AGEND A ITEM 4A
February 6, 2018
Introduction
MEM ORAN DUM
February 2, 2018
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
County Council
Amanda Mihill, Legislative Attorne y
c}t\JtJ,JJi
Introduction:
Bill 1-18, Water Quality Protection Charge- Appeals
Bill 1-18, Water Quality Protection Charge - Appeals, sponsored by Lead Sponsor Council President
at the request of the County Executive, is schedule d to be introduced on February 6, 2018. A public
hearing is tentativ ely scheduled for March
6,
at
I :30
p.m.
Bill 1-18 would allow a property owner to obtain review by the Director of Fi11_ance of certain
decisions by the Director of Environmental Protection involving the Water Quality Protecti on
Charge (WQPC ). The Bill would also allow a final WQPC decision by the Director of Finance to
be appealed to the Marylan d Tax Court.
This packet contains:
Bill 1-18
Legislative Request Report
Memo from County Executive
Fiscal and Econom ic Impact stateme nt
F:\LAW\BILLS\1801 Water Quality Protection Charge -Appeals\In tro Memo.Docx
Circle#
1
6
7
8
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
1-18
Concerning: Water Quality Protection
Charge - Appeals
Revised:
2/1/2018
Draft No.
1
Introduced:
February 6,
2018
Expires:
August 5,
2019
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date: ---'-'N= on'""e= ---------
Ch. _ _ , Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUN TY, MARYLAND
Lead Sponsor: Council President at the Request of the County Executive
AN ACT
to:
(1) allow a property owner to obtain review by the Director of Finance of certain decisions
by the Director of Environmental Protection involving the Water Quality Protection
Charge;
(2)
allow a final Water Quality Protection Charge decision by the Director of Finance to be
appealed to the Marylan d
Tax
Court; and
(3) generally amend County law regarding the Water Quality Protection Charge.
By amendin g
Montgo mery County Code
Chapter 19, Erosion, Sedimen t Control, and Stormw ater Manage ment
Article II
Sections 19-21 and 19-35
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
*
* *
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deleted.from existing law by original bill.
Added by amendment.
Deleted.from existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL NO.
1-18
1
Sec. 1. Sections 19-21 and 19-35 are amended as follows:
19-21. Definitions.
2
3
4
5
In this Article, the following words and phrases have the following meanings
unless the context indicates otherwise:
*
Director
Qf
Finance:
*
*
6
7
The Director of the Department of Finance or the
Director's designee.
*
8
9
10
*
*
19-35. Water Quality Protection Charge.
*
(
e)
*
*
11
12
( 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:
(A)
the property contains a 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;
(B)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
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 owner;
20
21
22
23
24
25
(C)
the property contains a stormwater management system
built as part of a County-approved stormwater management
participation project; or
26
F:\LAW\BILLS\1801 Water Quality Protection Charge -Appeals\Bill
l.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 1-18
27
(D)
the property does not contain a stormwater management
system, but is located in the same drainage area as a property
containing a stormwater management system built as part of
a County-approved stormwater management participation
project and both properties have the same owner.
28
29
30
31
32
(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.
33
34
35
36
37
38
(3)
The Director of Environmental Protection may revoke a credit
granted under paragraph (2) if the property owner does not
continue to take the measures needed to assure that the stormwater
management system remains in proper working condition by
correcting any deficiencies discovered by the Director during a
maintenance inspection. The Director must not reinstate a revoked
credit until the property owner has sufficiently corrected the
deficiencies to fully satisfy the property owner's maintenance
obligations under Section 19-28.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
(4)
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] To
receive the exemption, the owner or organization [may] must apply
for the exemption to the Director of Finance not later than
September 30 of the year that payment of the Charge is due. After
47
48
49
50
51
52
0
l.Docx
F:\LAW\BILLS\1801 Water
Quality
Protection Charge -Appeals\Bill -
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 1-18
53
54
55
56
57
reviewing the request for exemption, the Director of Finance must
issue
~
written decision. The owner or organization may appeal
the decision of the Director of Finance to the Maryland Tax Court.
The appeal must be filed within 30 days after the date of the
decision.
58
59
*
(h)
*
*
A person that believes that the Director of Environmental Protection has
mistakenly assigned a Charge to the person 's property or compu ted 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 payme nt of the Charge is due. [An aggrieved property owner may
appeal the Directo r's decision to the County Board of Appeals within 30
days after the Director issues the decision.]
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
(i)
A [person] property owner that believes that the Director of
Environmental Protection has incorrectly calcula ted~ credit, revoked the
property owner' s credit or denied the [person's] property owner' s
application for a credit [or exemption] under subsection (e) [may appeal
the Director's]
.Q1
.G1
or
ffi
or denied the property owner' s request for
an adjustment under subsection
.{h1.
may seek review of the Director's
decision
12y
submitting
~
71
72
73
written request for review with supporting
74
75
reasons to the [County Board] Director of [Appeals] Finance within 30
days after the [Director issues the] date of that decision. After reviewing
the decision of the Director of Environmental Protection, the Director of
Finance must notify the property owner in writing of the decision to
affirm or reverse the decision of the Director of Environmental
76
77
78
0
l.Docx
F:\LAW\BILLS\1801 Water Quality Protection Charge - Appeals\Bill
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 1-18
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Protection. The property owner may appeal the decision of the Director
of Finance to the Maryland Tax Court. The appeal must be filed within
30 days after the date of the decision of the Director of Finance.
[G)
The Board of Appeals may hear and decide all appeals taken from a
decision of the Director of Environmental Protection under this Section
as provided in Article I of Chapter 2A.]
Sec. 2. Transition:
If an appeal of a final decision by the Director of Environmental Protection is
pending before the Board of Appeals at the time this Act takes effect, the Board of
Appeals must forward a recommended decision to the Director of Finance. The
Director of Finance must issue a final written decision that adopts, modifies, or
reverses the recommended decision. The property owner may appeal the decision of
the Director of Finance to the Maryland Tax Court within 30 days after the date of the
decision of the Director of Finance.
In COMCO R 19.35.01, any reference to the final decision of the Director of the
Department of Environmental Protection must be treated as a reference to the
Director 's recommended decision to the Director of the Department of Finance and
any reference to an appeal to the Board of Appeals must be treated as a reference to an
appeal to the Maryland Tax Court.
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
F:\LAW\BILLS\l 80 I Water Quality Protection Charge - Appeals\Bill
!.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill 1-18
Water Quality Protection Charge -Appeals
DESCRIPTION:
Bill 1-18 would allow a property owner that wishes to challenge a
decision by the Director of Environmental Protection involving Water
Quality Protection Charge (WQPC) credits or billing adjustments to
obtain review by the Director of Finance and make any final WQPC
decisions by the Director of Finance appealable to the Maryland Tax
Court.
Given that the WQPC is expressly designated as an excise tax, the
current procedure under which appeals from final decisions
concerning WQPC credits and billing adjustments are adjudicated by
the Board of Appeals is inconsistent with State law assigning
jurisdiction to hear tax appeals to the Maryland Tax Court.
To transfer jurisdiction to hear WQPC appeals from the County Board
of Appeals to the Maryland Tax Court and require that, like any other
appealable tax decision, final appealable WQPC decisions be issued
by the Director of Finance rather than the Director of Environmental
Protection.
Department of Environmental Protection; Department of Finance
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be researched.
Vicky Wan, Water Quality Protection Charge & Technology Section,
Department of Environmental Protection, 240-777-7722; Michael
Coveyou, Treasury Division, Department of Finance, 240-777-8878
Does not apply in Rockville, Takoma Park, or Gaithersburg
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMP ACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
NIA
F:\LAW\BILLS\1801 Water Quality Protection Charge - Appeals\LRR.Docx
f:\law\bills\1801 water quality protection charge -
appeals\lrr.docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
/YJ/17
/l,1;L
i~ECEIVED
MC::Tco·::RY COUNTY
:- : •· : .~!I
Isiah Leggett
County Executive
January 18, 2018
/rn:'.l
J/1
/<l
TO:
Hans Riemer, Presiden t
County Council
Isiah Leggett, County Executiv e
~ · · ·
FROM:
RE:
Proposed Bill: Water Quality Protectio n Charge, Appeal To Tax Court
I am writing to request Council approval of the attached bill to amend County law
to require that a property owner who wants to appeal the impositi on of the Water Quality
Protectio n Charge (WQPC) take that appeal to the Tax Court, rather than the Board of Appeals
as currently provided. This is consisten t with Expedite d Bill 45-15, which designat ed the Water
Quality Protectio n Charge as an excise tax imposed under the County's general taxing authority.
Md. Code Ann., Tax-Gen . (TG) § 3-103 assigns jurisdict ion to hear appeals from
final tax-relat ed decisions to the Marylan d Tax Court. The County's designat ion of the Board of
Appeals as the body having jurisdict ion to adjudicate appeals from final WQPC decision s is
inconsis tent with TG
§
1-103. Therefore, the proposed legislation transfers jurisdict ion to hear
WQPC appeals from the Board of Appeals to the Tax Court. Also, TG
§
13-l0l(d )(l) designates
the Director of Finance as the County' s "tax collector ." Under State law, the tax collector is
empowe red to issue final tax decision s that may be appealed to the Tax Court. Therefore, the
proposed bill requires the Director of Finance to issue final, appealable WQPC decisions, rather
than the DEP Director.
Under this new procedur e any denial by the DEP Director of a property owner's
credit application or request for a revised tax bill may be challeng ed by requestin g a review of
the denial by the Director of Finance. After completi ng the review, the Director of Finance
would then issue a final decision which could then be appealed to the Tax Court.
IL:el
c:
Marc Hansen, County Attorney
Alexandre Espinosa, Director, Departm ent of Finance
Patricia Bubar, Acting Director, Departm ent of Environm ental Protectio n
Bonnie Kirkland , Assistan t Chief Adminis trative Officer
montgomerycountymd.gov/311
.. .
·=u·,i~;;;p
·..:.:--~~·f'"•I,.
Maryland Relay 711
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Fiscal Impact Statement
Bill :X:X-18 Stormwater Management
-
Water Quality Protection Charge
-
Appeals
1. Legislativ e Summary.
Bill XX-18 would allow a property owner that ·wishes to challenge a decision by the Director
of Environmental Protection involving Water Quality Protection Charge (WQPC) credits or
billing adjustments to obtain review by the Director of Finance and make any final WQPC
decisions by the Director of Finance appealable to the Maryland Tax Court.
2. An estimate
of
changes
in
County revenues and expenditures regardless of whether
the revenues or expenditures are assumed
in
the recommen ded or approved budget.
Includes source of information, assumptions, and methodologies used.
This bill transfers jurisdictio n to hear WQPC appeals from the County Board of Appeals to
the Maryland Tax Court and require that, like any other appealable tax decision, final
appealable WQPC decisions be issued by the Director of Finance rather than the Director of
Environmental Protection.
It
does not affect the WQPC revenues or expenditures.
3. Revenue and expenditure estimates covering at least the next 6 fiscal years.
Not applicable.
4. An actuarial analysis through the entire amortization period for each bill that would
affect retiree pension or group insurance costs.
Not applicable.
5.
An estimate of expenditu res related to County's informati on technology (IT)
systems including Enterpris e Resource Planning (ERP) systems.
Not applicable
6. Later actions that may affect future revenue and expenditu res
if
the bill authorizes
future spending.
Not applicable
7.
An estimate of the staff time needed to implement the bill.
Minimal to no staff time is needed to implement this bill. Since 2013, DEP has received three
requests for reconsideration. This bill transfers reconsideration requests from DEP to
Finance. However, DEP would still administer and conduct the technical review of the
request for reconsideration and work in conjunction with Finance to issue the signed
decision.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
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.
Not applicable
10. A description of any variable that could affect revenue and cost estimates.
Not applicable
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.
This bill transfers jurisdiction to hear WQPC appeals from the County Board of Appeals to
the Maryland Tax Court and require that, like any other appealable tax decision, final
appealable WQPC decisions be issued by the Director of Finance rather than the Director of
Environmental Protection. It does not affect the WQPC revenues or expenditures. DEP
would still administer and conduct the technical review of the request for reconsideration and
work together with Finance to issue the signed decision.
13. Other fiscal impacts or comments.
Not applicable
14. The following contributed to and concurred with this analysis (enter name and
dept.)
Vicky Wan, Water Quality Protection Charge
&
Technology Section, Department of
Environmental Protection, 240-777-7722;
Patrice Bubar, Acting Director, Department of Environmental Protection, 240-777-7786
Michael Coveyou, Treasury Division, Department of Finance, 240-777-8878
Alex Espinosa, Director, Department of Finance, 240-777-8870
Trevor Lobaugh, Fiscal and Policy Analyst, Office of Management and Budget, 240-777-
2763
, Director
f Management and Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic
lmpacr
Statement
Bill XX-18 Stormwater J\fanagemcn t- Wa.ter Quality Protection Charge
-
Appeals
Background:
Bill XX-18 would allow a property owner thJt wishes
to
challenge a decision
by
the Director
of Environmental Protection involving Water Quality Protection Charge (\VQPC) credits or
hilling adjustments to obtain review by the Director of Finance and make an:v final WQPC
decisions by the Director of Finance appealable
tli
the
\fary
land Tax
Coun.
1. The sources of information, assumptions, and methodologie s used.
Department of Environmental Protection (DFP) Watrr {)uality Protection Charge
appeal data
2. A description
of
any variable that could affect the economic impact estimates.
The bill will not have an economiL: impact and
then.:-
ar:: no variabks tbal c,Hild
a{Tect
that
conclusion.
3. The Bill's positive or negative effect,
if
any on employment, spending, savings;
investment, incomes, and propert}' values in
the
County.
The bill transfers
jurisdiction
to hear WQPC appeals from the
C1:iw1ty
Board of Appeals to
the \faryland Tax Court and require that. like any other appeulable tax decision. final
appealabk
WQPC decisions be issued by the Director of Finance rather than the Director of
Em·ironmental Protection.
The
fiscal impact
statement
for
the hill notes that since 2013.
DEP has received three requests for reconsideration. This bili
translers
reconsideration
requests from
DEP
to Financ1.:. I !owcver, DEP
,.vould
still adminisler and conduct the
technical review of the request for reconsideration and work in
conjunction
with Finance to
issue the signed decision. The change will not alier the \VQPC revenues or
expenditures
and
will not have an impact on emp!oymem. spending. savings. invcstmL:nt. incomes. and
prope11y values in tht' County.
4.
If
a
Bill
is likely to have no economic impact, wh:v is tlrnt the case'?
See
number
2.
5. The following contributed to or concurred with this analysis:
David Platt. Dennis Hetman, and Robe1i Hagedoorn. Finance.
Alexandre A. Espmosa. Director
Department of
Finance
Datt.>
Pag.: 1 of l
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
AGEND A ITEM 4A
February 6, 2018
Introduction
MEM ORAN DUM
February 2, 2018
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
County Council
Amanda Mihill, Legislative Attorne y
c}t\JtJ,JJi
Introduction:
Bill 1-18, Water Quality Protection Charge- Appeals
Bill 1-18, Water Quality Protection Charge - Appeals, sponsored by Lead Sponsor Council President
at the request of the County Executive, is schedule d to be introduced on February 6, 2018. A public
hearing is tentativ ely scheduled for March
6,
at
I :30
p.m.
Bill 1-18 would allow a property owner to obtain review by the Director of Fi11_ance of certain
decisions by the Director of Environmental Protection involving the Water Quality Protecti on
Charge (WQPC ). The Bill would also allow a final WQPC decision by the Director of Finance to
be appealed to the Marylan d Tax Court.
This packet contains:
Bill 1-18
Legislative Request Report
Memo from County Executive
Fiscal and Econom ic Impact stateme nt
F:\LAW\BILLS\1801 Water Quality Protection Charge -Appeals\In tro Memo.Docx
Circle#
1
6
7
8
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
1-18
Concerning: Water Quality Protection
Charge - Appeals
Revised:
2/1/2018
Draft No.
1
Introduced:
February 6,
2018
Expires:
August 5,
2019
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date: ---'-'N= on'""e= ---------
Ch. _ _ , Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUN TY, MARYLAND
Lead Sponsor: Council President at the Request of the County Executive
AN ACT
to:
(1) allow a property owner to obtain review by the Director of Finance of certain decisions
by the Director of Environmental Protection involving the Water Quality Protection
Charge;
(2)
allow a final Water Quality Protection Charge decision by the Director of Finance to be
appealed to the Marylan d
Tax
Court; and
(3) generally amend County law regarding the Water Quality Protection Charge.
By amendin g
Montgo mery County Code
Chapter 19, Erosion, Sedimen t Control, and Stormw ater Manage ment
Article II
Sections 19-21 and 19-35
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
*
* *
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deleted.from existing law by original bill.
Added by amendment.
Deleted.from existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL NO.
1-18
1
Sec. 1. Sections 19-21 and 19-35 are amended as follows:
19-21. Definitions.
2
3
4
5
In this Article, the following words and phrases have the following meanings
unless the context indicates otherwise:
*
Director
Qf
Finance:
*
*
6
7
The Director of the Department of Finance or the
Director's designee.
*
8
9
10
*
*
19-35. Water Quality Protection Charge.
*
(
e)
*
*
11
12
( 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:
(A)
the property contains a 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;
(B)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
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 owner;
20
21
22
23
24
25
(C)
the property contains a stormwater management system
built as part of a County-approved stormwater management
participation project; or
26
F:\LAW\BILLS\1801 Water Quality Protection Charge -Appeals\Bill
l.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 1-18
27
(D)
the property does not contain a stormwater management
system, but is located in the same drainage area as a property
containing a stormwater management system built as part of
a County-approved stormwater management participation
project and both properties have the same owner.
28
29
30
31
32
(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.
33
34
35
36
37
38
(3)
The Director of Environmental Protection may revoke a credit
granted under paragraph (2) if the property owner does not
continue to take the measures needed to assure that the stormwater
management system remains in proper working condition by
correcting any deficiencies discovered by the Director during a
maintenance inspection. The Director must not reinstate a revoked
credit until the property owner has sufficiently corrected the
deficiencies to fully satisfy the property owner's maintenance
obligations under Section 19-28.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
(4)
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] To
receive the exemption, the owner or organization [may] must apply
for the exemption to the Director of Finance not later than
September 30 of the year that payment of the Charge is due. After
47
48
49
50
51
52
0
l.Docx
F:\LAW\BILLS\1801 Water
Quality
Protection Charge -Appeals\Bill -
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 1-18
53
54
55
56
57
reviewing the request for exemption, the Director of Finance must
issue
~
written decision. The owner or organization may appeal
the decision of the Director of Finance to the Maryland Tax Court.
The appeal must be filed within 30 days after the date of the
decision.
58
59
*
(h)
*
*
A person that believes that the Director of Environmental Protection has
mistakenly assigned a Charge to the person 's property or compu ted 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 payme nt of the Charge is due. [An aggrieved property owner may
appeal the Directo r's decision to the County Board of Appeals within 30
days after the Director issues the decision.]
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
(i)
A [person] property owner that believes that the Director of
Environmental Protection has incorrectly calcula ted~ credit, revoked the
property owner' s credit or denied the [person's] property owner' s
application for a credit [or exemption] under subsection (e) [may appeal
the Director's]
.Q1
.G1
or
ffi
or denied the property owner' s request for
an adjustment under subsection
.{h1.
may seek review of the Director's
decision
12y
submitting
~
71
72
73
written request for review with supporting
74
75
reasons to the [County Board] Director of [Appeals] Finance within 30
days after the [Director issues the] date of that decision. After reviewing
the decision of the Director of Environmental Protection, the Director of
Finance must notify the property owner in writing of the decision to
affirm or reverse the decision of the Director of Environmental
76
77
78
0
l.Docx
F:\LAW\BILLS\1801 Water Quality Protection Charge - Appeals\Bill
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 1-18
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Protection. The property owner may appeal the decision of the Director
of Finance to the Maryland Tax Court. The appeal must be filed within
30 days after the date of the decision of the Director of Finance.
[G)
The Board of Appeals may hear and decide all appeals taken from a
decision of the Director of Environmental Protection under this Section
as provided in Article I of Chapter 2A.]
Sec. 2. Transition:
If an appeal of a final decision by the Director of Environmental Protection is
pending before the Board of Appeals at the time this Act takes effect, the Board of
Appeals must forward a recommended decision to the Director of Finance. The
Director of Finance must issue a final written decision that adopts, modifies, or
reverses the recommended decision. The property owner may appeal the decision of
the Director of Finance to the Maryland Tax Court within 30 days after the date of the
decision of the Director of Finance.
In COMCO R 19.35.01, any reference to the final decision of the Director of the
Department of Environmental Protection must be treated as a reference to the
Director 's recommended decision to the Director of the Department of Finance and
any reference to an appeal to the Board of Appeals must be treated as a reference to an
appeal to the Maryland Tax Court.
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
F:\LAW\BILLS\l 80 I Water Quality Protection Charge - Appeals\Bill
!.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill 1-18
Water Quality Protection Charge -Appeals
DESCRIPTION:
Bill 1-18 would allow a property owner that wishes to challenge a
decision by the Director of Environmental Protection involving Water
Quality Protection Charge (WQPC) credits or billing adjustments to
obtain review by the Director of Finance and make any final WQPC
decisions by the Director of Finance appealable to the Maryland Tax
Court.
Given that the WQPC is expressly designated as an excise tax, the
current procedure under which appeals from final decisions
concerning WQPC credits and billing adjustments are adjudicated by
the Board of Appeals is inconsistent with State law assigning
jurisdiction to hear tax appeals to the Maryland Tax Court.
To transfer jurisdiction to hear WQPC appeals from the County Board
of Appeals to the Maryland Tax Court and require that, like any other
appealable tax decision, final appealable WQPC decisions be issued
by the Director of Finance rather than the Director of Environmental
Protection.
Department of Environmental Protection; Department of Finance
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be researched.
Vicky Wan, Water Quality Protection Charge & Technology Section,
Department of Environmental Protection, 240-777-7722; Michael
Coveyou, Treasury Division, Department of Finance, 240-777-8878
Does not apply in Rockville, Takoma Park, or Gaithersburg
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMP ACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
NIA
F:\LAW\BILLS\1801 Water Quality Protection Charge - Appeals\LRR.Docx
f:\law\bills\1801 water quality protection charge -
appeals\lrr.docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20850
/YJ/17
/l,1;L
i~ECEIVED
MC::Tco·::RY COUNTY
:- : •· : .~!I
Isiah Leggett
County Executive
January 18, 2018
/rn:'.l
J/1
/<l
TO:
Hans Riemer, Presiden t
County Council
Isiah Leggett, County Executiv e
~ · · ·
FROM:
RE:
Proposed Bill: Water Quality Protectio n Charge, Appeal To Tax Court
I am writing to request Council approval of the attached bill to amend County law
to require that a property owner who wants to appeal the impositi on of the Water Quality
Protectio n Charge (WQPC) take that appeal to the Tax Court, rather than the Board of Appeals
as currently provided. This is consisten t with Expedite d Bill 45-15, which designat ed the Water
Quality Protectio n Charge as an excise tax imposed under the County's general taxing authority.
Md. Code Ann., Tax-Gen . (TG) § 3-103 assigns jurisdict ion to hear appeals from
final tax-relat ed decisions to the Marylan d Tax Court. The County's designat ion of the Board of
Appeals as the body having jurisdict ion to adjudicate appeals from final WQPC decision s is
inconsis tent with TG
§
1-103. Therefore, the proposed legislation transfers jurisdict ion to hear
WQPC appeals from the Board of Appeals to the Tax Court. Also, TG
§
13-l0l(d )(l) designates
the Director of Finance as the County' s "tax collector ." Under State law, the tax collector is
empowe red to issue final tax decision s that may be appealed to the Tax Court. Therefore, the
proposed bill requires the Director of Finance to issue final, appealable WQPC decisions, rather
than the DEP Director.
Under this new procedur e any denial by the DEP Director of a property owner's
credit application or request for a revised tax bill may be challeng ed by requestin g a review of
the denial by the Director of Finance. After completi ng the review, the Director of Finance
would then issue a final decision which could then be appealed to the Tax Court.
IL:el
c:
Marc Hansen, County Attorney
Alexandre Espinosa, Director, Departm ent of Finance
Patricia Bubar, Acting Director, Departm ent of Environm ental Protectio n
Bonnie Kirkland , Assistan t Chief Adminis trative Officer
montgomerycountymd.gov/311
.. .
·=u·,i~;;;p
·..:.:--~~·f'"•I,.
Maryland Relay 711
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Fiscal Impact Statement
Bill :X:X-18 Stormwater Management
-
Water Quality Protection Charge
-
Appeals
1. Legislativ e Summary.
Bill XX-18 would allow a property owner that ·wishes to challenge a decision by the Director
of Environmental Protection involving Water Quality Protection Charge (WQPC) credits or
billing adjustments to obtain review by the Director of Finance and make any final WQPC
decisions by the Director of Finance appealable to the Maryland Tax Court.
2. An estimate
of
changes
in
County revenues and expenditures regardless of whether
the revenues or expenditures are assumed
in
the recommen ded or approved budget.
Includes source of information, assumptions, and methodologies used.
This bill transfers jurisdictio n to hear WQPC appeals from the County Board of Appeals to
the Maryland Tax Court and require that, like any other appealable tax decision, final
appealable WQPC decisions be issued by the Director of Finance rather than the Director of
Environmental Protection.
It
does not affect the WQPC revenues or expenditures.
3. Revenue and expenditure estimates covering at least the next 6 fiscal years.
Not applicable.
4. An actuarial analysis through the entire amortization period for each bill that would
affect retiree pension or group insurance costs.
Not applicable.
5.
An estimate of expenditu res related to County's informati on technology (IT)
systems including Enterpris e Resource Planning (ERP) systems.
Not applicable
6. Later actions that may affect future revenue and expenditu res
if
the bill authorizes
future spending.
Not applicable
7.
An estimate of the staff time needed to implement the bill.
Minimal to no staff time is needed to implement this bill. Since 2013, DEP has received three
requests for reconsideration. This bill transfers reconsideration requests from DEP to
Finance. However, DEP would still administer and conduct the technical review of the
request for reconsideration and work in conjunction with Finance to issue the signed
decision.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
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.
Not applicable
10. A description of any variable that could affect revenue and cost estimates.
Not applicable
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.
This bill transfers jurisdiction to hear WQPC appeals from the County Board of Appeals to
the Maryland Tax Court and require that, like any other appealable tax decision, final
appealable WQPC decisions be issued by the Director of Finance rather than the Director of
Environmental Protection. It does not affect the WQPC revenues or expenditures. DEP
would still administer and conduct the technical review of the request for reconsideration and
work together with Finance to issue the signed decision.
13. Other fiscal impacts or comments.
Not applicable
14. The following contributed to and concurred with this analysis (enter name and
dept.)
Vicky Wan, Water Quality Protection Charge
&
Technology Section, Department of
Environmental Protection, 240-777-7722;
Patrice Bubar, Acting Director, Department of Environmental Protection, 240-777-7786
Michael Coveyou, Treasury Division, Department of Finance, 240-777-8878
Alex Espinosa, Director, Department of Finance, 240-777-8870
Trevor Lobaugh, Fiscal and Policy Analyst, Office of Management and Budget, 240-777-
2763
, Director
f Management and Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic
lmpacr
Statement
Bill XX-18 Stormwater J\fanagemcn t- Wa.ter Quality Protection Charge
-
Appeals
Background:
Bill XX-18 would allow a property owner thJt wishes
to
challenge a decision
by
the Director
of Environmental Protection involving Water Quality Protection Charge (\VQPC) credits or
hilling adjustments to obtain review by the Director of Finance and make an:v final WQPC
decisions by the Director of Finance appealable
tli
the
\fary
land Tax
Coun.
1. The sources of information, assumptions, and methodologie s used.
Department of Environmental Protection (DFP) Watrr {)uality Protection Charge
appeal data
2. A description
of
any variable that could affect the economic impact estimates.
The bill will not have an economiL: impact and
then.:-
ar:: no variabks tbal c,Hild
a{Tect
that
conclusion.
3. The Bill's positive or negative effect,
if
any on employment, spending, savings;
investment, incomes, and propert}' values in
the
County.
The bill transfers
jurisdiction
to hear WQPC appeals from the
C1:iw1ty
Board of Appeals to
the \faryland Tax Court and require that. like any other appeulable tax decision. final
appealabk
WQPC decisions be issued by the Director of Finance rather than the Director of
Em·ironmental Protection.
The
fiscal impact
statement
for
the hill notes that since 2013.
DEP has received three requests for reconsideration. This bili
translers
reconsideration
requests from
DEP
to Financ1.:. I !owcver, DEP
,.vould
still adminisler and conduct the
technical review of the request for reconsideration and work in
conjunction
with Finance to
issue the signed decision. The change will not alier the \VQPC revenues or
expenditures
and
will not have an impact on emp!oymem. spending. savings. invcstmL:nt. incomes. and
prope11y values in tht' County.
4.
If
a
Bill
is likely to have no economic impact, wh:v is tlrnt the case'?
See
number
2.
5. The following contributed to or concurred with this analysis:
David Platt. Dennis Hetman, and Robe1i Hagedoorn. Finance.
Alexandre A. Espmosa. Director
Department of
Finance
Datt.>
Pag.: 1 of l