 |
Subject
District 17 Presentation to Mayor and Council and Approval of 2011 Legislative Action Requests
Recommendation
Receive presentation from District 17 and approve 2011 legislative action requests.
Discussion
District 17 Report on the 2010 legislative session
Senator Jennie Forehand, Delegate Kumar Barve, Delegate James Gilchrist, and Delegate Luiz Simmons will make a presentation to the Mayor and Council about the 2010 General Assembly session. The Delegation will discuss legislation that was passed during the session that may impact the City of Rockville. They will also discuss the outcomes of their efforts in Annapolis to advocate for Rockville’s priorities. Rockville’s 2010 Legislative Priorities were:
- Negligent Homicide Legislation (failed)
- Statewide Stormwater Management Utility (failed)
- Rockville Senior Fitness Expansion - City received $100,00 from the House and $20,000 from the Senate for a total of $120,000.
- Preserve Municipal Revenues – The legislature adopted an FY11 budget that extends into FY11 and FY12 the 90% plus reductions to municipal Highway User Revenue (HUR) and the 35% reductions in Police Aid made by the Board of Public Works in August 2009.
- Program Open Space – The City received $757,112 for completed projects with encumbered funds, including the Thomas Farm Community Center ($270,000) and Mattie Stepanek Park ($487,112).
Legislative Action Request Process for MML
The Maryland Municipal League (MML) advocates on behalf of municipalities in the state. Legislative action requests (LAR) from municipalities are due to MML by July 2, 2010. Requests are evaluated by MML staff and then presented to the MML Legislative Committee in August or September. The Legislative Committee selects the legislative priorities, which are then brought to the MML membership at the fall conference in October for adoption. It is beneficial for the City to have MML adopt our legislative priorities as it strengthens our lobbying efforts in Annapolis and increases our ability to get legislation passed.
Rockville's Proposed 2011 Legislative Action Requests
1. Negligent Homicide bill
Staff recommends a legislative action request that makes negligent homicide a charge under state law for drivers causing death. Maryland state law currently has only two levels of charges for driving which causes injury or death: 1) traffic citation(s) and 2) gross negligence (a felony). Many other states have at least one other option, called negligent homicide, which requires proof that a driver acting with negligence caused the death of an individual(s). If enacted, the negligent homicide bill would make it a misdemeanor for a person to cause the death of another by operating a vehicle in a criminally negligent manner, with a penalty of up to 3 years in prison and $5,000 in fines. This offers a good middle ground between merely a traffic citation with a small fine and a felony conviction, which carries with it up to 10 years of imprisonment for vehicular manslaughter.
The felony charge in Maryland requires an extremely high burden of proof and the penalties imposed under current law for vehicular homicides in these cases have been sufficiently strong so that few are convicted of the crime. Additional felony charges and penalties are available where alcohol or drug use is associated with a vehicular homicide. However, in many cases, excessive speed causes the fatalities and the gross negligence standard cannot be proven. As a result of this high standard, many cases are not successfully convicted of gross negligence and the only consequences are traffic citations. Additionally, justice for the family of victims falls short of expectations when offenders are only convicted of minor traffic offenses and receive no incarceration.
In recent history, there have been several instances of negligent driving that have resulted in the deaths of pedestrians and residents in vehicles on Rockville city streets. In the case of an elderly pedestrian killed in 2001 and a teenager killed in 2004, there was no other penalty for these actions other than traffic citations.
The City has worked with the District 17 delegation on this legislation before, most recently in the 2006, 2009, and 2010 legislative sessions. Delegate Luiz Simmons sponsored negligent homicide legislation in the 2009 session. In the 2010 session Delegate Simmons was the House bill sponsor and Senator Haines was the Senate sponsor. MML has also been supportive of this legislation in the past, testifying with Rockville on this item.
2. Statewide Stormwater Management Utility Legislation
This legislative action request is a continuation of the City’s effort in the 2010 legislative session to have amendments made to The Watershed Protection and Restoration Act (SB 686/HB999). The request would include the following three components:
A. Add language that would clarify that municipalities, counties and non-profit organizations, as well as residents and commercial entities, that discharge into a municipal or county storm system are subject to the stormwater user charge.
FY 10 was the first year that the City’s stormwater fee was implemented. In a written statement to the City in the winter of 2010, Montgomery County indicated they would not pay the $45,000 fee charged for County owned property in Rockville because state law does not clearly articulate that counties are subject to the fee. There were no other large entities in the City that disputed the City’s stormwater fee. This LAR would clarify the language to require counties and non-profits to pay the charge.
Rockville continues to interpret the current law to require county payment of the charge. Until the language in the state law is clarified, the City will continue to charge Montgomery County for the SWM user charge. This LAR will provide needed clarification and will result in the County taking financial responsibility for the stormwater discharged from county owned properties into the City’s SWM system.
B. Provide Flexibility for local governments to establish equitable rates based on local program needs.
Rockville’s SWM utility rate is tied to a standard unit of impervious surface, which is the Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU). One ERU represents approximately 2,100 square feet of impervious surface. Each residential property represents 1 ERU. In FY10, the charge for 1 ERU or the charge per residential property was $40. In FY11, the charge for 1 ERU is $49.20.
Commercial properties pay the fee based on the number of ERUs or the square footage of impervious surface on their property. For example, a property with 4,200 feet of impervious surface represents 2 ERUs (4,200/2,100 = 2). The FY11 fee totals 2 ERUs x $49.20 = $98.40.
Legislation introduced in 2009 and 2010 would have mandated that residential property owners pay the same fee and commercial property owners pay a rate that is higher than the residential fee. Any future bill should not include this mandated rate structure. Local governments are designing and administering their programs to best meet the community’s needs. The City believes that the current rate structure based on the ERU works well and the State should not mandate the details of the programs, including the fee structure.
C. Clarify that all stormwater management activities can be funded by a variety of stormwater related revenues.
Rockville’s stormwater fee is based on Environmental Article, Section 4-204 which authorizes a local government to, in its discretion, adopt a system of local charges to pay for specifically-designated stormwater activities. The Watershed Protection and Restoration Act (SB 686/HB999) that failed in the 2010 session would have created a new section 4-202 that requires Cities and Counties to impose a stormwater remediation fee and Local Watershed Protection and Restoration fund, including specific expenses that may be paid for by the Fund.
The City is concerned that SB686/HB999 would have the effect of creating a new provision for local stormwater funding that competes and possibly conflicts with Section 4-204. First, it is unclear whether SB686/HB999 intends to repeal existing Section 4-204 or not. Second, the conflicting provisions establish authority to fund similar, but inconsistent lists of stormwater activities. The City wants to ensure that there is one pot of funding that can be used to pay for a variety of stormwater related activities (a single list), and will work to have this competing provision eliminated from legislation that is proposed in the 2011 General Assembly session.
One of the expenses listed in existing section 4-204 is outreach and education efforts. However, SB 686/HB999 only includes outreach and education insofar as it authorizes local governments to establish grant programs for third parties. City staff believes the stormwater fee should pay for outreach and educational efforts as well as program infrastructure and regulatory implementation.
Additional information about the City’s 2010 efforts in Annapolis on the Watershed Protection and Restoration Act is provided in Attachment A. The City of Rockville and our lobbyist worked diligently at the end of the 2010 session to protect Rockville’s interests by seeking amendments to the Watershed Protection and Restoration Act (SM 686/HB999). City staff educated key figures in Annapolis that Rockville is leading the way by implementing the first municipal comprehensive SWM fee in Maryland. Legislators recognized Rockville’s progress and stated that they would look to the City in the future to weigh in as these types of bills are debated. Our state lobbyist at Holland and Knight noted the environmental community was the force behind both bills. If this legislative action request is adopted, staff plans to reach out extensively to the environmental community and District 17 over the summer and fall to facilitate a discussion that would lead to their buy in of the City’s goals related to this effort.
Looming Federal TMDL Regulations
The Chief of the Environmental Management Division indicated the timing will be ripe for this bill in the 2011 session, because EPA is going to come down with stringent new regulations in June 2010 pertaining to TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads) in watersheds. Localities that don’t have a fee will have no other means to comply with the new regulations except to adopt a stormwater management utility fee. Staff would like to use this as an opportunity in the 2011 legislative session to garner support for a bill that would resolve the County issue and address Rockville’s other needs as stated above.
3. Restore Highway User Revenues (HUR) in FY12 or Provide Municipalities With Enabling Legislation for Alternative Revenue Sources Dedicated to Transportation-Related Purposes
Staff recommends a Mayor and Council legislative action request for MML to aggressively pursue the restoration of municipal HUR in FY12, or seek legislation that would give enabling authority for municipalities to raise revenues dedicated to transportation-related purposes to replenish virtually empty HUR accounts.
In April 2010, the State legislature adopted a budget that extends into FY11 and FY12 the 90% plus cuts made to municipal HUR and the 35% Police Aid reductions made by the Board of Public Works in FY10 (August 2010). The total municipal HUR allocation is $1.6 million in FY11, $1.7 million in FY12, and $5.6 million in FY13. These levels are drastically lower than the historic high in FY07 of $46.6 million. These cuts have decimated municipal budgets and resulted in the loss of over 75% of state aid to municipalities.
In addition to the cuts to these major revenue sources, municipalities are hampered by little authority to raise revenues other than the property tax. Unlike counties in Maryland, municipalities have limited opportunities to raise taxes to make up for the reductions in state funds. In a preliminary discussion with MML staff, they indicated its possible that if enabling legislation to secure alternative revenue sources was pursued, there could be a menu of revenue raising options that could meet the diverse needs of its membership (large and small municipalities).
Given the magnitude of this issue, it’s most beneficial to have MML representing municipalities in this effort.
The MML membership has already taken the following steps to get HUR funds restored in future years:
- At the May 19, 2010 MML Legislative Committee meeting a motion was unanimously passed requesting the MML Board of Directors to develop a strategy to make local transportation/road funding the paramount issue for the fall 2010 elections that would compel candidates seeking state office to go on record in support of full HUR restoration in FY2012.
- On May 20, 2010 a motion for the same resolution passed at a Joint Meeting of the Prince George’s Municipal Association and MML Montgomery Chapter.
- On May 25, 2010 MML President Craig Moe wrote a letter to Governor O’Malley expressing the importance of municipal HUR restoration, and requesting a meeting with the Governor prior to the MML summer convention in Ocean City (June 27 – June 30, 2010) to discuss strategies to reinstate funding for municipal transportation needs in the FY12 budget.
- President Moe appointed an Ad Hoc Committee Chaired by Gaithersburg Mayor Sidney Katz to develop a strategy to seek restored HUR for municipalities to present to the incoming Board of Directors at the MML summer convention.
There also has been discussion in the General Assembly and speculation in Annapolis of a possible increase in the gas tax in the 2011 session. The funding sources that contribute to HUR include the gasoline tax, vehicle titling tax, corporate income tax, and specified vehicle registration fees. MML staff reports that when tax increases are made at the State level, they tend to happen in the legislative session immediately following a four-year election. While it’s too early to predict, an increase in the gas tax could be a potential source of revenue the State could use to pump back HUR funds into municipal budgets.
According to the City’s state lobbyist at Holland and Knight, municipal revenues will be a high profile issue debated by the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation Funding and the Task Force on State and Local Fiscal Relations, and acted upon by the General Assembly and the Governor. The Blue Ribbon Commission is expected to make an interim report to the General Assembly prior to the 2011 session, and to submit its final report in 2012. The Task Force on State and Local Fiscal Relations is not expected to meet until after the fall 2010 election, and has not set a timeframe for when its work will be completed and recommendations will be forwarded to the General Assembly.
Mayor and Council History
Legislative action requests come to the Mayor and Council each year for approval.
Fiscal Impact
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this agenda item; however, 1) if the statewide stormwater management utility legislation is successful, the City will be able to collect past due utility fees from Montgomery County from FY10, and 2) the City could potentially receive additional revenues if HUR is restored in FY12 or if legislation authorizes alternative revenue sources for municipalities in the future.
Next Steps
Legislative action requests approved by the Mayor and Council will be sent to the MML Legislative Committee for consideration. The Committee meets over the summer and fall to develop MML’s legislative priorities for the upcoming General Assembly session.
Attachments
Attachment A
Assistant City Manager:
Jenny Kimball, Assistant City Manager
Approved on: 06/08/2010
City Manager:
Scott Ullery, City Manager
Approved on: 06/09/2010
|