On Jan. 16, County Executive Kevin Kamenetz and members of the County Council announced the development of a proposal to lower state-mandated stormwater remediation fees, commonly referred to as the “Rain Tax.”
“I’m just glad it’s finally happening,” said Council Chair Cathy Bevins (D-6). “We’ve been working hard to get some sort of reduction.”
She will introduce this legislation at the County Council’s Legislative Session on Feb. 2. After that, it will be debated at a work session on Feb. 24 and voted on at the March 2 legislative session.
The proposal reduces fees across the board by about a third. The fee for single-family homeowners would be $26 annually, down from $39 dollars, while those living in attached homes will see a drop from $21 to $14. Likewise, condominium fees would be lowered to $22 from the current $32. For businesses, the new rate would be $46 per 2,000 square feet of impervious surface as opposed to the current $69. For non-profits, the fee would be dropped from $20 to $14 per 2,000 square feet.
Another significant change is in the way the fee treats mobile home residents. Under the new proposal, they would be taxed at the same flat rate of $26 as residents of individual homes. Bevins said that this change was of particular importance to her.
“When we looked at different rates [initially], mobile home parks just weren’t thought of. The owners were taxed at the commercial rate and passed those costs onto residents, “ she explained. Residents of communities like Biscayne Bay were paying as much as $89 each, she revealed. “It’s so unfair because the land they sit on, they have no control over that.”
The proposal also calls for the elimination of fees pertaining to commercial swimming pools, which was something Councilman David Marks (R-5) spearheaded as a response to constituent complaints from the owners of local pools. Since the water from pools drains into a treated system, Marks said it seemed “strange” to tax pools.
“I voted against the 2013 stormwater fee legislation because I thought the county could absorb the cost without passing another tax,” he added. “I would prefer for there to be no tax at all, but I welcome any opportunity to provide cuts that provide relief for homeowners and businesses.”
The fee reduction proposal is the result of months of analysis by the County and the implementation of several cost-saving measures. The initial fee rate was set in order to bring in $34.4 million - the County-identified price tag for the various projects it needed to implement during Fiscal Year 2014 to comply with pollution reduction mandates. The fee has generated $24.4 million, which was supplemented with $10 million from the Metropolitan District fund to meet the goal.
However, based on this first year of implementation, the County was able to identify $8.1 million in savings through measures such as purchasing more durable, productive equipment; trying smaller fixes before more expensive ones and deferring big-budget projects for later years; and updating standards. These savings reduced the projected price tag and, therefore, the amount of money needed for Fiscal Year 2015, which begins July 1, and the savings are being passed onto the taxpayers.
Still, Kamenetz acknowledged that this proposal is not a perfect solution. In particular, he pointed to a 2025 compliance date as a major obstacle to further cost reductions. As a result of a mandate from the federal Environmental Protection Agency for Maryland to fully enforce the 1972 Clean Water Act, the state government agreed to comply with specific pollution reduction goals by 2025. It then passed the responsibility for funding the projects needed to meet that goal onto the ten largest jurisdictions in the state, of which Baltimore County is one. Kamenetz has spoken with incoming Governor Larry Hogan about this deadline and the way it forces the local jurisdictions to cram many, often expensive projects into a short time frame.
“I urge the incoming governor to negotiate an extension of the 2025 compliance date with the federal government in order to give local government some breathing room to achieve the required reduction in pollution levels. That would be an important step forward,” Kamenetz said in a statement. “Simply eliminating the mandate that we impose a fee does not solve the problem of the local counties who have been saddled with the clean-up responsibility as a result of the state’s entry of the federal consent decree.”
Kamenetz was alluding to the efforts of many in the state to repeal the “rain tax” bill altogether, arguing that a repeal of the state’s mandate does nothing about the federal one.
Del. Pat McDonough (R-7) has been spearheading a “Stop the Rain Tax” campaign from the beginning, and he believes his efforts have contributed to this reduction proposal. But he wants to see even more done.
“We eliminated the fee entirely in Harford County, which I also represent,” he noted. “So we are still going to work this summer to reduce the entire amount and have the [county] executive roll it into the budget. He’s already demonstrated with this latest reduction that we have the legal right to do that.”
McDonough also said that he introduced repeal bills at the state level last session, which did not pass, and will do so again this session. He also pointed out that Gov. Hogan plans to repeal the law.
Councilman Todd Crandell (R-7) also believes the proposal does not go far enough, claiming that the proposed reduction is too small to significantly benefit the families and businesses in his district. He also noted that the across-the-board reduction means that businesses are still burdened more heavily as the overall economy makes operations difficult enough.
“At a time when the largest industrial economic recovery and redevelopment project in the nation is taking place in our district [at the Sparrow’s Point property], we should ensure that it remains unhindered by onerous taxes,” he said in a statement. It also said that he, like McDonough, is exploring other, “more aggressive” ways to approach the fee.
Still, Bevins and Kamenetz are optimistic that the bill will receive much support and co-sponsorship when it is formally introduced next month.
“I’m really happy about it and I think the residents of Baltimore County are going to be thrilled,” Bevins declared.
