The Baltimore County Council devoted part of its Feb. 24 work session to a proposal, submitted by Council Chair Cathy Bevins (D-6) at the recommendation of County Executive Kevin Kamenetz, to amend the 2013 stormwater remediation fee schedule. The proposal calls for a reduction of about one-third in all fees imposed, but Councilman Todd Crandell (R-7) does not think this goes far enough.
“The one-third cut proposed is two-thirds short,” he declared.
His push for a full repeal of the fee, commonly referred to as the “rain tax,” included a statement and an amendment proposed at the work session. (Because the work session took place after this issue went to press, the East County Times’s complete coverage will appear in next week’s paper.)
“The fee as it is currently constructed unfairly targets employers in our district,” Crandell told the East County Times on Monday. “It reduces their ability to hire more people and to grow. We have the largest industrial redevelopment project in the nation going on in our district, and we don’t need anything to hinder that.”
The County Council passed the “rain tax” in 2013 after the Maryland General Assembly directed the ten largest jurisdictions in the state to impose a fee to pay for stormwater remediation projects designed to reduce pollution entering area waterways; specifically, the goal is to meet total maximum daily load (TMDLs) caps for designated pollutants.
As reported in the East County Times on Jan. 22, the proposal before the Council would reduce all of the “rain tax” fees by approximately a third, from $39 to $26 for single-family homes and for businesses, from $69 to $46 per 2,000 square feet of impervious surface. The adjustments came after a review of the stormwater projects the county needs to complete showed that a monetary savings of about $8 million dollars could be achieved by using various measures such as spreading out expensive projects and buying more durable equipment. The administration said it would pass the savings onto the taxpayers through reducing the amount each property owner paid. There is also a provision to assess mobile homes at the same rate as single-family homes, a measure Bevins strongly supports after concerns were raised among her constituents.
“Some of them were paying three times what a single family home[owner] would pay,” she said. Bevins also views the proposal as a way to make sure the county’s citizens save money even if Gov. Larry Hogan’s efforts to repeal the statewide law does not succeed.
“One-third doesn’t make everybody happy, but it is something,” she said. “Little by little we keep making these amendments.”
However, she questioned the feasibility of eliminating the fee entirely, given that the counties are required by federal law to fund these remediation projects.
“What people need to be reminded of is that as unpopular as the fee is with some people, it is a federal mandate,” she stated.
She did point out that counties on the lower Eastern Shore directly touch the Bay and contribute to its pollution load, but were not among the ten jurisdictions affected by the General Assembly law.
“I do wish there would’ve been more direction from the state as to how the counties do it,” she admitted. Crandell argues that the county has a budgetary surplus from its general fund, and that that money could be used to pay for the projects the fee is currently funding.
“The administration has been very fiscally responsible and should be commended for that,” he said. “So now we do have the ability to fund stormwater remediation projects through the general fund instead of as an additional fee.”
Crandell hopes to get some support from other Council members as the amendment process moves forward. Although he preferred to let other Council members speak for themselves, he did note that some of them had previously voted against the fee either in the Council or the General Assembly.
The Council will vote on the proposal and any amendments at its March 2 meeting.
