E-mail
Print
Bob Robertson watched quietly from the rear of the room as the Howard County Council approved development review fees that might not cover the salary of the job he's held for the past quarter century.
The slim, bespectacled 53-year old agronomist remained stoic, however, even though the fees that will go to pay his and co-worker Geof Schoming's salaries are much lower than those requested by the independently run Howard County Soil Conservation District. He took some comfort in the council's promise during last week's session that if these fees aren't enough, the district can come back to request more during the county's annual budget review in April.
"I guess if they're willing to take (another) look at it, it could be OK," Robertson said. "I'll be fine."
The unusual, months-long budget battle was nominally over $220,000 in savings from a $1.4 billion fiscal 2010 county government budget, but the intense fight seemed to indicate higher stakes. It pitted Howard County Executive Ken Ulman, a champion of environmental causes, against a tiny, old-line 11-member agricultural agency based in Woodbine whose leaders said environmental protection is their main goal.
Ulman said he wanted to move the reviewers' work in-house to county planners and engineers to save the money, while district leaders said it was a power grab that threatened the integrity of the work.
The new fees are intended to replace county funding that ended July 1 for the two plan review jobs. District officials ran out of money and threatened to stop all development reviews by Aug. 28, but personal donations from the five volunteer supervisor/trustees are paying for part-time work during September.
In the end, the developers appeared the winners in this prolonged, unusual budget battle, getting the council to sharply reduce the fees the soil district can charge for reviewing soil erosion and sediment control plans. District officials requested a fee of $175 per acre of disturbed earth, but the council lowered that to $75 an acre with an overall maximum charge of $1,800. The council also refused to go along with a requested $150 flat fee for reviewing sediment plans.
Developers will actually pay their fees to the county, which will then disburse the money to the district. The county is still providing $550,011 to the district this fiscal year, plus two vehicles, gasoline, repairs, telephone and computer support and administrative services, according to budget director Raymond S. Wacks. After the council meeting, district manager Robert R. Ensor said he isn't sure that will pay enough to finance the work that's needed.
"We don't know. We don't know," Ensor said. "The situation is we're just going to have to jump into it and see how it works out."
Michael Harrison, spokesman for the Home Builders Association of Maryland, said his members aren't happy about paying fees they were never saddled with before, but he approved of the compromise.
"We're pleased. The council worked out a deal where the developers will pay the county and it gets us closer to the district being back in the county budget." The district's workers have done the work for years, and leaders defeated a General Assembly bill Ulman sponsored in January to move the work to county employees. District leaders chose to charge their own fees and keep the work rather than give up and lay off two employees.
"We need to keep our engineers separate from the county," to maintain a long tradition of independence that guarantees protection for the citizens and the environment, said Martha Clark, one of the five volunteer trustees for the district who personally donated a collective $10,000 to keep the work going this month until the council acted.
The fractious, months-long budget fight between Ulman administration officials and the soil district's leaders was dumped into the council's collective lap to solve, and as became clear over a frantic half-hour recess during Tuesday night's meeting, members were scrambling for a solution even past the proverbial 11th hour.
"This is uncharted territory for Howard County," said council chairwoman Mary Kay Sigaty, a west Columbia Democrat who busily huddled with various other members, soil district officials and council staff before reconvening the meeting. "We look on it as a learning time."
"I know more about soil conservation than I ever thought I'd know," added council vice chair Jen Terrasa," a southeast county Democrat.
Sigaty said later that while the district simply estimated the cost of supporting the two employees and then devised fees to pay that amount, the council, using figures developed by the county auditor, tried to figure the actual cost of reviewing the plans. The council tried to apply a per hour cost for the plan review work times the number of hours it takes to review each plan. The figure they finally settled on was slightly higher than the $60 per disturbed acre in the original amendment offered by councilman Calvin Ball, an east Columbia Democrat.
"This is a fee much discussed at great length with my colleagues for 10 to 12 hours over the weekend, on vacation..." Ball said.
"I believe the fees we put in place will generate fees to review the plans," Sigaty said, though others expressed doubts. The council also adopted an amendment to the resolution sponsored by Ellicott City Democrat Courtney Watson calling for monthly monitoring reports of the situation so that if the district comes back for a fee increase next year, there will be research to use in evaluating the request.
Sigaty said it was a compromise that all sides agreed to.
The slim, bespectacled 53-year old agronomist remained stoic, however, even though the fees that will go to pay his and co-worker Geof Schoming's salaries are much lower than those requested by the independently run Howard County Soil Conservation District. He took some comfort in the council's promise during last week's session that if these fees aren't enough, the district can come back to request more during the county's annual budget review in April.
"I guess if they're willing to take (another) look at it, it could be OK," Robertson said. "I'll be fine."
The unusual, months-long budget battle was nominally over $220,000 in savings from a $1.4 billion fiscal 2010 county government budget, but the intense fight seemed to indicate higher stakes. It pitted Howard County Executive Ken Ulman, a champion of environmental causes, against a tiny, old-line 11-member agricultural agency based in Woodbine whose leaders said environmental protection is their main goal.
Ulman said he wanted to move the reviewers' work in-house to county planners and engineers to save the money, while district leaders said it was a power grab that threatened the integrity of the work.
The new fees are intended to replace county funding that ended July 1 for the two plan review jobs. District officials ran out of money and threatened to stop all development reviews by Aug. 28, but personal donations from the five volunteer supervisor/trustees are paying for part-time work during September.
In the end, the developers appeared the winners in this prolonged, unusual budget battle, getting the council to sharply reduce the fees the soil district can charge for reviewing soil erosion and sediment control plans. District officials requested a fee of $175 per acre of disturbed earth, but the council lowered that to $75 an acre with an overall maximum charge of $1,800. The council also refused to go along with a requested $150 flat fee for reviewing sediment plans.
Developers will actually pay their fees to the county, which will then disburse the money to the district. The county is still providing $550,011 to the district this fiscal year, plus two vehicles, gasoline, repairs, telephone and computer support and administrative services, according to budget director Raymond S. Wacks. After the council meeting, district manager Robert R. Ensor said he isn't sure that will pay enough to finance the work that's needed.
"We don't know. We don't know," Ensor said. "The situation is we're just going to have to jump into it and see how it works out."
Michael Harrison, spokesman for the Home Builders Association of Maryland, said his members aren't happy about paying fees they were never saddled with before, but he approved of the compromise.
"We're pleased. The council worked out a deal where the developers will pay the county and it gets us closer to the district being back in the county budget." The district's workers have done the work for years, and leaders defeated a General Assembly bill Ulman sponsored in January to move the work to county employees. District leaders chose to charge their own fees and keep the work rather than give up and lay off two employees.
"We need to keep our engineers separate from the county," to maintain a long tradition of independence that guarantees protection for the citizens and the environment, said Martha Clark, one of the five volunteer trustees for the district who personally donated a collective $10,000 to keep the work going this month until the council acted.
The fractious, months-long budget fight between Ulman administration officials and the soil district's leaders was dumped into the council's collective lap to solve, and as became clear over a frantic half-hour recess during Tuesday night's meeting, members were scrambling for a solution even past the proverbial 11th hour.
"This is uncharted territory for Howard County," said council chairwoman Mary Kay Sigaty, a west Columbia Democrat who busily huddled with various other members, soil district officials and council staff before reconvening the meeting. "We look on it as a learning time."
"I know more about soil conservation than I ever thought I'd know," added council vice chair Jen Terrasa," a southeast county Democrat.
Sigaty said later that while the district simply estimated the cost of supporting the two employees and then devised fees to pay that amount, the council, using figures developed by the county auditor, tried to figure the actual cost of reviewing the plans. The council tried to apply a per hour cost for the plan review work times the number of hours it takes to review each plan. The figure they finally settled on was slightly higher than the $60 per disturbed acre in the original amendment offered by councilman Calvin Ball, an east Columbia Democrat.
"This is a fee much discussed at great length with my colleagues for 10 to 12 hours over the weekend, on vacation..." Ball said.
"I believe the fees we put in place will generate fees to review the plans," Sigaty said, though others expressed doubts. The council also adopted an amendment to the resolution sponsored by Ellicott City Democrat Courtney Watson calling for monthly monitoring reports of the situation so that if the district comes back for a fee increase next year, there will be research to use in evaluating the request.
Sigaty said it was a compromise that all sides agreed to.
Digg
Twitter
Facebook
StumbleUpon
