Bill template

Montgomery

County Council

Committee: T&E

Committee Review: Completed

Staff: Ludeen McCartney-Green, Legislative Attorney

Purpose: Final action – vote expected

Keywords: #LeafBlowers #NoiseControl

AGENDA ITEM #4G

March 21, 2023

Action

SUBJECT

Bill 18-22, Noise Control – Leaf Removal Equipment - Amendments

Lead Sponsor: former Council President Albornoz at the request of the County Executive

EXPECTED ATTENDEES

Adriana Hochberg, Acting Director, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)

Stan Edwards, Chief of Energy, Climate, and Compliance Division, DEP

Steve Martin, Environmental Health Specialist, DEP

Mary Travaglini, Planning Specialist, DEP

COUNCIL DECISION POINTS & COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

• Whether to adopt Bill 18-22, as amended by the T&E Committee.

• On March 7, the Council voted 11 – 0 to expand the exemption for agricultural producers beyond

the Agricultural Reserve Zone.

• The T&E Committee recommended (3-0) the enactment of Bill 18-22, as amended.

DESCRIPTION/ISSUE

• Bill 18-22 would:

(1) prohibit the sale and use of combustion engine-powered leaf blowers and leaf vacuums

by a certain date;

(2) authorize a grant program to partially offset the cost of replacing a combustion engine-

powered leaf blower or leaf vacuum with an electric leaf blower or leaf vacuum;

(3) exempt the use of gas leafblower equipment for agricultural producers;

(4) require an annual report by the Department of Environment; and

(5) generally, [[revise]] amend the law regarding noise control.

SUMMARY OF KEY DISCUSSION POINTS

By a 3-0 vote, the Committee on February 13 recommended the following amendments to Bill 18-22:

• require the Director of DEP to establish a reimbursement program, instead of “may” have a

reimbursement program (line 11);

• the reimbursement program would be subject to appropriation approved by the County

Council in the annual budget (lines 10 – 11);

• require the County Executive to promulgate Method (2) regulations to implement the

reimbursement program (lines 21-22);

• require annual reporting by DEP to provide updates, summarize enforcement efforts, and

make recommendations regarding the mandate (lines 26-28);

• exempt agricultural producers located in the Agricultural Reserve Zone from the gas-powered

leaf blower mandate (lines 31-34); and

• delay the effective date of the ban on the use of gas-powered leaf blowers until regulations

for the reimbursement program is established by the County Executive and approved by the

Council (lines 49-50).

Prior to final action, the Council may want to discuss and vote on additional amendments

offered by several Councilmembers, see staff report pages 1 and 2.

This report contains:

Staff Report Pages 1 - 12

Bill 18-22 © 1

Legislative Request Report © 5

County Executive Memorandum © 8

Fiscal Impact Statement © 10

Racial Equity and Social Justice Impact Statement © 16

Economic Impact Statement © 22

Response by the Executive Branch to Council’s questions © 26

Public Hearing Testimonies © 29

Councilmember Katz’s Amendment © 65

Councilmember Fani-Gonzalez Amendments © 66

Councilmember Albornoz’s Amendment © 67

Councilmember Jawando’s Amendment © 68

The Economics of Switching to Battery-Powered Leaf Blower © 69

(provided by DEP)

Alternative format requests for people with disabilities. If you need assistance accessing this report

you may submit alternative format requests to the ADA Compliance Manager. The ADA

Compliance Manager can also be reached at 240-777-6197 (TTY 240-777-6196) or at

adacompliance@montgomerycountymd.gov

Agenda Item #4G

March 21, 2023

Action

M E M O R A N D U M

March 16, 2023

TO: County Council

FROM: Ludeen McCartney-Green, Legislative Attorney

SUBJECT: Bill 18-22, Noise Control – Leaf Removal Equipment - Amendments

PURPOSE: Action – roll call vote expected

Committee Recommendation (3-0): Enact Bill 18-22 with amendments

Invited Attendees

Adriana Hochberg, Acting Director, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)

Stan Edwards, Chief of Energy, Climate, and Compliance Division, DEP

Steve Martin, Environmental Health Specialist. DEP

Mary Travaglini, Planning Specialist DEP

Bill 18-22, Noise Control – Leaf Removal Equipment – Amendments sponsored by the

Lead Sponsor Council President at the Request of the County Executive, was introduced on June 21,

2022. A public hearing was held on September 20, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.

The Transportation and

Environment Committee held a worksession on February 13, 2023. The full Council held a

worksession on March 7.

Bill 18-22 would:

(1) prohibit the sale and use of combustion engine-powered leaf blowers and leaf

vacuums by a certain date;

(2) authorize a grant program to partially offset the cost of replacing a combustion

engine-powered leaf blower or leaf vacuum with an electric leaf blower or leaf

vacuum; and

(3) generally, revise the law regarding noise control.

#noisecontrol#leafblower

ISSUES FOR COUNCIL’S DISCUSSION – MARCH 21

Prior to a final vote, the Council may want to consider the following amendments

proposed by various colleagues:

1. Amendment by Councilmember Katz

This amendment would require notice at the time of sale by a retailer who sells a gas-

powered to a prospective consumer before the ban on sale goes into effect (©65):

Amend lines 6, as follows:

(e) Sale of combustion leaf removal equipment – prohibited.

(1) A person must not sell or offer for sale a combustion engine-powered handheld,

backpack, or walk-behind leaf blower or leaf vacuum.

(2) Notice at sale. A person who sells, at retail, a combustion engine-powered

handheld, backpack, or walk-behind leaf blower or leaf vacuum in the County

before the effective date of subsection (e)(1) must provide conspicuous notice to

the consumer that the leaf blower may not be used in the County.

Decision Point: Whether to adopt a notice provision for retailers?

2. Amendment by Councilmember Fani-Gonzalez

This amendment would require the Executive to consider within the regulations certain

loan or grant programs for small businesses (©66):

Amendment #1:

Beginning on page 2, amend line 21 of Section 31B-9, as follows:

Sec. 31B-9. [Leafblowers] Leaf removal equipment

(i) Regulations. The County Executive must transmit Method (2) regulations to

establish the reimbursement program under subsection (g). The regulations may

identify, and to the extent feasible, make available, a loan program or similar

incentive for small local landscaping businesses. A loan program offered for small

local landscaping businesses should include opportunities for a no or low-interest

loan to purchase electric leaf removal equipment.

Amendment #2:

Beginning on page 2, amend line 21 of Section 31B-9, as follows:

Sec. 31B-9. [Leafblowers] Leaf removal equipment

(i) Regulations. The County Executive must transmit Method (2) regulations to

establish the reimbursement program under subsection (g).

(j) Regulations – requirements. Among other conditions, criteria, or eligibility

standards that may be established, the regulations must:

(1) define what constitutes a local small business; and

(2) develop parameters that specifically provide financial assistance or

incentives for small landscaping businesses located in the County.

Decision Point: Whether to adopt an amendment to require the regulations to include

provisions related to financial assistance for local small businesses.

3. Amendment by Councilmember Albornoz

There was a discussion at the March 7 Council worksession about whether the regulations

that would inform the reimbursement program should be transmitted to the Council as Method 2

or Method 1. County law

sets forth the requirements for different types of regulations.

- Method 1: must be approved or disapproved by the Council, and if adopted, it becomes

effective on the date it was adopted, or a different date specified in the regulation.

- Method 2: becomes effective when the Council adopts a resolution approving the

regulation or at a later date specified in the regulation. If the Council takes no action

within 60 days of receiving the regulations, it would be effective the day after the

deadline. The Council can adopt a resolution to extend the deadline if we are close to

60 days without approval.

Beginning on page 2, insert on line 21, as follows:

(i) Regulations. Not later than June 30, 2024, the County Executive must issue [[Method

(2)]] Method (1) regulations to establish the reimbursement program under subsection

(g).

Decision Point: Whether to adopt Method (1) regulations should be transmitted to the Council.

4. Amendment by Councilmember Jawando

Councilmember Jawando may propose an amendment to alter the effective date of the ban

on the sale and use of a gas-powered leaf blower. The amendments take into consideration that if

County Code §2A-15

the DEP transmits to the Council regulations not later than 6/30/2024, then the following would

occur:

1. Subsection (e) – the ban on sale would occur on the date the Council adopts the regulations

(late Summer 2024), or a later date if specified in the regulations; and

2. Subsection (f) – the ban on use would occur 6 months after the Council adopts the

regulations (possibly in Spring 2025).

Beginning on page 2, insert on line 53, as follows:

Sec. 2. Effective date; staggered implementation. Subsection (e) of Section 31B-9, under

Section 1 of this Act, must take effect [[6 months after the Act becomes law]] on the date when

the Council adopts Method 2 regulations, or at a later date as specified in the regulations.

Subsection (f) of Section 31B-9, under Section 1 of this Act, must take effect [[1 year after the Act

becomes law]] 6 months after the ban on sale under subsection (e) becomes effective. Subsection

(g) of Section 31B-9, under Section 1 of this Act, must apply reimbursement only for purchases

of combustion engine-held leaf blowers or leaf vacuums made [[this Act becomes law effective]]

before June 30, 2024.

Decision Point: Whether to adopt the staggered implementation timeline?

SUMMARY OF COUNCIL’S DISCUSSION – MARCH 7

Councilmember Albornoz proposed a series of amendments for the Council’s

consideration.

1. Amendments by Councilmember Albornoz

The proposed amendments were proposed to modify the timeline for implementation with

a ban on sale on 6/30/2024 and a ban on use would be 7/1/2026, allow a two-year period for the

reimbursement program prior to any ban on the sale and use of GPLB.; and exempt from the ban

any properties that contain at least 1 acre of land or greater for a 5-year period.

Decision Point: Whether to adopt the series of amendments proposed by Councilmember

Albornoz? The Council voted 5-6 and the motions to adopt the series of amendments failed.

2. Amendment by Councilmember Balcombe

The proposed amendment would expand the exemption for agricultural producers beyond

the Agricultural Reserve Zone and instead apply throughout the County where farming activities

are permitted.

Section 31B-9 of this Chapter does not apply to agricultural producers [[located in the

Agricultural Reserve]]. Activities of agricultural producers must be consistent with the definition

of [[agriculture under Section 2B-1]] farming under Section 59 3.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Decision Point: Whether to exempt agricultural producers beyond the Agricultural

Reserve Zone? By an 11-0 vote, the Council unanimously adopted the amendment to exempt

agricultural producers throughout the County.

3. Amendment by Council staff

In the absence of majority approval of Councilmember’s Albornoz amendment to extend

the effective date of the ban or use of GPLB, Council staff has a proposed amendment to set a

specific date in legislation for Council to receive the regulations by County Executive. During the

T&E Committee’s worksession on February 13, the Committee decided to delay the effective date

of the ban on the use of GPLB until regulations for the reimbursement program becomes available

for applicants.

To ensure regulations are transmitted to the Council within a certain timeframe, Council

staff consulted with DEP who agrees with the following proposed amendments:

Amend line 21, as follows:

Not later than June 30, 2024, the County Executive must transmit Method (2)

regulations to the Council to establish the reimbursement program under subsection

(g).

If the Council adopts the proposed timeframe above, Council staff would also recommend

removing lines 16-20 of the Bill because the regulations would inform the process for

reimbursement.

Remove and bracket lines 16 – 20, as follows:

[[To receive reimbursement under subsection (g), an owner of a combustion engine-

powered leaf blower or leaf vacuum must apply to the Director in a form prescribed

by the Director and deliver the combustion engine-powered leaf blower or leaf

vacuum to the County.]]

Decision Point: Whether the Council would adopt: 1) the proposed timeframe of June 30,

2024; and 2) remove language about the reimbursement application process in lines 16-20? By

acclimation, the Council agreed to include the 6/30/2024 date.

The Council concluded its discussion and will schedule a future session to discuss any further

amendments.

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this bill is to ban gas-powered leaf blowers to address environmental, noise,

and health concerns raised by County residents. The Department of Environmental Protection

(DEP), in 2021, received approximately 62 formal complaints as a result of noises from leaf

blowers. See Legislative Request Report ©5.

County Code §31B-9 requires the noise level of a leaf blower must not to exceed 70 dba at

a distance of 50 feet. However, it has been increasingly difficult for DEP to measure and enforce

leaf blowers that no longer have original manufacturer labels. As cited in the County Executive

Memorandum:

Research shows combustion engine-powered leaf blowers have specific low and mid-

frequency noise qualities or tones that are highly penetrative and result in noise being two

to four times louder than electric plug-in or battery-powered options at the unit and up to

400 feet away. The low-frequency noise is particularly penetrative of non-heavy building

materials and easily carries through windows and doors. Beyond being distracting, this

noise can have adverse health effects, both auditory, such as hearing loss and tinnitus,

systemic vascular disease, and mental illness. ©8.

There are more than 170 communities that have regulations related to leaf blowers with

more than 100 prohibiting or limiting their use. Both Washington D.C. and Chevy Chase Village

have bans on leaf blowers that went into effect on January 1, 2022. DC’s legislation allows for the

sale of a petroleum-powered leaf blower, if the customer is given written notification that it cannot

be used in DC after January 1, 2022. The Town of Chevy Chase is offering a rebate of on electric

blowers $200 as of April 2021. They have processed over 20 applications to date. California, in

May 2021, introduced legislation to require the determination of an appropriate phase-out of

gasoline equipment, but regulation timelines are not yet proposed. See Legislative Request Report

BILL SPECIFICS

Bill 18-22 would prohibit the sale of a combustion engine-powered handheld, backpack,

or walk-behind leaf blower or leaf vacuum six months after the legislation is enacted.

Further, it would prohibit the use of combustion engine-powered handheld, backpack, or

walk-behind leaf blowers or leaf vacuums a year after the legislation is enacted.

Bill 18-22 would also authorize DEP to establish a reimbursement program by providing a

partial credit, subject to regulations, for residents and businesses who purchase an electric leaf

blower and in exchange return the gas-powered leaf blower or leaf vacuum to the County. To

receive the credit, the gas-powered leaf removal equipment must be purchased prior to a certain

date.

Generally, two witnesses are required for an enforcement officer to issue a noise citation

under Chapter 31B. However, under this bill, a person may be subject to a Class A fine (up to

$500, initially, and up to $750 for repeated offenses); if the Director of DEP or a designated

designee receives a single noise complaint, with photographic evidence, demonstrating a person

using of a combustible leaf blower or leaf vacuum.

PUBLIC HEARING

A public hearing was held on September 20 and the Council received over 20 written

testimonies from small and large landscaping companies, trade associations, physicians, and

many County residents. See testimonies at ©29.

Below provides a synopsis of testimonies in support and opposition to Bill 18-22.

Testimonies in Support of Bill 18-22

- Benjamin Berman testified, “these devices are extremely noisy, especially in our

neighborhood (Woodside Park, Silver Spring) where the environment is filled with the

sound of these devices in most seasons on most days […] I appreciate the County’s

willingness to help some of the less-advantaged lawn care companies, particularly

single-person operations, afford to make the switch to electric-powered equipment.

That is a very equitable offer and I think it’s morally correct to help them.” ©33

- Dr. Chessa Lutter written testimony highlights that gas-powered leaf blowers

negatively affect human health, damaging to the environment, and contribute to

regional air pollution and climate change. Banning will improve racial equity. The

noise caused by their use in densely urban neighborhoods affects a large number of

homes. ©34

- Roberta Steinman – “The health consequences of breathing polluted air affects all –

regardless of age, race, socioeconomic demographic, or species. Everyone in our

neighborhood – human or non-human –is harmed by both the noise and the breathing

of the exhaust of unnecessary leaf blowers. I live in a walkable neighborhood where

many people enjoy being outdoors - walking, running, pushing babies in strollers,

walking the dog, and taking their daily exercise regimen. But that pleasurable and

healthful activity has become so unpleasant due to the pollution and noise from the

omnipresent gas-powered leaf blowers that we are forced to severely alter or curtail

that activity altogether.” ©55

- Yoel Tobin, a County resident, testified that “according to a recent article in Harvard

Medicine magazine, noise pollution drives hearing loss, tinnitus, and hypersensitivity

to noise, and can also cause or exacerbate heart disease, diabetes, sleep disturbances,

stress, mental health and cognition problems, and even low birth weight.” ©59

Testimonies in Opposition of Bill 18-22

- The National Association of Landscape Professionals (NALP) raised concerns about,

“the timeline proposed in this bill is too fast of a transition for commercial users. In

addition, the commercial-grade battery-powered equipment currently on the market has

significant performance issues and cost issues. ©29

- Ruppert Landscaping written testimony states, “concern with addressing the noise

created by gas-powered leaf blowers, but we feel that this bill will put an undue

hardship on the commercial landscape companies, our customers, and on county

residents who will be absorbing the costs associated with this bill. ©38

- Montgomery County Agricultural Preservation Advisory Board (APAB) Electric

blowers are inefficient when used to clean our equipment throughout the day as we

travel from one farm. Bill 18-22 would negatively impact our farmers because they

cannot rely upon electric blowers that only hold a charge for an hour or two. ©64

- Maryland Retailers Association testimony provides that, “we believe that consumers

should be allowed to continue to use the equipment they already own until it needs to

be replaced, rather than forcing a ban by a specific date. We understand that the bill as

written includes a County-sponsored rebate program for equipment replacement, but

without the inclusion of more details like specific dollar amounts, it is impossible to

say whether the program will be sufficient to cover the costs forced onto consumers by

the County.” ©57

SUMMARY OF IMPACT STATEMENTS

FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT

According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), over a six-year period, Bill

18-22 could increase expenditures by up to $1,489,546. The fiscal impact statement is at ©10.

During the FY23 Approved Operating Budget, the Council already approve an appropriated

$100,000 as incentives for residents to switch to the electrification of leafblower equipment.

ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT

Given the lack of data and uncertainty in key factors (e.g., average costs of leaf blowers,

future energy prices), OLO is unable to determine whether Bill 18-22 would have a net positive or

negative impact on overall economic conditions in the County in the short- or long-term. ©24

OLO anticipates that enacting Bill 18-22 would have mixed impacts on certain private

organizations in the County in terms of business operating costs and income. OLO expects the ban

on the sale and use of combustion engine-powered leaf blowers and vacuums to affect the

following stakeholder groups: 1) landscaping companies; 2) fuel suppliers; and 3) retailers selling

landscaping equipment. ©23

RACIAL EQUITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT STATEMENT

The Office of Legislative Oversight (OLO) anticipates that Bill 18-22 could narrow racial

and social disparities as the benefits of banning gas-powered leaf blowers, particularly for Latinx

landscape employees, exceeds the costs of replacing gas-powered leaf blowers for electric ones

among Latinx-owned businesses and other landscape contractors, particularly with Bill’s

authorization of a grant reimbursement program. ©16

SUMMARY OF T&E COMMITTEE WORKSESSION

Adriana Hochberg, Stan Edwards, Steve Martin, and Mary Travaglini, from DEP,

represented the Executive Branch and answered questions from the Committee, and Ludeen

McCartney-Green, Legislative Attorney represented as Council staff.

The Committee discussed the provisions of the Bill and DEP representatives explained the

purpose of the bill and the need to ban the sale and use of gas-powered leaf blowers (GPLB). There

was a broader discussion about outreach and education efforts that would be used by DEP (see

question #1 under Issues for Committee Discussion), including the adopting the suggestion to use

lawn yard signs. The outreach approach would be similar to the County’s pesticide ban

implemented in 2016.

The Committee requested that DEP provide additional information on the regulations that

would describe the reimbursement options for owners, including the equity distribution of funds

before the Council enacts a ban on the use of GPLB.

By a 3-0 vote, the Committee recommended the following amendments to Bill 18-22:

• require the Director of DEP to establish a reimbursement program, instead of “may”

have a reimbursement program (line 11);

• the reimbursement program would be subject to appropriation approved by the County

Council in the annual budget (lines 10 – 11);

• require the County Executive to promulgate Method (2) regulations to implement the

reimbursement program (lines 21-22);

• require annual reporting by DEP to provide updates, summarize enforcement efforts,

and make recommendations regarding the mandate (lines 26-28);

• exempt agricultural producers located in the Agricultural Reserve from the gas-

powered leaf blower mandate (lines 31-34); and

• delay the effective date of the ban on the use of gas-powered leaf blowers until

regulations for the reimbursement program is established by the County Executive and

approved by the Council (lines 49-50).

ISSUES FOR COMMITTEE’S DISCUSSION – FEBRUARY 13

Council staff sent to the Department of Environment (DEP) several questions inquiring

about the scope of the bill, potential impacts on small businesses, fiscal expenditure for the rebate

program, enforcement alternatives, and the implementation timeline. DEP provided responses to

the Council’s questions, see page ©26.

Below is a subset of questions identified where the Committee may further inquire and

discuss whether any amendments should be considered.

1. What type of outreach campaign and public education would occur if this bill was

adopted, especially for small landscaping businesses?

The fiscal impact statement (©10) and DEP’s response to question #6 (©27), state, “a broad

outreach campaign that includes mailers to residents and businesses in the County, and radio,

television, and internet ad campaigns, which would cost roughly $540,000. Additionally, [the] use

of the County’s social media and newsletters could be used to publicize the law. All materials

could be translated into multiple languages, including Spanish. Additional details of the

communication plan would be developed once the bill is adopted based on the final provisions of

the law. A longer transition period may reduce the costs necessary for both outreach and

incentives.”

The Committee may wish to discuss whether DEP should also include in its outreach

campaign – distributing lawn yard signs and information posted on its website.

2. How would DEP offer the buy-back (rebate) program for gas-powered leaf blowers,

and for how long?

As introduced, lines 10 – 13, as follows:

(g) Reimbursement. The Director may establish a time-limited program based on

criteria set by regulation to partially reimburse County residents and businesses that

purchase electric leaf blowers or leaf vacuums to replace combustion engine-

powered leaf blowers or leaf vacuums.

According to the fiscal impact statement, the Executive anticipates offering a rebate

program for three (3) years at $100,000 per year. The details of a rebate program still need to be

fully developed. DEP has indicated in its response to Council’s questions that, “it would address

equity in the implementation of a rebate program, particularly related to small, minority-owned,

and income-qualifying businesses and residents.”

The Committee may wish to ask DEP about the factors that would be considered for the

rebate program and any specifics that would be included in the regulations to implement the rebate

program.

Committee Recommendation (3-0): The reimbursement program must be implemented

to provide equitable consideration for owners who would be affected by the mandate. The

Committee decided to require DEP to provide a reimbursement program rather than “may” provide

(see line 11). The Committee also adopted an amendment to clarify the reimbursement program

would be provided contingent on the Council appropriation of funds in the annual budget, (see

lines 10 -11).

3. How will this ban be enforced - Penalties and Alternative Enforcement Options

A single-noise complaint by a witness with photographic evidence of a person using a gas-

powered leaf blower may result in a Class A citation on the first offense (up to $500, initially, and

up to $750 for repeated offenses) against the violator.

DEP stated in its response to question #8 (©27), “[t]his enforcement approach has been

used for other County laws and would be appropriate in this situation given the challenge

associated with ensuring all residents and businesses are informed of the change in law related to

the use of leaf blowers, which are tools widely used to perform landscaping activities.”

DEP could also consider alternative enforcement means, including, a written warning for

the first offense, then followed by a citation for any subsequent offenses.

Decision Point: Whether the Committee decides to adopt the enforcement provision as introduced

or consider a written warning prior to the assessment of a civil penalty fee?

Committee Recommendation: The Committee did not consider amendments related to

penalties or the enforcement process.

4. Timeline for Implementation/Phase-In Approach

As proposed in the bill, the transition period prohibits the sale of a gas-powered leaf

blower 6 months after enactment, and after 1 year prohibits any usage. When compared to

other jurisdictions that have banned the sale or use of gas-powered leaf blowers, including:

• California: Legislation was signed into law by the Governor in 2021 and banned

the sale of gas-powered leaf blowers starting in 2024.

• Washington, D.C.: Implemented a 3-year phased-in approach before the ban on

the use and sale of gas-powered leaf blowers became effective.

• Town of Somerset and Town of Chevy Chase: Incorporated a phased-in approach

and provided at least 2 years before a prohibition would become effective.

Pending Legislation – State bill

• Maryland House Bill 399: Introduced on 1/27/2023, Sponsored by: Delegate

Linda Foley. If adopted, the bill specifics a phased-in approach for State purchase

and use – Ban sales by 7/1/2023; Ban use by 1/1/2025.

Decision Point: Whether the Committee would like to consider an amendment to extend the

timeframe or transition period to allow consumers and commercial landscapers to prepare for the

transition to all-electric?

Committee Recommendation (3-0): The ban on the sale of GPLB in the County will be

effective six months after the bill becomes effective; however, the Committee decided to delay the

effective date on the ban of GBLB until the County Executive submits to Council, for review and

approval, the regulations to implement the reimbursement program.

5. Amendment proposed by Councilmember Balcombe

Beginning on page 2, insert on line 29, amend Section 31B-10, as follows:

Sec. 31B-10. Exemptions.

the Agricultural Reserve. Activities of agricultural producers must be consistent

with the definition of agriculture under Section 2B-1.

Decision Point: Whether to adopt the amendment proposed by Councilmember Balcombe to

exempt agricultural producers from the ban on the use of GPLBs. Committee Recommendation

(3-0): The Committee adopted the exemption amendment.

NEXT STEPS: Whether the T&E Committee recommends approval of Bill 18-22 for adoption

by the full Council? By a unanimous vote (3-0), the T&E Committee recommends approval

of the Bill.

This packet contains: Circle #

Bill 18-22 1

Legislative Request Report 5

County Executive Memorandum 8

Fiscal Impact Statement 10

Racial Equity and Social Justice Impact Statement 16

Economic Impact Statement 22

Response by the Executive Branch to Council’s questions 26

Public Hearing Testimonies 29

Councilmember Katz’s Amendment 65

Councilmember Fani-Gonzalez’s Amendment 66

Councilmember Albornoz’s Amendment 67

Councilmember Jawando’s Amendment 68

The Economics of Switching to Battery-Powered Leaf Blower 69

(provided by DEP)

Bill No. 18-22

Concerning: Noise Control – Leaf

Removal Equipment - Amendments

Revised: 3/7/2023 Draft No. 3

Introduced: June 28, 2022

Expires: December 28, 2023

Enacted: [date]

Executive: [date signed]

Effective: [date takes effect]

Sunset Date: [date expires]

Ch. [#] , Laws of Mont. Co. [year]

OUNTY COUNCIL

OR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

By: Council President at the Request of the County Executive

AN ACT to:

(1) prohibit the sale and use of combustion engine-powered leaf blowers and leaf

vacuums by a certain date;

(2) authorize a grant program to partially offset the cost of replacing a combustion

engine-powered leaf blower or leaf vacuum with an electric leaf blower or leaf

vacuum;

(3) exempt the use of gas leafblower equipment for agricultural producers;

(4) require an annual report by the Department of Environment; and

(5) generally, [[revise]] amend the law regarding noise control.

By amending

Montgomery County Code

Chapter 31B, Noise Control

Sections 31B-9, 31B-10, and 31B-12

The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:

Boldface Heading or defined term.

Underlining Added to existing law by original bill.

[Single boldface brackets] Deleted from existing law by original bill.

Double underlining Added by amendment.

[[Double boldface brackets]] Deleted from existing law or the bill by amendment.

* * * Existing law unaffected by bill.

(1)

BILL NO. 18-22

- 2 - \\mcg-c058\central_staff\law\bills\2218 noise control - leaf removal

equipment\bill 3 - council rec.docx

Sec. 1. Sections 31B-9, 31B-10, and 31B-12 are amended as follows: 1

31B-9. [Leafblowers] Leaf removal equipment. 2

* * * 3

(e) Sale of combustion leaf removal equipment – Prohibited. A person must 4

not sell or offer for sale a combustion engine-powered handheld, 5

backpack, or walk-behind leaf blower or leaf vacuum. 6

(f) Use of combustion leaf removal equipment – Prohibited. A person must 7

not use a combustion engine-powered handheld, backpack, or walk-8

behind leaf blower or leaf vacuum. 9

(g) Reimbursement. Subject to an appropriation in the annual budget by the 10

County Council,[[The]] the Director [[may]] must establish a time-11

limited program based on criteria set by regulation to partially reimburse 12

County residents and businesses that purchase electric leaf blowers or leaf 13

vacuums to replace combustion engine-powered leaf blowers or leaf 14

vacuums. 15

[[(1)]] (h) Application for reimbursement. To receive reimbursement under 16

subsection (g), an owner of a combustion engine-powered leaf blower or 17

leaf vacuum must apply to the Director in a form prescribed by the 18

Director and deliver the combustion engine-powered leaf blower or leaf 19

vacuum to the County. 20

(i) Regulations. Not later than June 30, 2024, the County Executive must 21

transmit Method (2) regulations to establish the reimbursement program 22

under subsection (g). 23

[[(h)]] (j) An enforcement officer may issue a civil citation under this Section if the 24

Director receives a complaint of a noise disturbance supported by 25

photographic evidence of a violation of subsection (f). 26

(2)

BILL NO. 18-22

- 3 - \\mcg-c058\central_staff\law\bills\2218 noise control - leaf removal

equipment\bill 3 - council rec.docx

(k) Annual reporting. By February 1 of each year, the Director must submit 27

to the Council an annual report for the preceding year on the success or 28

challenges of the reimbursement program, outreach activities, statistical 29

data related to enforcement, new technology trends for electrification of 30

lawn care equipment, and any recommended changes to the law or 31

operating budget. The Council may request the Director to provide 32

additional information, as needed. 33

31B-10. Exemptions. 34

* * * 35

located [[in the Agricultural Reserve Zone. Activities of agricultural 37

producers must be consistent with the definition of agriculture under 38

Section 2B-1]] on agriculturally assessed properties where farming or 39

agricultural use and activities are permitted under Article 59 Section 3.2.6 40

of the Zoning Ordinance. 41

31B-12. Enforcement and penalties. 42

* * * 43

(f) Except as provided in Section 31B-9(h), [An] an enforcement officer may 44

issue a civil citation for any violation of this Chapter if the enforcement 45

officer: 46

(1) witnesses the violation; or 47

(2) receives complaints from at least 2 witnesses of a noise 48

disturbance. 49

Complaints by 2 witnesses are required to issue a citation under paragraph (2), but are 50

not required to prove that a person violated this Chapter. 51

* * * 52

(3)

BILL NO. 18-22

- 4 - \\mcg-c058\central_staff\law\bills\2218 noise control - leaf removal

equipment\bill 3 - council rec.docx

Sec. 2. Effective date; staggered implementation. Subsection (e) of Section 53

31B-9, under Section 1 of this Act, must take effect 6 months after the Act becomes 54

law. Subsection (f) of Section 31B-9, under Section 1 of this Act, must take effect [[1 55

year after the Act becomes law]] on the date the Council adopts the executive 56

regulations established under subsection (i). Subsection (g) of Section 31B-9, under 57

Section 1 of this Act, must apply reimbursement only for purchases of combustion 58

engine-held leaf blowers or leaf vacuums made before this Act becomes law. 59

(4)

LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT

Introduction of Bill XX-22, Amendments to Chapter 31B

DESCRIPTION:

PROBLEM:

Bill XX-22 would prohibit the sale and use of combustion engine-

powered leaf blowers and leaf vacuums, authorize a grant program to

partially offset the cost of replacing a combustion engine-powered

leaf blowers or leaf vacuum with an electric leaf blowers or leaf

vacuum, and revise County law regarding enforcement in noise

control for leaf blowers.

Leaf blowers are currently regulated in Chapter 31B to not exceed

70 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. However, gasoline leaf blowers, or

combustion engine-powered leaf blowers (further referenced as

CEPLBs) are common in landscaping, yard maintenance, and snow

removal. These are a growing noise issue in Montgomery County,

and are a public health risk to workers and residents in the

communities where they are used.

Noise is known to create adverse health effects, as well as simply be

a distraction and interrupt work for many. As to health effects, it is

known to create hearing loss and tinnitus, as well as effects such as

reduced mental performance and health and hypertension. Leaf

blowers are known to create significant noise. These effects are

acerbated for leaf blowers operators in landscape companies often

minorities, as well as those nearby especially children and elderly,

those working from home, and those that work overnight shifts,

sleeping during typical leaf blowing hours.

In Montgomery County specifically, noise from leaf blowers resulted

in 62 formal complaints to DEP in fiscal year 2021. The current

legislation regulates CEPLBS in Chapter 31B to not exceed 70 dBA

at a distance of 50 feet. This legislation is difficult to measure and

enforce if leaf blowers no longer have the original manufacturer

labels. Additionally, noise is measured on a logarithmic scale in

dBA. As such, the current 70 dBA allowance is doubly as loud a low

60s dBA noise more commonly seen in BLBs. As stated above,

BLBs also don’t have the penetrative low frequency tone. With the

noise and health effects of CEPLBs, DEP is seeking to phase out

CEPLBs through prohibiting sale January 1, 2022 and use beginning

January 1, 2023.

The legislation also enables DEP to create a grant program for trade-

in of CEPLBs or purchase of new BLBs to support this transition

https://www.audubon.org/magazine/spring-2021/why-cities-are-taking-action-limit-loud-and

(5)

GOALS AND

OBJECTIVES:

COORDINATION:

FISCAL IMPACT:

ECONOMIC IMPACT:

RACIAL EQUITY

AND SOCIAL

JUSTICE IMPACT:

EXPERIENCE

ELSEWHERE:

SOURCE OF

INFORMATION:

away from CEPLBs for private citizens and companies in the

County. With this grant program, and already affordable alternatives,

this legislation is a benefit to communities and workers ensuring

Montgomery County is a healthy place to live and work.

Bill XX-22 addresses the increasing noise issues from combustion

engine-powered leaf blowers through phase-in of plug-in electric and

battery options. This is supported through authority to create a grant

program and updates to the enforcement mechanism for the noise

control ordinance.

Department of Environmental Protection

Office of Management and Budget.

Office of Legislative Oversight.

There are more than 170 communities that have regulations related to

leaf blowers with more than 100 prohibiting or limiting their use.

Both DC and Chevy Chase Village have bans on leaf blowers that go

into effect January 1, 2022.

DC’s legislation allows for the sale of a

petroleum-powered leaf blower, if the customer is given written

notification that it cannot be used in DC after January 1, 2022. The

Town of Chevy Chase is offering a rebate on electric blowers of

$200 as of April 2021. They have processed over 20 applications to

date. California, in May 2021, introduced legislation to require

determination of an appropriate phase out of gasoline equipment, but

regulation timelines are not yet proposed.

Jason Mathias, Department of Environmental Protection

https://www.audubon.org/magazine/spring-2021/why-cities-are-taking-action-limit-loud-and

https://trackbill.com/bill/district-of-columbia-bill-234-leaf-blower-regulation-amendment-act-of-2017/1445642/

and https://www.chevychasevillagemd.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3414/ReslNo_12-01-19_Chapter-20-Sec--20-2-

Leaf-blowers_finaladopted

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB1346

(6)

APPLICATION

WITHIN

MUNICIPALITIES: This bill applies to all municipalities that accept or adopt the County

Noise Control Ordinance.

PENALTIES: Class A

(7)

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE

Marc Elrich

County Executive

M E M O R A N D U M

March 15, 2022

TO: Gabe Albornoz, President

Montgomery County Council

FROM: Marc Elrich, County Executive

SUBJECT: Introduction of Bill XX-22, Amendments to Chapter 31B

I am transmitting the attached proposed legislation, which amends Chapter 31B in response to

significant noise complaints and research on the noise impacts of gasoline or combustion engine-

powered leaf blowers. This legislation would phase out the sale of handheld and backpack

combustion engine-powered leaf blowers and vacuums beginning six months from enactment,

and their use twelve months from enactment.

Combustion engine-powered leaf blowers are known to exceed World Health Organization and

the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health standards for daytime noise and

occupational safety noise standards, respectively. Although efforts have been made to regulate

the overall noise volume of such leaf blowers in recent years, the Department of Environmental

Protection (DEP) still receives significant complaints from residents across the County. Research

shows combustion engine-powered leaf blowers have specific low and mid-frequency noise

qualities or tones that are highly penetrative and result in noise being two to four times louder

than electric plug in or battery powered options at the unit and up to 400 feet away. The low

frequency noise is particularly penetrative of non-heavy building materials and easily carries

through windows and doors. Beyond being distracting, this noise can have adverse health

effects, both auditory, such as hearing loss and tinnitus, systemic vascular disease and mental

illness.

With cost effective alternative equipment available as electric options, this prohibition will phase

out combustion engine-powered equipment and phase in much less noisy electric plug-in and

battery powered equipment. To assist in this phase-in, the legislation also authorizes a grant

_____________________________________________________________________________________

101 Monroe Street • Rockville, Maryland 20850

240-777-2500 • 240-777-2544 TTY • 240-777-2518 FAX

www.montgomerycountymd.gov

(8)

Introduction of Bill XX-22, Amendments to Chapter 31B

March 15, 2022

Page 2 of 2

program for DEP to ease the transition for residents and companies in the County. The

legislation also allows a citation to be issued from one witness complaint, rather than the

two required for other noise ordinance issues.

I appreciate your prompt consideration of this action.

ME:ah

Attachments

cc: Richard S. Madaleno, Chief Administrative Officer, Office of the County Executive

Debbie Spielberg, Special Assistant to the County Executive

Adriana Hochberg, Acting Director, Department of Environmental Protection

Ken Hartman, Director of Strategic Partnerships, Office of the County Executive

Patrice Bubar, Deputy Director, Department of Environmental Protection

Jason Mathias, Legislative Manager, Department of Environmental Protection

(9)

Fiscal Impact Statement

Introduction of Bill XX-22, Amendment to Chapter 31B

1. Legislative Summary.

Bill XX-22 prohibits the sale and use of hand-held and backpack combustion engine-powered

leaf blowers and vacuums in the County. It further establishes a grant program to offset the cost

of replacing the equipment and revises the law regarding noise control.

2. An estimate of changes in County revenues and expenditures regardless of whether the

revenues or expenditures are assumed in the recommended or approved budget. Includes

source of information, assumptions, and methodologies used.

Bill XX-22 is not expected to have an impact on County revenues.

As shown in Tables 1 and 2, over a six-year period, Bill XX-22 could increase expenditures by

up to $1,489,546.

Table 1

Implementation Cost Summary

FY22

FY23

FY24

FY25

FY26

FY27

Total

Outreach

and

Education

(DEP)

$420,000

$120,000

$540,000

Equipment

Replacement

$907,023

$248,250

$2,062,296

Contractual

Changes

$15,000

$90,000

Transition

Grants

$110,000

$100,000

$310,000

Personnel

Costs

$75,000

$225,000

Operational

Cost

Avoidance

($347,550)

($1,737,750)

Total

$1,527,023

$869,473

($157,550)

($332,550)

($84,300)

$1,489,546

(10)

Assumptions included in this cost estimate are detailed below.

Table 2

Implementation Cost Summary Description

Item

Expected Cost

Details

Education and Outreach

Mailers

$240,000

Based on costs from mailers from the pesticide ban, to every resident and business in the County.

This would be for two mailers. Reducing to one mailer saves $120,000 or one full mailer with an

additional just to single family homes would save $57,000.

Advertisements

$300,000

Radio, television, and internet ad campaigns, based on costs from implementing the pesticide ban.

Subtotal

$540,000

Equipment Replacement

DGS Replacements

$14,000

Equipment replacements for Department of General Services (DGS), including gasoline handheld,

backpack, and walk behind blowers.

DOT Replacements

$28,000

Equipment replacements for Department of Transportation (DOT), including gasoline handheld,

backpack, and walk behind blowers.

Year 5+ DOT and DGS Battery

Replacements

$7,500

Batteries require replacements after enough use, expected in year five (5) or six (6) for many pieces

of equipment.

Subtotal

$49,500

Non-County Equipment Replacement - These are State entities that the County cannot enforce the legislation for, but may still want to support in

replacing equipment.

MNCPPC Replacements

$473,710

The Bill isn't enforceable to MNCPPC but is recommended for MNCPPC to replace equipment if

possible.

MNCPPC Year 5+ Battery

Replacements

$66,750

The Bill isn't enforceable to MNCPPC but if MNCPPC is able to replace equipment, battery

replacements are needed as well.

MCPS Replacements

$1,298,336

The Bill isn't enforceable to MCPS but is recommended for MCPS to replace equipment if possible.

MCPS Year 5+ Battery Replacements

$174,000

The Bill isn't enforceable to MCPS but if MCPS is able to replace equipment, battery replacements

are needed as well.

Subtotal

$2,012,796

Contractual Changes

DGS Contract Increases

$90,000

DGS notes that County contracts for lawn care and landscaping are unpredictable, due to the

complexity of required replacements and operational savings, but this estimate accounts for

doubling the leaf management cost portion of its contracts due to the cost of equipment switching

incurred to contractors.

Transition Grants

Equipment Turn-in Rebates/Grants

for Individuals and Small Businesses

$300,000

Three-year program offering $100 rebates for 1,000 applicants per year. The legislation gives DEP

the authority for grants, but it is not a requirement. Prohibiting use of equipment still in useful life

without offering a grant or rebate is not recommended.

Grant Management Software

$10,000

Software to manage turn-in rebates/grants (first year cost only)

Subtotal

$310,000

Personnel Costs

Grant Management

$225,000

Term-limited staff member for 3 years. Alternatively, if the Septic legislation is approved and a

position added for that workload, that position can handle these responsibilities.

Operational Cost Avoidance

($1,737,750)

Assuming an average of $350 in cost avoidance per piece of equipment per year for fuel and

maintenance.

Total

$1,489,546

(11)

A. Education and Outreach.

A 2015 EPA study estimates that there are 11 million leaf blowers in the United States.

Using this nationwide information and extrapolating using County population estimates, there

could be more than 35,000 leaf blowers in Montgomery County. Montgomery County is also

home to one of the largest landscaping companies in the region, Ruppert, which employs

nearly 2,000 employees.

To succeed in having 35,000 leaf blowers retired or replaced with

electric alternatives, this legislation will require a robust education campaign of the phase out

and alternatives. The Montgomery County Pesticide Ban featured a similar rollout and

education campaign. In that campaign, DEP spent $120,000 in a single direct mailing to each

household and business in Montgomery County, and an additional $300,000 in advertising on

radio, television, and internet ads. This campaign will be similar in order to ensure awareness

of the legislation, timeline, rationale, and alternatives. Additional mailings, if needed, would

cost $120,000 to every address or $63,000 to single family households owned over two years.

A follow up mailing to single family households owned over two years at a later point is

recommended.

B. Equipment Replacement.

Bill XX-22 will require direct replacement of leaf blowers that are owned and operated by the

County government, namely DGS and DOT. To abide by the 12-month implementation

timeline of the legislation, replacements will need to take place in FY22 and FY23 for all leaf

blowers.

MNCPPC and MCPS have a significant quantity of leaf blowers in the County, but as State

entities, MNCPPC and MCPS are not required to comply with this legislation. If the County

wishes to support MNCPPC and MCPS in switching to electric leaf blowers, estimates for

MNCPPC and MCPS are included as well.

The estimated replacement unit costs for leaf blowers are shown in Table 2.

Table 3. Equipment Replacement Unit Costs

Equipment Type

Unit Cost

Notes

Handheld

$ 200

Backpack

$ 715

Walk Behind

$ 715

These are uncommon and expected to be replaced

with backpack options

Battery Only

$ 250

Extra or replacement batteries. Batteries are

typically replaced after five years for frequently

used equipment.

Leaf blowers vary in costs, from $100 to $1,100, for electric, battery operated plus additional

battery costs, with handheld being on the lower end of costs and backpack more expensive.

Additional batteries may cost $150 to $700 as well, and are needed for when leaf blowers are

used for extended periods and not able to be plugged in. MNCPPC made purchases in 2021

that were roughly $200 each per handheld blower, but with backpack models being $325 and

$1,100. These vary based on strength, in air blown and time each lasts on a charge. A variety

of backpack selections will likely be made at an average cost of $715. MNCPPC, MCPS,

DOT, and DGS assisted in calculating these estimates.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/banks.pdf

https://www.lawnandlandscape.com/page/top-100/

(12)

C. Contractual Changes.

Indirect costs will include increased costs for County contracts for lawn care and landscaping

services. DGS is the main contract holder for these services and noted that it cannot predict

how bids will come through. This is likely due to the complexity of increased capital costs

required by contractors to abide with this legislation; however, the contractors are expected to

see savings over the lifetime of the equipment. Based on a DGS contract for service in 2016

for 22 facilities, the cost per year for leaf removal is slightly more than $5,000. This is one of

three contracts that DGS has for lawn services; estimation of doubling all contracts for leaf

blowing service will result in about $15,000 per year.

D. Transition Grants – Grants/Rebates for Individuals and Small Businesses.

Bill XX-22 includes enabling legislation to offer a grant or rebate program for upfront costs

of the electric leaf blowers or leaf vacuums for private residents and commercial entities.

Such a grant program would require expenditures for both staff/stand up of establishing the

grant program and the grants themselves, including an estimated $10,000 for software

management of grants. Staffing needs are noted below.

Grants would be designed to incentivize trade in, and potentially additional battery costs,

especially for small and minority businesses. Such a grant could look like $100 per piece of

equipment for the first 1,000 applicants per year. This would total $100,000, annually, for the

first three years, or $300,000 in total.

E. Personnel Costs.

There is currently leaf blower legislation that requires enforcement of the decibel level, not to

exceed 70 dBA at 50 feet. To enforce the current law, DEP responded to 38 cases in FY19

and FY20. This responsibility falls to the Environmental Compliance group within DEP

which has staff that responds to noise code violations. For enforcement, there is no additional

staffing requests to comply with this legislation, as this Bill will be easier to enforce than the

current legislation on decibel level.

One term staff member to coordinate or manage the grant/rebate program and education and

outreach is expected to cost $75,000 annually for three years, or $225,000 in total.

F. Operational Cost Avoidance.

Based on literature studies, there may be cost avoidance from electric leaf blowers that will

offset some additional costs, fuel savings, and maintenance savings. A University of

Arkansas study found that its campus electric leaf blowers cost less than one-third of the

operations and maintenance costs over a five-year period as compared to its gasoline or

combustion engine-powered alternatives.

This was a savings of $360 per year per piece of

equipment. Similarly, the Town of Chevy Chase calculated up to $345 in annual operations

and maintenance savings.

Based on these, we estimate $350 in annual savings per leaf

blower.

G. Discussion on Estimates.

At a time when all leaf blowers are being replaced, it would be strategic to evaluate needs of

total leaf blowers, and/or purchase of corded electric leaf blowers instead of powered, as

which is best for individual needs and cost reduction. However, replacements for DGS, DOT,

MCPS, and MNCPPC are estimated using battery powered (not plugin), with expectations

for additional batteries for each piece of equipment. In areas where leaf blower operations

https://sustainability.uark.edu/_resources/publication-series/project-reports/reports-electric_power_tools_ua-2017-

ofs.pdf

https://www.townofchevychase.org/DocumentCenter/View/3097/Leaf-Blower-Cost-Comparisons-

(13)

require heavy use for multiple hours a day, the operators will require the purchase of

additional battery(ies) at $250 or more each, estimated at three additional batteries per

blower. These costs are captured in the estimates shown above.

Additionally, for heavy use, a gasoline leaf blower lasts five to ten years, and an electric

will last five years then likely require some replacement batteries in future years. For less

use batteries will need to be replaced less frequently. This estimate is based on heavier use.

This estimate assumes that there is no need to update infrastructure for charging batteries

overnight, as a 110v outlet is acceptable. This estimate also assumes that there will be no

daytime charging in trucks and that spare (excess) batteries would be used to meet daily

needs. Upgrades are available for outlets, electrifying trucks for single plug ins, or battery

backups on trucks for charging, that will greatly increase costs, and may be used

strategically for heavy use.

3. Revenue and expenditure estimates covering at least the next six fiscal years.

See the response to Question 2.

4. An actuarial analysis through the entire amortization period for each bill that would affect

retiree pension or group insurance costs.

The Bill is not expected to impact retiree pension or group insurance costs.

5. An estimate of expenditures related to County’s information technology (IT) systems,

including Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems.

Bill XX-22 is not expected to impact the County’s IT or ERP systems.

Later actions that may affect future revenue and expenditures if the bill authorizes future

spending.

The Bill does not authorize future spending.

6. An estimate of the staff time needed to implement the Bill.

During implementation it could take up to approximately 40 hours per week to provide education,

outreach, and manage the grant program. The anticipated workload will require one new position

if a grant program is offered, a Program Specialist II. The estimate above reflects the hiring of

one term staff member to handle these tasks. In addition, existing staff will also be needed to

conduct enforcement functions from time to time. This requirement can be handled as part of

existing staff workload in the to be created DEP Enforcement and Compliance Division.

7. An explanation of how the addition of new staff responsibilities would affect other duties. In

addition to a new term staff position for grants management, the implementation of this Bill will

be handled mainly by the Environmental Compliance Unit. The enforcement is expected to be

less than current enforcement efforts of the decibel level requirements.

8. An estimate of costs when an additional appropriation is needed.

See the response to Question 2.

(14)

9. A description of any variable that could affect revenue and cost estimates.

Electric equipment costs are decreasing, and the EmPower Maryland Utility program is under

review. These two variables could reduce future costs to purchase new electric leaf blowers and

leaf vacuums.

11. Ranges of revenue or expenditures that are uncertain or difficult to project.

Not applicable.

12. If a Bill is likely to have no fiscal impact, why that is the case?

Not applicable.

13. Other fiscal impacts or comments.

Not applicable.

14. The following contributed to and concurred with this analysis:

Jason Mathias, Department of Environmental Protection

Patty Bubar, Department of Environmental Protection

Stan Edwards, Department of Environmental Protection

Mary Travaglini, Department of Environmental Protection

Steve Martin, Department of Environmental Protection

Gus Montes de Oca, Department of General Services

Jeffrey Knutsen, Department of Transportation

Lynne Zarate, Department of Transportation

Amanda Aparicio, Montgomery County Department of Parks

Rich Harris, Office of Management and Budget

_______________________________________ __________________

Jennifer R. Bryant, Director Date

Office of Management and Budget

2 - 22 - 22

(15)

Racial Equity and Social Justice (RESJ)

Impact Statement

Office of Legislative Oversight

August 11, 2022

BILL 18-22:

NOISE CONTROL – LEAF REMOVAL EQUIPMENT –

AMENDMENTS

SUMMARY

The Office of Legislative Oversight (OLO) anticipates that Bill 18-22 could narrow racial and social disparities as its

benefits to Latinx employees in the local landscaping sector and County residents exceed its costs to local landscape

business owners, who are disproportionately Latinx. The anticipated impact magnitude of the Bill on racial equity and

social justice (RESJ) in the County is small.

PURPOSE OF RESJ IMPACT STATEMENT

The purpose of RESJ impact statements is to evaluate the anticipated impact of legislation on racial equity and social

justice in the County. Racial equity and social justice refer to a process that focuses on centering the needs, leadership,

and power of communities of color and low-income communities with a goal of eliminating racial and social inequities.

Achieving racial equity and social justice usually requires seeing, thinking, and working differently to address the racial

and social harms that have caused racial and social inequities.

PURPOSE OF BILL 18-22

Current law requires noise levels for leaf blowers to not exceed 70 decibels at a distance of 50 feet.

The Montgomery

County Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), however, finds it is difficult to regulate the noise emanating

particularly from gas-powered leaf blowers and vacuums when they no longer have the original manufacturer labels.

They also find that gas-powered leaf blowers have “specific low and high-frequency noise qualities and tones that are

highly penetrative and result in noise being two to four times louder than electric plug in or battery-operated options”

and these noises can be heard up to 400 feet away.

They further note the adverse health effects of leaf blowers on

hearing loss, reduced mental performance and health, and hypertension.

In 2021, there were 62 formal complaints to

DEP on leaf blower noise.

Bill 18-22 would change current law by prohibiting the sale of gas-powered handheld, backpack, or walk-behind leaf

blowers or vacuums six months after legislation is enacted.

It would also prohibit the use of the same varieties of leaf

blowers and vacuums a year after legislation is enacted.

Further, the Bill would authorize DEP to establish a

reimbursement program for residents and businesses who purchase electric leaf blowers in exchange for gas-powered

leaf blowers and vacuums.

Finally, Bill 18-22 would require DEP to have one witness with photographic evidence of a

leaf blower violation to issue a noise citation rather than the minimum of two witnesses required under current County

statute.

At the request of the County Executive, Bill 18-22 was introduced to the Council on June 28, 2022.

(16)

RESJ Impact Statement

Bill 18-22

Office of Legislative Oversight 2 August 11, 2022

ENTREPRENEURSHIP, LANDSCAPE CONTRACTING, LEAF BLOWERS, AND RACIAL EQUITY

Landscape contracting has provided a pathway to opportunity for many Latinx entrepreneurs and employees. While

Latinx people, like other people of color, are under-represented among business owners and earn revenue far below

their White peers, they are overrepresented in the landscape contracting industry. As such, Latinx people are especially

impacted by gas-powered leaf blower laws and regulations. This section describes inequities in business ownership by

race and ethnicity, the demographics of the landscaping industry, and the benefits and costs associated with gas-

powered leaf blowers to begin to unpack the potential RESJ implications of Bill 18-22.

Business Ownership Inequities. Prior research shows that a variety of factors adversely impact people of color as they

consider starting and growing businesses, including disparities in educational attainment, personal wealth, access to

mainstream capital, and exposure to entrepreneurship in family and social networks.

For example, a study by the Small

Business Administration found that Black- and Latinx-owned businesses are more likely to have been denied credit, to

receive only a portion of the funding requested, or to refrain from applying for needed funding out of fear their

applications will be rejected.

Other factors that explain the disparity in capital include discriminatory lending practices,

less wealth to leverage, recent financial challenges, and lower credit scores.

Nationally, Black and Latinx residents represent 28 percent of the population, but only 8 percent of the nation’s business

owners with employees.

Available local data also show evidence of disparities in entrepreneurship by race and

ethnicity, particularly with respect to revenue. For example, while the 2012 Survey of Business Owners indicated that

Black and Latinx firms each accounted for 15 percent of local firms in Montgomery County and Asian firms accounted for

14 percent of County firms, Asian firms accounted for 4 percent of local business revenue, Black firms accounted for 1.7

percent of local business revenue, and Latinx firms accounted for 1.5 percent of local business revenue.

More recent local data on self-employed residents also demonstrate disparities in entrepreneurship by race and

ethnicity. The 2018 Census data on self-employed residents includes information on residents self-employed in their

own incorporated and unincorporated business, professional practice, or farm. As noted in Table 1, White residents

were overrepresented among the self-employed compared to their share of the population, while Black, Latinx, and

Other residents were underrepresented among the self-employed.

Table 1. Representation of Self-Employed Montgomery County Residents by Race and Hispanic Origin, 2018

Demographic Group

Population

Incorporated

Unincorporated

White

52%

67%

59%

Black

19%

11%

13%

Asian

15%

16%

13%

Multiracial

10%

12%

Other

Non Latinx

80%

85%

84%

Latinx

20%

15%

16%

Source: COVID-19 Recovery Outlook: Minority-Owned Businesses, Office of Legislative Oversight, September 21, 2020

(17)

RESJ Impact Statement

Bill 18-22

Office of Legislative Oversight 3 August 11, 2022

Demographics of Landscape Contractors. While Latinx-owned businesses are underrepresented in the economy as a

whole relative to their share of the population, available data suggests that Latinx-owned businesses are

overrepresented in the landscaping industry. For example, a 2011 study by the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

examining the impact of landscaping and lawn care industry upon the Latinx community found that:

• The landscape industry in the U.S. employs almost 1.6 million workers and generates almost 959,000 jobs in

other industries. In total, Latinx people accounted for more than 830,000 workers in both categories.

• Latinx workers accounted for 35.2 percent of the landscaping and lawn care services workforce compared to

13.4 percent of all U.S. workers.

• Latinx households earned 25 percent of earnings attributable to the landscape and lawn care industry compared

to 8.3 percent of earnings among all households in the U.S. economy.

• Latinx-owned businesses account for 16 percent of businesses in the landscaping industry compared to 8.2

percent of businesses nationwide.

• Latinx-owned businesses in the landscaping and lawn care industry account for 9 percent of total industry

receipts compared to 1.2 percent of total receipts across all industries.

Available data suggests that Latinx residents are also overrepresented in the landscaping workforce. For example, 6

percent of all County residents worked in natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations that include

landscaping positions, compared to 21 percent of Latinx residents in 2019.

Anecdotal evidence also suggests landscape

contractor businesses and employment play major roles in providing income and small business ownership

opportunities to Latinx residents in the County. Many of these companies are family-owned and operated by recent

immigrant or first- and second-generation members of Latinx communities.

Benefits and Costs of Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers. The benefits of gas-powered leaf blowers and vacuums include time

and convenience in landscaping. They allow homeowners and professionals to clean landscapes and gutters, to remove

debris from and around buildings and to maintain lawns in a shorter time frame than using a rake or broom. Compared

to electric-powered leaf blowers, gas-powered leaf blowers can also be time and cost effective. Landscapers and

homeowners already have gas-powered leaf blowers and can use them for longer time frames than electric-powered

leaf blowers, which require charging and frequent battery changes to cover the same amount of square footage in the

same amount of time. In short, gas-powered leaf blowers minimize the short-term costs of maintaining landscapes.

The longer-term costs of gas-powered leaf blowers, however, are significant. In addition to creating noises that can

damage hearing, gas-powered leaf blowers also foster air pollution. According to the California Air Resources Board,

gas-powered leaf blowers contribute to exhaust emissions that create ozone, carbon monoxide, and fine particulate

matter.

Health effects associated with air pollution include “adverse respiratory and cardiovascular effects, including

premature death, hospital and emergency room visits, aggravated asthma, and shortness of breath.”

Population

groups at risk to the adverse effects of air pollution include “the elderly, children, and those with chronic illnesses.”

Data on mortality and emergency room visits for heart, cerebrovascular, and chronic respiratory diseases suggest that

White and Black residents in Montgomery County are at greatest risk for the negative health effects of air pollution. As

noted in Table 2, White residents experienced the highest rates of age-adjusted disease mortality for all three chronic

diseases between 2017 and 2019. During this same time frame, Black residents experienced the highest rates of

emergency room visits for these three chronic diseases. Nevertheless, since the operators of gas-powered leaf blowers

are most at risk for their associated adverse health impacts,

Latinx residents likely experience the most direct health

costs associated with gas-powered leaf blowers in the County.

(18)

RESJ Impact Statement

Bill 18-22

Office of Legislative Oversight 4 August 11, 2022

Table 2. Chronic Disease Mortality, Age-Adjusted per 100,000 Montgomery County Residents by Race and Ethnicity,

2017-19

Demographic Group

Heart Disease

Cerebrovascular

Disease

Lower Respiratory

Disease

White, Non-Hispanic

198.7

41.5

33.2

Black, Non-Hispanic

110.9

29.5

11.0

Asian/Pacific Islander

78.1

21.5

8.0

Latinx/Hispanic Origin

36.5

10.5

4.0

Source: Healthy Montgomery in Montgomery County, 2010 - 2019

Table 3. Chronic Disease Emergency Room Visits, Age-Adjusted per 100,000 Montgomery County Residents by Race

and Ethnicity, 2017-19

Demographic Group

Heart Disease

Cerebrovascular

Disease

Lower Respiratory

Disease

White, Non-Hispanic

1,846.3

20.3

525.5

Black, Non-Hispanic

3,330.1

44.8

1594.1

Asian/Pacific Islander

814.6

17.2

211.2

Latinx/Hispanic Origin

1,335.3

28.2

922.7

Source: Healthy Montgomery in Montgomery County, 2010 - 2019

ANTICIPATED RESJ IMPACTS

Within the context of racial inequity in entrepreneurship and health outcomes, it is important to consider two questions

when considering the anticipated impact of Bill 18-22 on RESJ in the County:

• Who are the primary beneficiaries of this bill?

• What racial and social inequities could passage of this bill weaken or strengthen?

For the first question, OLO considered the demographics of landscape business owners and employees. Landscape

employees, who are disproportionately Latinx, are one of the primary beneficiaries of Bill 18-22, followed by the public

at large. A ban on gas-powered leaf blowers and vacuums will reduce the health risks to landscape workers associated

with loud noises and air pollution from gas-powered leaf blowers. The ban will also reduce the health risks for residents

in the County, including BIPOC residents that experience health disparities in cardiovascular and respiratory health.

Available data on business ownership suggests that Latinx business owners could be harmed by the passage of Bill 18-22

as they are likely over-represented among landscape contractors in the County. Their business costs, at least in the

short-term, will likely increase as they replace gas-powered leaf blowers with electric ones and allocate additional staff

to cover the same amount of landscape currently maintained with gas-powered blowers. The landscape contractors

increased costs would in turn primarily impact home- and business-owners in the County, who are disproportionately

White. Bill 18-22’s authorization of a grant program to partially offset the cost of replacing gas-powered blowers with

electric ones, however, will help offset the costs of the gas blower ban on landscaping businesses and their customers.

(19)

RESJ Impact Statement

Bill 18-22

Office of Legislative Oversight 5 August 11, 2022

For the second question, OLO considered data on entrepreneurship and health disparities. With the concentration of

Latinx-owned businesses among landscape contractors and the likely smaller size of these businesses relative to White-

owned businesses, Bill 18-22 could widen the revenue gap between Latinx- and White-owned businesses. The

reimbursement program, however, could help offset this negative impact on RESJ. The concentration of Latinx

employees in landscaping also suggests that Latinx residents could benefit from reduced emissions associated with

electric leaf blowers. White and Black residents across the County that experience three chronic conditions most

associated with air pollution - heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and lower respiratory disease – would also benefit

from the decline in emissions resulting from the ban on gas-powered leaf blowers.

Taken together, OLO anticipates Bill 18-22 could narrow racial and social disparities in the County as its overall benefits

to Latinx employees in the local landscaping sector and to County residents exceed its costs to local landscape business

owners, who are disproportionately Latinx. To the extent Latinx business owners are disproportionately harmed, the

grant reimbursement program authorized under Bill 18-22 to help defray the cost of replacing gas-powered blowers for

electric ones will dampen this harm. Further, OLO anticipates a small impact of Bill 18-22 on RESJ in the County.

RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS

The Racial Equity and Social Justice Act requires OLO to consider whether recommended amendments to bills aimed at

narrowing racial and social inequities are warranted in developing RESJ impact statements.

OLO anticipates that Bill 18-

22 could narrow racial and social disparities as the benefits of banning gas-powered leaf blowers, particularly for Latinx

landscape employees, exceeds the costs of replacing gas-powered leaf blowers for electric ones among Latinx-owned

businesses and other landscape contractors, particularly with the Bill’s authorization of a grant reimbursement program.

As such, OLO does not offer recommended amendments for Bill 18-22.

CAVEATS

Two caveats to this racial equity and social justice impact statement should be noted. First, predicting the impact of

legislation on racial equity and social justice is a challenging analytical endeavor due to data limitations, uncertainty, and

other factors. Second, this RESJ impact statement is intended to inform the legislative process rather than determine

whether the Council should enact legislation. Thus, any conclusion made in this statement does not represent OLO's

endorsement of, or objection to, the bill under consideration.

CONTRIBUTIONS

Elaine Bonner-Tompkins, Senior Legislative Analyst drafted this RESJ impact statement with assistance from Janmarie

Peña, Performance Management and Data Analyst.

Definition of racial equity and social justice adopted from “Applying a Racial Equity Lens into Federal Nutrition Programs” by

Marlysa Gamblin, et.al. Bread for the World, and from Racial Equity Tools. https://www.racialequitytools.org/glossary

Ibid.

Ludeen McCartney-Green, Memorandum to County Council on Bill 18-22, June 23, 2022

Jason Mathias, Legislative Request Report for Bill 18-22, Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection

Marc Elrich, Memorandum to Gabe Albornoz, Introduction of Bill 18-22, March 15, 2022

(20)

RESJ Impact Statement

Bill 18-22

Office of Legislative Oversight 6 August 11, 2022

Mathias

Ibid

McCartney-Green

Ibid

Bill 18-22

Joyce Klein, “Bridging the Divide: How Business Ownership Can Help Close the Racial Wealth Gap” Washington: The Aspen

Institute 2017; Robert Fairlie and Alicia Robb, “Why Are Black-Owned Businesses Less Successful than White-Owned Businesses? The

Role of Families, Inheritance, and Business Human Capital,” Journal of Labor Economics 25(2) 2017; “Kaufmann Compilation:

Research on Race and Entrepreneurship,” Kaufmann Foundation, December 2016

Stephen Roblin, “COVID-19 Recovery Outlook: Minority-Owned Businesses,” Office of Legislative Oversight, September 21, 2020.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OLO/Resources/Files/2020%20Reports/COVID-19RecoveryOutlook-

MinorityOwnedBusinesses.pdf

Robert Fairlie and Alicia Robb, “Disparities in Capital Access between Minority and Non-Minority-Owned Businesses: A Troubling

Reality of Capital Limitations Faced by MBE’s,” U.S. Department of Commerce, January 2010.

https://www.mbda.gov/sites/default/files/migrated/files-attachments/DisparitiesinCapitalAccessReport.pdf

Joseph Parilla and Darin Redus, “How a New Minority Business Accelerator Grant Program Can Close the Racial Entrepreneurship

Gap.” Brookings December 9, 2020 https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-a-new-minority-business-accelerator-grant-program-

can-close-the-racial-entrepreneurship-gap/

Jupiter Independent Research Group, Racial Equity Profile Montgomery County, OLO Report 2019-7, Office of Legislative

Oversight, July 15, 2019

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/council/Resources/Files/agenda/col/2019/20190611/20190611_3.pdf

Roblin

Inter-University Program for Latino Research: A report to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on “The Economic Impact of

the Landscaping and Lawn Care Services Industry on US Latinos.” November 2011.

https://latinostudies.nd.edu/assets/95362/original/ushccnational_report_novermber_21_2011_final.pdf

S0201: Selected Population Profile in the United States, 2019 American Community Survey, Census Bureau.

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/Health%20and%20Environmental%20Impacts%20of%20Leaf%20Blowers.pdf

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/13/

Ibid

QC/PDX https://www.quietcleanpdx.org/leaf-blowers-dangers-pollution/

Bill 27-19, Administration – Human Rights – Office of Racial Equity and Social Justice – Racial Equity and Social Justice Advisory

Committee – Established, Montgomery County Council

(21)

Economic Impact Statement

Office of Legislative Oversight

Montgomery County (MD) Council 1

Bill 18-22 Noise Control – Leaf Removal Equipment

– Amendments

SUMMARY

The Office of Legislative Oversight (OLO) anticipates that enacting Bill 18-22 would have an indeterminate impact on

economic conditions in the County in terms of the Council’s priority indicators. By prohibiting the sale and use of

combustion engine-powered leaf blowers and vacuums, the Bill would require certain landscaping companies and

residents who currently use combustion engine-powered units to replace them before the end of their useful life with

electric alternatives. These stakeholders would incur increased operating and household expenses through purchasing

electric units and backup batteries. These costs, however, would be offset by the grant program described in the Bill and

lower utility costs if future prices of electricity will be on average lower than gas prices. As discussed below, the Bill may

also negatively impact certain fuel suppliers and the perception of the County held by businesses. Given the lack of data

and uncertainty in key factors, OLO is unable to determine whether Bill 18-22 would have net positive or negative impact

on overall economic conditions in the County in the short- or long-terms.

BACKGROUND

The goal of Bill 18-22 is “to ban gas-powered leaf blowers to address environmental, noise, and health concerns raised by

County residents.”

The Bill would attempt to achieve this goal by prohibiting the sale and use of combustion engine-

powered leaf blowers and leaf vacuums by certain dates. The ban on the sale of this equipment would take effect six

months after the legislation is enacted, and the ban on its use would take affect a year after enactment. In addition, the

Bill would authorize the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to establish a grant program to partially offset the

cost of replacing combustion engine-powered leaf blowers or leaf vacuums with electric alternatives.

INFORMATION SOURCES, METHODOLOGIES, AND ASSUMPTIONS

Per Section 2-81B of the Montgomery County Code, the purpose of this Economic Impact Statement is to assess, both, the

impacts of Bill 18-22 on residents and private organizations in terms of the Council’s priority economic indicators and

whether the Bill would have a net positive or negative impact on overall economic conditions in the County.

McCartney-Green to County Council, Memorandum; and Legislative Request Report, Bill 18-22.

Ibid; and Bill 18-22.

Montgomery County Code, Sec. 2-81B.

(22)

Economic Impact Statement

Office of Legislative Oversight

Montgomery County (MD) Council 2

The focus of this analysis is to assess Bill 18-22’s impacts on residents and businesses on the following priority indicators:

▪ household expenses and income; and

▪ business operating costs and income.

Due to information and time limitations, OLO is unable to quantify the Bill’s impacts on these indictors or overall economic

conditions in the County. Instead, this analysis identifies the primary stakeholder groups impacted by the ban on

combustion-powered leaf blowers and vacuums and discusses the conditions in which the economic impacts would have

an overall positive or negative economic impact in the County.

VARIABLES

The primary variables that would affect the economic impacts of enacting Bill 18-22 are the following:

▪ average cost of electric leaf blowers and leaf vacuums;

▪ number of combustion engine-powered leaf blowers and leaf vacuums currently in use; and

▪ difference in future gas and electricity prices.

IMPACTS

WORKFORCE ▪ TAXATION POLICY ▪ PROPERTY VALUES ▪ INCOMES ▪ OPERATING COSTS ▪ PRIVATE SECTOR CAPITAL INVESTMENT ▪

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ▪ COMPETITIVENESS

Businesses, Non-Profits, Other Private Organizations

OLO anticipates that enacting Bill 18-22 would have mixed impacts on certain private organizations in the County in terms

of business operating costs and income.

OLO expects the ban on the sale and use of combustion engine-powered leaf blowers and vacuums to affect the following

stakeholder groups:

▪ landscaping companies;

▪ fuel suppliers; and

▪ retailers selling landscaping equipment.

The change in law would require landscaping companies to replace combustion engine-powered leaf blowers and

vacuums with electric alternatives. For companies currently using combustion engine-powered units, replacing them

before the end of their useful life with electric units would increase operating costs. Operating costs for affected

landscaping companies also would increase from purchasing additional backup batteries.

However, these costs would be

Hope, “Best Leaf Blowers of 2022.”

(23)

Economic Impact Statement

Office of Legislative Oversight

Montgomery County (MD) Council 3

partially offset for companies that take advantage of the DEP grant program (see above). Moreover, companies would

experience a decrease in operating costs if future electricity prices will be lower on average than gas prices. Depending on

the net impact on operating costs, the Bill could increase or decrease net business income (holding all else equal).

Bill 18-22 likely would impact certain fuel suppliers who experience a net decrease in business income from reduced

demand for gas. In addition, if there is a significant difference in future prices of combustion engine-powered and electric

leaf blowers and vacuums, the Bill would affect revenues to certain retailers selling landscaping equipment.

In addition to these stakeholder impacts, Bill 18-22 may have a negative impact on the perception of the County held by

businesses.

Beyond these potential impacts, OLO does not expect the Bill to affect private organizations in terms of the Council’s other

priority indicators.

Residents

OLO anticipates that enacting Bill 18-22 would have mixed impacts on residents who own combustion engine-powered

leaf blowers or vacuums in terms of household expenses and income. Replacing these units before the end of their useful

life with electric leaf blowers and purchasing backup batteries would increase household expenses for these residents.

However, the replacement cost would offset by DEP’s grant program and lower utility costs if future prices of electricity

on average are lower than gas prices. Depending on the net impact on household expenses, the Bill could increase or

decrease net household income (holding all else equal).

Beyond this potential impact, OLO does not expect the Bill to affect residents in terms of the Council’s other priority

indicators.

Net Impact

Given the lack of data and uncertainty in key factors (e.g., future energy prices), OLO is unable to determine whether Bill

18-22 would have net positive or negative impact on overall economic conditions in the County in the short- or long-terms.

DISCUSSION ITEMS

Not applicable

WORKS CITED

Hope, Paul. “Best Leaf Blowers of 2022.” Consumer Reports. June 10, 2022.

McCartney-Green to County Council. Memorandum. Bill 18-22, Noise Control – Leaf Removal Equipment – Amendments.

June 23, 2022.

Montgomery County Code. Sec. 2-81B, Economic Impact Statements.

(24)

Economic Impact Statement

Office of Legislative Oversight

Montgomery County (MD) Council 4

Montgomery County Council. Bill 18-22, Noise Control – Leaf Removal Equipment – Amendments. Introduced on June

28, 2022.

CAVEATS

Two caveats to the economic analysis performed here should be noted. First, predicting the economic impacts of

legislation is a challenging analytical endeavor due to data limitations, the multitude of causes of economic outcomes,

economic shocks, uncertainty, and other factors. Second, the analysis performed here is intended to inform the legislative

process, not determine whether the Council should enact legislation. Thus, any conclusion made in this statement does

not represent OLO’s endorsement of, or objection to, the Bill under consideration.

CONTRIBUTIONS

Stephen Roblin (OLO) prepared this report.

(25)

Executive Branch Responses to Council's Questions on Bill 18-22,

Noise Control – Leaf Removal Equipment – Amendments

1. What is the scope, or the number of landscaping companies employed by the County?

As of November 2022, the Department of General Services (DGS) maintained 172 properties through

the use of three vendors. DOT vendors do not use leaf blowers, and all DOT-owned leaf blowers are

electric.

2. Rather than a local prohibition to banning gas-leaf blowers, would the CE consider offering a rebate/

voucher program for County users to voluntarily opt into a program?

Although the trend in the lawn care industry is toward electrification of equipment, a

rebate/voucher program alone is not likely to dramatically change the use of gas-powered blowers in

the near term unless the program covers a significant portion of the replacement cost, particularly

for landscaping contractors. Furthermore, only in-County businesses would be eligible for a rebate

under such a program; businesses working in the County that are not located in the County would

not be able to participate in any rebate/voucher program.

3. What information or research does the Executive have to indicate that an all-electric leaf blower can

meet the same demand for commercial landscaping versus a gas-powered one?

Reviews of gas and electric leaf blowers stress that both have advantages and disadvantages

depending on the objectives and values of the users and the customers being served. Commercial

landscaping services continue to be provided in jurisdictions around the country, including in

Washington, DC, that have instituted bans on gas leaf blowers, indicating that electric leaf blowers

can meet the needs of commercial landscapers. There are currently several companies in the County

that provide commercial landscaping services utilizing only electric equipment.

4. The batteries in an electric-leaf blower have a limited lifespan and would require multiple

replacements for a landscaping company to operate efficiently. Is there information on whether this

bill would have an adverse impact on local businesses?

Having multiple batteries may be a necessity for electric equipment that is heavily used, in the same

way that extra gas and oil is needed for gas leaf blowers that are heavily used. However, reviews of

leaf blower alternatives generally agree that the operating and maintenance costs of electric leaf

blowers are lower than for gas leaf blowers. The net economic effect of the bill will vary depending

on the size and operating practices of the business.

5. What methods would DEP recommend for a person to dispose of a battery for an electric-powered

charging leaf blower? Notably, we understand that recycling used batteries is better for the

environment than dumping them into landfills. But recycling lead batteries, which are found in some

leaf blowers and other electrical gardening equipment emits lead into the atmosphere and poses a

cause of concern.

(26)

Electric leaf blowers use lithium-ion batteries,

not lead acid batteries. Lithium-ion batteries

are recyclable at the Transfer Station (as are lead acid batteries).

6. Describe, if any, the outreach campaign, education, or notification process that would occur if this

bill was ad

opted? Essentially, how would landscaping businesses know about the new law,

especially, small businesses many owned and operated by Latinos/Latinx?

The Fiscal Impact statement for the bill suggests a broad outreach campaign that includes mailers to

residents and businesses in the County, and radio, television, and internet ad campaigns, would cost

roughly $540,000. Additionally, use of County social media and newsletters could be used to

publicize the ban. All materials could be translated into multiple languages, including Spanish. Details

of the communication plan would be developed once the bill is adopted based on the final provisions

of the law. A longer transition period may reduce the costs necessary for both outreach and

incentives.

7. Does the Executive have data related to the number of small landscaping businesses that are

licensed in the County? If so, does the Executive have the capacity to send a mailing notice to those

landscaping businesses?

Notices can be sent to all landscaping businesses for which address can be obtained. In addition,

entities such as homeowner/community associations, landscaping trade associations, community-

based organizations supporting small businesses, and all property owners receiving mailings can

serve as a conduit for reaching small landscaping businesses.

8. As introduced, the bill specifies that a violation would result in a Class A citation on the first offense;

however, an alternative approach could be, for the first offense, a written warning, and then for the

second offense, a citation? Is there any thought or feedback on this enforcement approach?

This enforcement approach has been used for other County laws and would be appropriate in this

situation given the challenge associated with ensuring all residents and businesses are informed of

the change in law related to the use of leaf blowers, which are tools widely used to perform

landscaping activities.

9. As introduced, how long would DEP offer the buy-back (rebate) program for gas-powered leaf

blowers?

The Fiscal Impact Statement contemplated offering a rebate program for three years at $100,000

per year. The details of a rebate program will need to be fully developed. DEP will address equity in

the implementation of a rebate program, particularly related to small, minority-owned, and income-

qualifying businesses and residents.

10. As proposed in the bill, the transition period prohibits the sale of a gas-powered leaf blower 6

months after enactment, and after a year prohibits any usage. When compared to other jurisdictions

that have banned the sale or use of gas-powered leaf blowers, including California, D.C., and

municipalities, such as the Town of Somerset and the Town of Chevy Chase, they have all provided a

phase-in approach and provided at least two years before a prohibition would be effective.

(27)

a. Please c

larify whether a phase-in approach would be considered to extend the timeframe or

transition period, i.e. minimum of two years, to allow the market and users to prepare for

the transition to all-electric.

The Executive is open

to discussions on the timing of the effective date for transition

period, but the law should go into effect in the most expeditious way possible.

11. The federal government is exempt from DC’s gas leaf-blower prohibition law, yet most of the

landscaping throughout the District is primarily owned by the federal government. Further, state

entities including MNCPPC and MCPS would be exempt as well. Would the mandated law place a

larger burden on smaller landscaping companies when a large portion of landscaping falls within the

realm of federal and state entities?

As noted, the design of any rebate/incentive program will target small, minority-owned, and income-

qualifying businesses.

12. Landscaping companies in D.C. have reverted to using a gas-powered generator to charge any

electrical leaf

blower equipment. Is there any consideration as to whether residents or businesses in

the County decide to use the same approach as users in D.C., it may be counterintuitive to ban gas-

powered blowers, because charging the equipment with a gas generator would continue to emit

greenhouse gases?

We have not heard any reports from DC of gas-powered generators being used to recharge

batteries. It is likely a company would invest in additional batteries rather than a generator and the

gas used to power it. Other options could include charging with permission of the owners at outdoor

plugs when available or using inverters in their vehicles to charge while driving between jobs. As

noted, there are several companies currently operating in the County that use all electric equipment

that do not use generators. In the event generators are used, they would be subject to the County’s

existing noise standards.

13. The Town of Somerset and Chevy Chase’s ban on gas-powered leaf blowers went into effect this

year

(2022). Has the department considered, first, collecting data and assessing the effectiveness of

the ban in each municipality before initiating the mandate in the County (the fall season is the

busiest season where an electric leaf blower would be used the most, so it may be beneficial to

assess the effectiveness of implementation, any unintended consequences, or advantages post the

2022 fall season)?

The Town of Somerset has reported that the ban has been well-received; no complaints from

contractors or homeowners have been received about adverse impacts. The Town of Chevy Chase

has reported the same, and even found that during the “exempt” period (a fall window to allow for

gas blowers to be used) that more than half of the leaf blowing was still electric. Both municipalities

reported limited violations.

(28)

September 12, 2021

Councilmember Tom Hucker, Chair

Transportation & Environmental Committee

Montgomery County Council

Council Office Building

100 Maryland Avenue, 6th Floor

Rockville, MD 20850

Landscape Industry Opposition to Bill 18-22,

Noise Control – Leaf Removal Equipment - Amendments

Dear Chairman Hucker,

The National Association of Landscape Professionals (NALP) is the national trade organization

representing the $98 billion landscape industry employing over 1.4 million employees in the

United States. Member companies specialize in lawn care, landscape maintenance, tree care,

irrigation and water management. Landscape professionals throughout the nation work daily

preforming essential services to homes and businesses to maintain their landscapes, sustain the

environment and enhance and maintain healthy and safe green spaces.

We share the council’s intent to reduce noise from gas powered leaf blowers as quickly as possible.

Still, we must do so in a responsible manner that mitigates the negative financial impact on the

landscape industry that relies significantly on the ability to use high performing leaf blowers. The

landscape industry in Maryland has more than 5,000 businesses, 99% of these businesses are

considered small businesses and a vital industry for entrepreneurs throughout the state of

Maryland.

Leaf blowers are essential for landscape industry professionals. This is because these machines are

efficient tools for cleaning up leaves, grass, fertilizer granules, and other small debris from lawn

and landscape sites. Since their development in the 1970s, to a large extent, leaf blowers have

supplanted brooms, hoses, and rakes. Leaf blowers even perform functions that no other tool can

handle effectively, such as cleaning areas covered by rock, gravel, bark, or mulch. Leaf blowers

save enormous amounts of time. Most estimates suggest that it takes at least five times as long to

clean a typical landscape site with a broom and rake than it does with a power leaf blower.

Landscape professionals work every day to take care of Maryland’s green spaces. The landscape

industry cares deeply about the environment, and we do support a responsible transition to zero-

emission leaf blowers. However, the timeline proposed in this bill is too fast of a transition for

(29)

commercial users. In addition, the commercial-grade battery-powered equipment currently on the

market has significant performance issues and cost issues.

Performance

Equipment performance and run-time are common concerns for landscape professionals and

present technological challenges that must be overcome for widespread use of electric leaf

blowers. Unlike a homeowner that uses an electric powered leaf blower for less than an hour,

maybe in a given week, the landscape industry is operating commercially using this equipment

daily, under rigorous conditions and during long durations. Also, many landscape professionals

operate on commercial properties like corporate campuses, parks, resorts, and other large green

spaces which demand stronger performance and power capabilities. Unfortunately, the available

electric leaf blowers are not capable of this sort of use pattern currently.

Data provided by one major equipment manufacture that produces both gas and electric equipment

illustrates the challenge. In a side-by-side comparison the performance of the electric leaf blower

immediately begins to decline the moment it begins until the battery dies only 18 minutes later,

while the gas-powered blower maintains a strong performance the entire hour and without

unnecessary downtime to change batteries.

Cost

The entire cost for transitioning away from gas powered leaf blowers must be completely

understood and realized. First, there is the immediate cost of purchasing the actual equipment,

which by itself is not that different. Where the price starts to jump is when you factor in the cost

of batteries, the cost to change and retrofit your shop and how you handle inferior products in the

midst of a labor crisis.

From a battery perspective they are expensive, and you need multiple per each piece of equipment.

One major equipment manufacturer’s most advanced electric commercial/professional grade

backpack blower has $379 manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP), this is without a charger.

The battery cost for this unit ranges from $870 to $1,100 MSRP, more than double the price for

the actual equipment. For a handheld leaf blower, the professional batteries range from $120 -

$240 and based on only 18 – 22 minutes run time we estimate that a typical leaf blower would

need nearly 10 batteries to complete routine daily tasks escalating prices of batteries per unit to

approach $2,400.

Compatibility is also an issue for batteries. Battery technology for leaf blowers is proprietary

information and therefore the batteries are not compatible between different manufacturers. This

presents a problem because it would require landscape companies to move to a single manufacturer

approach rather than using different equipment from different manufactures. This could lead to

companies being locked into one manufacturer, reduce competition, and strengthening

manufacturer influence over the company based on their specific needs.

The infrastructure on both the micro and the macro level is not currently in place to fully support

this transition. On the micro level landscape companies will need to fully retrofit their shops to

(30)

support the amount of amperage that will need to be used each day to safely charge all of the

electric leaf blowers. Vehicles used to transport crews and equipment will also need to be

redesigned to support charging stations to ensure complete operational capabilities once out in the

field, this will raise the overall “cost” factor detailed above significantly. From a macro level there

is currently not enough electric equipment in the stream of commerce due to supply chain issues

and even if the equipment were available the dealerships that play a critical role in assisting in

maintaining this equipment is not yet in place.

The last issue with cost that we want to address is labor. Electric leaf blowers lack the same

performance capabilities detailed above and require frequent battery changes both of which reduce

the productivity and efficiency of a landscape crew in the field. This reduction in productivity

puts landscape companies in a tough spot since they are already faced with a historic work force

crisis. This proposal pushes an industry that cannot find enough willing and capable employees

to now rely on less efficient equipment that takes more time and requires additional labor to

perform the same task in the same amount of time to remain competitive and profitable.

All of this considered together (equipment cost, battery cost, increased labor) represents significant

cost impediments to make a complete transition to electric leaf blowers.

Enforceability Issues

Aside from the barriers from the perspective of the landscape industry there are also practical and

legal matters to consider. First, this legislation will be very difficult to enforce and will likely lead

to additional problems and conflicts. Where is the funding coming from to enforce this? Who

will enforce this? Should police be brought into handle disputes? We have seen in California

those that don’t understand that in California the “use” of gas-powered equipment has not been

banned yet we have seen social media posts of angry neighbors getting into altercations with

landscape professionals and their crews. We also believe this will lead to neighbor versus neighbor

disputes. All of these are unintended consequences of passing a policy to ban the use of equipment

when there is not yet a viable alternative.

The Solution

The professional landscape industry would ask that the County Council take a different approach.

Rather than forcing companies to operate with electric leaf blowers that do not meet their need we

would suggest incentivizing via rebate programs to subsidize the purchase of new equipment to

lessen the expense and burden. This will reward early adopters rather than penalize small

companies that will have a more difficult time making this transition. For example, the state of

Washington is pushing forward legislation that would eliminate sales tax for gas powered

landscape equipment which has received strong support from a diverse group of stakeholders.

California has already pledged $30 million last year to ease the transition and are asking for even

more in 2022 as part of annual process to support a transition.

As the technology advances the gas-powered equipment can be phased out and we also believe

customer demands (especially in the commercial sector of the landscape industry) will increase to

require the use of electric powered leaf blowers.

(31)

In Conclusion

For the reasons stated herein, NALP supports a responsible transition to electric leaf blowers.

Unfortunately, we believe that due to the performance, cost, and infrastructure issues that this

transition cannot occur in the timeframe outlined in the bill, but we would welcome the idea of

working on proactive legislation that begins to encourage this transition rather than setting a

premature mandate and penalizing the thousands of small businesses that rely on this equipment.

Sincerely

Andrew Bray

Vice President of Government Relations

National Association of Landscape Professionals

(32)

Re: Bill 18-22, Noise Control – Leaf Removal Equipment – Amendments

Tentative Public Hearing Date: 09-20-2022

I am writing in support of this Bill and am strongly in favor of the County regulating gasoline-

powered leaf blowers and other unmuffled, gasoline-powered lawn maintenance equipment

(e.g., weed trimmers, edgers, etc.) These devices are extremely noisy, especially in our

neighborhood (Woodside Park, Silver Spring) where the environment is filled with the sound of

these devices in most seasons on most days.

My wife suffers from Tinnitus, and the high decibel and harsh frequencies of these sounds

cause her great suffering. At times, even inside our house (which is well insulated from noise),

the noise from these machines is too much and she has had to leave the neighborhood. The

noise is a major threat to her well-being, given her disability.

I am aware that adequate substitutes are available for this equipment, whether electric

powered or good old manual devices like rakes.

In addition to the noise hazards, I am informed that these devices emit an extremely dangerous

level of air pollutants due to their unsophisticated two-stroke engines. Combined with the

noise pollution, it’s absolutely essential for the County to ban the use of this equipment in our

neighborhoods.

If there are some gasoline-powered lawn equipment devices that have mufflers and 4-cycle

engines, so that they have noise and air pollution profiles no worse than those of lawn mowers,

I would be satisfied with those machines not being banned. But all the rest have adequate

substitutes, are dangerous, and have to go.

I appreciate the County’s willingness to help some of the less-advantaged lawn care companies,

particularly single-person operations, afford to make the switch to electric-powered

equipment. That is a very equitable offer and I think it’s morally correct to help them.

Thanks very much for your interest in my opinions on this important matter.

Sincerely,

Benjamin A. Berman

(33)

September 18, 2022

Dr Chessa Lutter

Re: MC Bill 18-22

My name is Chessa Lutter and a 30-year resident of Montgomery County, MD. I am a nutritionist

and epidemiologist, retired from the World Health Organization, and currently teleworking from

home as a Senior Fellow at RTI International.

Gas-powered leaf blowers (GPLBs) negatively affect human health. According to the US

CDC, they cause: hearing loss, tinnitus, cardiovascular effects, immune system suppression, stress

hormone release, sleep disturbance, impaired childhood development, impaired cognition, mental

health problems. These effects lead to reduced work and school productivity, and reduced quality

of life. The consequences are particularly acute for children, seniors, and people with hearing

disorders and neurological conditions. The more than one million workers in the landscaping

industry, over half of whom are Hispanic and Latino, are at particular risk given their immediate

proximity to GPLBs as they produce noise levels ranging from 102−115 decibels (“dBs”) at the

ear of the operator; higher than the recommended limit of 85 dBs established by the US EPA and

the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Banning GPLBs will improve racial equity. The Racial Equity and Social Justice Impact

Statement, states that their ban “could narrow racial and social disparities in the County as its

overall benefits to Latinx employees in the local landscaping sector and to County residents

exceed its costs to local landscape business owners, who are disproportionately Latinx. To the

extent Latinx business owners are disproportionately harmed, the grant reimbursement program

authorized under Bill 18-22 to help defray the cost of replacing gas-powered blowers for electric

ones will dampen this harm”. RESJIS Bill 18-22: Noise Control – Leaf Removal Equipment –

Amendments (montgomerycountymd.gov)

GPLBs are damaging to the environment and contribute to regional air pollution and

climate change. They generate chemicals and particulates that can violate EPA air pollution

standards and emit significant quantities of ozone-forming chemicals, carbon monoxide, and other

toxic air pollutants. They generate CO2 at a rate 3 to 9 times higher than electric-powered

blowers, contributing to climate change.

GPLBs low-wave noise frequencies travel long distances, penetrates walls of homes, and

affect homes far distant from the source. The noise caused by their use in densely urban

neighborhoods affect a large number of homes. Nearly all of my neighbors employ lawncare

companies that come on a weekly basis. Given how far their noise travels, I can hear them from

up to 90 surrounding properties; many from within my home with windows closed.

GPLBs routinely violate Montgomery County noise standards, which are virtually never

enforced. Enforcement is so poor that I have given wasting time to file complaints through the

county website as they have never resulted in any change in the practices of landscapers near my

home. This lack of enforcement is particularly irksome given my annual property taxes of $7,881.

(34)

September 18, 2022

The use of GPLBs is unpredictable. Landscaping crews, typically using two and up to four

blowers simultaneously, work from as early as 7 am to 7 pm Monday through Sunday. I never

know when the noise and gas fumes will prevent me from enjoying or working in my yard, hold a

gathering of friends, or concentrate on my work and, thus, livelihood.

As a resident of Montgomery County, I insist you:

• Pass without delay MC Bill 18-22 to be effective January 1, 2023

• Mount a large-scale communications campaign in English and Spanish to inform on the

new bill and that includes information on consequences of violation, and

• Enforce the bill and fine violators. Otherwise, a warning or small fine will be seen as the

cost of doing business by lawncare companies.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on Bill 18-22. Once in effect, it will

reduce the multiple health and environmental hazards caused by GPLBs, improve racial equity

and social justice, and contribute to the quality of life of all citizens of Montgomery County.

References

1. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Noise and its effects on children.

2009; https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-

07/documents/ochp_noise_fs_rev1.pdf.

2. Basner M. Auditory and non-auditory effects of noise on health. The Lancet.

2014;383(9925):132-1332.

3. Fritschi L, Brown AL, Kim R, Schwela DH, Kephalopoulos S. Burden of disease from

environmental noise. Bonn: World Health Organization;2011.

4. Goines L, Hagler L. Noise pollution: A modern plague. Southern Medical Journal.

2007;100(3):287-297.

5. Hahad et al. Environmental noise-induced effects on stress hormones, oxidative stress, and

vascular dysfunction: Key factors in the relationship between cerebrocardiovascular and

psychological disorders. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2019;4623109:1-13.

6. Munzel et al. Environmental noise and the cardiovascular system. Journal of the American

College of Cardiology. 2018;71(6):688-697.

7. Stansfeld SA, Matheson MP. Noise pollution: Non-auditory effects on health. Br Med

Bull. 2003;68:243-257.

8. Walker E, Banks JL. Characteristics of lawn and garden equipment sound: A community

pilot study. J Environ Toxicol Stud 2017 1(1).

9. Pollock et al. Lawn and garden equipment sound: A comparison of gas and battery

equipment. Journal of Environmental and Toxicological Studies. 2018.

10. Banks JL, McConnell R. National emissions from lawn and garden equipment. Undated.

11. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Leaf blowers. Undated;

https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/109428.html#:~:text=Emissions%20from%20gas%20powered

%20leaf,the%20amounts%20are%20even%20greater. Accessed Nov 29, 2002.

12. California Air Resources Board. Small engines in California. 2017;

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/small-engines-california.

(35)

September 18, 2022

13. Losacco C, Perillo A. Particulate matter air pollution and respiratory impact on humans

and animals. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2018;25(34):33901-33910.

14. Manisalidis, et al., Environmental and health impacts of air pollution: A review. Front

Public Health. 2020;8(14).

15. Fernandes et al., . The effect of noise on attention and performance in reading and writing

tasks. Codas. 2019;31(4):e20170241.

16. Sanzaki M, Kdoya T, Francis CD. Direct and indirect effects of noise pollution alter

biological communities in and near noise-exposed environments. Proc Biol Sci.

2020;287(1923):2020017.

(36)

September 15, 2022

Dear Montgomery County Council:

I write in strong support of Bill 18-22, which would phase out the use of gas powered leaf blowers in our

county. When our young family moved to Montgomery County more than a decade ago, we were

stunned and dismayed by the near daily and year around disruptive noise of gas powered leaf

blowers. They woke up our infant and toddler, often made it impossible to play outdoors with our

children, and took away our ability to enjoy our patio or simply being outside for walks or

relaxation. The noise was (and is) so loud it cannot be avoided inside one’s home either. In fact, we

have regularly suffered with two or three gas blowers next door on a single property roaring for more than

an hour (at which point we leave our home). I contacted multiple landscapers to politely ask for a change

and only one was willing to cut back on the gas blower usage near our home.

Quite simply, this antiquated noisy and polluting technology has rapidly been surpassed by equally

powerful, clean, and quiet cordless technology (with an increasing number of thriving county landscapers

using the new technology). This is why so many jurisdictions and now states have phased out the gas

blowers. The incredible disruption to our qualities of life was made even more apparent during the

pandemic when so many were stuck at home for school or work (and when this really should have been

addressed). It is absurd that landscapers use the new clean and quiet electric blowers as now required in

DC (and Chevy Chase Village) and then a few blocks over in our MoCo neighborhood the same

landscapers make us suffer with the gas blowers. There is simply no reason anymore of our county to be

a laggard on this issue. In fact, we are already behind when we should leaders on this issue. No wonder

more than 7,000 signed a petition pleading for relief and county leadership on this issue and that so many

county council candidates formally supported the pending bill.

We also owe landscape workers something better than continued use of the antiquated unhealthy gas

blowers. These are typically some of the most voiceless members of our society (certainly politically and

with their employers) who are asked to use these horribly polluting and noisy machines for hours each

day (not long ago I saw a young teen in our neighborhood struggling to lug one of these on his back

working for a area landscaper). In fact, the county's own Racial Equity and Social Justice Impact

Statement recently came to the same conclusion "OLO anticipates that Bill 18- 22 could narrow racial

and social disparities as the benefits of banning gas-powered leaf blowers, particularly for Latinx

landscape employees, exceeds the costs of replacing gas-powered leaf blowers for electric ones among

Latinx-owned businesses and other landscape contractors, particularly with the Bill’s authorization of a

grant reimbursement program. As such, OLO does not offer recommended amendments for Bill 18-22."

The early evidence from DC is that the transition to the newer technology has gone ahead without

disruption to landscapers and residents have noted great improvement in the quality of life in their

neighborhoods (ask/read James Fallows of the Atlantic). Continued financial transition and rebate

assistance to help our county landscapers make this an even easier decision for moving forward without

delay.

Quite simply, you cannot claim to be an environmental or worker rights champion and ignore this

legislation. As such, I urge you to support it without any further delay (and make the phase in six months

instead of a year).

Thank you,

Chris Homan

Bethesda, MD

(37)

September 12, 2022

The Honorable Gabe Albornoz, President

Montgomery County Council

100 Maryland Avenue

Rockville, MD 20850

Re: Bill 18-22, Noise Control - Leaf Removal Equipment - Amendments

Dear Council President Albornoz,

As a commercial landscape company operating in Montgomery County for 50 years, we

(Ruppert Landscape) would like to provide the following written testimony regarding Bill 18-22,

Noise Control - Leaf Removal Equipment – Amendments.

We understand the County’s concern with addressing the noise created by gas-powered leaf

blowers, but we feel that this bill will put an undue hardship on commercial landscape

companies, our customers, and on county residents—who will be absorbing the costs

associated with this bill. We estimate costs to purchase and operate battery powered blowers

to be 5x’s that of gas-powered models—a calculation that includes an additional 3-7 batteries

(and chargers) needed for each unit to operate for an entire day (see chart below). In addition,

creating the infrastructure at our facilities to ensure that we have the requisite load capacity,

upfitting our trailers, and creating power stations that our trailers can connect to each night we

estimate will cost around $120,000 for our facility in Montgomery County.

Unlike a homeowner that uses an electric powered leaf blower for less than an hour once a

week, we operate commercially using equipment daily, under rigorous conditions and over long

durations. Electric leaf blowers do not provide the same amount of power and run time that gas

powered blowers do. We estimate that it takes 35% more time to do the same amount of work

when using battery powered vs. gas. Additionally, the need for frequent battery changes

reduces the productivity and efficiency of our crews at a time when our industry (and many other

service industries) is already faced with labor shortages.

Additionally, the production and disposal of these lithium-ion batteries, involves significant

environmental impact. There are currently no great recycling programs with manufacturers, so

this will all add additional burden to county resources in terms of disposal.

We believe that the technology and needed infrastructure just isn’t here at this point to facilitate

this move to battery powered equipment in our industry. If enacted, we will be passing along the

added costs we incur to our customers in the form of rate increases; and county residents will

be carrying the burden of the $1.5M price tag at a time when we are experiencing a national

inflation rate of over 9 percent. We believe this added burden on consumers and county

residents is not well timed.

While we are always looking to invest in new technologies to improve efficiency and remain

environmentally sound, we don’t believe that this bill helps the environment, our community, or

(38)

our taxpayers. We share your concerns about protecting the health of our employees. Their

safety is always our top priority, which is why we supply and mandate use of ear protection and

provide instruction on how to properly use equipment and personal protective equipment.

Perhaps an education program on how to protect operators’ hearing when using gas powered

blowers would be a better first step for the citizens of our county.

Where we could use help is having the council focus on improving county infrastructure and

helping us maintain a competitive, resilient, and sustainable economy where businesses want to

operate, and residents want to live.

With these concerns, we ask the council for an unfavorable vote on Bill 18-22, Noise Control -

Leaf Removal Equipment – Amendments.

We thank you for your consideration,

Craig Ruppert

CEO Ruppert Landscape

CC: Montgomery County Executive

Montgomery County Council

(39)

Ruppert’s estimated yearly cost comparison: battery vs. gas powered blowers

Battery powered

Gas powered

Blower

$670 (*includes battery)

$500

Charger

$160

3 Add’l batteries/chargers (spring/summer usage)

$1800

4 add’l batteries/chargers for fall leaf removal

$2400

Fuel/power charges

$150

$600 (150 gal. @ $4/gallon)

TOTAL

$5180

$1100

Additional Considerations for County’s Table 2 / Implementation Costs

Equipment will need to be

replaced more frequently;

equipment purchased now will be

obsolete in 3 years due to

advances in technology; no

provisions made for theft or

breakage

No provisions for reduced

productivity and additional

labor hours to perform the

work; leaf removal constitutes

only 25-30% of blower use,

likely increasing $90K estimate

to 3x’s that.

(40)

Bill 18-22, Noise Control - Leaf Removal - Amendments

Written testimony - Don Peterkofsky, resident in affected area

I'm a resident in one of the areas included in this bill, and I'm also

concerned about and advocating for responsible actions towards curbing

climate change - as I believe many neighborhood residents are.

Our neighborhood has a very significant usage of gas-powered leaf-blowers

as a result of the neighborhood being a large employer of landscaping

companies who provide frequent ongoing yard/landscape maintenance

services. Many of these companies, as I'm sure we've all seen, often have

two or even three workers using gas-powered leaf-blowers simultaneously at

one location. The use of this equipment poses both an environmental and

quality of life impact to residents - the environmental impact of the high

carbon emissions from this equipment, and the quality of life impact by the

high levels of noise pollution created by this equipment.

The gas-powered leaf blowers are very noisy, in addition to being highly

polluting, and the landscaping companies using these leaf blowers frequently

ignore the Montgomery County DEP and Noise Control ordinance that limits

noise levels before 9am on weekends, and frequently start working and

using these leaf blowers at 7:30am on Saturdays and Sundays. We live in a

fairly new construction home with fully-insulated exterior walls and double-

paned glass windows, yet are frequently awakened or disturbed by the

sound of these leaf blowers - because the frequency and volume of the

engines penetrates walls and windows of homes. Use of electric-powered

alternatives would dramatically reduce the noise levels that residents are

exposed to.

It's been widely known for a number of years that this type of gas-powered

leaf-blower is very bad for the environment and specifically for carbon

emissions. Many studies have been done and articles written about this;

here's one recent excerpt:

(41)

--------------------

https://napavalleyregister.com/lifestyles/the-climate-connection-it-s-

time-to-phase-out-gas-powered-leaf-blowers/

article_ea84989e-7c1a-55c7-805d-41b35a9f173a.html

Air pollution and greenhouse gases

Two-stroke gas-powered engines generate high levels of pollution and

greenhouse gases such as carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide and hydrocarbons.

An Edmunds report found that a gas-powered leaf blower emitted 23 times

more carbon monoxide and 300 times more hydrocarbons than a 2011 Ford

Raptor.

CARB reports that operating a commercial leaf blower for one hour emits the

same amount of smog-forming pollution as driving a 2016 Toyota Camry

approximately 1,100 miles. Leaf blowers and other small gas engines combined

now create more ozone pollution than all passenger cars in California.

--------------------

Other communities in the U.S. have already enacted very concrete changes

to stop the use of gas-powered leaf blowers and their associated carbon

emissions, like the ban put in place in this California town back in October

2020:

--------------------

Here in Napa County, Yountville has already passed a gas-powered leaf blower

ban, combined with a subsidy program to offset the purchase of new battery or

electric-powered leaf blowers and vacuums to help ease the financial burden on

local businesses. Battery and electric-powered leaf blowers and vacuums are

lighter, less noisy (mid-60 decibels), require less maintenance and do not

generate greenhouse gases and smog compounds. New technology makes them

just as powerful and similar cost to gas-powered models, with less expense for

gas and oil over time.

--------------------

While this bill specifically addresses the use of gas-powered leaf blowers,

there two other similar devices that are also frequently used by landscaping

companies and contractors, and that produce the same harmful effects of

environmental and noise pollution:

• Gas-powered weed trimmers ("weed-whackers")

• Gas-powered pressure washers

(42)

Both of these pieces of equipment use the same problematic two-stroke gas

engines, and produce the same concerning levels of carbon emissions and

noise, as leaf blowers - and should therefore also be banned in the same

way that gas-powered leaf blowers are being handled by this bill. In the

same way that effective electric-powered alternatives are available for leaf

blowers, they are also available for both weed trimmers and pressure

washers.

I fully support the passage of this bill, and further suggest the following

amendments:

1. Change the language of the bill from "gas-powered leaf blowers" to "gas-

powered leaf blowers, weed trimmers ("weed-whackers"), and pressure

washers", and make all three of these pieces of equipment subject to the

same ban, phase-out period, and reimbursements.

- OR -

2. Add an amendment to this bill, such that gas-powered leaf blowers are

phased out and banned per the language of the bill, and gas-powered

weed trimmers and pressure washers are also phased out and banned

through a similar schedule and program, with the phase-out period to be

staggered by six months - i.e., sale of gas-powered leaf blowers is

prohibited 6 months after the law is passed, while sale of gas-powered

weed trimmers and pressure washers is prohibited 12 months after the

law is passed; use of gas-powered leaf blowers is prohibited 12 months

after the law is passed, while use of gas-powered weed trimmers and

pressure washers is prohibited 18 months after the law is passed.

Addressing the harmful carbon emissions and noise pollution created by gas-

powered leaf blowers, which has a significant negative impact on our climate

and environment, is an important and responsible step towards

environmental responsibility and stewardship that can be taken by the

County. However, leaf-blowers are only one example of a group of very

problematic devices used daily in our County, and we should make every

effort to provide a complete solution to this problem, in order to make an

effective and impactful change. I fully support this bill, and strongly urge

the Council to expand the current bill by including one of the two

amendments above.

Thank you.

(43)

Testimony

I routinely see low-income Latinos, some very young, breathing in toxic fumes from gas powered leaf

blowers and with no ear protection. I am sure they don’t have health insurance and will do almost

anything to secure a living. We as home owners and the county can and should do more to protect them

where we can. I have asked many neighbors to make electric or battery operated blowers available to

them. Or better yet offer to pay more and use a rake. But that is not enough. By banning gas powered

leaf blowers the county is helping protect the well being of vulnerable workers.

(44)

Dear Councilmembers,

I'm asking, no begging, you to vote yes on Bill 18-22, Noise Control – Leaf Removal Equipment.

This bill would ban gasoline powered leaf blowers and provide subsidies for purchasing

replacement electric powered ones.

I live in what should be a quiet suburban neighborhood. However, it's impossible to walk around

any time of the day without being assaulted by the loud noise of gas powered leaf blowers.

These machines are also causing air pollution and contributing to global warming. To add to the

aggravation, since they are almost entirely used by employees of third parties, the users leave

them on causing totally unnecessary pollution even when they are not using them.

Please support this bill.

Sincerely,

Jeri Roth

(45)

In favor of Montgomery County Bill #18-22, and suggesting that the start-date be sooner:

Thank you for considering a ban on gas-powered leaf blowers. This ban will protect landscape

workers from hearing loss and noxious fumes, and protect the quality of life for all of us.

Leaf blower noise assaults me: when a team of blowers is within 15 or 20 houses of mine, I

can’t think clearly, can’t talk with friends and family, and can’t do my work as a musician

(composing and teaching). I don’t have an alternative: I cannot work wearing ear plugs or using

“mute” on zoom. At times when I was not working, I tried ear plugs and headphones, but they

did not block the leaf-blower noise. I am trapped.

I want to support the small businesses – both the landscapers’ and my own. We need to find a

way for all these small businesses to thrive together.

A ban on leaf-blowers would be a way of saying that neighbors should treat each other with

decency, not just greed.

Bill #18-22 will bring Montgomery County in line with our neighbors in Washington, DC who

have already banned gas-powered leaf blowers. And of course, the ban would bring us together

with people in other parts of the US who have already banned the blowers, including the state

of California.

Rakes provide our best alternative, and create jobs. But electric powered leaf blowers are a

reasonable compromise. Your ban would not take away the people’s freedom to use a

leafblowing machine.

Gas-powered leaf blowers have a more penetrating noise than the battery-powered

equipment. This is not just a matter of decibels, but of pitch: the low sound of the gas-powered

motors goes farther and penetrates walls much more than the battery-powered sound.

Some people do not have good hearing and they don’t notice how loud the blowers are.

You should move up the date that your ban goes into effect. Lawn companies in Montgomery

County who also work in DC are already switching over their equipment, which will also help

them comply with existing bans in the Montgomery County towns of Somerset, Chevy Chase

Village, and the Town of Chevy Chase.

You will see a lot of public support for a ban. Quiet Clean Montgomery has a petition asking for

a leaf blower ban with almost 7000 signatures from Montgomery County alone. In recent

months, there have been articles opposing gas-powered leaf blowers in the New York Times,

the Guardian, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post (plus an article in the Atlantic a

few years ago).

There is momentum for a leaf-blower ban. I want to say, “Montgomery County should be a

(46)

leader,” but so many jurisdictions have already banned the gas-powered leaf-blowers.

Montgomery County should join in.

Thank you.

Jessica Krash

(47)

July 7, 2022

RE: Bill 18-22, Noise Control - Leaf Removal Equipment – Amendments (Public Hearing Sept. 20

)

Testimony by: John Parrish

Dear Councilmember,

The use of gas-powered blowers has got to end – the sooner the better. The peace, serenity and health of

my community and the County as a whole are affected daily by the noise and air pollution emanating

from these devices. Please pass this bill!

From March thru December blowers are used for yard cleanup in my Woodside Park neighborhood.

Several times each week my wife and I are subjected to breathing exhaust emissions and enduring

excessive noise. Seven households within 100 yards of our home including two that abut our lot employ

yard maintenance crews that use gas-powered blowers. Some of the crews run multiple blowers at the

same time. Three of the homes are large corner lots that take a long time to clean-up. This is particularly

unnerving when we are attempting to work from home. It is even more intolerable to be working in the

yard or simply attempting to relax outside. Citizens should not have to endure this imposition.

It is well known that exhaust emissions from gas-powered blowers generate fumes and particulate matter

that harm lungs. The negative health effects of air pollution are well documented for all age groups.

However, bad air quality has a disproportionate impact on children and senior citizens. Isn’t it time we

protected all Montgomery residents from these sources of air and noise pollution?

The daily noise in my neighborhood from blowers has generated many complaints on my community list-

serve by homeowners pleading with their neighbors to consider another approach such as using electric

blowers. This has created much tension. Passing this bill will help increase peace among neighbors.

The grant program to help offset the cost of transitioning to electric equipment is a fair and sensible way

to compensate owners of gas-powered blowers and vacuums. This will also encourage a transition to more

eco-friendly yards and maintenance practices. My wife and I eliminated our lawn by converting yard

space to flower and vegetable gardens and natural habitat. We never mow nor do we use blowers. By the

way, gas-powered lawn mowers also emit air and noise pollution. They deserve to be regulated more

strictly too. Please follow in the footsteps of other communities that found a way to regulate gas-powered

equipment. Please enact Bill 18-22.

Thank you for considering my comments and please pass the damn bill.

Sincerely,

John Parrish

(48)

Montgomery County Council

Legislation: Bill 18-22 Noise Control – Leaf Removal Equipment

Organization: The Climate Mobilization, Montgomery County

Position: Favorable with Amendments

Council Hearing: September 20, 2022

Dear Council President Albornoz and Council Members,

Thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of the Bill 18-22, Noise Control – Leaf

Removal Equipment, with amendments. I am testifying as a member of The Climate

Mobilization of Montgomery County, on behalf of the Climate Action Plan Coalition of

Montgomery County.

The guiding principle of The Climate Mobilization is that we are in a climate emergency.

Without an all-hands-on-deck perspective, there is no chance for our society to limit the impact

of climate change on our civilization. The actions taken by the County to address the climate

emergency are encouraging, but more needs to be done. This bill represents another important

step in the county’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the county 100% by 2035.

The Coalition enthusiastically supports this bill which

1. Prohibits the sale of combustion engine-powered blowers or leaf vacuums six months after

enacted.

2. Prohibits the use of combustion engine-powered leaf blowers or leaf vacuums a year after

enacted.

3. Authorizes DEP to establish a reimbursement program that provides a partial credit for

residents and businesses who a) purchase an electric leaf blower and b) return a gas-

powered leaf blower or leaf vacuum to the County.

4. Subjects persons who violate this bill to a fine up to $1,000.

There are multiple concerns regarding the continued use of leaf blowers powered by fossil

fuels. These can broadly be described as falling into the categories of health, equity and climate

change.

With regard to health concerns, combustion engine-powered leaf blowers are loud, producing

loud low frequency noise that makes them much louder than battery-powered blowers, even

when their labeled noise levels are the same. The noise from gas blowers travels much longer

distances and affects significantly larger numbers of neighbors, especially in settings where the

homes are closely spaced. Many combustion engine leaf blowers impact the operator’s ears at

100 decibels or more. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends no more than 85

decibels for 1h per day to prevent hearing loss, while according to the CDC, permanent hearing

loss can be caused by 91 decibels for 2 hours or 100 decibels for only 15 minutes a day (1,2).

Loud noise not only causes hearing loss, but epidemiological studies have shown that

environmental noise is a stressor associated with an increased incidence of high blood pressure,

heart attacks and stroke (3).

Combustion engine-powered leaf blowers use engines that are highly inefficient and distribute

toxicants that, when inhaled, can harm users and bystanders. Exhaust emissions from leaf

blowers include hydrocarbons from both burned and unburned fuel, and which combine with

(49)

other gases in the atmosphere to form ozone, carbon monoxide, fine particulate matter,

benzene, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde (4). While all these compounds can cause negative

health effects, the latter three compounds are considered probable human carcinogens.

Addressing the equity concerns, the people at most immediate risk to health damage from the

noise and combustion engine emissions are the lawn workers. Many of these individuals use

these combustion engine leaf blowers throughout the day, for many days every week.

Indifference to their exposure implicitly ignores their long-term health concerns.

The third issue raised by the continued use of combustion engine-powered leaf blowers is the

need to mitigate the impact of fossil fuels where ever and whenever possible. The burning of

fossil fuels is what created the climate emergency. We cannot ignore the need to eliminate

their use, and even more so, the combustion engines that power these devices are amongst the

most inefficient. Several studies have compared the emissions of leaf blowers to that from cars.

One hour of a running a combustion engine-powered leaf blower produces the same amounts

of toxicants as driving a car over 1000 miles (5). As a society, we need to move away from fossil

fuels as quickly as possible. Part of that action is to eliminate the routine use of fossil fuels in all

our activities. This view of addressing climate change is similar to the denormalization of

tobacco use that occurred when indoor air quality laws banned smoking in restaurants, bars

and other public spaces. It is now rare to see people smoking in doors in public. This has played

an important part of the significant reductions in smoking over the past decades. This bill will

similarly further the denormalization of fossil fuels, and play a role in the overall reduction of

greenhouse gas emissions that is needed to address climate change.

The change called for in this bill, phasing out the use of fossil fuel powered leaf blowers and

incentivizing the switch to battery powered leaf blowers, is not a new concept. This action is

taking place all over the country, and in our own backyard. Chevy Chase Village instituted a ban

on combustion engine leaf blowers that went into effect on January 1, 2022 (6). Similarly,

Washington DC’s ban on these leaf blowers also went into effect on January 1, 2022 (7). It is

estimated that at least 170 jurisdictions across the country have instituted some form of leaf

blower ban. Regarding jurisdictions larger than Montgomery County, legislation recently passed

in California has banned the sale of combustion engine leaf blowers, as well as other equipment

that uses small fossil fuel powered engines, starting in 2024 (8). These efforts show that the

phase out of combustion engine leaf blowers is achievable and gaining momentum. The

passage of this law would place Montgomery County well within this effort, and serve as an

additional model for other jurisdictions, to take the negative impacts of combustion engine leaf

blowers seriously, and act similarly to phase them out.

The Climate Action Plan Coalition recommends an amendment to Bill 18-22. This bill is well

designed, providing near term goals for implementation and a straightforward mechanism for

imposing fines on individuals who violate the bill. One issue of concern is the pathway that

supports the phase out of the tools. We need to support in an equitable manner access to

electric replacements and additional batteries to small and minority business. The

reimbursement program needs to be described in greater detail and include a sliding scale for

the extent of reimbursement based on the annual earnings of landscaping companies and

residents, as well as support for buying additional batteries. Notably, in Washington DC, a bank

is providing loans with zero or low interest to support the transition. This type of initiative

should be supported in Montgomery County, as well.

(50)

Thank you for your time.

On behalf of The Climate Action Plan Coalition, Montgomery County,

Kevin Walton

The Climate Mobilization, Montgomery County

Link to Bill 18-22

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/council/Resources/Files/agenda/col/2022/20220628/

20220628_4.pdf

References

1. Berglund B, Lindvall T, and Schwela DH (Eds.). (1999). Guidelines for Community Noise.

World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/66217

2. What Noises Cause Hearing Loss? CDC.

https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hearing_loss/what_noises_cause_hearing_loss.html

3. Munzel T, Schmidt FP, Steven S, Herzog J, Daiber A, and Sorensen M. (2018)

Environmental noise and the cardiovascular system. J Amer Coll Cardiology 71:688-697.

4. A report to the California legislature on the potential health and environmental impacts

of leaf blowers. (2000) California Air Resources Board.

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2018-

11/Health%20and%20Environmental%20Impacts%20of%20Leaf%20Blowers.pdf

5. California Air Resources Board Fact Sheet

https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroad/sore/sm_en_fs.pdf

6. Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers Banned in the Village.

https://www.chevychasevillagemd.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=314

7. Leaf blower regulations. https://dcra.dc.gov/leafblower

8. California moves toward ban on gas lawn mowers and leaf blowers.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-10-09/california-moves-toward-ban-on-

gas-lawnmowers-and-leaf-blowers

(51)

(52)

Submission Date: 9/2/2022 Hearing Date: 9/20/2022

BILL: 18-22, Noise Control — Leaf Removal — Amendments

My name is Lynda DeWitt, and as a landscape professional, I strongly support Bill

18-22. I’ve been using battery-powered equipment, including blowers, since 2009,

when I started Solar Mowing, a quiet, emission-free lawn care company based in

Bethesda.

Now in our 14

year, we’ve never had an advertising budget. People seek us out;

they’re hungry for solutions to all the problems linked to gasoline-powered lawn

equipment. Customers often tell me that they don’t know we’re there unless they

see us through a window — a fact they also share with friends and neighbors.

I’ve heard the argument that electric leaf blowers can’t do the job of their noisy

counterparts. That’s flat-out wrong. There’s not been a job we couldn’t do. We

use hand-held blowers after we mow to clear debris from walkways and other

hardscapes. And backpack blowers for leaf cleanups in the fall. We also use rakes

when clearing beds so as not to disturb mulch.

Crews take enough batteries with them to last the day. We charge the batteries

— with wind and solar energy — at the end of each day. Our most powerful, long-

lasting battery takes 45 minutes to fully charge.

By shifting — finally and completely — to battery-powered lawn care equipment,

we protect workers and children playing outside, and we don’t interrupt people

working and studying inside.

I’m tired of telling people outside Solar Mowing’s service area that no, sorry, I

can’t recommend any other company who uses quiet equipment. It’s past time to

ensure all Montgomery County residents have safe and quiet lawn care.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on this important legislation.

(53)

September 16, 2022

Dear Council Members:

The Chevy Chase West Neighborhood Association Board strongly requests that

the Council support the banning of gas powered leaf blowers in Montgomery

County. We support the County Executive's proposed Bill (18-22, Noise Control –

Leaf Removal Equipment – Amendments) to ban the use of gas-powered leaf

blowers. We note this is a well-documented goal of the Montgomery County

2022 Climate Work Plan.

The scientific, ecologic, noise, and health-related facts clearly demonstrate the

numerous benefits that our communities and workers will realize with the

adoption of this ban. Fortunately, there are several alternatives to using gas-

powered leaf blowers for yard maintenance. Battery powered leaf blowers have

already been adopted by vendors and homeowners alike. As you know, the

District of Columbia, along with many other communities have already adopted

comprehensive laws to protect their citizens from this source of noise and

pollution.

We are pleased the proposed change would authorize a grant program to partially

offset the cost of replacing a combustion engine-powered leaf blower with an

electric leaf blower or leaf vacuum.

Our neighborhood association board urges the Council to support this important

change to eliminate gas powered leaf blowers in Montgomery County.

Sincerely,

The Chevy Chase West Neighborhood Association Board

(54)

WPCA Concerns; Rake vs. Leaf Blowers

To: Montgomery County Councilmembers

Re: Bill 18-22, Noise Control – Leaf Removal Equipment - Amendments

Subj: Testimony submitted by Ms. Roberta G Steinman

Date: July xx, 2022

I support a ban on the sale and use of combustion engine-powered leaf blowers and leaf vacuums in Montgomery County

Banning the use of Gas-powered leaf blowers will improve air quality, reduce noise pollution, and bring some peace back into our

neighborhoods.

Gas leaf blowers have become a persistent source of air and noise pollution. We hear their loud, high-pitched noise from mid- to late

February each year until the following January. Additionally, pollution from leaf blowers compounds leads directly to other forms of

air pollution. When gas leaf blowers are operating in full force in our neighborhood, we must close our doors and windows

instead of simply allowing the fresh air and breeze to cool our homes. My husband and I spend a lot of time outdoors because we are

native plant and vegetable gardeners, and there is always outdoor work to do. The gas-powered leaf blowers make working outdoors

unpleasant, nerve wracking, and dangerous. The fumes and dust are toxic both for us and for the pollinators, and the toxic dust and

pollution settles on the plants. As a result, we race back inside every time the blowers show up in our vicinity.

The health consequences of breathing polluted air affects all – regardless of age, race, socioeconomic

demographic, or species. Everyone in our neighborhood – human or non-human –is harmed by both the noise and the breathing

of the exhaust of unnecessary leaf blowers. I live in a walkable neighborhood where many people enjoy being outdoors - walking,

running, pushing babies in stroller, walking the dog, and taking their daily exercise regimen. But that pleasurable and healthful

activity has become so unpleasant due to the pollution and noise from the omnipresent gas-powered leaf blowers that we are forced

to severely alter or curtail that activity altogether.

Gas-powered blowers produce double the number of decibels and have a lower sound frequency than electric leaf blowers. Because

they cause high levels of sound at low frequencies, the roar of gas blowers can be heard 23 houses away from a lawn that’s being

blown, whereas the sound of electric blowers only will travel six houses away. There are so many eco-friendly alternatives, including

electric blowers, rakes, and leaving the leaves on the ground.

But it doesn’t adversely affect just we humans. The environmental effects of blower noise, dust, and particulate matter causes birds,

frogs, pollinating insects and other creatures to vacate the area, which is detrimental to our local ecosystems.

(55)

WPCA Concerns; Rake vs. Leaf Blowers

In addition to negative effects on the environment, the noise and toxic fumes generated by gas-powered blowers impact the health

and safety of workers who use them on the job. Landscape workers and others may experience hearing loss and respiratory problems

due to extensive exposure to two-stroke, engine-driven leaf blowers.

Some landscaping companies argue that going green and using electric power tools will slightly reduce their efficiency and make

them less competitive. This is precisely why a ban will be so beneficial, as it will level the playing field across all companies and not

allow a small number of free-riders to profit from the good will of ecofriendly companies.

It’s time for Montgomery County (and the state of Maryland) to join communities across the U.S. and ban the sale and use of

gasoline-powered leaf blowers.

Gas blowers emit hydrocarbons at rates up to nine times higher than those generated by electric

blowers. It’s estimated that using a commercial leaf blower for one hour emits as much pollution as driving a 2016 Toyota Camry

from D.C. to Miami. One study showed that a leaf blower’s two-stroke engine can produce nearly 300 times the hydrocarbon

emissions of a pickup truck, as well as much more toxic carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide fumes.

It is time to act. Our health, the air we breathe, our well-being is simply more important than the ‘illusory’ efficiency of gas=powered

blowers. I say ‘illusory’ because the use of these devices does not factor in their substantial external adverse impacts.

Let’s get on with this ban and bring peace and quiet and civility back into our neighborhoods.

Thank you.

Respectfully submitted

Ms. Roberta G Steinman

Over 20 cities in California have completely banned all gas-powered leaf blowers and the results have been entirely positive. The bans are reported as being 90 – 95%

enforceable, of little burden to enforce, and citizen satisfaction with the bans is reported to be as high as 100%. ( https://mont.thesentinel.com/2019/05/02/american-lung-

association-moco-air-is-unhealthy/)

(56)

Bill 18-22 Noise Control – Leaf Removal Equipment – Amendments

Montgomery County Council

September 20, 2022

Position: Oppose

Background: Bill 18-22 would prohibit the sale and eventually the use of gasoline-

powered leaf removal equipment.

Comments: The Maryland Retailers Association has concerns about Bill 18-22 Noise

Control – Leaf Removal Equipment – Amendments. The proposed ban deadlines on the

sale and use of gasoline-powered leaf blowers would be burdensome to consumers and

lawncare companies living and working in Montgomery County.

At this time, the EPA is in the third phase of pollutant controls for small engine-

powered equipment, resulting in up to 90% reductions in exhaust gas and evaporative

emissions from previously unregulated machines. Many believe outdoor power

equipment is unregulated, but that is not true and equipment in this space has drastically

changed in recent decades. In 2021, the majority of handheld products including leaf

blowers are zero emission equipment and 80% of all product shipments were electricity-

powered devices.

As the market is clearly already transitioning away from gas-powered equipment,

we believe that consumers should be allowed to continue to use the equipment they

already own until it needs to be replaced, rather than forcing a ban by a specific date. We

understand that the bill as written includes a County-sponsored rebate program for

equipment replacement, but without the inclusion of more details like specific dollar

amounts, it is impossible to say whether the program will be sufficient to cover the costs

forced onto consumers by the County.

We would urge the County Council to allow the market to continue its current

trajectory towards “greener” equipment at a natural pace without imposing bans and

deadlines on the community. Thank you for your consideration.

(57)

I am writing to express my support for the Gas Powered Leaf Blowers (GPLBs) Ban. GPLBs are harmful

and disruptive to the lives of me, my family, neighbors, and all Montgomery County Residents, in

particular are more of us are working from home. For the entire year, I spend hours a day listening to the

disruptive and incredibly annoying drone of leaf blowers with noise levels that are harmful to the health of

residents and lawn care workers. In my neighborhood, and in much of Montgomery County, the houses

are close together. The noise levels from GPLB are so loud that if a leaf blower if being used anywhere

close by, anyone in my household who is outside on our deck working or on the phone, immediately has

to go indoors. But, more disturbing is that once inside, the noise is inescapable and disruptive. The noise

is so loud and intrusive that not only does it disrupt concentration, make it difficult to carry out work but

also eventually starts leads to headache. There is simply no escaping this sound that often goes on for

hours a day. The sound is so intense, unrelenting, and disruptive because GPLBs produce noise levels

ranging from 102-115 decibels, which is higher than the recommended level that the US EPA and

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health have established. The noise travels farther and

penetrates exterior walls of our home and all homes and businesses in Montgomery County. In addition,

GPLBs emit large quantities of harmful air pollutants, generating CO2 at a rate 3 to 9 times higher than

electric-powered blowers, c as GPLS are hazardous to our health and well-being, and Montgomery

County should do as well immediately. Please pass this ban as it is the right thing to do for the citizens of

Montgomery County in terms of restoring the ability to have peace in our homes and also in terms of

protecting the environment by reducing pollution.