At its March 2 meeting in Towson, the Baltimore County Council voted to reduce the amount charged for the stormwater remediation fee, commonly referred to as the “rain tax.”
The Council unanimously passed bill 9-15, which will lower the fee collected in each category by about a third, from $39 to $26 for single-family homes and mobile homes, from $21 to $14 for attached homes and from $32 to $22 for condominiums. For businesses and nonprofits, the rates will fall from $69 to $46 and $20 to $14, respectively, for each 2,000 square feet of impervious surface on the property.
Although the Council’s vote was unanimous, the meeting was not without discord. Councilman Todd Crandell (R-7) introduced two amendments to the bill, one of which would have reduced the fee down to one cent
“This amendment effectively zeroes out the stormwater remediation fee,” Crandell described. “This fee, in my opinion, unfairly targets Baltimore County employers. We pay a lot of lip service to business-friendliness, and this is an opportunity to put our votes where our mouths are.”
Speaking in support of the measure, Councilman Wade Kach noted that the county is running a surplus in its rainy day and emergency funds which could be used to pay for the stormwater remediation projects currently funded by this fee.
Councilman Tom Quirk argued that these funds are already earmarked to fund school construction and upgrades in future fiscal years, and that those projects are at risk if the fee is lowered any more than the one-third proposed.
Councilman David Marks (R-5) acknowledged that he voted against the initial bill imposing a fee, but said he had concerns about the amendment. “One of them has to do with the mechanics of lawmaking,” he explained. “If we pass this and the County Executive vetoes it, and there aren’t the five votes to override, we’re stuck with the current rates.”
Council Chair Cathy Bevins (D-6) agreed, stating that she had confirmed with the administration that the amended bill would be vetoed. “I am not going to risk the reduction,” she declared. “I think the constituents want real relief. All or nothing is not good governing and real relief is better than a failed repeal.”
Crandell responded, “I disagree with the contention that we will somehow miss out on the one-third reduction, because there is still time to introduce a new bill. We could put in another bill on our own.” 9-15 was submitted by Bevins at the request of County Executive Kevin Kamenetz.
In the end, the Council agreed with Bevins’s view and the amendment failed 2 - 5. Crandell and Kach were the two “aye” votes.
A second amendment introduced by Crandell stated that should the General Assembly change the state law mandating that the county initiate a fee, the County Council would review this issue again. That amendment passed unanimously.
Before voting to approve the reduction, the Council heard from Vince Gardina, director of the Department of Environmental Protection and Sustainability, who testified before the Council that the one-third reduction would still provide enough money to fund the county’s stormwater remediation projects. Gardina had previously spoken with the Council during the Feb. 24 work session when Bill 9-15 was first discussed. There, he explained that, as the stormwater remediation program underwent a review, the expert panel was able to pinpoint approximately $8 million in savings from the initial $34.4 million cost estimate. This gave the county the opportunity to propose the reductions.
“We absolutely can meet TMDL goals [even with these reductions],” Gardina assured. “This would not mean cuts in implementation of the projects to reduce the pollutant load.”
However, he did note that under the new rate, the projected revenue would be $16.4 million, which is close to the $16.3 million projected cost of the projects the county will undertake. “So any lower and we have to take from the general fund or somewhere else,” Gardina asserted.
“This is not a political issue,” Gardina declared at Monday’s meeting. “You have to realize that no matter who’s in charge at the state level or who’s in charge at the federal level, this is an order by the federal courts on a law that’s been on the books since the 1970s. We don’t have an option.”
The stormwater remediation fee was imposed after a federal court case brought against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation over its lack of enforcement of the Clean Water Ac of 1972. The case was settled when the EPA agreed to enforce the total maximum daily load (TMDL) restrictions on pollutants heading into the Bay. The projects funded by the fee are designed to reduce the amount of the pollutants nitrogren, phosphorous and suspended sediment through restricting the runoff of polluted water.
Gardina had told the Council that the other counties that do not have a fee or who have a very minimal one are out of compliance with the EPA regulations and could face fines of up to $10,000 a day and a denial of the MS4 permits used for new construction.
“I spoke with the EPA director for Region 3, and he said that they are giving some flexibility up front to allow the programs to get ramped up, but I think they are limited in that flexibility,” Gardina said. The county attorney confirmed on Monday that defiance could lead to litigation.
In the end, it was this view, as well as the unanimous desire of the Council to maintain a healthy Chesapeake Bay, that won the day and led to the defeat of Crandell’s repeal amendment.
“The other counties seem to be thumbing thier noses at the state,” Councilman Quirk said. “But I think Baltimore County should be commended for following the rules. And I am willing to pay my fair share for a clean Chesapeake Bay.”
No comments:
Post a Comment