Carroll County offers to take over Taneytown stormwater reviews; council agrees to explore

Carroll County’s planning director told the Taneytown City Council on Feb. 10 that the county is prepared to perform stormwater management reviews for the city to align Taneytown’s rules with forthcoming state regulations.

"There'd be no cost associated with that for the city," said Chris Hine, director of planning and land management for Carroll County, describing the county’s offer and the potential operational benefits. He told the council the Maryland Department of the Environment is drafting new stormwater regulations tied to climate change and flooding, and that both the county and Taneytown will need to adopt new code language to comply.

Hine said adopting the county code would create consistency across municipalities, reduce confusion among engineering firms and developers, and simplify staff work. He also noted the county has been delegated by the state to perform certain dam-safety reviews that can complicate reviews when more than one entity is involved.

The city manager said developers would still pay review costs through escrow and that the change "really [means] there's no financial change for it" to the city; instead, developers would be subject to the county's fee structure rather than the current consultant hourly rates. The manager and council members discussed a modest staff-time savings for city employees.

County staff told the council the county inspects just over 3,000 stormwater facilities and performs about 1,000 inspections a year; Taneytown has "maybe two dozen" facilities, so incorporating Taneytown inspections would not be a large additional workload, the county said. County staff also said their stormwater program has increased staffing and is providing faster turnaround on reviews.

Representatives from the council and a city consultant, Brian Lubinow, noted current outside reviews are performed by CDM Smith; the firm bills the city and those fees are passed to developers through escrow. Council discussion noted developers might see changes in billing structure but that the change would likely improve consistency because most developers and engineers already work regularly with county standards.

Council members did not vote on adopting the county code at the Feb. 10 meeting. Instead the body gave consensus authorization to explore the change further, requested a city attorney review of any proposed code amendments, and asked staff to return with more specifics in March. The county also offered to help with the triennial stormwater-facility inspections the state requires.

Next steps identified at the meeting include legal review of draft code language, preparation of an ordinance to adopt county stormwater provisions if the council chooses to proceed, and a follow-up report to the council in March.

No formal ordinance or intergovernmental agreement was adopted at the Feb. 10 meeting; council members explicitly framed the action as a directive to explore options and to bring a formal recommendation back later.