Conduit Street

The University of Maryland School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation and the National Center for Smart Growth has launched a series of “Brown Bag Webinars” that examine various growth and land use issues.  The next webinar is entitled “Should Maryland Adopt a California-Style SB 375 System?”  The webinar will take place on Thursday, May 16 from 3:30 - 4:30 PM at the Preinkert Field House – Conference Room 1112V, at the University of Maryland, College Park.  You can attend the event in person or access a webcast during or after the event here.

The webinar will be presented by William Fulton from Smart Growth America (SGA).  From the National Center’s webinar page:

Since 2008, California has been engaged in a major experiment in regional planning — implementing SB 375, a law that requires each metropolitan region in the state to alter transportation investments and land use decisions so that greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. Each region’s “Sustainable Communities Strategy” is now in place and local governments throughout the state are grappling with how to implement these strategies. What has California’s experience been so far? Is the SB 375 approach a good model for other states, including Maryland? Longtime Californian Bill Fulton, now with Smart Growth America, will provide an update of the California situation and observations about what Maryland can learn.

William Fulton, AICP is Smart Growth America’s Vice President & Director of Policy Development & Implementation. A former Mayor of Ventura, CA, Bill joined SGA after a long career as an urban planner, author, professor, and politician in California. He is the author of several important books on urban planning, including The Reluctant Metropolis: The Politics of Urban Growth in Los Angeles; The Regional City: Planning of the End of Sprawl (co-authored with Peter Calthorpe); and the textbook Guide to California Planning. Bill is also a Principal in the California-based planning firm, The Planning Center | DC&E and a Senior Scholar at the Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California. As a practicing urban planner and economic development consultant, Bill has worked on a wide variety of projects, including local transit-oriented development plans, a GIS tool to identify and quantify infill development potential; transferable development rights programs; and California’s recent transition away from redevelopment. As a city councilmember and mayor in Ventura, he championed the passage of an all-infill general plan, a revised growth management system; and an innovative effort to incubate high-tech businesses. A native of the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York, Bill graduated from St. Bonaventure University and holds graduate degrees in journalism/public affairs from The American University in Washington D.C., and in urban planning from UCLA in Los Angeles. In 2009, he was selected by Planetizen as one of the Top 100 Urban Thinkers.

As previously reported on Conduit Street, the State is considering adopting the SB 375 model, which would assign vehicle miles traveled (VMT) targets to local governments.  Local governments would have to adhere to the VMT targets when making transportation and land use decisions.  The SB 375 model may be combined with another California requirement, San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District Rule 9510, which requires a development or transportation project to offset the air pollution generated by the project, including from indirect sources such as automobile travel.

As reported in the Baltimore Sun, Harford County Executive David Craig issued a lengthy statement critiquing the fee which has been dubbed a “rain tax” in national news.

County Executive Craig recently signed the county’s new stormwater implementation fee into law, though the bill he signed reduced the stormwater fees to 10% of what he originally proposed for residences and businesses, at least for the first year of the fees.  The amended bill also provides for 100% exemption for properties with certain stormwater reduction systems already in place, and for a task force to study the issue and make recommendations to the County Council and Executive. As reported in the Sun.

Craig signed off on legislation passed last month that is significantly different than what he himself had proposed two months earlier. The net effect is Harford went from potentially having one of the highest residential stormwater remediation fees in the state to one of the lowest, or at least for the next year.

In a statement released today, the County Executive, who spoke out against the stormwater fee in Annapolis last year, said he concurs with the county council’s reduction of the proposed fee and creation of the task force, according to the Sun.

“I commend and thank the County Council for working with my administration on this difficult issue, and I fully support their task force to further study this heavy-handed state mandate,” the county executive’s statement Friday said.

For more information, see the full story from the Sun, Harford County’s Stormwater Fee Bill 4.25.13, and our previous posts on Conduit Street.

In the Maryland Recycling Act, the General Assembly set recycling goals for Maryland’s counties based on their population size. For counties with populations greater than 150,000, the goal is reduction through recycling of at least 35% of the county’s solid waste stream by weight. For counties with a population less than 150,000, the goal is reduction through recycling of at least 20% of the county’s solid waste stream. The Maryland Department of Environment collects data to determine whether counties are meeting those goals.

Anticipating a focus on “zero waste” as a major issue in the coming legislative session, Conduit Street is sharing this detail snapshot of counties current waste management practices, based on data collected by the Maryland Department of the Environment.

The Department’s most recent data, displayed in the chart below, shows that almost all of Maryland’s jurisdictions far surpass the Maryland Recycling Act goals.  The average recycling rate of counties with populations over 150,000 is 47%, 12% above the required rate.  The average recycling rate for counties with populations less than 150,000 is 37%, 17% above the goal. Note that in the chart the “Mid-Shore” category includes data Caroline, Kent, Queen Anne’s and Talbot Counties, which are managed by the Mid-Shore Regional Recycling Program.

For more information, see the most recent Maryland Solid Waste Management and Diversion Report from the Maryland Department of the Environment, the County Recycling Fact Sheets, and our previous posts in this Conduit Street series:

Zero Waste in Maryland – Signals from 2013

Zero Waste: Recent Related Legislative Initiatives

A May 5 Delmarvanow.com article discusses the City of Salisbury’s consideration of a stormwater fee.  The City Council was scheduled to hear a presentation by University of Maryland researchers at their May 5 meeting on the need for such a dedicated fee.

A new study calls for creating a utility to raise more than $25 million throughout 10 years to pay for maintaining and upgrading the system. The City Council is scheduled to hear a presentation today about the “Stormwater Financing Feasibility Study,” which was compiled during the course of a year by University of Maryland researchers.  …

The report suggests charging a flat fee of $40 for each residential property for the first four years. From years five through seven, it jumps to $45. By year eight, it hits $50.

Owners of other types of properties would pay a fee linked to their size and based on the flat residential fee.

Mayor Jim Ireton, though, is recommending that the council adopt a $20 annual fee for homes. If approved, the fees would begin Jan. 1, 2015, and generate about $500,000 for the remaining six months of that fiscal year, officials say.  …

Salisbury is far from alone in contemplating or approving a stormwater utility on the Lower Shore. Berlin created a utility earlier this year, charging a flat rate of $50 a home. Ocean City officials are discussing a $35-a-year fee.