Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters urge council to delay $125 million stormwater bond authorization, raise PFAS and oversight concerns
Summary
At a public hearing on expedited bill 30-26, residents and environmental groups warned a proposed $125 million series of stormwater bonds is rushed, questioned use of the water quality protection charge to secure repeated borrowing, and said the county should prioritize out‑of‑stream controls and stronger reporting; officials said executive staff will present their rationale when the council takes action.
A public hearing on expedited bill 30-26 drew sustained opposition from environmental advocates and taxpayer groups who urged the Montgomery County Council to delay or scale back a plan to authorize the county to issue up to $125,000,000 in special limited obligation bonds to finance stormwater projects.
Gordy Berney of the Taxpayers League said the bond package "fell from the sky in April" without adequate explanation and raised the central question of why the county would borrow large sums in a period of high interest rates. Berney said a recent budget transfer that moved Department of Transportation staff into Department of Environmental Protection capital accounts suggested the county might be using bonds to finance operating functions and warned that could violate generally accepted accounting principles for capitalizing expenses.
Kenneth Bauer of the Coalition to Stop Stream Destruction argued the county is using the water quality protection charge to fund engineered stream restorations that, he said, frequently damage ecological functions and fail to address the root cause — impervious-surface runoff — and urged the council to require the bond proceeds be limited to out‑of‑stream stormwater projects.
Marion Eady, speaking for the Sierra Club, urged the council to preserve the original purpose of the water quality protection charge and criticized language in the bill that would allow the county executive repeated authority to sell $125,000,000 at a time "over and over without legislative oversight." Eady suggested removing caps in the fee structure and prioritizing prevention measures such as tree planting and upland controls.
Speakers also raised environmental-safety concerns after state reports identified PFAS in DEP holding ponds; Berney said the county's inspection program had not publicly flagged the contamination and called for improved public reporting and an Office of Legislative study to prioritize projects based on scientific evidence of pollution reduction and flood control.
The presiding officer closed the hearing and said county executive staff would appear later in the meeting when the council takes action on the measure to explain the administration's rationale.
No vote was taken on the bond authorization during the public hearing; action was scheduled for a later point in the session.
