[6. Legislative Session: Public Hearing & Second Reading of Legislative Bill #2023-002, Authorization of Additional Projects to be Funded from the Proceeds of the Consolidated Public Improvement & Refunding Bonds of 2019]

THERE WAS ADVERTISING IN THE STAR DEMOCRAT FOR THIS PUBLIC HEARING.

THIS IS THE SECOND READING WHICH IS REQUIRED, AFTER WHICH WE WILL CONDUCT THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THIS IS AN ACT AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING BILL NUMBER 2019-3 FOR THE PURPOSE OF, IN EFFECT, AUTHORIZING AND EMPOWERING THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CAROLINE COUNTY TO USE AND APPLY A PORTION OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE $34,210,000 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CAROLINE COUNTY CONSOLIDATED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND REFUNDING BONDS OF 2019 TO THE COST OF CERTAIN ADDITIONAL PROJECTS IDENTIFIED HEREIN AS FEDERALSBURG ELEMENTARY ROOF REPLACEMENT. NORTH CAROLINE HIGH SCHOOL ROOF REPLACEMENT, PRESTON ELEMENTARY ROOF REPLACEMENT AND FRETTERD CENTER HVAC.

BASICALLY AT THIS POINT.

I MEAN, IN LAYMAN'S TERMS, WHAT THIS BILL WILL DO IS ALLOW THE BOARD TO APPLY A PORTION OF THE PROCEEDS OF THAT 2019 BOND FOR OTHER PROJECTS THAT WERE NOT ON DECK AT THE TIME THAT THAT BILL WAS PASSED.

AND FOR EXAMPLE, WE'RE NOT AT THIS TIME PURSUING THE RENOVATION OF OUR DETENTION CENTER.

WE'RE HEADING IN ANOTHER DIRECTION.

SO THAT, AGAIN, WAS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL PURPOSES OF THE 2019 BOND ISSUANCE.

SO. AT THIS POINT, I WILL READ.

WHAT IS CONSIDERED TO BE A FAIR SUMMARY OF THIS BILL.

IN ADDITION TO WHAT I PREVIOUSLY READ, THIS BILL SPECIFIES HOW UNSPENT PROCEEDS OF THE 2019 BONDS SHALL BE APPLIED SUBJECT TO FURTHER REALLOCATION AS PROVIDED THEREIN, PROVIDING THAT THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SHALL ADOPT A SUPPLEMENTAL RESOLUTION BEFORE APPLYING THE 2019 BONDS

[00:45:08]

PROCEEDS TO ANY SUCH ADDITIONAL PROJECTS, PROVIDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL SHALL BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED, PROVIDING THAT THIS TITLE BE DEEMED A FAIR SUMMARY OF THIS BILL AND RELATING GENERALLY TO THE USE AND APPLICATION OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE 2019 BOND.

AT THIS POINT, THE HAVE WE HAD ANY PUBLIC INPUT? WE HAVE NOT. AND NO ONE HAS SIGNED UP.

OKAY. SO IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? NO. OKAY, IN WHICH CASE, UNLESS THERE'S FURTHER DISCUSSION AMONGST THE COMMISSIONERS, YOU COULD CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

OKAY. DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? MOVE TO CLOSE. SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE? AYE, AYE, SIR.

MOVE TO GO OUT OF LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

HEAR A MOTION TO CONCLUDE THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

SO MOVED. SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL RIGHT.

SO THE NEXT NEXT READING IS.

THE NEXT READING WILL BE NEXT WEEK.

SEPTEMBER 12TH. THE ANTICIPATED EFFECTIVE DATE IS OCTOBER 27TH OF 23.

OKAY. 60 DAY ENACTMENT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

UM. OKAY.

RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A WORKSHOP WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND CODES FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS.

THEY'VE BEEN ON THE LIST FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

[7. Workshop: Department of Planning & Codes, Text Amendments]

RIGHT. BEEN STACKING UP.

UH, GOOD MORNING.

GOOD MORNING. MAN.

WE WANT TO START OFF WITH THE PERHAPS THE MOST HOT BUTTON ISSUE, THE ZONING FOR CANNABIS FACILITIES,

[• Zoning –Cannabis Facilities]

NOT TOUCH THOSE IN THE RIGHT OFF.

OH, NO. HIT THE PUSH BUTTON AGAIN.

OH, OKAY. THAT'S PRETTY BASIC.

OKAY, SO, YES, WE HAVE FOUR PENDING TEXT AMENDMENTS.

WE ACTUALLY HAVE FIVE, BUT WE'RE HOLDING OFF ON BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE FOR THE TIME BEING.

SO ALL OF THESE TEXT AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND YOU HAVE POSITIVE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EACH OF THEM.

WHEN WE FOR EACH OF THESE IF YOU'RE READY TO SCHEDULE AN INTRODUCTION, THEN WE WOULD DO THAT AT THE END.

AND I DON'T HAVE A DATE FOR THAT JUST YET, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT STEP FOR ANY OF THESE THAT YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD ON.

SO THE FIRST ITEM IS CANNABIS, AND CRYSTAL WILL BE LEADING THAT DISCUSSION FOR US.

I DREW THE SHORT STRAW. OKAY.

MAKE SURE YOU PUT THE MICROPHONE.

I'M SPEAKING TO THAT. SO WITH THE PASSING OF THE MARYLAND STATE CANNABIS LAW ON JULY 1ST OF 2023, THAT ESTABLISHED THE MARYLAND CANNABIS ADMINISTRATION, WHICH REGULATES NOW THE LICENSING FOR GROWERS, PROCESSORS, DISPENSARIES, ON SITE CONSUMPTION ESTABLISHMENTS AND INCUBATOR LICENSES.

SO ON JULY 12TH, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID REVIEW DRAFT ZONING REGULATIONS THAT WE PROPOSE TO ALLOW CANNABIS FACILITIES AS A WHOLE THAT WOULD BE ALL ENCOMPASSING THE GROWER PROCESSOR, DISPENSARY, EVERYTHING WITHIN THE EYE TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT. AND THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS WHICH YOU WILL SEE IN YOUR YOUR PACKAGE THERE.

THESE WERE DESIGNED OFF OF OUR ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESS REGULATIONS.

SO IN THERE UNDER 175 DASH 48, WE TOOK THE REGULATIONS WE HAD FOR ADULT ORIENTED BUSINESSES AND CRAFTED THEM TO MEET FOR CANNABIS REGULATIONS.

YOU'LL SEE A STRIKETHROUGH ON ITEM THREE AND FOUR.

THOSE WERE DISCUSSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND RECOMMENDED TO NOT BE INCLUDED, WHICH WAS THE REQUIREMENT FOR A CANNABIS STRUCTURE TO NOT BE LESS THAN 1200FT FROM ANOTHER CANNABIS STRUCTURE.

AND THE SECOND ONE WOULD BE THAT A CANNABIS STRUCTURE HAD TO BE AT LEAST 1200 FEET FROM ANY BUILDING WHERE ALCOHOL WAS SOLD FOR ON SITE CONSUMPTION, AND THAT RECOMMENDATION WAS TO REMOVE THAT AS WELL.

CRYSTAL I THINK IT MAY GO OR SOMEWHERE ALONG THE WAY.

I HAVE FOUND THAT IN THE STATE LAW IT HAS A SEPARATION BETWEEN FACILITIES.

IS THAT CORRECT?

[00:50:01]

HAVE YOU SEEN THAT? I'M NOT SURE.

I DO KNOW THAT AT MAKO THEY WE DID LEARN THAT THE ON SITE, THE ON SITE CONSUMPTION ESTABLISHMENT, THE COUNTY DID HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT ALLOW THAT.

SO WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE WHEN WE TOOK THAT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

BUT WE DID LEARN THAT AT MAKO THAT THE COUNTIES DID HAVE THAT OPTION TO NOT ALLOW ON SITE CONSUMPTION ESTABLISHMENTS AND THEY DID HAVE SOME EXTRA SETBACKS, AS I REMEMBER THAT THEY HAD LIKE A 450 OR 500 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT.

I THINK OURS WAS STRICTER, MORE STRINGENT, BUT THEY DID HAVE HIGHER SETBACKS AT THE STATE THAN MOST OTHER USES ALSO.

WHAT'S OUR SETBACK? IT IS 300FT, 600FT FROM ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AND 300FT FROM SEE, CLOSEST PORTION OF A CANNABIS STRUCTURE SHOULD NOT BE LESS THAN 300FT FROM THE BOUNDARY OF THE PARCEL AND NOT LESS THAN 600FT FROM ANY BUILDING THAT CONTAINS A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING AND 1200 FEET FROM AN EDUCATIONAL FACILITY, RELIGIOUS FACILITY OR DAYCARE CENTER.

I THINK THE STATE IS AROUND 500, GIVE OR TAKE.

I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY.

DOES THE STATE HAVE TO APPROVE THIS? NO, I MEAN, WE'VE HAD SOME LEGISLATION WHERE THE YOU KNOW, THE STATE HAS HAD TO APPROVE OUR LANGUAGE.

THEY USUALLY DO IT AFTER WE YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THE SOLAR, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY WRITE A LOT OF TIMES THEY'LL GO THROUGH CLEARINGHOUSE OR THEY HAVE AN OPTION TO REVIEW IT DEPENDING ON SPECIFIC ISSUES LIKE EVEN MINERAL EXTRACTION THAT HAS TO GO THROUGH THE MDE PERMITTING PROGRAM.

BUT THIS IN THIS CASE, NO.

AND ACTUALLY MAYBE A WEEK OR SO AGO I SAW ON THE NEWS ANOTHER JURISDICTION IS DOING PRETTY MUCH THE EXACT SAME THING, INDUSTRIAL ZONING ONLY FOR CANNABIS.

SO. WE DON'T HAVE A ZONING MAP AVAILABLE.

I DON'T THINK THAT'LL SHOW US WHAT WOULD I TO ZONING THERE IS, BUT THERE IS ONE ONLINE.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN. IF YOU JUST DO A SEARCH FOR CAROLINE COUNTY ZONING MAP POP UP.

IT'S YOU. I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO POP UP WHEN I HIT THAT.

I KNOW. WE'LL JUST.

IT WILL. IT'LL COME UP.

I'VE DONE IT. THAT'S HOW I GET TO IT.

YOU'RE SAFE. YOU'RE SAFE.

I'VE LOOKED AT IT MULTIPLE. IT'S HARD TO SEE BECAUSE.

SO BASICALLY WEST DENTON LIKE CHOPTANK ELECTRIC OUT TO THE POINT WHERE OUR FAVORITE PROPERTY IS COMING INTO DENTON.

THAT'S BEEN ABANDONED FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

YEP. OKAY. SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO ZOOM IN.

THE BLUE AREAS ARE THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.

AND THESE REGULATIONS WILL ONLY BE IN EFFECT IN THE COUNTY.

THE MUNICIPALITIES HAVE THE ABILITY TO ZONE THESE ESTABLISHMENTS WHEREVER THEY WANT.

THAT'S CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'S OUTSIDE OF GREENSBORO.

WHAT AREA IS THAT OUTSIDE OF GREENSBORO? IS THERE ANY AT THE NORTH END OF THE COUNTY? CAN YOU ZOOM IN ON LIKE FOR MARY DALE? THERE ISN'T MARY DALE.

OKAY. AND OUTSIDE OF GREENSBORO IS PROBABLY OUT BY THE RAILROAD TRACK.

HOLLY ROAD. THERE'S ACTUALLY SOME RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THAT. I, TOO, JUST OUTSIDE OF GREENSBORO.

MAN.

AND THE I TO OUTSIDE OF WRIGLEY, I BELIEVE IS OUT THERE WHERE FIDO ECOLOGY THE NURSERY THAT AREA.

[00:55:02]

IT'S PRETTY LIMITED.

IT IS LIMITED.

THERE ARE THERE'S A COUPLE OF SPOTS IN THE NORTHERN END OF THE COUNTY AND SAME THING WITH THE SOUTHERN, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY LIMITED.

BUT IF THERE IS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THEY WOULD BE LIMITED.

THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO DO THE SETBACKS AND.

CORRECT. TRYING TO PULL UP THE ELECTION RESULTS WHEN THIS GOT LEGALIZED.

FIVE BALLOT QUESTIONS.

THAT INDUSTRIAL PIECE BETWEEN GREENSBORO AND DENTON.

THAT WOULD BE WHERE BENCH OFFICE SALVAGE YARD IS, RIGHT IN THAT AREA.

SURELY COMFORTABLE AIR.

OKAY.

THANK YOU, JOHN. SO THE ELECTION RESULTS WERE 6151 VOTERS IN CAROLINE COUNTY WERE FOR IT.

4112 WERE AGAINST THE LEGALIZATION.

SO THE ONLY, THE ONLY QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS, DO WE NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK THROUGH THE STATE REGULATION TO MAKE SURE I'M PRETTY SURE THAT I SAW OR HEARD I THINK IT WAS DURING ONE OF THE SEMINARS THAT THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT A SEPARATION BETWEEN FACILITIES IN THE STATE LAW.

GOOGLING IT RIGHT NOW.

OKAY. YES.

1000FT BETWEEN EACH OTHER.

SO, I MEAN, WE COULD WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT, WHETHER THAT'S IN OUR OUR CODE CODE OR NOT.

WE COULD ADD THAT OR WE COULD LEAVE THAT THE WAY THAT IT IS, BUT IT WOULD BE REQUIRED EITHER WAY.

STEWART DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION? I MEAN, TO ME IT SEEMS CLEANER TO HAVE THE STATE CODE IN OUR CODE, SO YOU CAN ONLY HAVE TO LOOK IN ONE PLACE.

BUT THE PROBLEM IS IF THE STATE CHANGES THEIR CODE AND OURS DOESN'T.

SO WHAT WOULD YOUR RECOMMENDATION BE? WE COULD MAKE REFERENCE TO THE CURRENT STATUTE.

IN OTHER WORDS, INDIRECTLY INCORPORATED THAT YOU'RE NOT USING THE EXACT FOOTAGE NUMBER BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT, THEY MIGHT MODIFY IT SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE. AND THEN WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE AMENDMENT OF OUR OWN ORDINANCE.

SO. AND WE HAVE, WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO OPT OUT OF CONSUMPTION.

CORRECT. AND IF WE DID OPT OUT, WHERE WOULD THAT GO IN THIS CODE? UM, PROBABLY NOT IN PLANNING AND CODES.

ZONING ORDINANCE.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO IMPOSE A FINE ON PUBLIC CONSUMPTION OF CANNABIS.

THAT WOULD BE IN ANOTHER SECTION OF OUR CODE.

OKAY. I HAVE TO GIVE THAT A LITTLE THOUGHT.

WHERE YOU WANT TO PLACE THAT? AND I HAVE RECEIVED RECOMMENDATION THAT WE INCREASE THE FINE FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION BECAUSE I THINK STATE IS $25.

MINIMAL. SO.

ANYTHING COLLECTED WOULD STILL GO TO THE STATE.

MORE THAN LIKELY. FINE.

YES. DANNY, HAVE YOU BEEN FORWARDING FINES THAT THE COUNTY HAS COLLECTED IN THE PAST TO THE STATE? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF, NO.

OKAY. SO WE WOULD RETAIN THOSE.

THOSE FINES.

OKAY. THE WERE WORRIED ABOUT THE SALES TAX THE TAX ON.

WELL, WE'RE NOT GETTING ANY OF THAT AT ALL.

WE GET ABOUT 5% OF 9% OR SOMETHING.

9% OF THE SALES AND THEN WE RETAIN 5%.

WELL, I THINK WE DEFINITELY NEED I THINK WE NEED TO UP THE FINE FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION.

[01:00:05]

I DON'T THINK $25 IS ENOUGH.

IF WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.

SO THE ON SITE CONSUMPTION ESTABLISHMENT WOULD BE A ESTABLISHMENT SIMILAR TO A BAR ONLY FOR CANNABIS.

OKAY. I THINK THE WORDING IN THIS LOOKS.

ACCEPTABLE TO ME. WITH REFERENCE TO THIS.

I AGREE WITH THE REFERENCING THE STATE REGULATIONS AS WELL.

WE CAN DO THAT I GUESS BY STEWART SAID BY INFERENCE.

NOW I THINK OUR SETBACKS FROM SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, OTHER INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE LAID OUT IN OUR CODE ARE MORE STRINGENT THAN THE STATES.

THE STATES WERE CONSIDERABLY LESS.

YES. AND I AGREE THAT THEY SHOULD BE SHOULD BE MORE.

YEAH. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD RECOMMENDED TWO WORD.

I BELIEVE STEWART HAD SAID TWO.

WHEN WE DEFINE CANNABIS FACILITIES INSTEAD OF US DEFINING THEM INDIVIDUALLY, IT READS AS AS SET FORTH IN THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND CANNABIS ARTICLE ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME.

THAT WAY, IF THEY TWEAK THAT LANGUAGE, THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE OURS.

SO. SO IF WE REVISE THIS TO TWO BY REFERENCING THE STATE, DOES THAT HAVE TO GO BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION? NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

THAT'S A PRETTY MINOR AND IT IS SOMEWHAT OBVIOUS CHANGE.

I THINK SO. OKAY, COMMISSIONER BARTZ, YOU HAVE ANYTHING ? OKAY. SO WE WILL DO THAT.

WE'LL REFERENCE STATE CODE.

THAT'LL END UP BEING, I THINK, NUMBER THREE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

STEWART AND I'LL WORK ON THAT.

ACTUALLY STEWART AND CRYSTAL WILL WORK ON THAT.

NOW THE ON SITE CONSUMPTION DID, ARE WE PERMITTING THAT? DO WE NEED TO REMOVE THAT OR DO YOU NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT PART? BECAUSE THEY CAN, CAN THEY REMOVE THAT? YES. YEAH. OR WE CAN BRING THIS BACK.

WELL, WE'LL BRING IT BACK AGAIN.

WORKSHOP, I GUESS, WITH THESE CHANGES ANYWAY.

BUT IF YOU WANT TO. DO WE WANT TO TABLE THAT OR DO YOU WANT TO HOLD OFF ON WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW ON SITE CONSUMPTION? I TAKE IT. OKAY.

SO WE'LL MAKE THESE CHANGES AND THEN WE'LL BRING IT BACK FOR WORKSHOP AGAIN.

AND YOU CAN YOU CAN KEEP ON SITE CONSUMPTION FACILITIES IN THE LANGUAGE.

AND THEN WE COULD ALWAYS BECAUSE WE, WE MAY GET WE MAY EVENTUALLY GET FORCED TO ALLOW IT ANYWAY IF WE OPT NOT TO ALLOW IT.

CURRENTLY THE STATE WILL NOT BE ISSUING ANY LICENSES FOR THOSE UNTIL MAY OF 2024.

SO THEY'RE NOT INCLUDING THE ON SITE ESTABLISHMENT LICENSES ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THAT FIRST ROUND WITH THE GROWERS AND PROCESSORS AND DISPENSARIES.

THEY WON'T BE AVAILABLE UNTIL MAY OF NEXT YEAR.

HAVE THEY GIVEN US ANY IDEA HOW MANY LICENSES THEY'RE GOING TO ISSUE? IS IT ONE PER COUNTY? IS IT. DO WE KNOW HOW MANY ARE COMING FOR THE DISPENSARIES? THAT ONE WILL BE ALLOTTED? AT LEAST ONE WILL BE ALLOTTED TO EACH JURISDICTION.

BUT TOTAL DISPENSARIES, THERE'S 300 FOR STANDARD AND THAT WOULD BE LIKE A RETAIL STORE.

AND THEN THERE'S TEN MICRO DISPENSARIES, AND THAT'S FOR DELIVERY.

A MICRO LICENSE FOR DISPENSARY WOULD BE DELIVERY.

AND THEN GROWERS AGAIN, YOUR STANDARD GROWERS ARE YOUR LARGER ONES.

THERE ARE 75 LICENSES AVAILABLE FOR THOSE AND 100 FOR THE MICRO GROWERS AND THEN TEN INCUBATOR SPACE LICENSES.

AND THEN THE ON-SITE CONSUMPTION WAS 50.

BUT AGAIN, THEY WON'T BE ALLOWED UNTIL MAY OF NEXT YEAR.

AND THERE ARE A LOT OF RESTRICTIONS ON THE GROWERS.

IT HAS TO BE FENCED IN.

IT HAS TO BE SECURE.

SURVEILLANCE, SURVEILLANCE.

AND THERE WE FIGURED OUT A PLANNING COMMISSION.

IT WAS AROUND SEVEN ACRES WAS THE MAXIMUM SIZE THAT THEY COULD DO FOR A GROWER.

HOW ABOUT SCREENING REQUIREMENTS FOR FOR GROWERS, THAT KIND OF STUFF? WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

THIS DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING FOR SCREENING.

CORRECT. AND WE TALKED ABOUT THAT AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, ALSO IN THE TEXT IN THE CONTEXT OF ONLY ALLOWING THIS IN THE

[01:05:09]

INDUSTRIAL, BECAUSE I THINK WE IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT ALLOWING THE GROWING IN THE OUR RURAL JURISDICTION WHERE OR ZONING WHERE AGRICULTURE IS PREDOMINANTLY.

HOWEVER, WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT HOW THAT WOULD WOULD CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE LANDSCAPE BECAUSE OF THE FENCE REQUIREMENT AND SOME OF THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR A FACILITY.

SO IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY JUST LOOK LIKE AGRICULTURE, EVEN THOUGH IT KIND OF FALLS INTO AGRICULTURE.

SO THERE'S NO SCREENING REQUIREMENT ON THIS.

NOW, DID THE STATE HAVE A SCREENING REQUIREMENT? DO YOU REMEMBER ANYTHING BEYOND THE FENCING? JUST THE FENCING. OKAY, WELL, WE'VE GOT TIME TO THINK ABOUT THAT.

I MEAN, IT IS ANY I TWO OR INDUSTRIAL.

DO WE HAVE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS IN THE INDUSTRIAL AREAS FOR OTHER BUSINESSES? THERE ARE ITEMS THAT DO HAVE TO BE SCREENED, LIKE FOR DUMPSTERS AND OTHER OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT.

THERE ARE SCREENINGS FOR BUSINESSES THAT WE DO HAVE IN OUR ZONING REGULATIONS.

OKAY. SO WE WILL I GUESS WE WILL MAKE THE TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADD IN REFERENCE TO THE STATE CODE AND THEN BRING THIS BACK BEFORE US FOR INTRODUCTION.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

NEXT UP, THE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS.

[• Solar Energy Systems]

YES. AND THE NEXT TEXT AMENDMENT YOU HAVE WORKSHOPPED PREVIOUSLY AND THERE WAS A RECOMMENDED CHANGE THAT I'VE INCORPORATED.

SO THIS IS PERTAINING TO UTILITY SCALE SOLAR ARRAYS.

AND WE REVIEWED WITH BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SOME TEXT AMENDMENTS.

SPECIFICALLY, IF YOU LOOK ON THE FIRST PAGE OF 175 DASH 46 SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS. THE NEW AMENDMENT THAT YOU REQUESTED WAS NUMBER THREE ON PARCELS WHERE TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS HAVE BEEN LIFTED.

COMMERCIAL SOLAR MAY NOT BE SITED ON THE PORTION OF ACREAGE USED FOR TDR TRANSFERS.

SO TDRS ARE LIFTED AT A RATE OF ONE DEVELOPMENT RATE PER 15 ACRES.

SO IF THEY LIFT ONE DEVELOPMENT RATE, THEN THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE THAT 15 ACRES OF THAT PROPERTY FOR SOLAR.

THE REMAINING EDITS THAT YOU SEE ARE THE SAME THAT YOU'VE ALREADY REVIEWED.

WE SPECIFICALLY HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SCREENING.

PROPOSED SCREENING BUFFERS SHALL BE REVIEWED BY A LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SELECTED BY THE COUNTY AT THE APPLICANT'S EXPENSE, AND WE CHANGED THE SETBACK SO THAT THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE TO BE 200FT FROM ADJOINING PROPERTY LINES AS OPPOSED TO 200FT FROM A SPECIFIC RESIDENT'S RESIDENTIAL BUILDING.

AND IT ALSO INCLUDES 200FT FROM ANY PROPERTY, NOT JUST RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.

SO COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AS WELL.

SO IT'S A 200 FOOT SETBACK FROM A ROAD OR.

YES, CORRECT.

AND I BELIEVE THOSE ARE ALL OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES FOR SOLAR.

BUT THE ONE THAT WE BROUGHT BACK FOR TODAY WAS THE MENTION OF THE TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.

BUT WE WILL MAKE ALL OF THOSE CHANGES.

THE 200FT SETBACK, THE IN THIS TEXT AMENDMENT, THE TDR TRANSFER.

OKAY. YES. SO IF YOU MOVE TO INTRODUCE THIS AT A FUTURE MEETING, THOSE ARE ALL THE CHANGES THAT YOU WOULD SEE RIGHT NOW.

OKAY. SHOULD WE ON THE TDRS.

SO THE TDR PROGRAM ALLOWED PEOPLE TO BASICALLY SELL THE RIGHTS DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ON THEIR PROPERTY AND THEN THEY WERE COMPENSATED FOR IT AND THEN THEY COULD NOT DEVELOP IT FROM THEIR RESIDENTIAL.

CORRECT. RESIDENTIAL.

SHOULD WE ADD SOMETHING IN HERE THAT MENTIONS COMPENSATION? IS THIS CLEAR ENOUGH? I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING, WHERE THEY HAVE RECEIVED COMPENSATION FOR A FOR A DEVELOPMENT, RIGHT? THAT'S. WELL, SO IF YOU WERE TO THERE'S TWO SCENARIOS HERE.

IF YOU LIFT A DEVELOPMENT RATE THAT IT'S A PRIVATE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL WHO LIFTED, LIFTS IT AND SELLS IT AND

[01:10:04]

WHOEVER PURCHASES THAT DEVELOPMENT RATE.

SO HISTORICALLY, AND IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE ANY DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS HAVE TRANSFERRED, I THINK THE RANGE IN PRICE HAS BEEN BETWEEN 3000 AND $15,000, ALTHOUGH THEY COULD GIVE IT AWAY IF THEY WANTED TO.

RIGHT. OR THEY COULD IF THEY OWNED BOTH PIECES OF PROPERTY, RIGHT.

IF YOU OWNED BOTH PARCELS, YOU COULD LIFT IT FROM ONE AND THEN GIVE IT TO YOURSELF ON ANOTHER PROPERTY ALSO.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD REALLY USE THE COMPENSATION.

THE OTHER THING IS THAT.

YOU COULD LIFT A DEVELOPMENT RATE.

AND THAT'S WHY THIS IS WORDED THIS WAY LIFTED.

BUT IT'S POSSIBLE THAT YOU HAVEN'T SOLD THAT DEVELOPMENT RATE YET.

SO IT COULD JUST BE FLOATING OUT THERE IN TDR RIGHTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE.

SO IF YOU'VE LIFTED THE RATE, EVEN IF YOU HAVEN'T SOLD IT, WE'RE SAYING YOU STILL CAN'T USE THAT 15 ACRES.

YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXTINGUISH WHAT YOU'VE LIFTED IF YOU WANT TO BRING IT BACK.

BUT WHEN WAS THE LAST TRANSACTION DONE? YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN A WHILE.

WELL. WE'VE HAD TVS.

PROBABLY THE LAST ONE THAT'S BEEN SOLD WOULD BE 2008, 2009.

IT'S I THINK IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME.

HOWEVER, OTHERS HAVE BEEN LIFTED OR EXTINGUISHED THROUGH OTHER PROGRAMS SINCE THEN.

MOUTH EASEMENTS.

OTHER MECHANISMS. SO THERE'S STILL RIGHTS THAT ARE LIFTED AND FLOATING AROUND AVAILABLE.

I MEAN, HOW? I WON'T SAY HOW ACCURATE, BUT HOW COMPREHENSIVE ARE OUR RECORDS? WE'VE ACTUALLY DONE A GREAT DEAL OF SCRUTINIZATION OF OUR RECORDS IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, PARTICULARLY AS WE'RE PREPARING FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

SO WE HAVE VERY ACCURATE RECORDS.

WE KNOW WHERE THEY'VE BEEN LIFTED.

WE HAVE THE MAPS.

WE KNOW WHAT RIGHTS ARE FLOATING AROUND.

I DON'T HAVE IT WITH ME, BUT WE KNOW WHAT'S OUT THERE.

AND WE WOULD WE WOULD BE ABLE TO TRACK THIS SO THAT IF SOMEONE COMES IN WITH A SITE PLAN TO DO A SEWER PROJECT, WE WOULD WE WOULD FLAG THAT AND SAY, NO, YOU CAN'T.

YES, MATT ACTUALLY HAS MATT AND MEGAN IN THE PLANNING AND CODES OFFICE HAVE DEVELOPED A GIS LAYER.

SO IF ANY PARCEL THAT'S SELECTED FOR ANY PROJECT THAT THAT WILL POP UP AS A FEATURE ON THAT PARCEL, IF TDRS HAVE BEEN LIFTED, IT WOULD ALSO SHOW THE RESERVATION RESTRICTION. CORRECT. SO OKAY.

AND ALSO, I MEAN, NOT REALLY DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS ORDINANCE, BUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTUALLY RIGHT NOW, THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, IS TAKING A PRETTY HARD LOOK AT THE TDR PROGRAM AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO USE THAT GOING FORWARD BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN UNDERUTILIZED.

HOWEVER, WE DON'T WANT TO NOT HAVE THAT PROGRAM ANYMORE BECAUSE THAT'S PROBABLY THE ONLY MECHANISM THE COUNTY HAS TO DEVELOP.

NOT SAYING WE WANT TO DEVELOP IN THE RURAL PORTIONS OF THE COUNTY, BUT OUTSIDE OF JURISDICTIONS.

THAT'S REALLY OUR ONLY POSSIBLE WAY TO DEVELOP OUTSIDE OF THAT.

YEAH. MY MY CONCERN WITH THE TDR, THE TDR, I ALWAYS GET THEM BACKWARDS RECEIVING AREA IS BASICALLY CONFINED TO BETWEEN DENTON AND GREENSBORO.

AND WHEN THE PROGRAM WAS CONCEIVED, I THINK THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, IT WAS MUCH EASIER TO GET A SEPTIC SYSTEM PERMIT AT THE TIME.

AND NOW THE WHOLE TDR PROGRAM IS REALLY CONTINGENT UPON SOIL TYPES WHERE YOU CAN GET A PERC TO ACTUALLY DO THAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.

SO I THINK WITH THE REGULATORY CHANGES THAT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, IT HAS KIND OF DAMPENED THE THE TDR PROGRAM. SO I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THOSE RECEIVING AREAS.

DESCENDING AREA IS PRETTY MUCH THE ENTIRE COUNTY.

ANYTHING OUR RURAL ZONES OUTSIDE OF THE RECEIVING AREA IS SENDING.

AND THEN THE ONLY RECEIVING AREA WAS BETWEEN DENTON AND GREENSBORO.

MAYBE THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A LITTLE PIECE OVER BY RIDGELEY, OKAY, BY NORTH CAROLINA HIGH SCHOOL.

BUT SO I THINK WE NEED TO REVISIT THE RECEIVING AREA.

BUT THAT CONVERSATION WILL BE COMING.

SO, SO WE NEED A MOTION.

IF WE'RE OKAY WITH THIS LANGUAGE, WE NEED A MOTION TO PREPARE FOR INTRODUCTION AT AN UPCOMING MEETING.

CORRECT? SO MOVED SECOND.

OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR.

SAY AYE. AYE.

AYE, AYE. RIGHT.

[01:15:01]

SO THAT ONE, WE'RE READY TO GO WITH STREAM BUFFERS.

[• Stream Buffer Regulations]

THIS ONE THAT IS NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART BECAUSE MY WHOLE BUILDING IS WHERE IT IS BECAUSE OF THIS.

AND I CAN'T MOVE IT NOW.

I CAN'T MOVE IT NOW.

BUT YOU'RE NOT ALONE.

SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGAIN HAS MADE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO STREAM BUFFER REGULATIONS THERE.

THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF STREAM BUFFER REGULATIONS IN CAROLINE COUNTY.

ONE IS FOR INTERMITTENT STREAMS AND ONE IS FOR PERENNIAL STREAMS. AND WE HAD PREVIOUSLY HAD 100 FOOT, 150 FOOT BUFFER.

ARE THEY BOTH WAS 100, 150.

MINE IS 100FT.

I'M SORRY. IT WAS 100 FOR PERENNIAL AND 25 FOR INTERMITTENT.

THANK YOU. I KNOW IT WAS SO YOU HAD THE 100 FOOT KIND? YES. SO WE HAVE DONE SOME RESEARCH BEFORE WE PREPARED THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE.

AND FIRST AND FOREMOST, THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY PROPERTY IN THE CRITICAL AREA, WHICH IS A COMPLETELY SEPARATE ISSUE OUTSIDE OF THE CRITICAL AREA.

THE STATE REGULATIONS CALL FOR A 50 FOOT BUFFER FOR BOTH PERENNIAL AND INTERMITTENT STREAMS. SO THIS WOULD, FOR CAROLINE COUNTY PURPOSES, INCREASE THE BUFFER REQUIRED FOR INTERMITTENT, WHICH WE'VE BEEN FOLLOWING ANYWAY, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE STATE LAW TO COME IN, ALIGN WITH STATE LAW AND TO DECREASE THE PERENNIAL STREAM BUFFER TO 50FT.

AND MOST OF THIS IS IN THE FOREST CONSERVATION SECTIONS OF BOTH THE STATE CODE.

SO IT'S NOT REALLY IN A PLACE.

SO IN ONE CASE WE WERE LESS STRINGENT THAN STATE LAW, BUT WE HAD TO FOLLOW STATE LAW.

AND IN THE OTHER WE WERE MORE STRINGENT, CORRECT? OKAY. CORRECT. SO WE'RE RELAXING THOSE REQUIREMENTS TO GIVE PROPERTY OWNERS MORE ACCESS TO THEIR PROPERTY.

THIS WILL ALSO BE MORE SIMPLE TO ENFORCE AND TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THE BUFFER IS 50, 50FT.

RIGHT. NO DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER YOUR STREAM IS INTERMITTENT, PERENNIAL.

IT STARTS AT ONE END, IS PERENNIAL, AND AT THE OTHER END IT'S INTERMITTENT, RIGHT? YEP. THIS ALSO WOULD NOT INCLUDE THE PDA BUFFERS REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD BE IMPOSED BY SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT.

BUT IT DOES RELAX.

WHAT ARE THOSE PDAS? BECAUSE THAT'S ANOTHER HOT BUTTON ISSUE THAT THAT I'VE COME ACROSS IN THE PAST, PEOPLE HAVING TO BE 100FT AWAY FROM A PDA, WHICH IS WHICH IS, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, CONFISCATING THEIR PROPERTY, THEIR ABILITY TO BUILD THEIR BUILDING ON IT ANYWAY.

SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY'RE DIFFERENT SETBACKS FOR DIFFERENT PDAS.

SO THEY'RE NOT CONSISTENT ACROSS THE COUNTY AS A GENERAL RULE OF THUMB.

SO DEPENDING ON WHAT PDA IT IS, THERE'S WHAT THEY CALL A DIP SIDE AND A SPREAD SIDE.

THE DIP SIDE IS USUALLY THE ONE THAT THE EQUIPMENT GOES DOWN TO CLEAN OUT THE DITCH.

AND THAT'S USUALLY A LESSER SETBACK THAN THE SPREAD SIDE, WHICH IS WHERE THEY WOULD PUT THE MATERIAL AND SPREAD IT.

OKAY. AND THAT IS NOT CONTROLLED BY US.

THAT'S CONTROLLED BY THE THE ASSOCIATIONS THAT ADMINISTER THE PDAS.

CORRECT. AND WE HAVE SOMETHING LIKE 58 OF THOSE.

I THINK WE HAVE MANY.

OKAY. WE CANNOT GO ANY LESS STRICT THAN THIS.

THIS IS GIVEN OUR PROPERTY OWNERS THE MOST CONTROL THAT WE CAN GIVE THEM.

CORRECT? OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? I WOULD MOVE THAT WE BRING THIS LANGUAGE BACK FOR APPROVAL.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OKAY.

SO THE FINAL TEXT AMENDMENT FOR TODAY, I THINK IS ALSO PRETTY SIMPLE.

[• Setbacks for Rear & Side Yard Setbacks in Residential Zoning Districts]

THIS TEXT AMENDMENT IS DEALING WITH REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

SO AT THE JUNE AND JULY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSED THIS AND PRETTY UNIVERSALLY AGREED TO LOWER THE SETBACKS FOR THOSE PORTIONS OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

THE SRA REQUIREMENT RIGHT NOW IS LARGER THAN IT WAS HISTORICALLY, BASICALLY BECAUSE OF STATE REGULATIONS.

SO SOME OF OUR, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY ANY OF OUR LOTS.

ARE DEFINITELY REDUCED IN THE BUILDABLE AREA.

SO I THINK THIS WILL HELP OUR HOMEOWNERS.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE CHART, WE'RE BASICALLY REDUCING ALL RESIDENTIAL TO TEN FEET.

[01:20:01]

VILLAGE CENTER IS CURRENTLY TEN FEET IN THE FRONT, FIVE FEET ON THE SIDE AND TEN FEET IN THE REAR.

IN CASES WHERE WE HAVE SMALLER SETBACKS THAN TEN FEET, WE ARE LEAVING THOSE AT THE SMALLER SETBACK.

AND THAT'S BECAUSE THOSE ARE TYPICALLY SMALLER LOTS, VILLAGE, NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE ARE CHANGING THE REAR YARD SETBACK TO TEN FEET IN THE RURAL ZONING DISTRICT.

AGAIN, TEN FEET ON SIDE AND REAR.

SAME WITH SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL AND THEN AGAIN, SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

SO UNIVERSALLY TEN FEET.

THIS WOULD NOT IMPACT HOW OUR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES OR THOSE FIVE FEET ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WOULD FALL INTO THIS AS WELL.

IS THAT DO WE HAVE A WE DO HAVE A PROVISION IN OUR ZONING CODE NOW THAT ALLOWS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT IS LESS THAN 750FT² TO BE AS CLOSE AS FIVE FEET TO THE SIDE AND REAR. SO THAT WOULD STILL BE PERMITTED.

ALSO, WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO TEN FEET ACROSS THE BOARD BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT DOING THAT.

BUT THEN THAT WOULD MAKE SOME OF THOSE STRUCTURES NONCONFORMING AND WOULD CREATE PROBLEMS FOR THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS DOWN THE ROAD.

SO WE'RE BASICALLY ALLOWING MORE UTILIZATION OF A PERSON'S PROPERTY.

YES, I MOVE. WE DO THIS.

ALL RIGHT. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE TABLE.

HE. OH.

YEP. I'M SORRY. JUST A SECOND.

MOTION IN A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR.

SAY AYE. ALL I WAS GOING TO LET YOU GO.

I CAN'T HEAR YOU, BUDDY. OH, THIS ONE WAS A THIS WAS ANOTHER ONE THAT I REALLY WANTED TO GET THROUGH BECAUSE OF THE INCREASED SIZE OF CARS AND ALLOWING PROPERTY OWNERS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF MORE OF THEIR PROPERTY, I FELT LIKE TEN FEET WAS PLENTY OF ROOM TO BE ABLE TO GET AROUND A BUILDING WITH A MOWER OR EQUIPMENT TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS IF THERE WAS A STRUCTURAL ISSUE WITH THE BUILDING OR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, A FIRE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

I THOUGHT TEN FEET WOULD GIVE ENOUGH ROOM TO PROTECT A NEIGHBOR, BUT STILL ALLOW A PROPERTY OWNER TO UTILIZE MORE OF THEIR PROPERTY.

SO THAT WAS WHERE THAT ONE CAME FROM.

SO. SO THAT ONE WILL COME BACK FOR INTRODUCTION.

YES. SOON AS WELL.

OKAY. YES. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. GOOD JOB PLANNING COMMISSION PEOPLE.

THANK YOU. AND STEWART.

OKAY. YOU GUYS GOOD? WANT TO KEEP GOING? YEAH.

ALL RIGHT. WE ARE NOW AT OUR CONSENT AGENDA ITEM.

[8. Consent Agenda]

SO WE HAVE A FEW FEW DIFFERENT THINGS ON HERE.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS? FRANK, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? NOT SO SWEET SINCE WE HAVE OUR HEALTH OFFICER WHO IS TAKING UP HER TIME TO COME IN HERE.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT YOU WERE REQUESTING? WHAT THIS IS ABOUT? YES.

SO WHY DON'T YOU COME UP HERE, ROBIN? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

SORRY. THE MICROPHONES DON'T PICK UP.

YOU GOT TO. YOU GOT TO HAVE IT RIGHT IN YOUR FACE.

YEAH. SO OUR FY 24 CORE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH MDH, ACTUALLY, IT'S A DOCUMENT THAT SHOWS THE COUNTIES REQUIRED MATCH, WHICH IS AT 24, I THINK, I DON'T KNOW, 24.347% OF THE TOTAL THAT MDH PROVIDES OR THAT THE STATE PROVIDES TO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT THIS YEAR.

AND YOU CAN SEE HERE, OH, IT'S 21.2044, SORRY.

SO NUMBER ONE, IT ACTUALLY SHOWS YOU THE STATE MATCH, WHICH IS 78.0.

WE CAN SAY 79% THIS YEAR.

WE HAVE $2.171057 MILLION.

THAT STATE MATCH INCLUDES A LOT OF COLAS, ALONG WITH SOME ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE ENTIRE HEALTH DEPARTMENT STAFF.

AND THEN SO THE TOTAL STATE FUNDS AGAIN IS THAT 2.1 MILLION.

SO CAROLINE COUNTY IS REQUIRED MATCH IS 584 245 WE PRESENTED THE BUDGET FOR EXCLUSIVELY FOR HEALTH DEPARTMENT FUNCTIONS, INCLUDING MY SALARY, THAT A PORTION OF MY SALARY THAT THE COUNTY PAYS FOR THAT TOTAL WAS APPROVED FOR 589,005 59 SO YOU THE COUNTY IS $5,314 OVER THE REQUIRED MATCH, WHICH IS AWESOME.

AND THEN WE'LL HAVE TOTAL FUNDS PROVIDED TO US IN RELATION TO CORE FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $2.7 MILLION.

[01:25:07]

THAT IS JUST A SMALL PORTION OF OF OUR FUNDING.

I JUST LOOKED AT OUR OUR CURRENT APPROVED GRANT FUNDING FOR FY 24 AND WE'RE CLOSE TO $6 MILLION.

SO AND THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THIS AT ALL.

SO WE ARE STILL PRETTY GRANT HEAVY.

THESE CALCULATIONS ARE BASED OFF OF ESPECIALLY THE COUNTY PORTION IS BASED OFF OF THE BASELINE, WHICH WAS WHAT WE RECEIVED FROM LAST YEAR.

SO FY 23, THE EXACT AMOUNT THAT WE RECEIVED LAST YEAR.

AND THEN IT INCLUDES A PERCENTAGE FOR OUR POPULATION GROWTH.

AND LIKE I SAID, THERE WERE A LITTLE OVER $2 MILLION IN COLAS ADJUSTMENTS FOR FY 23, FY 24 THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THIS.

AND WHAT THIS INDICATES IS, YOU KNOW, NEXT YEAR WHAT WE'LL BE LOOKING AT WHEN I PRESENT FOR OUR BUDGET REQUEST, THE MINIMUM THAT I'LL BE ASKING FOR IS THAT 21.2044% OF THE $2.7 MILLION IN ORDER TO KEEP US TO KEEP US MOVING, WE DID THE COLAS AND THE ADJUSTMENTS.

WE DID GO THROUGH OUR OUR VACANT PENS, WHICH ARE THE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS FOR EACH EMPLOYEE THAT WE HAVE.

IT'S LIKE A PERSONNEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER.

WE WENT THROUGH THEM AND REMOVED.

WE GOT RID OF SOME OF THEM THAT WERE VACANT SO THAT WE WEREN'T GETTING FUNDING OR FUNDING WASN'T BEING PROVIDED THAT WE WEREN'T UTILIZING, RIGHT. SO WE DID THAT.

WE CLEANED ALL THOSE UP.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE HOPE THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO RETURN TURN ANY FUNDING TO THE STATE NEXT YEAR.

SO YEAH, AND I SHOULD ALSO MENTION THAT.

SO CORE FUNDING, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE CORE LOCAL HEALTH SERVICES FUNDING THOSE, IT'S VERY SPECIFIC TO AREAS LIKE COMMUNICABLE DISEASE, FAMILY PLANNING OR GERIATRIC ADULT SERVICES, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND THEN ADMINISTRATION.

SO. AND SOME MENTAL HEALTH.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, ROBIN. YEAH.

AND EVERY YEAR I SIGN OFF ON IT, OUR FISCAL OFFICER AT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT SIGNS OFF ON IT.

AND WE HAVE TO HAVE REPRESENTATION FROM THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SIGNING OFF AS WELL.

YEP. OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THANKS.

AND. THERE'S ALSO THE LETTER HERE TO THE MARYLAND AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST.

I CAN EITHER ADDRESS NOW OR IN MY COMMENTS SOME CONCERNS ABOUT M.D.C., BECAUSE M.D.C. IS THE IS THE ENTITY THAT'S GOING TO HANDLE THIS.

I'LL WAIT UNTIL MY COMMISSIONER COMMENTS.

DO YOU WANT TO I MEAN, DO YOU WANT TO PULL THAT OUT SEPARATELY? I WOULD. I THINK WE SHOULD.

OKAY. I MEAN, MY MY CONCERNS ARE WE RECEIVED AGAIN OVER THE WEEKEND A EMAIL FROM THE LIBRARY ADMINISTRATOR ABOUT THE HVAC UNIT IN THE GREENSBORO LIBRARY WHERE, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE GREENSBORO LIBRARY BUILDING IS.

I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE WITH THAT.

I MEAN, WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO TO TO HAVE THAT ISSUE IN THAT BUILDING UNRESOLVED.

AND WE HAD A MEETING AT SOME POINT A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO.

BUT THAT ISSUE IN THAT BUILDING HAS TO BE RESOLVED BEFORE I'M GOING TO AGREE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH M.D.C.

BEING INVOLVED IN ADMINISTERING ANYTHING FOR US.

YOU KNOW, THERE ARE THERE ARE ORGANIZATIONS IN THERE.

HEAD START IS IN THERE.

BUT THE PRIMARY CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS FOR OUR LIBRARY STAFF.

THERE WILL BE AS LONG AS I CAN DO IT, THERE WILL BE A LIBRARY BRANCH IN GREENSBORO.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, BUT I'M BECOMING MORE AND MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ABILITY TO HAVE IT IN THAT BUILDING.

WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO HAVE LEAKS AND, YOU KNOW, ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH LEAKS. AND NOW ON DAYS WHERE WE'RE HAVING 95 DEGREE TEMPERATURES, WE OUR AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM IS NOT WORKING UP THERE.

SO I THINK WE NEED TO DISCUSS THIS FURTHER.

I AGREE WITH THE PREMISE HERE ABOUT HOUSING.

[01:30:03]

YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE TOWARD HOUSING PROGRAMS THAT ARE GOING TO BENEFIT OUR CITIZENS.

I'M JUST NOT SURE EXACTLY AT THIS POINT WHO TO PUT IN CHARGE OF THAT.

AND WE NEED TO HAVE A FURTHER DISCUSSION.

AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE BRING MR. D.C. IN HERE SOON TO TALK ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE THE CONCERNS IN THAT BUILDING HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR AS LONG, PRETTY MUCH SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, BEEN A COMMISSIONER.

AND I'M NOT SURE WHERE WE'RE GOING TO LAND WITH THIS THING, BUT I THINK WE JUST WE JUST CAN'T CONTINUE GOING ON LIKE THIS.

IT'S NOT FAIR TO THE STAFF.

IT'S NOT FAIR TO TO US.

SO THAT'S MY COMMENTS.

SO I WOULD REQUEST THAT WE CONSIDER THIS LETTER MAYBE AT A LATER MEETING.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

WELL, LET'S. ALL RIGHT.

SO DO I HEAR A MOTION TO.

COMMISSIONER BARTZ? DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO. OKAY.

ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY, SO I HEAR A MOTION TO REMOVE THE LETTER OF SUPPORT TO THE MARYLAND AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND APPROVE THE REMAINING ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

SO MOVED. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE? AYE. WE'RE STILL SPENDING MONEY TO STRIKER.

OKAY, MAN.

NEVER ENDING STORY.

REPLACEMENT PLAN. YEAH.

KATHLEEN. I DID.

WE JUST APPROVED IT.

BUT I DID SEE THE GRANT.

3000 BUCKS, TOO.

TOO. I MEAN, WHAT'S THE.

WHAT'S THE POINT OF.

YEAH. SO THAT.

SO IT PICKS ME UP. THAT CRITICAL GRANT USED TO BE 15 TO $20,000 A YEAR.

AND THEN. WHEN IS THE STATE REVENUE WAS DOWN THE SAME TIME WE LOST THE STATE HIGHWAY FUNDING AND ALL THAT.

THE CRITICAL AREA OF FUNDING EVAPORATED AS WELL.

SO WE ARE DOWN TO $3,000 A YEAR IN GRANTS, I THINK ALL JURISDICTIONS.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT EACH JURISDICTION GETS, BUT EVERYBODY IS LOWER AND IT'S NEVER COME BACK UP.

SO MAYBE RICHMOND, PORTER WELL, ARE WE? I HAVE A CRITICAL AREA MEETING COMMISSION TOMORROW, SO BECAUSE YES, WE ONLY ARE ANNUAL GRANT TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM IS NOW 3000.

WELL, I NOTICED IN HERE, I CAN'T GET IT PULLED UP NOW, BUT I RECALL READING THAT WE WERE BINDING OURSELVES TO ADMINISTER THE LAWS OF THE STATE.

OR THERE WAS.

THERE WAS. WELL, WE'RE REQUIRED TO ADMINISTER ANYWAY.

RIGHT. ANYWAY.

RIGHT. YEAH. SO WHAT? IT'S $3,000.

IT WAS MORE WORTH IT HONESTLY, WHEN IT WAS.

WELL THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT I'M WONDERING IS JUST TELL THEM TO POUND SAND.

BUT NOW SO FOR $3,000, WE DO WHAT WE NORMALLY DO ANYWAY TO ADMINISTER THE CRITICAL AREA PROGRAM.

EXCEPT THAT MATT SUBMITS QUARTERLY REPORTS AS WELL.

I DON'T KNOW. WITHOUT THE GRANT, WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T DO THAT.

WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO WRITE.

SO. SO WHERE DOES THIS MONEY COME? WHAT WHAT DEPARTMENT DOES THIS COME FROM? DO YOU KNOW? OR DOES IT COME THROUGH THE CRITICAL AREA COMMISSION FUNDING? IT WOULD COME FROM THE I'M PRETTY SURE IT COMES FROM THE CRITICAL AREA COMMISSION.

AND ALL LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ARE ELIGIBLE.

ALL LOCAL JURISDICTIONS WITH CRITICAL AREA ARE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE SOME IMPLEMENTATION.

YOU MAKE A NOTE. YOU AND I ARE MAKING A TRIP SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE.

STATE OF MARYLAND CRITICAL AREA COMMISSION CHESAPEAKE AND ATLANTIC COASTAL BAYS FISCAL YEAR 2024 GRANT PROGRAM GRANT AGREEMENT.

STATE OF MARYLAND. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES.

SO WE WANT MORE MONEY TO DO WHAT WE'RE THEY'RE ASKING US TO DO, RIGHT? WE USED TO IT USED TO BE, I THINK, 15 OR $20,000.

SO IT WAS PRETTY DRASTICALLY I CAN EITHER MENTION IT TOMORROW OR WE CAN WHEN WHEN ARE WE GO IN SEPTEMBER 11TH? IS THAT WHEN WE'RE GOING ON THE 11TH? I'LL SEND YOU A NOTE. PLEASE.

YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE SUBMISSION OF TO PROGRESS STATUS REPORTS AND ONE INVOICE.

IT'S VERY MINIMAL WORK.

OKAY. I WAS GOING TO SAY, I MEAN, IS IT WORTH MATT'S TIME FOR $3,000?

[01:35:03]

IT BETTER BE FOR $3,000.

AND THE ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION DOESN'T CHANGE.

I MEAN, SO JUST THE ANNUAL GRANT, WHO DOES A REPORT GO TO CRITICAL AREA COMMISSION COMMISSION? YOU'LL BE REVIEWING IT, I'M SURE.

I'M SURE I WILL. YEAH.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

NEXT UP, COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT.

[9. County Administrator’s Report]

SO DO WE WANT TO DO THIS? KATHLEEN, YOU GOOD? I HAVE NOTHING. DANNY, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? UPDATE YEAH. YOU WANT TO COME FORWARD? THERE'S NOTHING. YEAH, A COUPLE LITTLE THINGS.

SO JUST SO INFORMATION IS NOT FORTHCOMING FROM MS. NOW, WHETHER THAT'S MAYOR'S FAULT OR THE ACCOUNTING FIRMS FAULT, WE ALL KNOW THAT ACCOUNTING FIRMS ARE BUSY AND IT TAKES TIME.

BUT THERE IS THIS SENSE OF URGENCY THAT WE NEED TO HAVE THIS AGREEMENT TO CONTINUE MID-SHORE REGIONAL LANDFILL TO THEM.

YEAH. AND WE'RE NOT GETTING ANYTHING FROM THEM.

CORRECT? YEAH. COMMISSIONER BREEDING, MYSELF, I BELIEVE TODD MAHON, THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR QUEEN ANNE'S, HAVE ALL EMAILED MS, I'M GOING TO SAY MULTIPLE TIMES OVER THE PAST WEEK OR TWO, AND THE THE STANDARD RESPONSE IS STILL WAITING ON PFM TO GATHER AND PUT TOGETHER THE MODEL THAT WE HAVE REQUESTED WITH THE FOUR AND SIX.

AS SOON AS I RECEIVE THAT, WE WILL CIRCULATE IT WITH THE GROUP AND WE CAN REVIEW AND GO OVER IT FROM THERE.

BUT AT THIS TIME IT IS STILL PENDING AND WE HAVE WE HAVE NOT SENT THEM THE OFFER, THE OFFICIAL OFFER YET, CORRECT? WE WERE REALLY INTERESTED IN SEEING THE THE REPORT THAT THEY COME OUT WITH ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AND GO FROM THERE.

WHO WHO IS THE WHO IS THE DIRECTOR OR SUPERVISOR OR PERSON IN CHARGE OF MS? DR.

GLASS. IS IT OKAY? YEAH. I THINK IT MAY BE TIME AGAIN TO REACH TO HAVE OUR REPRESENTATIVES REACH OUT TO HIM.

OKAY. I DON'T WANT TO HEAR WHO'S BUSY OR DOG ATE THEIR HOMEWORK.

I'M TIRED OF HEARING ALL THAT.

WE GOT TO WE HAVE TO FIND OUT WHAT THE NUMBERS ON THIS ARE BECAUSE THERE IS A SELF-IMPOSED DEADLINE BY MS WHO WERE WAITING FOR THE INFORMATION FROM.

VERY MUCH SO. SO THIS IS, YOU KNOW, NOT ACCEPTABLE.

SO WE CAN MAKE AN EMAIL OR PHONE CALL AND HAVE THEM REACH OUT ON OUR BEHALF.

YES, CERTAINLY.

JUST TO TWO OTHER NOTES OF THINGS THAT HAVE COME UP OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF WEEKS.

SO WE HAD OUR DEPARTMENT HEAD MEETING LAST WEDNESDAY.

WE'VE DISCUSSED THE REPORTING THAT THE DEPARTMENT'S REPORT OUT TO THE BOARD PRIOR TO A MONTH AGO, WE WERE DOING EVERY OTHER MONDAY REPORTS THAT WOULD GO TO THE COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE THAT WOULD THEN GET CIRCULATED OUT TO THE BOARD.

WE'VE DISCUSSED AND WE FEEL CHANGING THAT TO A MONTHLY BASIS WILL BETTER SUIT THE DATA THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE.

SO YOU'LL START SEEING THOSE REPORTS COME OUT.

WE'RE SHOOTING FOR THE SECOND WEEK AND OF THE MONTH EACH TIME.

THAT WAY, DEPARTMENTS, ESPECIALLY MINE, CAN FINISH OUT AND CLOSE OUT THE PRIOR MONTH AND GET ALL OF OUR DATA PUT TOGETHER.

AND THEN THE LAST THING I HAD WAS IT HAS SET UP A DEPARTMENT HEAD CALENDAR THAT HAS BEEN CIRCULATED WITH THE BOARD.

SO YOU SHOULD HAVE ACCESS NOW TO GO ON AND SEE DAYS OFF OR ANY EVENTS THAT ALL OF THE DEPARTMENT HEADS HAVE SCHEDULED.

SO YOU KNOW WHO'S IN, WHO'S OUT AND HOW YOU CAN CONTACT US OR SECOND IN CHARGE IF NEED BE.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THOSE WERE THE COUPLE ITEMS THAT I HAD.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

STEWART I WAS GOING TO ASK DANNY.

DANNY, HAVE WE GOTTEN ANY BACKUP DOCUMENTATION FROM MS AS TO WHY THERE WAS SOME SETTLEMENT WITH AN EMPLOYEE OR SOME GROUP THAT DROVE UP THE EXPENSES? I THINK IT WAS A CONTRACTOR THAT DID THE TEMPORARY CAP ON MID-SHORE ONE.

DON'T HOLD ME TO THAT.

BUT IT WAS IT WAS SOMETHING IN RELATION TO MID-SHORE ONE AND IT WAS TO THE TUNE OF $675,000, CORRECT? I THINK ANECDOTALLY THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HEARING.

[01:40:01]

I THINK FORMALLY WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE ON THAT SINCE I'VE BEEN INVOLVED.

WE TOOK A ROUGHLY 675 K HIT FOR THE SETTLEMENT WITH OUR CONTRACTOR IN FISCAL YEAR 22.

AND IN FISCAL YEAR 23, WE TOOK A HIT IN ADJUSTMENT FOR OUR CLOSURE AND POST CLOSURE COSTS.

I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS MS DID THAT ON ITS OWN AUTHORITY WITHOUT CONSULTATION WITH THE COUNTIES AND THEN JUST STUCK THE COUNTIES WITH THE BILL.

THERE MAY HAVE BEEN CONVERSATION WITH THE PRIOR MINISTER OR ADMINISTRATOR AT THE TIME AND THE COUNTIES ABOUT THAT.

I HAVE BEEN HEARING IT THE OTHER DAY WHEN WE GOT THE EMAIL.

NO, IT WAS IT WAS NEWS.

IT WAS NEWS TO ME.

THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOME EMAIL TRAILS OR SOMETHING THAT WE COULD I DON'T THINK YOU JUST CALL SOMEBODY UP AND TELL THEM THAT.

CORRECT. SOME DOCUMENTATION OF THAT? YES. ONE WOULD THINK WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK IN TO THE THE EMAIL.

I WOULD SAY IF IF WE DO NOT FIND ANYTHING, A SIMPLE EMAIL REQUESTING THE FURTHER DISCLOSURE OF THAT INFORMATION WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.

SO. WELL.

MY MY CONCERN WITH THE NUMBERS THAT WE'RE GETTING FROM GMS AND AND GMS AS THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT WITH ME.

BUT WE'RE CHARGING OUR TIPPING FEE FOR RIDGELY FOR FOR CAROLINE TALBOT KENT AND QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTIES IS $69.50 FOR EVERY TON OF TRASH THAT GOES IN.

YOU ADD UP THE POPULATIONS OF THOSE FOUR COUNTIES AND YOU'RE WELL OVER 100,000 CONSTITUENTS THAT ARE BRINGING TRASH INTO THAT FACILITY.

DORCHESTER COUNTY MAKES MONEY OFF OF THEIR LANDFILL, THEIR ENTERPRISE FUND.

THEY ONLY HAVE 33,000 RESIDENTS AND THEIR TIPPING FEE IS $68 A TON.

SO I'M CURIOUS. I KNOW WE SUBSIDIZE RECYCLING AND WE DO SOME OTHER THINGS WITH THE TIPPING FEES.

BUT, YOU KNOW, ECONOMY OF SCALE TO ME MAKES SENSE THAT THAT THAT THAT LANDFILL OPERATION IN RIDGELY RIGHT NOW, THE REGIONAL FACILITY OPERATED BY GMS SHOULD BE MORE LUCRATIVE THAN WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO US.

YOU KNOW $1.50 A TON MORE TIPPING FEE, PROBABLY AN ADDITIONAL 100,000 RESIDENTS CONTRIBUTING.

YOU KNOW, SO I DON'T KNOW.

CERTAINLY. AND I THINK A CONVERSATION WE HAD, THE TIPPING FEE DOES SEEM VERY IN LINE WITH SURROUNDING AREAS IF NOT ON THE THE LOW SIDE OF THE STATE FOR DELAWARE AND MARYLAND.

DORCHESTER IS.

DORCHESTER IS $68.

WICOMICO 68.

WORCHESTER COUNTY IS $80.

DELAWARE IS $85 AT SANDTOWN AND HARDSCRABBLE.

AND THEN THEY HAVE ONE IN THE NORTHERN NEW CASTLE COUNTY.

AND ARUNDEL COUNTY IS $85.

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, 70, CECIL 79, SOMERSET AS LOW AT 66 AND ANOTHER LANDFILL OPERATED BY MES.

THE ONLY OTHER ONE THAT I COULD FIND ONLINE IS $117 PER TON.

THAT'S IN HARFORD COUNTY, BUT IT IS OPERATED BY MES BUT.

WELL, LET'S CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION.

MAYBE WE NEED TO SET UP A MEETING WITH THE OTHER COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS TO TRY TO GET THE BALL MOVING ALONG HERE AND GET A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF WHO IS HOLDING THINGS UP SO THAT WE'RE NOT LEFT HOLDING THE BAG HERE BECAUSE WE HAVE ASKED FOR INFORMATION AND IT HAS BEEN LESS THAN PROVIDED.

AND BEFORE WE MAKE A FINAL DECISION, WE'VE GOT TO GO BACK TO THE PEOPLE, TO THE TAXPAYERS.

CORRECT. SO WE CAN'T DO THAT WITHOUT THESE NUMBERS? YES. WITHOUT KNOWING HOW MUCH MONEY IT IS GOING TO SAVE CAROLINE COUNTY OR IT'S GOING TO CONTRIBUTE TO CAROLINE COUNTY.

EVERYBODY'S BUSY.

YEP. YEP. VERY MUCH SO.

OKAY. I'LL GET TOGETHER WITH YOU ON THAT.

MAYBE WE CAN REACH OUT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

I GUESS I HAVE ONE ITEM.

THE PLANNING CODES HAS GOT A PENDING APPLICATION FOR AN ADDICTIONS TREATMENT FACILITY IN THE COUNTY.

AND IN THE COURSE OF THAT APPLICATION, WE HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT WITH A LETTER SIGNED OR MEMO, I SHOULD SAY, AN INTERNAL MEMO FROM THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL TO ALL STAFF, STATING THAT UPON ADVICE

[01:45:02]

FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERALS REPRESENTING THE MARYLAND STATE POLICE, OF WHICH THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL IS A PART.

THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE WILL NO LONGER BE PERFORMING INSPECTIONS, SAFETY INSPECTIONS OF ADDICTIONS, RECOVERY HOMES.

IN OTHER WORDS, PLACES WHERE PEOPLE MIGHT BE HAVING A HALFWAY HOUSE, WHERE THEY'RE LIVING TOGETHER IN WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PERHAPS A PRIVATE DWELLING.

SO I THIS WAS DATED IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR, JANUARY 10TH OF THIS YEAR.

SO I THOUGHT I WOULD START WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE AND HAD A PLEASANT CONVERSATION WITH AN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL AT THE END OF LAST WEEK, IN WHICH I EXPLAINED MY SURPRISE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE RECOMMENDED NO FIRE SAFETY INSPECTIONS FOR RECOVERY HOMES.

AND HE SAID, OH, WELL, WE DID THAT.

THAT'S BEEN THE ADVICE FOR YEARS.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE MEMO WHY THE MEMO WAS ISSUED JANUARY 10TH OF THIS YEAR.

AND I REQUESTED THAT HE FORWARDED TO ME ALL OF THE RESEARCH THAT SUBSTANTIATED THE ADVICE TO THE FIRE MARSHAL THAT THESE HOMES ARE NOT TO BE SUBJECTED TO FIRE INSPECTIONS UNLESS THERE IS A FIRE OR A COMPLAINT.

YEAH. YEAH.

WELL, FAR BE IT FROM ME TO QUESTION THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE, BUT I'M BEGINNING TO WONDER WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO ACTUALLY DO.

I MEAN, WE'VE HEARD WHAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO, BUT IT'S INCOMPREHENSIBLE TO ME THAT YOU WOULD REQUIRE INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE WHO BUILD A HOUSE TO GO TO THE EXPENSE OF BEING MANDATED TO INSTALL A SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN THAT HOUSE.

BUT YOU WOULDN'T DO FIRE INSPECTIONS IN GROUP OR OR HOUSING WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HOUSE A LARGE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS.

NOW, I AM SORRY.

AND I YOU KNOW, I AM TRYING REALLY HARD, BUT I CANNOT IMAGINE THIS THAT YOU WOULD SAY SO IN THIS PARTICULAR FACILITY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A BUILDING THAT HAS A SECOND FLOOR, SECOND FLOOR APARTMENT.

AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE RESIDING THERE, CORRECT? YES. AND YOU WOULDN'T REQUIRE FIRE INSPECTIONS, BUT YOU WILL REQUIRE FIRE INSPECTIONS ON A FOOD TRUCK AND TRY TO SHUT THAT PERSON DOWN.

I MEAN, COME ON, MAN.

THIS JUST DOESN'T EVEN.

WELL, THE THE OTHER THING IS, COMMISSIONER PORTER, IS THAT IN OUR CODE, WE HAVE A LIMITATION.

IT CANNOT BE MORE THAN FIVE FOR I'M SORRY, FOUR UNRELATED OCCUPANTS.

AND THE REQUEST IS FOR SIX THAT WE THAT WE ALLOW SIX.

AND WE'VE DISCOVERED A LITTLE BIT MORE LATE LAST WEEK.

THE STRUCTURE IS NOT THE SEPTIC AND WELL IS NOT APPROVED FOR THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS THAT THEY HAVE.

IT'S CHANGED OVER TIME AND THEY'VE HAD SOME SEPTIC REPAIRS.

BUT IN SPEAKING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT, I THINK WE HAVE A CLEAR PICTURE THAT THEY WERE PERMITTED FOR MAYBE ONE DENTIST CHAIR DOWNSTAIRS AND MAYBE TWO BEDROOMS UPSTAIRS, I THINK WAS THE FINAL DETERMINATION.

SO THEY HAD REQUESTED, I THINK, SIX INDIVIDUALS, BUT THEN THAT CHANGED TO FOUR.

BUT THERE'S ONLY THREE BEDROOMS. SO IT'S STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS.

WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE PROTOCOL ON THAT? IF THE IF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT DIRECTS PLANNING AND CODES AND SAYS THE SYSTEM IS ONLY DESIGNED FOR TWO, IS THAT ENFORCEMENT PLACED ON PLANNING AND CODES OUR DEPARTMENT OR DOES THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.

IT REALLY IT REALLY LIES WITH BOTH.

SO THEY WILL NEED TO GET A ZONING CERTIFICATE OR SOME KIND OF A PERMIT.

AND NOW IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S RENOVATIONS THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN THAT STRUCTURE, MAYBE WITHOUT A PERMIT.

BUT DEFINITELY THEY NEED THE APPROPRIATE APPROVALS FOR WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

[01:50:03]

SO WHENEVER THAT HAPPENS, IT TRIGGERS AN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT REVIEW.

SO THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT WOULD ULTIMATELY BE THE ENFORCEMENT OVER THAT PORTION OF THE OVER THAT PORTION.

BUT WHAT WOULD TRIGGER THAT WOULD BE US NOTIFYING THEM THAT THERE'S AN APPLICATION.

THIS LOOK, YOU KNOW, MY MY COMMENTS ARE NOT IN ANY WAY SHORT CHANGING THE FACT THAT WE NEED THESE FACILITIES.

PEOPLE PEOPLE NEED TO HAVE THESE FACILITIES.

THEY NEED TREATMENT.

THAT'S NOT ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

BUT I'M GOING TO TELL YOU AND WE HAVE YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE'RE HONORED TODAY TO HAVE RETIRED JUDGE WISE WITH US.

AND I WANT TO RECOGNIZE HIM.

A FORMER FIRE CHIEF.

AND THIS IS GOING TO BE A SITUATION WHERE IF THERE IS A TRAGEDY THAT HAPPENS THERE, THOSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE JUST AS DEAD AS AS ANYBODY ELSE.

RIGHT. AND THEN WE'RE ALL GOING TO SIT AROUND AND LOOK AT EACH OTHER AND SAY, WELL, WHY WASN'T THERE ANY FIRE INSPECTION? THIS IS TO ME, IF IF WE DON'T IF THE FIRE MARSHAL IS NOT GOING TO DO THIS, WE HAVE GOT TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO PROTECT THE LIVES AND THE SAFETY OF THOSE PEOPLE.

THE YOU KNOW, THE FIRE CODE IS YOU SAVE LIVES AND PROTECT PROPERTY.

AND I THINK THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE THAT WE'VE GOT TO LOOK AT.

YES, SIR.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE PUTTING NOT ONLY THAT, BUT YOU'RE PUTTING A BURDEN ON THE FIRE COMPANIES TO RESPOND TO A I MEAN, SO I'M NOT IN ANY WAY QUESTIONING THE NEED FOR THE FACILITY.

THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M DOING.

BUT I'M I'M QUESTIONING THE FAIRNESS AND THE REQUIREMENTS.

I CAN RECALL WHEN REVEREND DUNN, WHO COMES A LOT OF TIMES AND DOES HIS KNOW, DOES THE PRAYER FOR US IN THE MORNING AND IS A VERY, VERY, YOU KNOW, GOOD FRIEND OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAD A FIRE IN HIS CHURCH AND HE WAS REQUIRED TO PUT A SYSTEM IN.

YOU REMEMBER THAT? YES.

THAT WOULD HAVE SERVED THE CHURCH IF THE CHURCH WERE FULL TO CAPACITY SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, WHEN THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, HE HAS CHURCH ON SUNDAY AND THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE THERE.

BUT I MEAN, I JUST THINK THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC OF THIS.

IN A NUTSHELL, IT'S THE PEOPLE THAT OPERATE THESE CENTERS FOR PROFIT UTILIZE THE FAIR HOUSING ACT OF FEDERAL ACT AND THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT AS A HAMMER ON LOCAL JURISDICTIONS, BECAUSE IN ESSENCE, WHAT THOSE LAWS SAY IS THAT YOU SHOULD NOT BE TREATING A HOME WHERE THESE RECOVERING ADDICTS ARE RESIDING ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU WOULD A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.

YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SUBJECT THEM TO ANY INSPECTIONS, TO ANY ZONING REQUIREMENTS, ANY OCCUPANCY LIMITS THAT YOU WOULDN'T ON A HUSBAND AND WIFE AND THREE KIDS LIVING IN THE SAME BUILDING.

AND SO THAT THREAT OF FINDING A VIOLATION OF THE ADA OR THE FAIR HOUSING ACT IS WHAT HAS INTIMIDATED, IN MY OPINION, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE INTO ADVISING THE FIRE MARSHAL TO LEAVE THEM ALONE.

AND SO IT'S ONE OF THOSE DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL, DON'T LOOK, DON'T GO LOOK FOR FIRE CODE VIOLATIONS UNLESS YOU'RE GOING TO GO START LOOKING FOR BODIES.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

AND WILL THIS STRUCTURE BE REQUIRED TO BE SPRINKLED? WELL, WE DON'T KNOW YET HOW MANY CONCRETELY, HOW MANY BEDROOMS ARE IN THERE, WHAT INTERIOR RENOVATION WORK HAS BEEN DONE. SO I THINK WHATEVER REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE PLACED ON THEM REALLY WOULD BE THE SAME AS A NEW HOME OR A HOME RENOVATION IN MANY WAYS. SO IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SPRINKLERS, BUT WE DON'T KNOW YET BECAUSE WE DON'T WE'RE NOT WHAT THEY'VE TOLD US.

WHAT THE INDIVIDUAL HAS TOLD US IS NOT ALWAYS CONSISTENT.

SO THE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENT, IF I RECALL, HAS TO DO WITH THE PERCENTAGE OR THE COST OF RENOVATION.

CORRECT. I MEAN, I KNOW SOMEONE VERY, VERY, VERY CLOSELY WHO JUST GOT FINISHED RENOVATING A HOUSE AND WAS REQUIRED TO PUT A SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN IT BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT

[01:55:02]

OF THE COST OF THE RENOVATION WAS A PERCENTAGE OF THE VALUE.

RIGHT. SO I GUESS I'M THINKING IF THE LAST PERMIT THAT THEY HAD, IF THERE WAS EVER A PERMIT, IF THE LAST PERMIT THEY HAD WAS FOR A ONE BEDROOM AND NOW THEY HAVE 3 OR 4 BEDROOMS, THEN THAT'S A DIFFERENT SCENARIO THAN IF THEY STILL ONLY HAVE ONE BEDROOM.

WE JUST DON'T KNOW YET.

I. YEAH, I THINK CONTINUED DOWN THE PATH OF ENSURING THAT THE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD BE EXPECTED OF ANY OTHER PERSON IS EXPECTED OF THIS PROPERTY OWNER.

SO. HERE I'M JUST APPALLED THAT THEY TARGETED BUSINESS OWNERS. BUT DON'T TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY.

THERE WAS ACTUALLY A FIRE IN ONE OF THESE FACILITIES ON THE WESTERN SHORE INSIDE THE TOWN LIMITS THAT BECAUSE OF THE FEAR OF HAVING A FIRE INSPECTION WOULD VIOLATE THE FEDERAL LAWS.

PEOPLE DIED BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T GET OUT.

THERE WAS NO ALARM SYSTEM.

THERE WAS NO ESCAPE HATCH.

THERE WAS NOTHING. THERE WAS A MULTI STORY BUILDING AND PEOPLE DIED.

SO THAT'S I WILL TELL YOU THAT.

IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, I THINK A SPIRIT OF THE PLANNING AND CODES OFFICE THAT WHEN WE HAVE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF FIRE CODE VIOLATIONS.

AND HOLDING THEM TO FIXING THOSE FIRE CODE VIOLATIONS.

AND WE DO HAVE SUCH ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE BY ACCIDENT.

THAT I THINK PLANNING AND CODES BEFORE THEY WOULD ISSUE A PERMIT, THEY WOULD WANT TO BE ORDERED TO DO SO BY A JUDGE IN BLACK ROBES WHO SAYS YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO IGNORE THE FIRE CODE VIOLATIONS AND ISSUE THE PERMIT COUNTY.

ONLY AT THAT POINT ISSUE THE PERMIT SO THAT IF SOME IF THERE IS AN INCIDENT OUT THERE, IT'S NOT ON OUR COUNTY PLANNING AND CODES, PEOPLE WHO JUST FOR WHATEVER REASON TURNED A BLIND EYE.

ISSUED THE PERMIT.

AND WE'RE GETTING INTERVENTION FROM A LAWYER WHO SPECIALIZES IN ALL OF THIS LAW FROM BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD.

OKAY. COUNTY COMMISSIONER.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE, ANY OTHER DEPARTMENT HEADS OR ANY OTHER COUNTY EMPLOYEES THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING? NO. OKAY.

COUNTY COMMISSIONER, OPEN DISCUSSION, PERIOD.

COMMISSIONER BURKS? YES.

I WAS ON VACATION LAST WEEK AND I JUST GOT BACK.

I GOT A CONTACTED DNR WHEN WE WERE IN MAKO ABOUT THE CHOPTANK RIVER AND BEING A LOT OF DOWNED TREES UNPASSABLE IN CERTAIN.

ANYWAY, THEY SENT A CREW UP THERE.

I'VE BEEN CONTACTED BY DIRECTOR JOHN GALLAGHER.

HE'S THE DIRECTOR OF BOATING SERVICES.

THEY SENT A CREW UP LAST WEEK AND THEY CLEARED A PATH.

THERE WAS A NUMBER OF DOWNED TREES IN CHOPTANK RIVER.

THEY WERE GOING BACK TO MARK ONE WITH A BUOY.

THEY THINK IT WAS BETTER THAN WHAT WAS BEFORE, BUT I CONTACTED A COUPLE PEOPLE TO LET THEM KNOW SO THEY WOULD CHECK IT OUT.

AND I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING BACK YET FROM THE CONSTITUENTS, BUT I'M SURE THEY'LL LET US KNOW IF THERE'S NEED TO BE MORE.

BUT THEY SAID THEY'LL GO BACK AND CUT MORE IF THERE'S AN ISSUE.

SO THAT WAS VERY QUICK TO RESPOND TO OUR REQUEST ON THAT.

SO THAT'S QUITE GOOD.

SO I THINK THAT'S IT FOR ME.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER BARTZ.

YEAH. DO YOU KNOW OR IS THERE A WAY TO FIND OUT WHERE WE ARE WITH THE SPEED LIMIT? BECAUSE I KNOW THERE WERE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT REDUCING THE SPEED ON THE RIVER.

I CAN CONTACT THEM.

BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S ONE PARTICULAR PERSON THAT'S LIVING THERE WHO WANTS BOAT TRAFFIC TO SLOW DOWN.

AND THEN YOU HAVE OTHER PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GO FAST.

AND SO I THINK WE PROBABLY IT WOULD BE GOOD TO GET AN IDEA ABOUT WHERE WE ARE ON THAT.

DO YOU HAVE A CONTACT WITH THAT PERSON? THAT WOULD BE GOOD. YEAH, I KNOW.

I SAW SOME BOYS OUT BEHIND MY HOUSE WITH A SPEED LIMIT THING, YOU KNOW, AND IT WAS THERE WAS A POSTING THERE, SO I'M JUST NOT SURE WHERE WE ARE.

I WILL SEND AN EMAIL THIS AFTERNOON.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. MR. PORTER? YEAH.

I ATTENDED THE DEPARTMENT HEAD MEETING LAST WEDNESDAY, AND I THINK IT

[02:00:05]

WAS VERY HELPFUL FOR ME AND I APPRECIATE I'M GOING TO MAKE A KIND OF AN INFORMAL RECOMMENDATION HERE THAT MAYBE GOING FORWARD WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE OF US OR PROBABLY JUST ONE OF US ATTEND THOSE MEETINGS GOING FORWARD AND WE CAN DO IT ACCORDING TO SCHEDULES.

BUT IT WAS VERY, VERY HELPFUL.

YOU KNOW, I THINK I WANT TO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP WAS THE MAYBE THE THOUGHT OR THE RECOMMENDATION OF, YOU KNOW, RECOGNITION OF OUR DEPARTMENTS DURING THE YEAR.

I MEAN, I KNOW EVERY DAY IS NATIONAL SOMETHING.

I THINK TODAY IS NATIONAL CHEESE PIZZA DAY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

BUT I MEAN, I THINK WE CAN WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE OUR DEPARTMENTS AND LET THE PEOPLE KNOW THAT WE DO APPRECIATE.

I CAN TELL YOU IN THAT MEETING, THERE WAS A VERY WIDE RANGE OF DISCUSSIONS OR TOPICS THAT WE DISCUSSED.

BUT I PARTICULARLY WANT TO THANK EVERYONE WHO'S, YOU KNOW, PULLING THAT EXTRA OR HERE AS WE'RE, YOU KNOW, MOVING MOVING FORWARD.

BUT WE DID HAVE A VERY GOOD DISCUSSION.

AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I TRIED TO REITERATE WAS THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN DEPARTMENT HEADS OR DIRECTORS, I GUESS WE CALL THEM NOW DIRECTORS OR DEPARTMENT HEADS WITH US, WITH THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

AND THAT WILL BE, I THINK, A STAPLE GOING FORWARD AS WE SEARCH FOR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR.

BUT THANK YOU TO ALL OF YOU, STEWART KATHLEEN, DANNY, AND I KNOW YOUR STAFFS ARE, YOU KNOW, WORKING EXTRA HERE, BUT IT'S IT'S GREATLY APPRECIATED AND I THOUGHT IT WAS A GREAT DISCUSSION.

JEN PULLING PULLING SOME EXTRA DUTY HERE.

SO AND, YOU KNOW, I'M SURE THEY MAY BE TALKING TO EACH OTHER ABOUT IT, BUT I HAVEN'T HEARD A LOT OF PUSHBACK.

IN FACT, I THINK THEY'VE KIND OF ACTUALLY LIKED THE SITUATION TO BE TO BE INVOLVED.

SO IT'S A REALLY GOOD JOB.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE MISSED A BEAT.

DEBBIE, THANK YOU FOR BEING THERE AS WELL AND YOUR SUGGESTIONS.

DANNY, AS ALWAYS.

SO IT'S A REALLY, REALLY IT WAS A GOOD MEETING AND I THINK IT'LL BE HELPFUL AGAIN IF COMMISSIONERS ATTEND AND LISTEN TO WHAT'S GOING ON AND PROVIDE SOME ANSWERS TO THE EXTENT THAT I COULD.

SO THANK YOU AGAIN.

RECOGNIZE THE JUDGE? WE'RE GOING TO HAVE LUNCH.

YOU'RE PAYING FOR MY LUNCH.

SO IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU.

GOOD TO SEE YOU HERE. AND AND THAT'S ALL I GOT.

THANKS. OKAY.

SO A COUPLE OF THINGS.

I AFTER A FEW WEEKS AGO, WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT UPPER SHORE AGING AND TRYING TO FIND A NEW LOCATION FOR THEM.

SO I DID EMAIL ANDY HOLLIS AND ASKED HIM A FEW QUESTIONS.

SPECIFICALLY, WAS THE WAS THE GRANT FUNDING THAT HE SPOKE ABOUT AVAILABLE TO RENOVATE PRIVATE FACILITIES LIKE A COMMERCIAL RENTAL OR A NON PROFIT ORGANIZATION AROUND THE COUNTY? AND SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PREVIOUS AGREEMENT THAT THEY WERE WORKING ON AT THE OTHER LOCATION THAT THAT DID NOT COME TO FRUITION. SO I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING BACK FROM HIM.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GET AN OPPORTUNITY.

YEAH. TO TO GIVE HIM A CALL, I'LL FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO YOU.

BUT WE'VE GOT TO GET I THINK WE'VE GOT TO START THINKING ABOUT WHERE WE'RE HEADED.

ARE WE GOING TO RENOVATE DCT TO MOVE SOME OF THESE OFFICES? DO WE WANT TO LOOK AT OTHER POTENTIAL RENTALS, YOU KNOW, AROUND TOWN OR DO WE WANT TO TRY TO FIND A LOCATION FOR UPPER SHORE AGING AND RE DEDICATE THAT SPACE FOR INTERNAL COUNTY OPERATIONS? THE OTHER THING WAS I DID HAVE A MEETING LAST WEEK WITH THE SHERIFF.

HE HAS PROPOSED USING SOME STATE SAFE STATION GRANT FUNDING THAT THEY RECEIVE TO KIND OF CLEAN UP THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING.

THAT GRANT FUNDING IS SUPPOSED TO BE ALLOCATED FOR BUILDING MAINTENANCE.

SO HE WOULD LIKE TO PUT AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM IN THE FRONT AND USE IT TO DO SOME RESEEDING TO TRY TO BEAUTIFY THE OUTSIDE OF THE NEW SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.

SO I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU GUYS KNOW THAT THAT WAS THAT WAS HIS PLAN.

I DIDN'T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS WITH IT.

I DON'T THINK YOU GUYS WOULD EITHER.

SO, YEAH, WITH THAT SAID, BOTH HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL TEAMS WON THEIR GAMES OVER THE WEEKEND, SO SCHOOL

[02:05:10]

IS OFF TO A GOOD START.

LIKE I MENTIONED THIS MORNING.

HOPEFULLY HAVE ALL THE TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN YOUR THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS AS THEY GO THROUGH THIS UPCOMING SCHOOL YEAR. AND WE WISH THEM THE BEST OF LUCK.

SO WITH THAT, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? NO. OKAY. NONE.

BEING SEEN. SO WE ARE ABOUT TO HOLD A CLOSED SESSION FOR THE DISCUSSION OF PERFORMANCE AND ASSIGNMENT OF SPECIFIC EMPLOYEES UNDER AUTHORITY OF 2014 MARYLAND CODE STATE GOVERNMENT 3-305B, SECTION ONE AND A CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS THE EMPLOYMENT OF A SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL AUTHORITY UNDER 2014 MARYLAND CODE STATE GOVERNMENT 3-305B1.

DO I HEAR A MOTION TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION? SO MOVED. SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. AYE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

Sep 05, 2023 County Commissioners Meeting

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item