More shutdowns are predicted at the Howard County Soil Conservation District after the County Council approved slightly higher fees Monday night for required development review plans. The move continues the long struggle between the Ulman administration and the independent agency.
New legislation included a bill that would preserve 500 acres of farmland at historic Doughoregan Manor, which is also the subject of a zoning board hearing June 23 — part of a plan to rezone a portion of the property for 325 new homes clustered in one section of the 892-acre estate.
Another measure would allow a small parcel of preserved farmland in Dayton to be used for a controversial T-Mobile cellular phone tower that would be concealed by a grain silo that farm owners Ricky and Leslie Bauer would build instead of using a 135-foot-high pole.
The legislation would be voted on in July.
Council Chairwoman Courtney Watson, an Ellicott City Democrat, sponsored a bill to simplify and coordinate state and county laws on ballot referendums. If approved, it would eliminate a county requirement to disclose whether signature gatherers are paid, since other provisions already require information on expenses. The bill, co-sponsored by Fulton Republican Greg Fox, would not change the state law that sets exacting rules on how petitions for referendums must be signed, an issue that has frustrated recent petition drives.
But the long fight over the cost of reviews of erosion- and sediment-control plans by the Woodbine-based Howard County Soil Conservation District took most of the council's discussion time.
"We're back where we were before," said Soil Conservation District manager Robert Ensor after the council approved a $5 per acre increase over the current $75, but capped the fee at $1,800 for any single development and exempted government projects.
"I hope we can avoid shutdowns, but I don't see any way around it," Ensor said after the council voted to reject Councilwoman Mary Kay Sigaty's proposal for a $145 per acre fee in favor of $80 an acre, the figure recommended by the council's auditor. Ensor initially proposed fees of $290 per acre for reviewing the plans.
"I think it's good," said Michael L. Harrison, spokesman for the Homebuilders Association of Maryland. "It tells the district board they have to manage their expenses like private business does. The fees are reasonable."
County Executive Ken Ulman withdrew $219,000 in county funding for the office last year as a cost-saving measure, offering to have county planners do the reviews instead of paying the independent agency for the work. But Soil Conservation District officials said that would compromise a nonpartisan environmental review. Instead, they began charging fees for the reviews, which angered developers hurting from the recession.
The office briefly shut down in August when money ran out, and only a combination of $12,000 donated by district officials and up to $30,000 contributed by the county this spring has kept the reviews coming.
The County Council found itself caught in the middle, Watson has said, because it is restricted by state law to enacting only "reasonable" fees to pay for reviews of developers' plans. Ensor has argued that the fees do not produce enough revenue to operate the 11-person office.
At school board headquarters Monday night, Fox and Sigaty, a West Columbia Democrat, found themselves on the losing side in a series of 3-2 votes. They opposed exemption of county capital projects from paying the fees and were against the $1,800 cap for a single development.
"I'm concerned that … this cap could put the Soil Conservation District in the position of stopping work again," Fox said.
Watson said only four or five projects have exceeded the cap in the past year, so it would likely make little difference.
"We don't know if the ongoing year's work will be at the same level," Sigaty said. "If larger projects come forward, it may not pay the cost."
Sigaty then suggested a fee of $145 per acre, saying that the combination of the $1,800 cap and exemption of county projects could severely limit the conservation agency's income. She and Fox again lost 3-2.
"I think the auditor did a lot of work. I'm hesitant to change their recommendation," Watson said. "I recognize the dilemma the Soil Conservation District is in. It's outside our purview."
Calvin Ball, an East Columbia Democrat, and Jen Terrasa, a Democrat who represents southeastern Howard, voted with Watson.
Ulman has refused to back down, though he did provide the district enough money to avoid a shutdown before the fiscal year ends June 30.
"We've been able to save over a half-million dollars," he said recently, but "we ran into a buzz saw of defensiveness."