Harford County officials held a public hearing on Resolution 040-24 on the county’s MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) Financial Assurance Plan and closed the hearing with plans to consider the resolution at the council’s next meeting.

The county’s Watershed Protection and Restoration Office, part of the Department of Public Works, presented the plan required every two years for Phase I MS4 jurisdictions under state law. “The development and approval of this plan is required biannually for any for all phase 1 MS 4 jurisdictions under state law, specifically the annotated code of Maryland environmental section 4 dash 202.1,” said Danielle Hankins of the Watershed Protection and Restoration Office.

The nut of the presentation was that the plan documents how the county will meet permit-mandated watershed restoration requirements and demonstrate funding for those activities. Hankins said the plan focuses on the restoration obligations in the MS4 permit, projecting five years of costs and showing the county’s current and proposed budgets (FY24, approved FY25 and draft FY26) alongside the required program narrative and state-provided templates.

County staff described the regulatory and program background: Harford County’s first MS4 permit was issued in 1994; Maryland House Bill 987 (2012) required stormwater utility fees statewide but was later revised; Maryland Senate Bill 863 (2015) removed the mandatory utility fee and instead required jurisdictions to submit financial assurance plans. The county adopted Resolution 005-15 (2015) to dedicate part of the recordation tax to MS4 program implementation, staff said. The county’s current (fifth-generation) permit was issued in December 2022 and expires Dec. 29, 2027.

Hankins outlined the county’s recent work and remaining obligations. At the conclusion of the previous permit there were 1,215 acres of outstanding treatment; since then the county has completed 39 projects covering 1,019 acres of water-quality treatment, she said, and is using a mixture of in‑house practices and allowed nutrient trading with the wastewater treatment plant (within limits set by MDE) to meet permit requirements. The plan lists six projects under construction, 17 in active design and 10 in planning that staff expect will produce the restoration credits needed for permit compliance.

Robbie Sandless and other finance staff described funding sources and long-term budget assumptions. Sandless said the county currently funds the MS4 program with a portion of the recordation tax, PAYGO and other capital accounts and by pursuing grants; the program also uses bonds for major capital projects. He said the watershed fund balance is projected at roughly $4.9 million in FY26 and that the county has an assigned $30 million in general fund balance to help meet obligations. “You’re spending largely at this, you know, $8,000,000 level, and you’re bringing in $3,000,000 or so of recordation tax and then you are filling that gap with some of those prior year fund balances,” Sandless said. He added that, under current assumptions, general fund transfers could be needed beginning in FY27 unless new sustainable revenue sources are identified.

Council members asked about enforcement and whether construction‑site sediment issues fall under the MS4 plan. Steve Walsh (staff) clarified that sediment control and enforcement of development projects are handled by sediment control staff and state enforcement—those activities are separate from the MS4 watershed-restoration work administered by Hankins’ office. Council members also asked about program effectiveness; staff cited local monitoring work (including 15 years of Wheel Creek monitoring concluding in FY25), pooled monitoring through the Chesapeake Bay Trust, and post-construction monitoring required for individual BMPs as sources of data on outcomes.

Hankins said the plan shows a mix of projects to generate credits, including septic disconnection incentives, stream restoration, conservation landscaping, tree planting, stormwater retrofits and outfall stabilization. She said the county has used some temporary nutrient-credit strategies tied to wastewater treatment to buy time but that those are not permanent solutions and costs will likely increase as the program addresses progressively harder-to-treat impervious areas.

The hearing closed with no public speakers signed up; the council president stated, “this will conclude the public hearing for Resolution 040-24 and we will consider this at our next meeting.” No formal council vote on the resolution occurred at the hearing.

The county filed annual MS4 reports with the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) and posts them online, staff said. The council will take up Resolution 040-24 at a future meeting when it can consider final approval of the financial assurance plan and any associated budget implications.