Members of the Baltimore County Council raised a brief stink over a fresh request to spend even more on port-a-potties.

The council was asked to approve the expenditure of $1,174,101 on portable toilets, nearly twice its planned outlay.

The commodes have become a hot commodity since the county entered into a contract with United Rentals North America in March 2021. At that time, the portable bathrooms mostly served park facilities in the county. But since then, other departments — among them property management, health and human services, aging, permits and inspections, and police — have needed the facilities.

The council approved the expenditure Tuesday night, but not before pooh-poohing the continued practice of county officials spending money before they ask for permission to do so.

“We’re seeing multiple contracts that have received similar price escalations in excess of council-approved contacted rates,” said Councilman Todd Crandell, a Dundalk Republican. “And I don’t think anyone’s saying that anyone did anything wrong or illegal. It just seems, in these instances, the council was made aware of these escalations well after they have already taken place.”

Councilman Mike Ertel, a Towson Democrat, asked if the contract could be rebid instead of the county simply absorbing the increase. When the county chose United Rentals in 2021, it received no other bids, according to county officials.

The county’s original contract was for $613,290. The county’s parks and recreation director, Bob Smith, said the county had spent $599,367 as of Jan. 3.

Smith acknowledged in a fiscal note presented to the council that his department may have violated the county charter by not coming to the council before adding an escalation clause to increase the maximum it would pay out under the contract from $613,290 to $1,174,101. The five-year, four-month contract runs through summer 2026.

Yet he said it was not possible to change contacts in mid-stream and blamed the pandemic for both increasing the need for the port-a-potties and the expenses related to maintaining them.

The price turns out to be more than the sum of its parts. Renting a toilet ranges from $82.60 to $236 a month, depending on whether it is a basic or accessible unit, and whether it requires service once or twice a week. The holding tank also has to be rented, at $236 or $472 a month, depending on the servicing. Then there is “additional servicing” for $177 per unit, hand-washing stations at $129.80 per unit, and servicing on handwashing stations at $30 per unit.

If a port-a-potty is damaged or destroyed, the county is responsible for the cost.

Crandell’s complaint about asking for approval retroactively on major expenditures is a familiar refrain from this council.

In December, the council approved the law office paying more than $4.5 million in legal fees to continue litigating a 3-year-old case over how jail inmates who worked at the county recycling center should be paid. It’s the fourth time the council has approved increasing the fees; much of the money was already spent when the request came to council.

In July, the county asked to increase from $200,000 to $550,000 the amount that it was paying a private law firm to fight a public-information lawsuit filed by Fred Homan, a former county administrative officer. But the county already had spent $315,000 by June on the Homan litigation, without asking the council if it could escalate the costs.

Despite any council reservations, all seven members unanimously approved the expenditure Tuesday evening. The port-a-potty program is now flush, so there will be no disruption in service.

This story has been updated to state that Baltimore County hadn't exceeded the amount of an original $613,290 contract for port-a-potties as of Jan. 3, but will need to spend an additional $560,000 under an amended contract.