations.
The
number of existing BMP recorded and drainage areas delineated
more than doubled
from
2011 to 2015.
August
7, 2015
Montgomery
County
Department
of
Em'lronmantal
Protection
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Executive
Summary
RESTORATION REQUIREMENT
Determination of. the third generation MS4
permit
restoration requirement (to restore an
additional 20% of uncontrolled impervious areas as of 2009) required the calculation
of
the
impervious cover controlled
to
the MEP at the end of 2009. As improved information
on
the area
of
impervious cover controlled to the MEP became available through new data and more
advanced analysis, DEP worked
to
define the aaes represented
by
the restoration requirement
to reflect the most accurate information.
Efforts by DEP to improve the accuracy of the restoration requirement include updating
BMP ·
drainage area delineations, verifying existing facilities, incorporating existing roadside
swales,
and crediting large lot disconnections. Table
1
below illustrates the restoration requirement
calculation highlighting how the accuracy of determining the County MS4 impervious area
controlled to
MEP
in 2009 was improved since the strategy. The restoration requirement of
3,777 acres
is
20%
of
18,884 acres, which
is
the County MS4 impervious area under
or
uncontrolled as
of
2009.
Table 1 Restoration Requirement Calculation
Description
Area (acres}
Impervious Area Subject
to
Third Generation MS4 Pennlt
B.
County MS4 Impervious
Area Controled
to
MEP In 2009
Per The
Strategy
(2009)
Updated BMP
Tracking and Drainage
Area
Delineations
MEP Verification of
Existing
Facilities
Incorporating Existing Roadside Swales
Crediting
Disconnected
Large
Lots
TOTAL
C. County MS4 Impervious Area
Under/Uncontrolled
(2015
Revision) (A-B)
Restoration Requirement (2015 Revision) (20% of C)
A.
25, 119
3,661.0
691.2
1,597.3
278.3
7.4
6,235.2
18,884 ·
3,rrf
*See Section C.ii. for comparison
of
lina/ rostoration requirement
and
otiginal estimate
in
the
Strategy
August
7, 2015
Montgomery
County
Deparlment
of
Environmental
ProtectJon
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files  PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files  PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
:
-~
·~.
.,..
~
:1
;, . ;;....-=-~----.-.,.-,,
.....
,. . ,.~
• ·.
": ;~~;;~:~~t
·r·
.,
·.
·~:i..:
·~
•,
..
. ."·i.
.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files  PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Executive
Summary
NEW DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT
Throughout the course of the third generation MS4 permit, many areas of impervious cover that
were not controlled to the MEP at the end of
2009
have become controlled to the MEP
as
a
result of new development and redevelopment activities. The new development and
redevelopment delivery method accounts for
th~
newly controlled areas. DEP carried out four
desktop analyses to determine the impervious area that received treatment as a result of new
development and redevelopment in four categories including MCPS redevelopment, M-NCPPC .
property
acquis~ion,
private redevelopment, and newly added BMPs.
AGENCY PARTNERSHIPS
DEP actively seeks opportunities to partner with other agencies and departments responsible
for completing construction projects throughout the County to optimize watershed restoration.
During the third generation MS4 permit, DEP established six specific partnerships that have
resulted in significant contributions towards meeting the restoration requirement.
These partnerships include the Maryland State Highway Authority lntercounty Connector,
through which 40 restoration projects including stream restorations, green streets and
stormwater retrofits were funded and constructed. Partnering with the Washington Suburban
Sanitary Commission (WSSC), DEP tracks credits from stream restoration projects throughout
the county undertaken by WSSC to improve the sewer infrastructure. DEP works with OGS on ·
County-managed properties undergoing development or redevelopment by DGS to fund some
aspects
of
the construction effort to provide water quality treatment for impervious area in
addition to what is required by the new construction on the site. In addition to the MCPS CIP
projects. DEP partners with MCPS on MCPS construction projects to contribute funds to pay for
the stormwater facilities outside
of
the project area. In addition to the CIP-funded green streets,
DEP collaborated with and supported funding for DOT-led
green
streets projects and worked
with DOT to prioritize outfall stabilizations throughout the County. DEP also partnered with the
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (µsACE) in the management/restoration of the Anacostia River
watershed, tracking
credits
from stream restoration projects.
. PUBLIC OUTREACH
As the number
of
watershed restoration projects increased, so did the need for public outreach.
Whether they are small scale rain gardens or large scale stream restoration projects, DEP
proactively communicates
its
restoration project intentions to stakeholders and nearby residents
throughout the
process. On
average, throughout
a project's
design, construction, and
completion, six public meetings are held which may include an open forum
style
meeting with a
presentation, a site walk, or attending and presenting
at
a Homeowners Association Board
meeting. OEP developed a watershed restoration outreach standard operating procedure (SOP)
to provide staff guidance and consistency on how to effectively reach out
to
the public. DEP has
also developed a public outreach database that
tracks
outreach efforts for the watershed
restoration program as well
as
outreach supporting other third generation MS4 permit
requirements.
The number of public outreach meetings saw a five-fold increase from FY2011 to FY2014 with
the total number of people reached through attending meetings increasing four-fold from 200 to
over 800. In the Mure, as restoration projects shift increasingly towards small-scale ESD
practices, public outreach efforts will continue to increase as smaller scale practices are more
integrated into neighborhoods, have more potential impact on nearby residents, and therefore
require increased coordination with the public to produce a project that is accepted
by
the
communities.
August
7, 2015
Monteomary
County
Department
of
l:m1ronmantal PrDtectlon
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
\
Executive
Summary
Lessons Leamed and Next Steps
The additional 20% restoration requirement of the third generation MS4 pennit re5ulted in
remarkable growth of DEP's watershed restoration program. The lasting impact of this growth
will continue to improve water quality and benefit
the
environment into
the
future as lessons
learned allow DEP to
more
efficiently and effectively restore the County's water-Sheds.
During the third generation MS4 permit term,
several of DEP's restoration projects received
awards and several grants (Figure
7).
Completing more restoration at a faster rate
required increased funding. DEP received the
necessary financial support from an increased
CIP budget made possible by the County's
forward-thinking approach to financing
through issuing WQPC bonds. Capacity
building was also necessary; so, in addition to
increasing internal staff, DEP retained
consultants to support the restoration
program and to facilitate project progress.
DEP also created improved efficiency within
the restoration program by expanding
its
data
·management efforts. DEP recognizes the
value of investing in on-going data
management. Improved knowledge of project
performance and programmatic progress
leads to petter decision making and better
restoration outcomes. DEP continues to
prioritize improved data management as a
critical component of the restoration program
and DEP's adaptive management strategy.
Select Program Honors
Awards
Stoney
Craek
Stormwater Management Pond
at National Institute
of
Health
National Recreation Award April 2014
.
American Council of Engineering Companies
(ACEC) Engineering Excellence Awards
Competition
Engineering Excellence
Honor
Award in
Design 2013-2014
ACEC of Metropolitan Washington
Arcola Avenue Graen Street Project
Achievement Award Winner 2012
National Association of Counties
Grants
• Department of Natural Resources Chesapeake
and Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust Fund
• National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Grant
Smart integrated stormwater management
system demonstration partnership with
Washington
Council
of
Governments
F'igure
1
DEP
Restoration
Project
Awards and Grants
DEP learned that each restoration delivery method is valuable and poses unique challenges
requiring creative solutions. Permitting and public outreach remain the primary drivers of the
duration
of
the design and permitting phase
of
CIP projects. Smaller-scale Implementation
will
continue to expand as the direct contact with County residents and property owners is extremely
valuable in building support for DEP's work. Leveraging partnerships will also continue to be a
focus as these efforts proved mutually beneficial in meeting partners' objectives, reducing
DEP's costs, and speeding projeci: delivery. Reflecting back, PEP found that project delivery
timeframes, on the order of years, were challenged by the restoration requirement timeframe of
the five-year permit cycle. This was particularly true for the third generation MS4 permit term
where early-phase permit activity required planning and strategic program development prior to
project design, permitting, and construction.
The importance of communication with stakeholders and public outreach was magnified during
the implementation
of
restoration projects. DEP greatly values stakeholder input and recognizes
that effective communication results in overall improved project outcomes.
Through adaptive management across all project types, DEP is committed to continued
improvement
of
its watershed restoration program to generate efficiencies, develop stakeholder
support, and speed project delivery.
August 7
1
2015
Montgomery County Department
of
l!mtranmental Protection
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Testimony on Behalf of County Executive Isiah Leggett on Expedited Bill 11-16,
Storm.water Management- Water Quality Protection Charge - Grants and Credits
April 26, 2016
Good afternoon. My name is Lisa Feldt. I am the Director of the Department of
Environmental Protection. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of County
Executive Leggett regarding Expedited Bill 11-16 for Storm.water Management - Water Quality
Protection Charge Grants and Credits.
The Department continues to make progress in meeting the watershed restoration
requirements of the MS4 Permit issued by the state of Maryland, including the restoration of
impervious surface areas to the maximum extent practicable. The Water Quality Protection
Charge is the main source of funding for these efforts.
As
you are aware, the Water Quality Protection Charge was the subject of a lawsuit last
year in which a County Circuit Court ruling called into question the validity of the Water Quality
Protection Charge
as
a tax under the Environment Article of the Maryland Code. The issue has
been resolved by explicitly reaffirming the designation of the Water Quality Protection Charge
as an excise tax authorized under the County's general taxing authority to levy excise taxes.
Concurrent with the lawsuit, other issues ·were raised regarding the general Water Quality
Protection Charge as well as the credit program. The proposed legislation and accompanying
regulations achieves a balanced approach to address the issues that have been raised.
There are three principles that guided the reevaluation of the credit program. First, we
want to be fair and equitable; Second, we want program criteria that are consistent and easy to
administer, and; Third, the credit program should be tied to the management of stormwater
runoff that meets current storm.water guidelines set by the State.
The proposed legislation and
draft
regulations base the credit on the water quality volume
treated, consistent with current storm.water standards, rather than by the type of stormwater
facility. The accompanying regulation also proposes to align the credit percentages with the
county's impervious surface demographics. The county's impervious surface is 60% privately
owned and 40% publically owned. The proposed changes provide for a maximum credit of 60
%
for treatment of water volume from onsite properties to account for the fact that, there is still
40% of impervious surface in the county that needs to be treated. At the same time, we are
proposing to increase the maximum credit to 100% to give recognition to those properties that, in
addition to treating their own storm.water runoff, treat the runoff of adjacent properties.
The next modification is not a change but rather a clarification of the eligibility criteria
for a property owner to receive a Water Quality Protection Charge credit. The intent is for
credits
to
be provided only to property owners that maintain storm.water management systems for
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
which the County does not have cost liabilities for performing structural. maintenance. The
regulations propose clarifying language regarding this intent which is based on the need for the
county to maintain sufficient
funds
to continue providing this maintenance.
An
additional change being proposed is to authorize the establishmei;it of a watershed
restoration grant program for certain owners of improved aircraft landing areas to offset the cost
of the Water Quality Protection Charge and remove outdated language under the grant program
that was available to homeowners' associations. Currently, the only private airport
in
Montgomery County that is exempt from county property taxes under Section 8-302 of the Tax
Property Article, Maryland Code, allows for the public use of
its
airstrip for aircraft landing free
of service charges.
This
property is assessed a Water Quality Protection Charge. Given the
property does provide a public service, the owners can apply for a grant through the watershed
restoration grant program to offset the cost of paying the charge.
In
addition, the legislation
proposes to clean up the grant program language by removing an outdated provision authorizing
grants to offset the cost of paying the Charge billed to homeowners' associations for roads
owned by those associations that are used openly and freely by the public.
In
2015, the General
Assembly amended Section 4-204 of the Environniental Article so that those roads for which
homeowners' associations could receive a grant would no longer be subject to the Water Quality
Protection Charge. Consequently, there is no longer a need for a grant program to offset
payment of the Charge in those situations.
Finally, this bill
will
expand the timeframe for a property owner to appeal the denial of a
request for a credit or adjustment of the amount of the Water Quality Protection Charge. Under
the current law, a property owner
has
10 days after a Director issues a decision to appeal that
decision. This proposal extends that timeframe from 10 days to 3 0 days to give property owners
adequate time to prepa;re a response.
The County Executive appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed Bill. I
would be happy to address any questions the Council may have.
C'1
~
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Mihill, Amanda
Subject:
FW: your views on WQPC for tomorrow
From:
Paul Chod
Sent:
Wednesday, June 22, 2016 5:26 PM
To:
'Floreen's Office, Councilmember' <Councilmember.Floreen@montgomervcountymd.gov>
Cc: defeuerherd@mmcanby.com
Subject:
RE: your views on WQPC for tomorrow
Hi Jocelyn:
Thank you for your email. We have had the opportunity to briefly review the packets for Items 2 (Expedited Bill 11-16)
and 3 (Executive Regulation 12-16) set for the T&E Committee hearing tomorrow, and we appreciate Councilmember
Floreen's invitation to share our thoughts on this issue.
First, we were pleased to see that the DEP reconsidered the exclusion of properties like Shady Grove Development Park
(SGDP) from credit consideration, and, as we understand from Director Feldt, the proposed changes to Bill 11-16
will
remove this bar for SGDP due to the County requirement to do structural maintenance there.
Second, we continue to oppose and question how the credit is calculated. It seems odd, like the cart leading the horse,
that the focus now is on calculating the amount of the Charge and Water Quality Protection Fund (including the credit
back to property owners),
before
discussing what activities these charges actually fund. As noted on page 2 of Item 3's
Packet, considering and reviewing what should be funded by the WQPF is tentatively scheduled later this year and is not
part of this discussion - but it should be. And we all know that the County is collecting far more WQPC fees then they
are spending. That is why Nancy asked for a list of the work that was done.
Expanding the credit to 100% for treatment of offsite drainage, as Council Staff readily admits, is only
"theoretical." How many property owners can expect to actually receive a 100% credit? We believe this change
continues to be meaningless, because even though we maintain (and the DEP requires us to maintain) stormwater
management facilities according to the standards in place at the time of construction, now our credit eligibility is based
on a different standard - Environmental Site Design, which applies only to new and renovated construction
only. Applying the ESD standard on existing property is unrealistic and cost prohibitive. We do not get credit for doing
the work that the County required us to do when we developed our properties. We believe that even though regional
ponds (like those at SGDP) serve larger drainage areas including neighboring properties, this ESD standard prevents
them from ever obtaining the 100% credit, especially when the volume of rain to be contained keeps changing. Changes
to the building codes do not adversely affect us like that.
1
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
According to both packets, the DEP will only give us a
40%
credit at SGDP. This ignores, entirely, our treatment of
off-
site drainage (even Council
Staff
acknowledges, in his memorandum in Item 3 Packet, that our ponds do provide
treatment, even though
I
cannot agree with the statement that it is limited to
40%
at the ESD level). We treat rain
volume from our
41
acres, and
110
acres belonging to our neighbors.
Even focused on SGDP alone, these regulations continue to be unfair. I've been told by the DEP that the ponds provide
Water Quality Volume for
98.72%
required under today's ESD standards. Yet, for treatment of all but nearly
1
percent
of the volume, the· DEP's proposed credit is
40% --
this is a
1/3
reduction from the maximum of
60%,
and we receive
nothing for the adjacent properties we treat but do not own. This does not make sense and
I
hope it further illustrates
how unfair and impractical this calculation is.
We continue to believe that property owners should be held to the satne standards as they were, and now are, for
construction and maintenance of SWM facilities - the standards in place at the time of construction. We did provide
everything the County required at that time.
Thank you for your consideration.
Paul N. Chod, President
Minkoff Development Corporation
20457
Seneca Meadows Parkway
Germantown, Maryland
20876
Email: paulchod@minkoffdev.com
Phone:
240-912-0200
Fax:
240-912-0162
From:
Floreen's Office, Councilmember [mailto:Councilmember.Floreen@montgomervcountymd.gov]
Sent:
Wednesday, June 22, 2016 3:35 PM
To:
Paul Chod <paul@minkoffdev.com>
Subject:
your views on WQPC for tomorrow
Mr. Chod,
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
TESTIMONY OF PAUL N. CHOD
In Opposition to Bill 11-16
Good afternoon and thank you for allowing me to speak with you today regarding Bill
11-16. As you know, I am a commercial property owner and developer.
I've spoken several times with you about the Water Quality Protection Charge and the
need for greater review of the way the Charge is calculated and how the credits are applied.
In
November of 2015, I testified before the County Council regarding Bill 45-15, and in February
of 2015, submitted a memorandum to summarize recommendations to review and amend this
legislation.
In
October of 2015, I prepared a redline copy of the Charge provisions (Section 19-
35 of the County Code and COMCOR 19.35.01.05) and provided it to the County. I am attaching
copies of each here, to incorporate as part of my written testimony.
All of our properties in the County incorporate private stormwater management facilities
that treat not only our properties but also surrounding properties:
• The two stormwater detention ponds at Shady Grove Development Park (SGDP)
treat 150 acres; SGDP owns 41 of those acres (27% of the drainage area). For
properties owned by others and treated by our ponds, the County collects
$39,392, Gaithersburg collects $29,940, and Rockville collects $32,102, for a
total of$101,434 annually.
• The 5 ponds and numerous biofilters at Seneca Meadows Corporate Center in
Germantown treat
a
drainage area of about 336 acres (207 of those acres, about
60%, belong to our neighbors); the County collects a total Charge of $133,278
from neighboring properties treated by our Seneca Meadows Corporate Center
stormwater facilities each year.
• And, at The Shops at Seneca Meadows in Germantown, we've implemented the
modem ESD to completely treat stormwater runoff at our new retail center at a
significant cost of several hundred thousand dollars.
We continue to maintain all of our stormwater management systems as required by DPS and
DEP with the understanding that our private systems were adequate for this purpose, fully
compliant with the regulations when installed, and entitled to a full credit.
Bill 11-16 unfairly amends credit eligibility (Section 19-35(e), also attached) by only
allowing a credit
if
the County does not perform structural maintenance
in
stormwater facilities.
Bill 11-16 as written may remove all credits at SGDP. This is an unfair and unreasonable
preclusion that the County Council must reject. Our properties were required to transfer the
structural maintenance to the County under a Declaration of Covenants in 1991,after I-270 was
widened; the SHA, County and SGDP all incurred additional costs for altering the stormwater
ponds due to the highway widening. We still remain obligated to continually perform other
maintenance
in
order to ensure that the facilities function properly and prevent the County from
having to perform any other work. Under this amendment, the DEP may deny me, and many
other property owners, a credit- even though we have invested substantially (and continue to do
so) in order to collect and treat stormwater from the region. This is an unfair, broad and
burdensome preclusion, especially considering the $172,670 collected by the County in 2015
/0
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
from properties treated by my stormwater management facilities at SGDP and SMCC and not
owned by us.
In
the 25 years since executing the Declaration of Covenants at SGDP, the County has
performed just one structural maintenance at SGDP. A couple of years ago, the DEP replaced the
end portion of a stormwater pipe that existed in a County easement. We had a proposal to do the
work for $18,000 before the County inspector reminded us that it was the County's responsibility
to do it. The County collected more than twice that cost from our neighboring properties in
2015. That certainly allowed the Charge to cover the cost of whatever stormwater management
services were provided to the ponds by the County. Going forward, Bill 11-16 will fail to treat
us fairly like that.
Although the Bill appears to raise the credit to 100%, I believe that this amendment to
Section 19-35(e) renders the credit provision meaningless. The DEP will continue to collect the
Charge without administering a fair credit for private stormwater management; this is made clear
in the Fiscal Impact Statement, where the DEP states that raising the credit to 100% will have no
fiscal impact. Unfortunately, after our multiple attempts to meet with the DEP and others, Bill
11-16 is not designed to address the unfairness of the Charge and credit system.
I recommend that the County Council REJECT the proposed amendment to Bill 11-16,
and specifically retain the existing language contained
in
Section 19-36(e) and require the DEP
to set forth, in its regulations subject to review and public comment, the bases for denying and
granting a credit. Further, should any credit be rejected because the County did some structural
maiµ.tenance, allow the property owner receiving the credit two options: (1) to offset cost of
structural maintenance against the Charge revenues received from adjacent properties served by
the stormwater management facilities constructed by the owner; or (2) to pay the cost of
maintenance over what was received from these other properties.
Thank you, I appreciate your time, and I hope to continue to work with you.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
TESTIMONY OF DIANE E. FEUERHERD, ESQ.
ON BEHALF OF MINKOFF DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
In Opposition to Bill 11-16
Good afternoon and thank you. My name is Diane Feuerherd, and I am counsel for
Minkoff Development Corporation, a commercial property owner and developer with several
properties that have private stormwater management facilities.
Over the past three years, through a number of meetings, writings and even legal action,
Minkoff Development Corporation has urged this Council to review and, amend the Water
Quality Protection Charge provisions, to fairly address how private stormwater management
contributes to the County's overall goals of redressing stormwater runoff and pollution. We
believe the way that this Charge is calculated fails to take into account the long term and annual
costs incurred by the property owners (of time, money, land and continued maintenance).
We OPPOSE Bill 11-16, because it is a step backwards and attempts to jeopardize
existing (albeit limited) credit for private stormwater management, rather than address the
inequity in the Charge and credit system.
First, Bill 11-16 limits credit eligibility to preclude any and all stormwater management
facilities that the County purports to structurally maintain. Minkoff Development's Shady Grove
Development Park has an easement and covenants with the County, that the County would
perform structural maintenance on the ponds, but only at the County's discretion. SGDP could be
one of these excluded properties, despite the fact that maintenance by Minkoff Development has
been continual and the need for the County's structural maintenance on these ponds is
"essentially nonexistent," Chod v. Board ofAppeals,
Case No. 398704-V (emphasis added), and
the ponds serve a drainage area that is three-times the size of its own property.
Property owners who have invested land and resources to construct these facilities have
spent over a million dollars, and they actually continue to perform regular maintenance
(including landscaping, grass cutting and trash removal), which is necessary to insure that the
facility continues to function properly to help prevent the need for structural maintenance.
Minkoff Development performs annual maintenance on its ponds and other stormwater
management facilities, in order to collect and treat stormwater from its own properties, as well as
surrounding properties.
It
receives no financial contribution from others. After requiring these
property owners to install private stormwater management facilities, continually maintain them,
it would be patently unfair to preclude them from receiving any credit based upon the County's
paper promise to do structural maintenance at some point in the future and only at its discretion.
The annual Charge pales in comparison to the amount invested in these facilities; Minkoff
Development Corporation and like-minded commercial property owners deserve a credit.
We recommend that the County Council REJECT the proposed changes to Section 19-
35(e)(1) and COMCOR 19.35.01.05, concerning credit eligibility. I understand that the DEP
does not want to award a credit to a property owner based on a stormwater management facility
that he or she fails to maintain; but this concern is already addressed by the addition of Section
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
19-35(e)(3), to enable the DEP to revoke a credit for maintenance failure.
Second, we oppose the amendments to the credit regulation, COMCOR 19.35.01.05,
which remove from the regulation, and therefore from further public comment or review, the
criteria for awarding a credit. By punting the credit system and structure to a forthcoming "Water
Quality Protection Charge Credit Procedures Manual provided by the Department [DEP]," we
are prevented from reviewing and commenting on the substantial changes that Bill 11-16 seeks
to make to the existing credits. This delegation of authority, without standards, is improper.
For instance, the amendment appears to substantially narrow the credit to properties using
the environmental site design standard
only,
to be laid out further in this forthcoming manual.
ESD is a new standard and all properties developed before 2000 could
be
precluded but we are
unable to ascertain the level of change without this manual. Nonetheless, Minkoff Development
strongly OPPOSES this amendment, property owners should be awarded a full credit if they
constructed a stormwater management facility that abided by the requirements at the time it was
constructed.
Although we welcome the credit increase to 100%, which would award a full refund for
private stormwater management that serves surrounding properties, it appears that this change,
coupled with the limited credit eligibility, is without material effect. One would expect that an
increase in credits, to reduce the amount of Charge ultimately collection, would be detailed in the
Fiscal Impact Statement as a decrease in annual revenue. To the contrary, the Fiscal Impact
Statement for this bill states that there is no anticipated change. We believe that is an indication
that the 100% credit will
be
meaningless. ·
We recommend that the County Council REJECT the proposed amendment to COMCOR
19.35.01.05, which would have the DEP alone develop a Manual without comment from the
public, and require the credit system to be "set by regulation" as required by Section
l
9-35(e)(l).
We further recommend that the T&E Committee, in review of
Bill
11-16 specifically inquire of
the bill's proponents (1) why it is fair to take a step backwards and bar any and all credit from
property owners who have invested substantial resources towards private stormwater
management based on the County's structural maintenance easement over time; (2) why the
increase to 100% is projected to have no fiscal impact; and (3) why the DEP's proposed credit
system is not yet developed, so to be included as part of this regulation and subject to public
review, as the statute requires.
Thank you.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
\\
Hello,
My name is Alicia Harvey Stanley- I'm the manager at Davis Airport in Laytonsville.
We want to thank the council for considering this grant proposal. As one of only two
public use airports
in
the county, it's important for all of us to have this resource for both
emergency relief reasons, and because aviation is good for commerce. Our facility is also
used at no charge to calibrate police cars,
train
firefighters, and host scouting events.
Personally, we bought the airport as a family business because of a love of aviation.
We're very proud of the work we've done to make it safe while preserving its
rural
character. A general aviation airport is not a money making venture, and the runways are
not income producing. The state exempts public use airports from property
tax
as an
incentive for people to keep them open, but the addition of the WQPC
was
more than the
income from tie down tenants could carry. We have been unable to make improvements
that would bring the runway up to current safety standards because it would increase the
fee even more.·
We appreciate the efforts that are being made to help us, from the council to the DEP to
the Executive Office, and everyone in between.
It
is my hope that you will vote for the
grant and help us to preserve Davis Airport and a resource that serves the common good.
Thank you.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
6121/2016
https://mccouncilmd.lmhostediq.com/COUNTY_COUNCILMew_eml_2.aspx?rid=510B784&oid=92197&did=&from_set=&from_ima=&note_id=
Email Viewer
HTML
From: "Devin Battley" <DBattley@battley.com>
Date: 6/1/2016 3:55:18 PM
To: "Nancy Floreen (Councilmember.floreen@montgomerycountymd.gov)"
<Councilmember.floreen@montgomerycountymd.gov>
Cc: "George Leventhal (councilmember.leventhal@montgomerycountymd.gov)"
<councilmember.leventhal@montgomerycountymd.gov>, "Roger Berliner
(councilmember.berliner@montgomerycountymd.gov)"
<councilmember.berliner@montgomerycountymd.gov>, "Tom Hucker
(councilmember.hucker@montgomerycountymd.gov)"
<councilmember.hucker@montgomerycountymd.gov>, "county.council@montgomerycountymd.gov"
<county.council@montgomerycountymd.gov>, "'oig@montgomerycountymd.gov'"
<oig@montgomerycountymd.gov>
Subject: Letter from the DEP
Dear Councilmembers,
I must say that I am very disappointed by this letter from Lisa Feldt.
This WQPC law is just another example of the Asset Forfeiture legislation you give us.
Also, the timing, delivery, and delay in responding is criminal in nature.
Do you realize what you steal from us, the citizens?
BTW, if you are interested I can give you information about a number of Our County's criminal attacks
against me and other landowners here in MOCO.
Otherwise, if you are interested, about anything, I can answer any of your questions.
So I ask you, Do you want to what is right or wrong?
Please reply,
Thanks,
Devin Battley
-----Original Message-----
From: OfficeScan@battley.com [mailto:OfficeScan@battley.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 12:50 PM
To: Devin Battley
Subject: Message from "RNP0026736434E9"
This E-mail was sent from "RNP0026736434E9" (Aficio MP 4002).
Scan Date: 06.01.2016 12:49:30 (-0400)
Queries to: OfficeScan@battley.com
https://mccouncilmd.lmhostediq.com/COUNTY_COUNCIUview_amJ_2.aspx?rid=5108784&oid=92197&did=&from_set=&fromjma=&notejd=
111
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
DEPARTMfilff OF .fil..1VIRONMENTAL
PROTECTJON'
Isiah
~ggett
County Executive
LisaF~ldt
Director
..· ;May
26,2016
Devin
8.attley
7830 AirparkR<tlad
Gaithersburg, MD'20879 ·
RE:
·Request for R'¢Consideration of Water
Quality
Protection Charge Credit Application for Lindberg
Park
Deat'
Mt.
Bartley:
. I have reviewed your November 9, 2015 requestforrecorisideration of mydecisfo:n to
deny
the
request for 50 percent credits against the
Water
Quality
Protection Charges ("WQPO' ot "'Charge") billed
to all of the Lindbergh Park property owners, including the Charges billed to you for the lots assoeiated
with
Account
Nos. 01-02889584,
Ol-02889513,
andOl-02890594..
hlpolo~ze
for
the delayed official
response.
I
understand
that
tny
sUrl!has
been·Incontact
with
you dirring the past few months
and you
have met \\-ith
my
staff, as
well
as
the County Attorney.to discuss the issuc:s to
tiy
to come to a resolution.
Ofthethree properties noted above, for which thedocii.mentation you submitted from the ·
Depatt:m:ent ofAssessments and Taxation identifies you as the
owner,
only the parcel associated
with
Acoount
No. 01-02889584 contains
a
stonnwater management system. Based on
the
County's
computations; you were properly credited for 44 percent of the
Charge
billed tb
you
for that property.
However, under the proposed changes to existing :regulations, your property can be eligible for up to 100
percent
credit
if
the stonn:water
facilityptovides
management of stormwatet for
both
onsite
and
offsite
properties,
~
:
.
:
.
Tn,YoutNovetnher
9!11
letter
you
indicate
that
''property owner''
is
not a
defined
tenn
in
either
the
statute or the regulation that governs implemetttation of the. WQPC. Consequently, you suggest that the
limited credits :granted restilted from an
interpretation of unwritten
rules: I have been advised
by
the
County
Attomey'
s Office
that
non-technical
terms
such as "property"
and
"ownef' need
not
be statutorily
defined to
be .given legal effect.
They
need only be
interpreted
according
to theit
plain. ordinary, and
literal meaning.
In
order to bill property owners or award credits under Section 19-35 of the County
Code, the County relies on the
inforµiation documented
in
public records such as
deeds
and
tax
accounts
that
clearly identify each
holtf~
df
legal titleito
·specific parcels
of
land.
.,
{".
Your letter also cites a ptovisiofi
of
the
Maryland
Homeowners Association Act-'-Section 1lB-
104 of the
ReaJ
Preperty Article,
Maryland
Code-which governs the application
oflooalbuilding
codes
and zoning laws
to
properties
located
in a
community governed
by
a
homeowners'
association and ·
prohibits
local
governments
from discriminating against those properties
by
placing special
burdens
and
restrictions on them. Leaving aside
the fact
that your properties do not fall under the governance of a
homeowners' association, those properties have not been singled out and made subject
to
any
special
255 Rockville Pike. Suit¢ 120 " Rockville, Maryland 20850 • 240..777.-0311
www.montg9merycountymd.gov/dep
301·251-4850 TIY
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Devin
B~ttley
May26, 2016
Page2
burdens or restriction8 because
they
are
part
of a development. Like
any
other privately
owned
developed
property
in the
County,
your
properties
were
~sed
a Charge
because
they contain
impervious
surfaces.
The fact
tha.t
the
business park
in
which
your
properties
are located
is subject
to
a declanrtfon
is
unrelated.
to
how the
properties you
own
indivi<lually
are
assessed
or credited under
Co~
Code
Section
19~35
and COMCOR
§
19.35.0L The documentation you provided does not
ind~
that
the Lindbergh
Park properties are subject
to
a
c<m.dominjum:
regime.
where
legaJtiUe
to cottnnon
ar~
would
be:
held
by
all
8Ss(}¢iation
memlJers as
tenants-in-common.
In·
addition; the M
maps relied upon
by
the
Comrty
indicate that all of
the
properties within
the
business park that contain
on-site
stonmvater management
systems
are owned
individually,
not collectively
by
the
members of
the
Lindbergh Park
Owners
Association.
The
proposed
regulation \.\ill
allow
the
owners
of the
ponds to
receive up to a 100
perc.ent · ·
credit for
treating
Qffsite nm.off. Based
on
the Charges
billed
to those properties
for
levy year
2015,.
that
would ammmt to a credit
of
as much as $16,800 for all
ofthose properties
combined,.
which
could
easily
(;),ffset
the
association's
!UlnUal
stormwaterpond
maintenance budget
of$525.
Finally;
you raise
the
Montgomery
County Circuit
Court's
ruling in
Paid
N.
Chod v. Board of
Appealsfor
MQtttgomery County
(Civil
No,J987Q4..V;.
enteredJuly
23, 2015)
asjJJStification for a 100
percent.credit
against
the
Charge billedto.each.ofyourthree
Lindbergh.Park
properties.
The
court.in
that
case decided
that
the WQPC,
as
applied
to
the
property
owned
by
a
developer,
was
not consistent
with
the
requirements of a stormwater remediation fee under Section
4-202.1 of
tl:le
Enviro~ent
Article;
Maryland Code. The. CoU.Jll:y responded
by
re-adopting the
WQPC
as an excise
tax
under
the
County~s
pre-existing general tmting
authQrity
to imp()se excise taxes. The questions
raised
in the
Chod
case
are.
not
pertinent
to
yourcomplaintbecause
thdssue
in
that
case
was
not
whether
the
owner
of
a prope.rty
that
do~
n,ot contain a
stonr;rwater management
sy.stem is entitled to a
credit
for
stonnwater
runoff that is
treated
by
a stormwater management system located on som<;mne else's
property.
For
the foregoing reasons,
I
am denying
your request
for reconsideration.
In
accordance
with
COMCOR
§19
.3
5.01;07
(F)f
y-0u may
cappealthis
final
decision as
pt-0vided in Cha,pter 2A,. Article I, of
tht: County Code.
As
always, please
feel
free
to
contact
Vicky
Wan, Manager
of
the
Water.
Quality
Pro~on
Charge, at
240-777~
7722 or
via
e-mail
at
vicky.wan@rnontgomecycountym.d.gov with
questions or concerns.
·~
....
. Sincerely, ·
£&._~·
·LisaFeldt
Director
LF:ww
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
DEPARTMENT OF ENVJRQNMENTAL PROTECTION
Lisa Feldt
Director
October 30, 2015
Ron Godsey
C/O MIM Management
26223
Ridge
Road
Damascus, MD 20872
,.
·'
I
I
-I
RE:
Water Quality Protection Charge Credit Application for
Lindher~
Park
I
I
i
I
I
I
· Dear
Mr.
Gpdsey:
We have reviewed
the
application
submitted
on
behalf
ofthe.property owners reqa.esting
credits
against the Water Quality Protectio:Q. Chai-ge
~QPC)
billed
to
the
tax:
accounts for
properties located
within
Lindberg Park.
In
accordance
vyi:lh
Section 1935.01.05 (A) of tlie
Code of Montgomery
County
Rtgtilations
(COMCOR),
credits
are
awarded based on
the
volume
of
water
treated
by
a combination.
of
en:vllonmental
site
design and
other
stormwater
management
systems
ff
the
property
contains a
County
approved storm.water
management
system
and
the
system
is
main.tamed
in
accordance
with
the maintenance requirements of the
Depa:rtmellt
ofEnviromnental Protection.
Of
the nineteen property
tax
accounts for
which
credit
requests were submitted, fomteen
of
the
accounts were for
properties
that
did
not.contain
an onsite
stormwater management
system; The o-wners of
the
properties associated with the other
:five~
accounts received a
credit based on
th_e
information
you
provided and the type of on.site
~water
management
system
that
the
properties·
contain.
Th,e
volume of
water.treai;ed entitles
each. ofthe.properties
containing a stonnwater management System to a
credit
against
the WQPC
shoWn. on
their
annual
property
tax:
b~
as follows:
I
I
.t
i
!
I
I
i
I
!
I
i
. j
1
I
'
l.
Tax
Account
Number
02889595 -44 percent
2.
3.
4.
5.
Tax Account Number 02889584-44 percent
Tax Acoount Number 02890606
-SO
percent
Tax Account Number 02653791-50
percent
Tax'Accotmt.Number 02821313 -50 percent
I.
~
I
i
This credit
will
apply
for
the
2015
tax
levy year (July 1,
2015
to
June 30,
.2{)16)
and
to
the WQPC
billed
f(lt the
subsequent
years,
during whl.ch tline the County
may
conduct
pe:r;iodic mspecti.ons,
.as authorized_b}rthe
oredit
application submitted on behalf of
the property
two
255R.OOkvilleJ>ike,. Suite 120 • llockville,Mazytmd.20850 • 24();..777-7770 •
240-777-7765
FAX
.
WWW
.mont.gomecycountym.d.gov/dep
montgomerycountymd.gov/311
·00
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Ron
Godsey
October 30, 2015 ·
Page2
owners,
tO
ensure
that the
on.site
st0III1water
management
systems
fur
\ill'hlch the
credit
is
granted
are
being
maintafued
in
accordance
with
the
County's
maintenance
requirements.
The
property
owners
may
locate their
updated
tax
bills
online.
at
\YWW.montgo.meryco'tmtymd.gov{prQpertytax.
In
accordance
with
COMCOR§ 19.35.01.05
(D),
any
property
owner whose
request
for~
credit
is
denied
may
seek
reconsideration of
my
dooision
by
submitting
to
me a written request
for reconsideration
with
supporting
reasons
within
10
day~
after the
date of
the
denial. .
Thmik
you
for
imp.kmenting
measures
to
help address
storm.water
pollution.
Pleare
feel
free
to
contact
Vicky Wan, Manager of
the
Water
Quality
Protecti.On.
Charge,
a:t
240-777-7722 or
via e-mail
at
''1ck:y.Wanra>.montgop.reryoountvmd.®v
with
questions
O:r
concerns.
Sincerely,
LisaFekft
Director
LF:vw
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Lindbergh Park Owners Association
C/O Devin Sattley
7830
Airpa~
Rd
Gaithersburg. MD 20879
November
9,
2015
f\lls.
Lisa
Feldt
Montgomery County Department
of
Environmental Protection
255
Rockville Pike, Suite
120
Rockville MO
20850
RE: WQPC credit application from LPOA. Request
for
reconsideration
Dear
MS.
Feldt,
I
am replying to your letter
Of
October 30
111
to
Ron .Godsey concerning our appfication forWQP.C
credits. We are
very
disappointed
by
your grant of limited credits.
I
request reconsideration of
the disposition of our appeal by the DEP. .These credits do not apply fairly to all the property .
owners In Lindbergh
Park.
Oist
attached
as
schedule
A)
MOCO COMCOR
19.35.01
WQPC does not define 'property owner' therefore your
interpretation is an unwritten
rule. Wf!J are all
owners In the properties of
a
commor:i ownership
community. This aspect is in the law Sec. 19-35 WQPC, but not·your regulations. Also, this
interpretation of the law is in direct conflict with fairness standards in Maryland
law;·
MD. REAL PROPERlY Code Ann.§
118-104
(2015)
(b)
loca1·1aws, ordinances, or
regulations. -
A
local government may not enact any law,
ordi~ance,
or regulation which would:
(1) Impose a burden or restriction on property which
is
part of a development because it
is
part
of a developme':lt:
· This failure to give
u~
complete credits for the creation of our storm water controls and our
investments In these facilities is totally unfair. This is a double penalty. W.e are being forced to
pay for what we ha.ve already paid for. Are we aHoWed to fill. in our facilities and
put
this
valuable
land to another use? The program
for
WQPC
is
not being administered in accordance
with
the
State enabling law standards-they don't fairly consider the contributions that thE! property
owner has made for SW management nor the work which the County has done, or not done, on
the
property_~
imposing
tl:le
tax. This is <:ertainly a situation of financial and physical double .·
jeopardy.
Since we made our original application ·in January
2015,
we do find
it
distressful that we did not
get our response until October 30th. Don't you have a 60 day mandate to respond?
With this response you have provided for credits of
44% - 50%_
for Hi:nited properties. Can you
please
explain why you did
not
grant the 80%
erecflts
that these propertieS are eligible for as
explained in an email from Walter \/\;Ison that was sent on October
16~
(attachment
1 )
Also,
I
l
I
!
!
._I
I
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
eV.en
in
your narrow and defective determination
of
properties that
will
receive credit you omitted
property account# 02889573. This ·property is clearly eligible
~nCfer
your rules. .
In reaflty our credits for the WQPC should
be
100%. This is based on the court decision 'Paul N.
Chod
v,
Board
of
Appeals
for
Montgomery
County
(Civil No, 398704-V, entered July 23, 2015}
Can you please respond to. this decision and provide us with
the
credits that this decision
warrants?
I have also received an email
from
George LeventhaJ In which he supports my position in this
appeal. (attachment
2)
.
Therefore we request a
100%
credit for aJI properties in the Lindbergh Park Community.
Our request is not limited to the specific points
I
have made in this letter. We have ·issues to·
resolve
and
we reserve the right to bring up theSe issues as necessary and at any time.
.
.
Sincerely,
4
L&
._,
Demn~·?
President, Lindbergh Park Owners Association
l
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
SDAT: Real
Property
Search
Page 1 of I
.j
.
.
..
·Real"Properly Data Se.arch (
W:Z)
.
.
.
.
~-·
~
.
GuIGie to searching the dafa1lase
.J
\
.
.
.
Street
Search Result for MONTGOMERY COUNTY
GU31
GU31
GU31
GU31
~~1
• 0000
• llOOO
0000
llQl)Q
0000
Parcel
GU31
GU31
GU31
• 0000
• -GU31
GU31
GU31
GT33
G!J3f
G031
GU31
: 0000
• 00.00
: 0000
: 0000
• 0000
:
llOOO
GU31
GIJ3.1
. 0000
: 0000
0000
0000
.j
'
··~·
l
GU31
GT33
GT33
GU31
gggg
oob.o
GT33
GU31
GU31
GU31
GT33
; ooao
QOOO
OC-00
0000
ODDO
• 0000
I
0000
DR
OR
OR
GTa3
OR
DR
~:-
~:
..
DR
DR
OR
OR
DR
DR
DR
OR
OR
OR"
~
Gn3
GT33
GTJ3
GT33
0000
; 0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
:
:
Gt33
~
6133
GU31
GU31
GU31
GT..11
GU31
GU31
GU31
:~~
.0000
0000
0000
GT33
GT33
GT33
GT.33
GTa3
• 0000
DR
DR
DR
-Ollde
0000
0000
0000
gggg.
0000
DR
g~
DR
DR
DR
DR
DR
DR
DR
• GU31
gggg
0000
0000
~
'GU3i
GlJS1
GU31
GU31
Gl.131
GlJ31
0000
0000
0000
DR
t:lR
GU31
GU31
GU31
• QpOO
: 0000
0000
~
GIJ31
GT31
: 00()!)
. 0000
; ·0000
y
http://sdat.resiusa.org/R.e~operty/Pages/default.appx
10127/2,014
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Devin Sattley
·sent
To:
Cc:
From:
Subject:
Wilson, Walter <Walter.Wilson@montgoinerycountymd.gov>
Friday,
October 15,
201~
3:00 PM
·
Devin
Battley; Wan, Vicky;
'Ron
Godsey'
Shofar, steven; Morgan,
Michael
RE: Lindbergh Park - storm Wat.er·
If multiple tax accounts are
assign~
to a specific property that contains a
stormwater
management systen:i, as In the
.case with a condominium regime, then whatever credit Is due Is awarded to alt of those accounts. However, the credit
that may
be
awarded .under any particul::tr scenario is capped at 80 percent of the Water Quality Protection Charge
billed
to each account.
·
·
WalterE.
Wilson
Associate County Attorney
Office of
the
County
Attomey
10 l Mattroe Street, 3rd Floor
Rockville,
Maryland
20850
240-1n-6159
· CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE;:
The
contents of
this
e~ll
may be confidential under
31e
attorney-client privilege, the work-·
product doctrine, or other applicable law. If you have rec¢ved
this
email in error, you may not copy, distnbute, or use its
contents, and you are requested to delete the email from your system immediately and notify the-sender at
240-m-
6700. Thank you.
·
From: Devin Sattley
[mailto:DBattley@battley.com)
Sent:
Friday,
October
16, 2015 2!.27
PM
To: Wtlson,
Walter; Wan,
Vicky; 'Ron
Godsey'
Cc: Shofar, Steven; Morgan, Michael
Subject:
RE: Lindbergh Park - storm Water
...,
.
Dear
Mr.
Wilson~
We have an association that
is
governed
by
the rules of the Maryland epndominlum
Act.
Here.
ls
wha~
Is
on your
web
site.
Multi-fa·mily
Residential
and
N~n-Residential
Property
owners:
'
A reduction. of up
to
50% ofthe
charge
will
be i;iwarded based
on the volume
of
water treated
by
a
combination of
environn:fontal
site
design and other stonnwater
management
systems;
or
80%
reduction
based
on
the volume
of
water
1rea:ted,
if
the property
is
completely
treated
by environmental
site
design
practices. alone. (Not sure
what
tbis
means?
Email
us
.
a:t
WQPC.Credits@montgomerycountymd.gov)
• Only
one application
needs
to
be
completed for
the
con.dommin1'3 regime (e.g condo association).
If
the
storm.water practice applies
to
all
property owners
within
the
cond.ominium,
then a
list of
tax
accounts
qualified
for
the credit must be
inclu<'.{ed,.
· • Deadlin,e: The credit application
is
due
by
September 30th
in order to
b~
applied
towards
yom
current
tax
bill
.
• Having
trouble? ContaotDEP
at
WQJ;!C.Credits@montgomerycountymd.gov
Are