For those who believe that developers write their own ticket in Howard County by virtue of their political campaign contributions, the convoluted 18-month drama centering on the Howard County Soil Conservation District might offer some comfort.
This low-profile, yet vital, independent agency represents one of the longest disputes in the nearly four-year term of County Executive Ken Ulman. Builders feel themselves caught in a bureaucratic/political turf battle that has delayed plan reviews vital to their recession-battered industry while forcing them to pay new fees for the work.
"Our members are stuck in the middle of this. It's ugly," the County Council was told by Michael L. Harrison, spokesman for the Homebuilders Association of Maryland, during a discussion of the situation last month.
The County Council is to write the latest chapter Monday night by voting on a new fee schedule the Woodbine-based agency may charge developers for reviewing their erosion and sediment control plans — a review and approval no new home can be built without.
But the council's vote may not solve anything, which is exactly what happened last year. State law restricts the fees to time spent specifically on these reviews, but since the current fees don't fully pay for the two people doing that work along with other duties, the district, run by five volunteer western county residents and farmers who act as a Board of Supervisors, is constantly running short of cash. The county has offered to do the work in-house, but the independent-minded district officials have flatly refused. The county executive appoints one of the five supervisors, but the others are chosen by the state Soil Conservation Committee under state law.
The Howard fight began back in January 2009, when Ulman, a Democrat, proposed state legislation shifting the work the district does on plan reviews to county planners, saving $219,000 the county was paying the soil conservation district to cover the cost of the work. Ulman's request to the county's General Assembly delegation, if approved, would have forced two layoffs at the agency, which is independently run.
Soil conservation district manager Robert Ensor called Ulman's move a "power grab" that could infringe on his 11-person agency's nonpartisan independence. The county's majority Democratic delegation, this time led by Republican Dels. Gail H. Bates and Warren E. Miller, rejected Ulman's bill.
"We were a bit surprised at the push-back," Ulman said Wednesday.
But last spring the executive cut the county funds anyway, which led the district to propose charging builders $175 an acre for processing plans that had cost them nothing before. That produced an uproar in June among builders and, with no new fees in place, forced a short shutdown of development reviews in August when money ran out. The soil district's volunteer board then contributed $12,000 in personal cash to help sustain the agency, all while Ulman administration officials protested that they were trying to save money, not take control of the agency.
"We've been able to save over a half-million dollars," Ulman said Wednesday, as talks about a possible solution continued. Acknowledging that he "ran into a buzz-saw of defensiveness," Ulman said, "I'm hopeful we'll get there."
The council finally approved fees of $75 an acre in September, but revenues did not cover expenses. To get them through the fiscal year without another shutdown, Ulman repeatedly offered to provide county planners to do the work under soil conservation district direction, but those offers were rejected. Finally this spring, Ulman capitulated and provided another $25,000 to $30,000 to keep the agency solvent until July 1. County budget director Raymond S. Wacks said paying the money was better than letting the office choke off development.
Ensor said he doesn't see that kind of county payment becoming a pattern. "That's a one-time get-out-of-jail-free card," he said, alluding to the game Monopoly.
Sang Oh, a lawyer representing developers, said at the May 17 County Council public hearing that his clients feel the $75-an-acre charge already represents double what the reviews actually cost. "We oppose fee increases," he said. He pointed out that the council rejected $175 an acre last year. "They want to charge what it takes to keep their two employees," he said.
Now Ensor wants the council to approve fees of $290 an acre, which he said would cost builders an extra $200 per home on average, while council auditor Haskell Arnold is suggesting $80 an acre would be appropriate, though Ensor said that's not enough to pay costs..
Council Chairwoman Courtney Watson, an Ellicott City Democrat, said the council has little say under the law. "We have a small role to play in this," she said, and that is to approve fees that are "reasonable" strictly for the plan reviews. She for one, she said, plans to stick to the auditor's recommendation.
Ensor said he's unsure of the future.
"I'm waiting to see what the county's going to do . Then I'll make a move," he said.
Progressive plug
What are endorsements worth, especially if they appear to go against the local prevaiiling political grain?
Mary Ann Maher, 41, of Ellicott City, a novice Democratic candidate for House of Delegates in District 9a, covering western Howard and Ellicott City, has won an early endorsement from Progressive Maryland, along with Howard delegates Elizabeth Bobo, Shane Pendergrass and Frank Turner, all incumbent Democrats from other parts of the county.
Progressive Maryland is, you guessed it, a liberal group dedicated to the welfare of working people, and has supported rules requiring payment of higher "living" wages and government intervention to solve problems, according to acting director Rion Dennis. While the endorsement may help Bobo, Turner and Pendergrass in their heavily Democratic voting districts, the question is whether it would help Maher in a district that has supported conservative Republicans such as incumbents Gail H. Bates and Warren E. Miller.
"I do think there are progressives in our district," Maher said, adding that she is "proud" of the nod, though she suspects she got it partly because she's opposing Bates and Miller, who generally back business but don't support Progressive Maryland's agenda. Maher said she's a friend of the environment. Still, Jon Weinstein, another Democrat seeking a District 9a delegate's seat, did not seek the Progressive Maryland endorsement.
Miller laughed when told about the endorsement. "I think it hurts her," he said.
Bates agreed, adding that it's no surprise. "They are a strongly, stongly liberal group," she said. In 2006, a year when a Democratic tide was rising nationally, Bates and Miller won election with 40 percent and 32 percent of the vote respectively. David Osmundson, the lone Democrat in the race, got 28 percent.